Get Ready for the Health Care Razzle Dazzle

[Business_Casual]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

There is no way they'll settle for listening to the people. This will probably turn out worse than the original one, because a couple of RINOs will sign on to the new disaster.

The camel's nose will go under the tent in five... four... three... two... one...

M_P

[Outlander Systems]

My calculus for government shenanigans is extremely simple:

1) Does (insert piece of legislation here) give the government more or less control over my own self-determination?

2) If more, I'm against it.

3) If less, I'm in.

Needless to say, the Insurance Lobby's Wet Dream Bill is not on my "let's do it" list...

[Atg336]

The parties are both run by career politicians who would rather work for more funding than for the people they represent. They'll say what we want to hear, and pass some legislation to keep our favor. Washington is in a bubble and we, the people, are outside of it.

The healthcare industry is for those who can pay for their health, not for those who cannot. It is morally wrong for someone to be turned down from a life saving surgery just because they don't make enough money. America is the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we have awesome doctors, nurses, and health practitioners, yet we fail in providing their services to those who need it the most. This is outrageous. And this has been going on for 50+ years, we've tolerated the Fat-Cats for this long. Too long has our moral compass been guided by profiteers and industry giants. (No I'm not a communist or a socialist, I'll be the first one to shoot down any deuchbag wanting communism or socialism, I've lived through such oppression personally)

This talk of a pared down legislation is a win for the healthcare industry, and I'm sensing that they've been manipulating most of Washington for the past year now, then having cocktails at the end of the night while working class Americans die everyday from treatable and curable health problems.

Universal Healthcare coverage is a moral issue and we are failing at addressing this. :mad:
But hey, as our elected leaders would say, "This is what the American people want."
Bull-shit!

[Business_Casual]

No offense, but go screw yourself.

Religous hospitals can provide all the "free" healthcare and give as much alms to the poor as they wish.

Just keep you hand off my wallet and my tax dollars trying to provide it to the public.

I see no reason to think that taking my money by force and spending it on others is an any way moral. And certainly no more so because it is for their health.

M_P

[Outlander Systems]

The parties are both run by career politicians who would rather work for more funding than for the people they represent. They'll say what we want to hear, and pass some legislation to keep our favor. Washington is in a bubble and we, the people, are outside of it.

The healthcare industry is for those who can pay for their health, not for those who cannot. It is morally wrong for someone to be turned down from a life saving surgery just because they don't make enough money. America is the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we have awesome doctors, nurses, and health practitioners, yet we fail in providing their services to those who need it the most. This is outrageous. And this has been going on for 50+ years, we've tolerated the Fat-Cats for this long. Too long has our moral compass been guided by profiteers and industry giants. (No I'm not a communist or a socialist, I'll be the first one to shoot down any deuchbag wanting communism or socialism, I've lived through such oppression personally)

This talk of a pared down legislation is a win for the healthcare industry, and I'm sensing that they've been manipulating most of Washington for the past year now, then having cocktails at the end of the night while working class Americans die everyday from treatable and curable health problems.

Universal Healthcare coverage is a moral issue and we are failing at addressing this. :mad:
But hey, as our elected leaders would say, "This is what the American people want."
Bull-shit!

1) Does (insert piece of legislation here) give the government more or less control over my own self-determination?

2) If more, I'm against it.

3) If less, I'm in.

[decodeddiesel]

My calculus for government shenanigans is extremely simple:

1) Does (insert piece of legislation here) give the government more or less control over my own self-determination?

2) If more, I'm against it.

3) If less, I'm in.

Needless to say, the Insurance Lobby's Wet Dream Bill is not on my "let's do it" list...

Excellent.

[Atg336]

No offense, but go screw yourself.

Religous hospitals can provide all the "free" healthcare and give as much alms to the poor as they wish.

Just keep you hand off my wallet and my tax dollars trying to provide it to the public.

I see no reason to think that taking my money by force and spending it on others is an any way moral. And certainly no more so because it is for their health.

M_P

So, in your opinion, your bank account should determine what kind of treatment you can and can't get, even if the treatment that you can't get would save your life?

[decodeddiesel]

The healthcare industry is for those who can pay for their health, not for those who cannot. It is morally wrong for someone to be turned down from a life saving surgery just because they don't make enough money. America is the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we have awesome doctors, nurses, and health practitioners, yet we fail in providing their services to those who need it the most. This is outrageous. And this has been going on for 50+ years, we've tolerated the Fat-Cats for this long. Too long has our moral compass been guided by profiteers and industry giants. (No I'm not a communist or a socialist, I'll be the first one to shoot down any deuchbag wanting communism or socialism, I've lived through such oppression personally)

So you're saying that given the state of thing right now if I had say an acute medical condition and went to an ER for life saving surgery I would be denied? I'm sorry but this is false and I have a relative who proves it.

Enter my Aunt J. A true "entitlement theory" hippy from the 60s this woman epitomizes the very worst sort of progressive. She has never done anything for herself in her life as far as getting a career or an education and believes everyone, and especially the country "owes her". She believes in socialism and redistribution of wealth. Also she is in her 60s, is a chain smoker, and a pot addict. She does not take care of herself.

A few years ago (when she was in her 50s) she had a minor stroke and no healthcare. What do you think happened? Well I'll tell you, she spent 10 weeks in the hospital in intensive care and rehab and was billed a whopping $500 for the whole thing (which included a very risky and expensive surgery). The state and the federal government paid for the whole whole thing which totaled over $300,000.

Fast forward 5 years, my Aunt collapses at a grocery store, still smoking 3 packs a day, still with no health insurance. What happens? An ambulance takes her to the hospital. They find she has the flu, emphysema, and breast cancer. Do they kick her out on her ass for not having insurance? Nope, 6 weeks later, 3 surgeries, radiation and chemo, and oxygen therapy she is released. She gets ongoing therapy for the next year from the hospital. Her bill? $900 which she bitched and moaned to no end about. The real bill? About $250,000 which the taxpayers burdened.

We already have public healthcare. I agree on a moral level that people should not be refused life saving care for lack of being able to pay. What we don't want is the government running a very important aspect of our lives.

[Business_Casual]

So, in your opinion, your bank account should determine what kind of treatment you can and can't get,

Yes I do. It determines the car I drive, the house I live in, the food I eat, etc. etc. Why should buying a doctor's service be different?


even if the treatment that you can't get would save your life?

Why do you have to tug the heart strings? What does that have to do with whether or not people are treated?

I am sick of people taking my money and then wasting it on genetic flotsam.

M_P

[RancidSumo]

Atg336, you're damn right this is a moral issue. The morality of picking my pocket to give money to someone I don't even know certainly needs to be addressed.

[kaiservontexas]

Perceived good is not a good at all basic ethics since Aristotle 4th Century BC. So, yes it is immoral to impose "charity," as you perceive it, onto the masses since ends do not justify means.

Or to modernize the situation: Moochers, Looters, and Producers . . . moochers are pawns of the government (looters) that rob from the producers. Eventually the looters will have nothing left but to consume itself, one of the points of Atlas Shrugged.

