Congress, wake me up in 2011 when you all finally decide what you're doing with this health care stuff. Then I'll decide what part of it to gripe about.
The universal health care debacle: you will now be fined
This topic is locked from further discussion.
As soon as I get disgusted with Republicans (not just for health care) and start giving the Democrats a new chance, they pull this. Wow. Those geniuses in the Democratic party want to fine those who already can't afford health care. If they go through with this plan, they minus well just hand the majority power back to the Republican party. I seriously doubt most Americans are against a public health plan to compete with private insurance, but eitherthe Republicans are getting in to Democrat's heads, or the Democrats were against the original plan to begin with (I'm starting to think it's the latter). The plan Obama wanted to pass originally was the most tolerable. Fining the people who can't afford health insurance is simply idiotic.
Your thoughts?
psychobrew
it's mostly to target rich folks who forgo health insurance. Remember, if we had universal coverage this would be a nonissue. But how else are we going to raise revenue? This is better than a tax increase...(and you're taking it out of context).
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Of course taxes are going to be raised, but we are already being taxed, quite heavily because of our health care system as is, but that hidden tax is incredibly inefficient. It's not by accident that wages have been stagnate for the last decade. Universal health care is cheaper than what we have now - show me one developed country that has a more expensive, costly health care system than the U.S. Show me one developed country who's health care costs are rising faster than ours.
-Sun_Tzu-
Simple: I can't. The only countries we could be compared to have a far smaller population than we