[Atg336]

decodeddiesel: I see your point, and understand your concern over your earnings and the government reaching into it. I am too, I've always viewed the Govt. with suspicion and I advocate for lesser is better.
Your aunt's case is fortunate, but not the rule, not even remotely. I have a friend who went to the Emergency room for a nasty hand injury and after a few hours he walked out with a $2500 bill, and no, he doesn't make that much to begin with. Just one example out of thousands within my state (which has the Insurance capitol of the world).

I do believe the Federal Govt. is meant to serve us, one way of doing this is by making sure every American is afforded the same level of care at a price that fits their income level.
How this happens should be different, state to state, and I think States should have the final say in what kind of plan works for their population.

All your pockets are already being picked by your town and state for public services like:

Zoning,
Social Services,
Fire Chief,
Fire Departments,
State certifications for Ambulance Corporations,
Town and City Police departments,
State Troopers,
DOT,
Health Department,
many different Community Services,
Free Public Schools,
State Teacher Certification Testing,
Universities get state funding,
Community Colleges get funding,
etc, etc.

All these services for which we all pay for are invaluable and make life easier in direct and indirect ways you may not be aware of. An easier life means you can make more money with less worry - the more money we make the more extra cash we all have. All of this is interconnected.

A government plan (state) for healthcare in some measure would be in the hands of all of us. As it stands, multibillion dollar conglomerates do not answer to anyone, and public scrutiny of their practices do not hold sway on them. A plan that is in part-way insured by the government can be controlled by us, the taxpayers. We can do this with petitions, thru grass-roots organizations and such, and with elections every 2 - 4 years. This is called the Democratic process - Companies are not beholden to this process, they are beholden to shareholders and profit margins, save for the few brave souls that try to do the right thing amidst the greed and negligence.
In the end we're all in the same boat folks.

It's easier to view the government (federal) with suspicion and contempt, and then not lift a finger to change it. .
This is our Republic, and we have a say in it even when it looks like we don't.

[dbrowne1]

The healthcare industry is for those who can pay for their health, not for those who cannot. It is morally wrong for someone to be turned down from a life saving surgery just because they don't make enough money. America is the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we have awesome doctors, nurses, and health practitioners, yet we fail in providing their services to those who need it the most. This is outrageous. And this has been going on for 50+ years, we've tolerated the Fat-Cats for this long. Too long has our moral compass been guided by profiteers and industry giants.

Universal Healthcare coverage is a moral issue and we are failing at addressing this. :mad:
But hey, as our elected leaders would say, "This is what the American people want."
Bull-shit!

So the mere fact that medicine advances, great doctors and treatments exist, and things can be treated and cured that couldn't be years ago, means that anyone and everyone is entitled to it just by showing up?

I would also note that non-communist "countries," including ours, cannot be wealthy or poor. This notion of yours that our "country" is so wealthy so we have no excuse not to provide expensive care to everyone belies the fact that you are, in fact, a socialist. Individuals (people and legal entities like corporations) own and control wealth. Countries do not. Lets get that part straight.

You can bleat all you want about how you're not a socialist, but you are. You basically either want these highly trained professionals to work for free, or you want money confiscated from the rest of us to pay for these people. Either scenario is unacceptable.

[dbrowne1]

So, in your opinion, your bank account should determine what kind of treatment you can and can't get, even if the treatment that you can't get would save your life?

Yes, that's how the world works. Economics 101 - there are limited goods and services available, they're distributed based on who is willing to pay for them. Sort of like who gets the best lawyer, or the biggest house, the nicest steak at dinner, and everything else you can think of.

The world has tried other, more "egalitarian" ways of rationing goods and services, and they have invariably crashed and burned.

Apparently you weren't told that "life isn't fair" enough as a child.

[Belmont31R]

Whats so funny is the left bought onto the idea that insurance companies are evil yet their own politicians come up with a plan to get people covered is to simply mandate they buy insurance or go to jail. I can't think of a better way to boost the insurance companies coffers by mandating Americans buy insurance or face prison time.



Then the politicians claim that insurance routinely turns down claims, and come to find out the government programs are the biggest deniers of people's medical claims, and beats the insurance average by almost double.



Allow us to buy insurance over state lines, tort reform which in the states that have enacted it have helped quite a bit, make the government plans pay the same for services as cash or insurance has to pay (and then make people on government plans pick up the increased cost), and the list could go on.


Yet people have somehow been led to believe the only way to lower costs and get more people covered is a huge take over, mandates or jail, spending a trillion ****ing dollars, over 500 BILLION in new taxes, fines, etc.


But oh well. Maybe in 20 years when our health care sucks as bad as Europe's does people will have the brain power to look back at this time and realize it was the democrats fault. But they'll probably be too stupid to realize what happened, and blame republicans like Obama blames Bush over a year after taking office. The excuse will be that the plan they came out with due to the Brown election caused the problems, and there would be no problems if Brown (a republican) had not been elected and the original bill would have been passed. A new generation of idiotic democrats will lap it up, and the cycle will continue.


For those people who think health care is some sort of right where you don't have to pay for it if you're poor then you can go donate all your money to the charity hospitals out there. That is the way we are supposed to take care of the poor. Not by holding a gun to someones head, and raping their paycheck. That is not compassion. There is no compassion when you are holding a gun to someones head. I wonder how much money democrats donate to charity hospitals? If your conscience bothers you so much someone can't afford their life saving surgery go cash out your savings and buy it for them. Don't tell me I have to pay it for them because I worked hard in my life to earn a paycheck and work somewhere where they provide insurance. You can go drive through the ghetto and toss your paycheck out the window. The more government involvement in anything means the cost goes up. Government mandated health care providers provide care for people regardless of their ability to pay, and then we wonder why the cost goes up. Then that regulation and results means we need more government regulation because the costs have gone up. Now with the 500b+ in new taxes the costs to everyone are going to go up. Then when its even more expensive the answer will be more government take over and regulation. Its just a cycle progressives have been using to inch their way to their agenda, and playing on emotion to drag people along. Long gone are the days of freedom and individual responsibility that are what allowed this country to become the best and wealthiest in such a short period of time. This 10% unemployment? That is normal in Europe's history. So if you want socialistic policies in here because of your bleeding heart get used to having a hard time finding a job, and your paycheck cut in half so your conscience can be whole again just thinking about all the ghetto rats popping babies out on your dime.

[dookie1481]

This notion of yours that our "country" is so wealthy so we have no excuse not to provide expensive care to everyone belies the fact that you are, in fact, a socialist. Individuals (people and legal entities like corporations) own and control wealth. Countries do not. Lets get that part straight.

You can bleat all you want about how you're not a socialist, but you are.

You beat me to it.

Jay

[Atg336]

Y
The world has tried other, more "egalitarian" ways of rationing goods and services, and they have invariably crashed and burned.


I don't like quoting Wikipedia, but for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

There are much better statistics out there, and scholarly studies of the detailed effects of universal health coverage on people, communities, and entire economies. I encourage those willing to check out online University data bases for peer reviewed studies.

True, some of the countries still have bad health service, but this most often is contingent on lack of good schooling/training and overly corrupt governments (worse than ours), and not on the fact that they have the capacity for universal health coverage.

Better comparison are the developed countries, and 1st world countries, i.e.: Europe, Netherlands.

Universal Healthcare does work, and once the infrastructure is set up, it rewards everyone.
If federal and state funded public works and services work, so will healthcare.

I personally and philosophically do not agree that money has to determine someones access to good healthcare, especially in countries that can afford it 10x over.


Apparently you weren't told that "life isn't fair" enough as a child.

Can you debate like a grown up, please?

[Atg336]

You can bleat all you want about how you're not a socialist, but you are. You basically either want these highly trained professionals to work for free, or you want money confiscated from the rest of us to pay for these people. Either scenario is unacceptable.

What is your definition of Socialist?

[Business_Casual]

How do you get around the rationing problem? Once you introduce the inefficiency of government into the equation, you once again raise costs. As there are limits to supply in all things, that leads to rationing. Instead of a few poor people being denied treatment, everyone suffers. Which is more efficient? The market or Nancy Pelosi?

M_P

[Atg336]

Well, this is the great challenge we have to solve. Germany, England, Sweeden, France all have found ways to cope with this and are still in the process of fine tuning their health systems. Nothing is perfect, but it will not get better if we just let it be.

Many of the leading minds in the field (much smarter than us) have stated that healthcare is the next great challenge for America.

[Belmont31R]

I don't like quoting Wikipedia, but for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

There are much better statistics out there, and scholarly studies of the detailed effects of universal health coverage on people, communities, and entire economies. I encourage those willing to check out online University data bases for peer reviewed studies.

True, some of the countries still have bad health service, but this most often is contingent on lack of good schooling/training and overly corrupt governments (worse than ours), and not on the fact that they have the capacity for universal health coverage.

Better comparison are the developed countries, and 1st world countries, i.e.: Europe, Netherlands.

Universal Healthcare does work, and once the infrastructure is set up, it rewards everyone.
If federal and state funded public works and services work, so will healthcare.

I personally and philosophically do not agree that money has to determine someones access to good healthcare, especially in countries that can afford it 10x over.



Can you debate like a grown up, please?


"...rewards everyone."


Not in the least. It rewards the bottom feeders who have no ambition to get ahead in life.

It hurts the economy taking money away from producers and giving it to non-producers. Producers use wealth to create more wealth. Non-producers reduce wealth creation.

How much money do you annually donate to charity hospitals?

What other "items" should people not be personally held responsible for?


I can point to one case of which I think the welfare mentality is simply wrong. My wife's aunt in her mid 30's marries a 22 year old obese man. None of them have any job skills, and thus work low paying jobs. They get welfare, and their medical paid for. What do they do? Have 3 kids in the last 4 years. So the welfare was the enabler in them making poor decisions and having 3 kids. All 3 were C-sections paid for on the tax payer dime. That is over 20k per kid. Since this "family" has no stake in their costs they take their kids to the doctor all the time for the most minor of things. Johny has a little sniffle. Well better take him to the doctor for hundreds worth of care. If their care were not paid for for they would have a huge incentive not to pop out 3 kids, and then take them to the doctor whenever they feel like it. This one family is a 100k burden on the tax payer, and now because of the kids its even harder for them to get any education or for both of them to work, and work up in life. Now they will be on the tax payer dole for 20 years at least costing tens of thousands a year.

Welfare rewards bad behavior and removes any incentive to make good life decions. Its like giving a kid a candy bar for making a bad choice. When people have no consequences to their actions they will continue to make poor choices because they are rewarded for it, and have zero incentive to stop making bad decisions. In the case of this aunt of my wife's I believe they would not have had 3 kids if it was not fully paid for. If they were turned down for care the 1st time because they couldn't afford it they wouldn't have popped out 3 kids. They hopefully would have made the decision to keep it at 1 and not have any more. Now they get more money on their cash card, and we have 3 kids the tax payer is paying for. To top if off these government programs they are on pay doctors less than what I would have to pay so my costs go up because they get government insurance.

If you don't think that is wrong then you are just insane, and simply refuse to see reality. You only see the world in glossy terms where every kid has a unicorn, rivers flow with skittles, and there is always a rainbow in the sky. Europe has always traditionally had lower productivity, higher unemployment, and lower quality of care than what the US provides. The world doesn't operate in some utopian fashion where if we just got something perfect all would be ok. There is a reason universal health care provides a lower quality of care, inhibits innovation, and promotes poor decision making on the population. Man in not perfect and thus cannot make perfect laws. Our founders realized this, and saw self determination and individuality as the most fair system. People with utopian views of the world often make bad decisions because they cannot translate what sounds good on paper rarely works in the real world with humans, governments, and the flaws we are all born with.

[Belmont31R]

Well, this is the great challenge we have to solve. Germany, England, Sweeden, France all have found ways to cope with this and are still in the process of fine tuning their health systems. Nothing is perfect, but it will not get better if we just let it be.

Many of the leading minds in the field (much smarter than us) have stated that healthcare is the next great challenge for America.


And they all have lower statistics for survivability of illness.

They all have much lower populations than us.

They all have less GDP per capita than us.

They statistically have higher unemployment.

They all spend a tiny fraction on defense as us.

They have less rights and freedoms as us.


I can keep going if you like?


And Im sure you can quote some mighty progressive brains to quasi prove your point but it doesnt mean anything. There are opinions on both from the brains.

[sun tzu]

Well, this is the great challenge we have to solve. Germany, England, Sweeden, France all have found ways to cope with this and are still in the process of fine tuning their health systems. Nothing is perfect, but it will not get better if we just let it be.

Many of the leading minds in the field (much smarter than us) have stated that healthcare is the next great challenge for America.

Are you a government employee?

[SteyrAUG]

Well, this is the great challenge we have to solve. Germany, England, Sweeden, France all have found ways to cope with this and are still in the process of fine tuning their health systems.

The BIG DIFFERENCE is for decades they didn't have to provide for their own national defense because we did it. That is the ONLY reason Euro socialism has worked for as long as it has.

If somebody picked up the tab for our national security needs we could give away lots of cool stuff too.

[Atg336]

Here is some enlightenment from the internet:
(Diving into studies in books also helps.)

-https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

We in fact can afford more than we think we can.

-http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

"The growing shift from non-profit to for-profit health care providers, such as the growth of for-profit Hospital chains, has also contributed to the increased cost of of health care. By 1994, research showed that administrative costs among for-profit hospitals had increased to 34.0 percent compared to 24.5 percent for private non-profit hospitals, and 22.9 percent for public hospitals."

"In addition, the high proportion of of people who are uninsured in the U.S. (15.5 percent in 1999) contributes to expensive health care because condition that could be either prevented or treated inexpensively in the early stages often develop into health crises."

I encourage those willing to read the whole study.

-http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

Very good study relating facts and points/counterpoints.


Another example is the VA. Now, I know the VA has been crap to a lot of veterans, including myself (bastards wouldn't give me the 20%!), but I can now go to my local VA and get check ups and go there with concerns and get tested for free. This is paid for by my tax dollars. The VA is also going through some seriously needed changes lately because of veteran and public scrutiny and pressure.

[ZDL]

*******

[Belmont31R]

Here is some enlightenment from the internet:
(Diving into studies in books also helps.)

-https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

We in fact can afford more than we think we can.

-http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

"The growing shift from non-profit to for-profit health care providers, such as the growth of for-profit Hospital chains, has also contributed to the increased cost of of health care. By 1994, research showed that administrative costs among for-profit hospitals had increased to 34.0 percent compared to 24.5 percent for private non-profit hospitals, and 22.9 percent for public hospitals."

"In addition, the high proportion of of people who are uninsured in the U.S. (15.5 percent in 1999) contributes to expensive health care because condition that could be either prevented or treated inexpensively in the early stages often develop into health crises."

I encourage those willing to read the whole study.

-http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

Very good study relating facts and points/counterpoints.


Another example is the VA. Now, I know the VA has been crap to a lot of veterans, including myself (bastards wouldn't give me the 20%!), but I can now go to my local VA and get check ups and go there with concerns and get tested for free. This is paid for by my tax dollars. The VA is also going through some seriously needed changes lately because of veteran and public scrutiny and pressure.


You need to read into that UN/WHO report a little more closely.

Again the US has the highest average survivability of illness. Maybe if Europe spent more per capita on their people than they currently do they would have similar rates to us.

How much sense does it make to say our health care system is worse than Europe's because we spend more per person but never mind the fact in the US you have the best change to beat something like cancer than anywhere else. Yeah we can cut costs down per person but more people are going to die due to getting sick.

Also the UN/WHO report puts a big stake in the financial aspect in their calculations, and how they can rate Columbia higher than us. I don't think anyone would rather go to Columbia for care than the US.

Not mentioned is the level of education our medical personnel receive. Does a nurse in the US know more than the average European nurse? How many specialists do we have. What are the wait times for seeing one. How many MRI machines do we have per capita compared to Europe. Cat scans? How many drugs are fielded and tested here compared to Europe? How many surgeries are pioneered here?


Yes we probably could afford UHC but our productivity as a nation will go down, you will introduce our government's inefficiency even more into the system than it already is, quality of care will go down, doctors and nurses will become less trained, wait times to see doctors, specialists, and surgeries will go up, and a host of other issues your utopian view doesnt take into account.

[Atg336]

"...rewards everyone."

Not in the least. It rewards the bottom feeders who have no ambition to get ahead in life.

It hurts the economy taking money away from producers and giving it to non-producers. Producers use wealth to create more wealth. Non-producers reduce wealth creation.

You are implying that all the people who need more insurance or who do not have insurance - 43.6 million uninsured - 36.5M adults, 6.8M children (CDC), are all low-life bottom feeders? Not so. Most adults are hard workers who refuse to pay the insurance companies because the price is unfair. Or they get it from their employers, who pay waaayyy too much for it, and lately employers small to mid size have been dropping employee health programs due to rising costs.




Welfare rewards bad behavior and removes any incentive to make good life decions. Its like giving a kid a candy bar for making a bad choice. When people have no consequences to their actions they will continue to make poor choices because they are rewarded for it, and have zero incentive to stop making bad decisions. In the case of this aunt of my wife's I believe they would not have had 3 kids if it was not fully paid for. If they were turned down for care the 1st time because they couldn't afford it they wouldn't have popped out 3 kids. They hopefully would have made the decision to keep it at 1 and not have any more. Now they get more money on their cash card, and we have 3 kids the tax payer is paying for. To top if off these government programs they are on pay doctors less than what I would have to pay so my costs go up because they get government insurance.

You are stereotyping one type of situation onto 43.6 million people.


If you don't think that is wrong then you are just insane, and simply refuse to see reality. You only see the world in glossy terms where every kid has a unicorn, rivers flow with skittles, and there is always a rainbow in the sky. Europe has always traditionally had lower productivity, higher unemployment, and lower quality of care than what the US provides.


But all these factors of Europe aren't because they have some form of universal coverage, if they didn't have universal coverage, they would probably be worse off since it would affect the healthy and productive workers, and would decrease the population of the middle class - this is what is happening here in the US. And now that most of the eastern block is free of the Iron Curtain, the EU will probably surpass America in all those factors in the next 15 - 20 years, judging from the way combined GDPs and NDPs have been rising since the '90s.

And what's wrong with rivers made of skittles?

[Business_Casual]

Now you are just winding us up. Nicely done, though, we all fell for it.

M_P

[Atg336]

How much sense does it make to say our health care system is worse than Europe's because we spend more per person but never mind the fact in the US you have the best change to beat something like cancer than anywhere else. Yeah we can cut costs down per person but more people are going to die due to getting sick.

The issue is not that we have worse health care, the issue is that this really good service that we have is not offered to more people - the challenge being fixing this so it is more available without sacrificing on quality.


Also the UN/WHO report puts a big stake in the financial aspect in their calculations, and how they can rate Columbia higher than us. I don't think anyone would rather go to Columbia for care than the US.

Don't ask me, I don't agree with that either.


Yes we probably could afford UHC but our productivity as a nation will go down, you will introduce our government's inefficiency even more into the system than it already is, quality of care will go down, doctors and nurses will become less trained, wait times to see doctors, specialists, and surgeries will go up, and a host of other issues your utopian view doesnt take into account.

What you forget to factor in is that we are America, not a smaller EU nation that was decimated in WWII and limited in economical growth.
We are the dudes who managed to send a men to the moon in under 10 years in the '60s. UHC is well within our capabilities, unless we are less than what we were 40 years ago.

I think we are up to the challenge, many seem to think otherwise.

[browningboy84]

Atg336, you are very wrong on some things, and I will point some out to you in very vivid detail. First of all, you are contradicting yourself. You say you are not for socialism, but you want universal healthcare, which is a common occurence among socialist countries. EMTALA and COBRA, federal laws and statutes, state that life threatening conditions MUST be treated, and no hospital can refuse this.'

Furthermore, here is the real problem. Joe blow wants to go to the hospital for infected toe. He does not wanna have to make an appt with a Dr, and does not wanna have to wait all night at the ER. What does Joe do??? He calls 911, and requests an ambulance. He does this because he thinks that he will be seen faster going via an ambulance. He gets a $500 bill for the ambulance ride which he will never pay, and it is written off on the taxpayer. He gets a huge hospital bill, which he will never pay, and so on and so on.

I went to the ER 2 years ago while I was on duty with EMS. I had a bad sinus infection and wound up being stuck on a car wreck in the rain and wound up getting bronchitis. I go to the ER since I am sick, I get a $1000 bill after insurance.
I paid all of it. I could not go out and get drunk, and go clubbin till it was paid. I was a responsible adult. RESPONSIBILITY for one's own actions is what the majority of people today do not understand. That is why universal healthcare is doomed to fail. You wanna make healthcare more affordable? Get the governements nose out of it, and work on tort reform. That will help lower the cost of healthcare more than anything.



decodeddiesel: I see your point, and understand your concern over your earnings and the government reaching into it. I am too, I've always viewed the Govt. with suspicion and I advocate for lesser is better.
Your aunt's case is fortunate, but not the rule, not even remotely. I have a friend who went to the Emergency room for a nasty hand injury and after a few hours he walked out with a $2500 bill, and no, he doesn't make that much to begin with. Just one example out of thousands within my state (which has the Insurance capitol of the world).

I do believe the Federal Govt. is meant to serve us, one way of doing this is by making sure every American is afforded the same level of care at a price that fits their income level.
How this happens should be different, state to state, and I think States should have the final say in what kind of plan works for their population.

All your pockets are already being picked by your town and state for public services like:

Zoning,
Social Services,
Fire Chief,
Fire Departments,
Fire chiefs and Fire Departments prevent lives from being lost due to fire and prevent further property damage from fires. Furthermore, if you own a house, and have a ISO rating of 6 of better in your area thanks to a Fire Dept, you will get a lower homeowners insurance rating.
State certifications for Ambulance Corporations,
I dont know what state you live in, but in Ga for any ambulance service whether it be county/municipality funded or private, they must pay a fee to have an ambulance license. Ambulance services usually collect more money from medical services rendered than do Fire Depts or LE collects from tickets/fines.
Town and City Police departments, They are there to preserve law and order just as the troopers are.
State Troopers,
DOT,
Health Department,
many different Community Services,
Free Public Schools,
State Teacher Certification Testing,
Universities get state funding,
Community Colleges get funding,
etc, etc.

All these services for which we all pay for are invaluable and make life easier in direct and indirect ways you may not be aware of. An easier life means you can make more money with less worry - the more money we make the more extra cash we all have. All of this is interconnected.

A government plan (state) for healthcare in some measure would be in the hands of all of us. As it stands, multibillion dollar conglomerates do not answer to anyone, and public scrutiny of their practices do not hold sway on them. A plan that is in part-way insured by the government can be controlled by us, the taxpayers. We can do this with petitions, thru grass-roots organizations and such, and with elections every 2 - 4 years. This is called the Democratic process - Companies are not beholden to this process, they are beholden to shareholders and profit margins, save for the few brave souls that try to do the right thing amidst the greed and negligence.
In the end we're all in the same boat folks.

It's easier to view the government (federal) with suspicion and contempt, and then not lift a finger to change it. .
This is our Republic, and we have a say in it even when it looks like we don't.

Things are like they are today because of sheep like you who want something for free. A wise French statesman said back in the 1700's: America will fail when the politicians realize that they can bribe the public with their own money.

[dbrowne1]

The BIG DIFFERENCE is for decades they didn't have to provide for their own national defense because we did it. That is the ONLY reason Euro socialism has worked for as long as it has.

If somebody picked up the tab for our national security needs we could give away lots of cool stuff too.

Nevermind all that.

The socialist medicine in those countries doesn't actually "work" if you're trying to get anywhere close to the same quality and timeliness of care that we enjoy here in the U.S. We have higher cancer survival rates, we don't have to wait 10 months for surgery, bureaucrats don't decide whether we're worth saving or whether the best treatment is the "efficient" choice, and so on.

Socialist medicine is a double-whammy to anybody who isn't a derelict to begin with. It means not only that you'll be paying for the care of others, but they'll now be crowding you out of the market that you enjoyed before and you'll suffer longer waits, poorer care, etc. Oh, and did I mention you'll be paying for them to cut the line in front of you?

[GMZ]

A wise French statesman said back in the 1700's: America will fail when the politicians realize that they can bribe the public with their own money.

It was Alexis de Tocqueville


1) Does (insert piece of legislation here) give the government more or less control over my own self-determination?

2) If more, I'm against it.

3) If less, I'm in.

Agree 110%

[The_War_Wagon]

I believe Liberty allows us to PURSUE life & happiness - it NEITHER guarantees NOR underwrites them...

[Belmont31R]

The issue is not that we have worse health care, the issue is that this really good service that we have is not offered to more people - the challenge being fixing this so it is more available without sacrificing on quality.



Don't ask me, I don't agree with that either.



What you forget to factor in is that we are America, not a smaller EU nation that was decimated in WWII and limited in economical growth.
We are the dudes who managed to send a men to the moon in under 10 years in the '60s. UHC is well within our capabilities, unless we are less than what we were 40 years ago.

I think we are up to the challenge, many seem to think otherwise.



The only way to provide the worlds best health care to people who cannot afford it is to pay for it for them. To do that you need TRILLIONS of dollars in taxes, and another huge government system.

That is going to lead to more unemployment because there simply isnt enough money in the free market to keep unemployment low. The EU has had much higher unemployment rates than the US for this very reason. They suck so much money out of the market 10% unemployment is not unusual over there. Their numbers are also very sketchy because they actually pay people to do nothing, and create jobs out of thin air just so people have something to do.

Its also going to lower quality because there are simply too few doctors and nurses. My wife is going into nursing school right now. Its highly competitive to get in a slot, and they will drop you at the drop of a hat. Yet in our area there are hundreds if not thousands of open nursing jobs. So to meet demand you have to lower the quality if their education because there already is more demand than supply. The same with doctors. We will need more doctors, and quickly. How do you do this? You lower standards to get more doctors but the quality diminishes. These are basic principles.

People like you often talk about how rich we are as a nation, and how this means we can afford this welfare nation. What made us rich? Was it the welfare nation you propose and want? No! It was freedom...both economically and individual. The US has always been the bastion of innovation, freedom, prosperity, and self determination. Those are the values that have made this country rich, and the best in the world. So you want us to adopt values that have led to stagnation in Europe, a Europe that cannot even defend itself, and a Europe that is lower in almost every category. Personal wealth, quality of care, innovation, defense, technology, freedom, etc.

What you are proposing will be a step backward for the US, and not going back to the roots that made this country great.

[Atg336]

Things are like they are today because of sheep like you who want something for free. A wise French statesman said back in the 1700's: America will fail when the politicians realize that they can bribe the public with their own money.

Color not needed or at least use something not as contrasty.

Again, it is very easy to highlight the worst of the worse to aid your argument. I doubt most Americans that need medical (emergency or not) service are low-life good for nothing scumbags, there are some, but I doubt its all of them.

No, I don't want it for free. I am willing to buck up the money out of my shitty pay check to help my fellow man out.

No, things aren't the way they are because of sheep like me. If they were, then I would be no sheep, in fact, I'd be like really powerful, if I follow your logic.

They are this way because the Glass-Steagalle Act was repealed in 1999, and because Clinton and Bush administrations turned the other cheek when giant companies decided to waste the average investors money and create financial instruments to dig most of the world economy half-way into the grave.

Socialism would be if the state/government owned and controlled all means of production and distribution of goods. We are very far from this, any allusions that we are becoming a socialist state is just paranoia from scared white men (yes, I'm white also). Not that doubt is a bad thing, but c'mon this is a little too much insecurity.

Like I've said before, UHC done the American way would be non-socialist and would be under the control of the public if it did become faulty.
I like free markets, as long is they don't do what just happened in the last 3 years.

[dbrowne1]

The issue is not that we have worse health care, the issue is that this really good service that we have is not offered to more people - the challenge being fixing this so it is more available without sacrificing on quality.

It is offered to everyone. You just seem to be upset about the fact that not everyone can afford it.

If you want to maintain quality (in all regards) and expand coverage, you'll have to make all the "haves" pay for the "have nots" (in addition to building a lot more medical facilities, getting a lot more medical professionals into the pipeline, etc. to keep up with the sheer volume and maintain the same level of care and wait times).

There's no free lunch here.

[dbrowne1]

We are very far from this, any allusions that we are becoming a socialist state is just paranoia from scared white men (yes, I'm white also).

I'm not so sure about that. Some of the women in my office are even more concerned about this stuff than I am, and I know plenty of "minorities" that aren't thrilled about these socialist health care proposals either.

[Business_Casual]

Rationing... you can let the market do it with prices or you can let the government do it with regulation. As noted, there is no free lunch.

M_P

[Belmont31R]

Color not needed or at least use something not as contrasty.

Again, it is very easy to highlight the worst of the worse to aid your argument. I doubt most Americans that need medical (emergency or not) service are low-life good for nothing scumbags, there are some, but I doubt its all of them.

No, I don't want it for free. I am willing to buck up the money out of my shitty pay check to help my fellow man out.

And Im sure you are perfectly willing to allow another man to have a gun put to his head to pay for it, too.

No, things aren't the way they are because of sheep like me. If they were, then I would be no sheep, in fact, I'd be like really powerful, if I follow your logic.

They are this way because the Glass-Steagalle Act was repealed in 1999, and because Clinton and Bush administrations turned the other cheek when giant companies decided to waste the average investors money and create financial instruments to dig most of the world economy half-way into the grave.

Simply not true. Bush mentioned financial reform over a hundred times during his presidency. This was an issue waiting to boil over long before Bush took office. Goes back decades by the progressive movement to open up lending to low income people and minority areas. Our own President Obama was part of it before he ever held a political office. On behalf of ACORN he sued CitiBank in 1994 to get lending standards lowered. Progressives have been using the power of the law, and the court system to stain and contanminate the lending industry for decades. You can even go back to the Carter days with the CRA. Further Fannie and Freddie are both heavily federally controlled, and are a big part of the problem. Government, courts, and progressives have ruined the industry. Banks are part of the problem too but I don't see any banks pushing for giving loans to people who are at high risk of defaulting on their loan. Even the CATO Institute was warning of this in the mid 90's. If you do your own research you will come to the same conclusion I did....that is was an manufactured result after decades of pushing for it knowing full well what would happen. Progressives like you are great at creating a problem, and then blaming the other guy for it while pushing for more control. Its the art of incrementalism. Create problems you need to "fix", and the solutions always just happen to be part of the progressive agenda.

Socialism would be if the state/government owned and controlled all means of production and distribution of goods. We are very far from this, any allusions that we are becoming a socialist state is just paranoia from scared white men (yes, I'm white also). Not that doubt is a bad thing, but c'mon this is a little too much insecurity.

Since Obama has taken office the government or unions now own 2 out of 3 of the major American car companies, are attempting to take over the banking industry, wants the gov to set what people get paid, are attempting to take over the health insurance industry, have taken over the student loan business, and a plethora of other socialist tenets.

Like I've said before, UHC done the American way would be non-socialist and would be under the control of the public if it did become faulty.
I like free markets, as long is they don't do what just happened in the last 3 years.

There is no UHC the American way because we've never had UHC here. Its soley in your mind, and what you think looks good in paper but has never been practiced in reality. So you have the benefit of trying to sell a paper tiger while complaining of reality.

Ups and downs happen in every economy. However the "free market" AKA capitalism has the best track record of anything ever tried in humanity, and the fact the US has the worlds largest economy that blows everything else out of the water is testiment to that. The more we revert to other systems of economy and government the more we will be like lesser economies and governments. Going to a system that has proven to be less effective is not a step forward for the citizens but is a step forward for progressives like you who wish to have a constant boot on the necks of its people. Your ideas have failed the world over, and will fail here too. Saying America is great so we can do it is failed logic. America is great because we are not like that not because we could make other failed systems suddenly work here. When our country was founded we were like nothing that had ever occured before or since. That system is what led to us to be so great not the European model which is inferior, and that is proven in the real world not what some utopian thinker writes a paper about.








My text in blue.

[lethal dose]

As a healtcare professional, I will set a few things straight. As many others have stated, no one persn can be refused medical service no matter their income. I work in a hosptial in the patient support services department- I have first hand experience in hands on healthcare all the way through the billing process. By law, anyone under poverty level must have their bill written off and they will not be charged. For people who are above the poverty level, who do not have insurance, hospitals are required to accept any payment that the patient states he or she can afford... If you are treated, are above the poverty level, do not have insurance, and can only afford $20/month... So be it. You will not be penalized. As you can see... The healthcare industry is not suffering. It's called "charity care". There is enough money circulating from medicare, medicaid, and health insurance companies. As for those who have insurance... That's a different story. Tort reform is key. The government needs to let the free market do its thing. If you could buy healthcare from anywhere, any state- the market would become so competitive that it would drive cost down. A big government takeover of any institution has historically proven disasterous. It's part of being american. You aren't promised anything in the way of healthcare, but since the nature of american healthcare is compassionate, you will be taken care of one way or another. Let's not penalize everyone just so a few can have at it.

[Atg336]

Yet in our area there are hundreds if not thousands of open nursing jobs. So to meet demand you have to lower the quality if their education because there already is more demand than supply. The same with doctors. We will need more doctors, and quickly. How do you do this? You lower standards to get more doctors but the quality diminishes. These are basic principles.


You aren't understanding the current situation correctly.
The reason Congress needs to pass some form of health reform is because of what you said above. This kind of drastic need for not just manpower, but also availability of services, cannot be maintained by the current for-profit market system.

This is happening because there will be a huge sector of the population retiring within this next 5-15 years, which means more nurses, doctors, and practitioners will be needed and nursing homes and hospitals will need to be vastly expanded to accommodate them. Also, plenty of health care professionals are also retiring. Under the current system, as was the situation in '65 and why Medicare was signed, uninsured elderly will not be able get insurance because of the risk they pose to the insurer - they are bound to get sick real soon, so why should a for-profit company buck out the cash to pay for their treatments? Medicare is failing because of the price hikes of Insurance companies and drug manufacturers, as well as of for-profit hospitals - these companies are burdened to their profit margins, and like the housing bubble, will pop in the future with your health coverage being in the line of fire.
Remember, the insurance you are paying for is limited by what your plan consists of. Also remember that the insurance company can deny you benefits if their fiscal plans deem it necessary, leaving you hanging and without the procedure you may need despite being a loyal and paying customer.
Private insurance bureaucracy consumes 1/3 of every dollar spent on health insurance, which means that we already have the most bureaucratic system in the world (including all those socialist medicine countries) - that's private insurance for you. And we already have a rationed health care, it is rationed by income, and insurance companies are not accountable to the public. Doctors and patients are in fact directed by a bureaucrat here in the US according to income levels and insurance plan restrictions, therefore we also do not have freedom in applying medicine as well as possible.
In a public system medical decisions are still in the hands of the doctor and the patient, which also give us the power to change the system if need be, this also does not mean the government controls Hospitals and private practices, it would only control prices.
Oh, and the VA gets a 40% discount on prescription drugs because of it's immense buying power.

I commend all in the health care world for going past ridiculous restrictions and still offering help to those in need.

This same debate was happening in the '65, with many concerned people arguing that Medicare will lead to socialism - did it? No, the opposite happened. This is the plain, if not banal reason why reform needs to happen, and not because evil little Marxist trolls are out to get you and yours.

[the_fallguy]

How about we just go back to a true free market system based on actual supply and demand instead of the government neutered mess that started in the late '20s, grew exponentially in the '70s, and is getting so bloated that we have no choice but to face hyper-inflation in the near future?

More government involvement = less prosperity and less freedom.

This has been proven over and over again but there are always people foolish enough to believe that they are smarter than those that made the same mistakes in the past.

I absolutely believe that the current health care plans are a means to an end that has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with the implimentation of an oligarchy. Even if the supporters have good intentions, they don't understand what they are doing by supporting this movement.

[Gutshot John]

I don't think you have to approve of the Democratic plan to simultaneously be in favor of genuine health insurance reform. I don't think government can lower costs, but something needs to change...soon.

While I'm sure lawyers and other upper middle class professional types are perfectly content with their health care and can afford to pay for it, many others cannot.

My wife's and my plan raised premiums by 50% last month and I haven't been to the doctor's in over a year. That's a huge chunk of our discretionary spending and amounts to a healthy car payment every month.

It's not available if you can't afford it. While no one is denied health care in an emergency situation, that's different than walking around with no health insurance and either going bankrupt when you do get sick or passing it off to tax payers.

I opposed the democratic plan because it would raise costs even more but people are genuinely hurting so let's not pretend that everything is hunky-dorey.

[Belmont31R]

You aren't understanding the current situation correctly.
The reason Congress needs to pass some form of health reform is because of what you said above. This kind of drastic need for not just manpower, but also availability of services, cannot be maintained by the current for-profit market system.

This is happening because there will be a huge sector of the population retiring within this next 5-15 years, which means more nurses, doctors, and practitioners will be needed and nursing homes and hospitals will need to be vastly expanded to accommodate them. Under the current system, as was the situation in '65 and why Medicare was signed, uninsured elderly will not be able get insurance because of the risk they pose to the insurer - they are bound to get sick real soon, so why should a for-profit company buck out the cash to pay for their treatments? Medicare is failing because of the price hikes of Insurance companies and drug manufacturers, as well as of for-profit hospitals - these companies are burdened to their profit margins, and like the housing bubble, will pop in the future with your health coverage being in the line of fire.

This same debate was happening in the '65, with many concerned people arguing that Medicare will lead to socialism - did it? No, the opposite happened. This is the plain, if not banal reason why reform needs to happen, and not because evil little Marxist trolls are out to get you and yours.



Seniors qualify for government plans. Thats why we pay medicare taxes our entire lives.

Medicare and medicaid are part of the problem why insurance is expensive. The government pays less than anyone else when it comes to reimbursing doctors and hospitals for their services. To make up for this shortfall they charge insurance companies more.

So what is the answer to getting more doctors and nurses? Most of them are schools in government/state run institutions...another facet of why the government is not capable of handing health care. My wife has TWO options in our area for nursing school. Either the community college (gov funded) or the state university (another gov funded and ran institution). The best doctors come from PRIVATE universities.

So you have speed, quality, and cost. You cannot get all 3. To get more doctors you have to cut quality, and send them through faster with less education. To get higher quality its costs money and time.

An insurance company has motivation in a free market to provide a service because of the consumer. If word gets around that company X likes to deny services to people but company Y will pay for your care without hassle people will migrate to company Y. However, because of the restrictions on getting insurance across state lines competition is hindered drastically. This leads to companies having near monopolies in some cases. If they had competition they would be financially motivated to provide better service. This is what gov instrusion into the free market creates, and the answer is more government intrusion? They created the problem in the 1st place...the answer is most assuredly not more government...use some common sense and logic here.

This also leads into why UHC is a bad idea. The government, and some nameless beaurocrats will be making decisions, and we are often forced to live with bad decions. DC is slow, and is focused on too many things. This is why private companies are a good idea because they devote 100% of their resources to their product. The government might dedicate 10% to one product, and is part of why everything the gov does is full of wasteful spending, fraud, and incompetence. If a private company provides a bad service you can immediatly seek services elsewhere. When the government makes a bad decision, and you have no other option you are forced to live with it. In this case its life or death. If the gov denies you a treatment you have no other option if they are the only game in town. What are you going to do? Wait a few years to vote, and hope someone who will work to fix the problems comes along? Then hope enough other people in other districts did the same? This is why government must be as limited as possible, and the power of the dollar must rule here.

[Atg336]

I see your point and it got me thinking a bit more differently now that we got to the crux of the situation.

There is still the paradox of cash ruling though. Private schools are pretty expensive, so are the best premiums. And this whole health crisis has only gotten worse in the past 4 maybe 5 years. And there is still the problem of coverage denial for preexisting conditions, which is a situation that can easily be manipulated by administrators, and has been done extensively. And litigation costs, and plenty of horror stories of people getting their premiums jacked for a few doctors visits.

Either way a public single-payer health insurance is still thought provoking. I just don't know how it would affect private insurance companies or if it would destroy competition and the availability of a choice of providers. (or if one can exist with the other.)

[AR15Madness]

The parties are both run by career politicians who would rather work for more funding than for the people they represent. They'll say what we want to hear, and pass some legislation to keep our favor. Washington is in a bubble and we, the people, are outside of it.

The healthcare industry is for those who can pay for their health, not for those who cannot. It is morally wrong for someone to be turned down from a life saving surgery just because they don't make enough money. America is the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, we have awesome doctors, nurses, and health practitioners, yet we fail in providing their services to those who need it the most. This is outrageous. And this has been going on for 50+ years, we've tolerated the Fat-Cats for this long. Too long has our moral compass been guided by profiteers and industry giants. (No I'm not a communist or a socialist, I'll be the first one to shoot down any deuchbag wanting communism or socialism, I've lived through such oppression personally)

This talk of a pared down legislation is a win for the healthcare industry, and I'm sensing that they've been manipulating most of Washington for the past year now, then having cocktails at the end of the night while working class Americans die everyday from treatable and curable health problems.

Universal Healthcare coverage is a moral issue and we are failing at addressing this. :mad:
But hey, as our elected leaders would say, "This is what the American people want."
Bull-shit!


you cant save everyone and not everyone wants to be saved

I know this because I'm a health care professional

wake up and smell the **** you're shoveling

why is it my obligation to pay and take care of others who don't want to have self responsibility

As I explain it to children - if one kid gets an A+ because he studies and other gets an F because he wants to play around all day should they both get a C?

[Gutshot John]

I know this because I'm a health care professional


I worked in health care for about a decade. If you don't think there is a real problem you've got blinders on.

Obamacare couldn't do what it claimed and would have been a disaster but something has to change.

Health care premiums are the equivalent of a huge tax except to a private company rather than the government. Money I have to spend on a premium is money I don't have to invest, save or do any number of other things that have a benefit to the economy.

No serious person denies there is a real problem. The only dispute is what we do to fix it.

[AR15Madness]

I worked in health care for about a decade. If you don't think there is a real problem you've got blinders on.

Obamacare couldn't do what it claimed and would have been a disaster but something has to change.

Health care premiums are the equivalent of a huge tax except to a private company rather than the government. Money I have to spend on a premium is money I don't have to invest, save or do any number of other things that have a benefit to the economy.

No serious person denies there is a real problem. The only dispute is what we do to fix it.

I'm not saying there isnt a problem I just dont think bigger government and more taxes is the solution.

[Atg336]

I worked in health care for about a decade. If you don't think there is a real problem you've got blinders on.

Obamacare couldn't do what it claimed and would have been a disaster but something has to change.

Health care premiums are the equivalent of a huge tax except to a private company rather than the government. Money I have to spend on a premium is money I don't have to invest, save or do any number of other things that have a benefit to the economy.

No serious person denies there is a real problem. The only dispute is what we do to fix it.

Exactly.
I'm just trying out people's thoughts and condemnations of UHC since it is a complex issue and I've really only heard one side of the story.

[Belmont31R]

I see your point and it got me thinking a bit more differently now that we got to the crux of the situation.

There is still the paradox of cash ruling though. Private schools are pretty expensive, so are the best premiums. And this whole health crisis has only gotten worse in the past 4 maybe 5 years.

Either way a public single-payer health insurance is still thought provoking. I just don't know how it would affect private insurance companies or if it would destroy competition and the availability of a choice of providers.



It has gotten worse...but the way I see it is that health care has gotten worse as the more the government has gotten involved in things, and contaminated the free market. Its more a mix between socialism, and the free market yet all the problems are blamed on the free market side. Both sides have contributed to what we have today but its clearly evident the gov has created the biggest ones.

Seriously...we would have a thousand percent increase instantly in competition if we could buy insurance across state lines. It just makes sense, and the democrats unwillingness to include this in their reform leads me to further believe they are trying to stigmatize private insurance, and force government as the solution. It would not cost the tax payer a single dime. Just a simple revocation of a law. Prices would drop immedetially as each person suddenly has hundreds of more choices when they might have only had a few before. It would be cut throat with companies trying to pick up clients.

Also the gov needs to be paying the same as everyone else. They have kept their programs afloat by continually cutting their reimbursement rates to doctors. If they were paying the same as insurance pays these programs would have gone bankrupt years ago. Imagine if I went into your place of business, and told you how much I was going to pay for your product, and it just happened it was 20-30% less than what everyone else was paying. To keep making the same amount of money you have to charge other people more. This is the way medicare/medicaid has worked. I then also tell you that if someone comes into your store but doesnt have any money you have to give them whatever products they want, and you wont be getting any money from them. You cannot say 'no' no matter how much it hurts your business and no matter how much you have to charge your other customers to keep afloat. You suddenly see why insurance has been such a cluster**** because this is the only business in America that works this way. No other business would stay in business for more than a few months operating in this fashion. The only reason health care has been able to is because its life or death, and people will keep paying whatever it takes to stay alive.

[Atg336]

Oh, and I am going into a health care career so this debate is absolutely invaluable to me.

[Outlander Systems]

Dudes, if you have a cell phone, cable TV, internet service, and a car payment, but no health insurance, go **** yourself, in the nicest way possible.

I have a friend, who, as well as his wife, both have all of the above, only TWO cellular phones, and TWO car payments for late-model, European imports.

He staunchly believes that health-care should be provided by the government.

The kicker?

He and his wife do not have health insurance.

THAT is what's wrong with this country. The entitlement mentality and the cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome.

[Belmont31R]

Oh, and I am going into a health care career so this debate is absolutely invaluable to me.



Then you should look at the model our government(s) have in other "businesses" they operate. Hate going to the DMV? The post office? The IRS? Been in the military?


If a private business with competition provided the same level of services our governments do they would be QUICKLY out of business. Trying complaining to the DMV that you waited 3 hrs to renew your tags, or waited in line at the post office for 45 minutes to buy a stamp. They will laugh at you and/or not give a damn. Try telling the IRS you don't like the service they provide. When it comes to the government operating anything they have ZERO inclination to provide quality service because there is no other option.

Now imagine if right next to the DMV was a private company offering the same services. It might cost a bit more but you are greeted with short lines, helpful people, and its generally a positive experience. Would the private business do most of the DMV work or would the lines at the DMV still be there? People will pay more for the better service. At the post office at least 3/4ths of the time there is a line almost to the door while I can go to a FedEx or UPS store. Maybe 1-2 people in line (not usually), they will box up what I am sending (trying getting a postal clerk to box your stuff), I get far better service (UPS and FedEx tracking are multiple times better than USPS), and the clerks look like they actually want to be there instead of the near brain dead capacity USPS clerks operate at (if they arent on break). If UPS and FedEx (or another private company) took over daily mail delivery USPS would be done for. This is also just an example of 2 other companies providing competition to USPS. In health care if we could get insurance across state lines there would be hundreds if not thousands of choices.

Look at the VA. I can't imagine anyone who would rather go to a VA hospital for a surgery vs. a private hospital. County hospitals are consistently ranked lower than private hospitals.

So if you really want the gov to take over health care the same level of service you get at the DMV, through the IRS, USPS, the VA, etc are what everyone is going to be forced to endure with UHC. If you think 'this is America we can make this work!' is true then why does every other gov operation suck? There is nothing the gov does that the private business world does not do better. It does cost more but this is people's lives we are talking about not something as benign as mailing a package, getting your tags renewed, or sending your taxes in.

[AR15Madness]

Dudes, if you have a cell phone, cable TV, internet service, and a car payment, but no health insurance, go **** yourself, in the nicest way possible.

I have a friend, who, as well as his wife, both have all of the above, only TWO cellular phones, and TWO car payments for late-model, European imports.

He staunchly believes that health-care should be provided by the government.

The kicker?

He and his wife do not have health insurance.

THAT is what's wrong with this country. The entitlement mentality and the cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome.



+100000000000000000000000000000


Thank you
I couldn't have said it better

[dbrowne1]

Oh, and I am going into a health care career so this debate is absolutely invaluable to me.

Then how on EARTH can you even be considering supporting socialist medicine? You realize that you would get absolutely hosed as a provider. You'd be paid less (a LOT less) and you'd have a much higher patient load, and no control over anything.

Unbelievable.

[DBR]

My plan if I was monarch for a day:

1) Tort reform. No additional $ award greater than the original damage award. Loser pays.

2) Interstate availability of health insurance.

3) A federal pool for doctor malpractice insurance.

4) All private insurance companies should be "policy holder owned" returning a dividend to the policy holders if they make a profit.

I think health insurance is a special category of business like a public utility. It should not be a private "for profit" industry like making automobiles.

These ideas are not intended to address social issues of universal coverage but to control costs so other options are viable.

[lethal dose]

NAV COLLAPSE... CHECK YOUR PM'S :cool:

[RancidSumo]

How about we just go back to a true free market system based on actual supply and demand instead of the government neutered mess that started in the late '20s, grew exponentially in the '70s, and is getting so bloated that we have no choice but to face hyper-inflation in the near future?

More government involvement = less prosperity and less freedom.

This has been proven over and over again but there are always people foolish enough to believe that they are smarter than those that made the same mistakes in the past.

I absolutely believe that the current health care plans are a means to an end that has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with the implimentation of an oligarchy. Even if the supporters have good intentions, they don't understand what they are doing by supporting this movement.

My thoughts exactly.

[ZDL]

*******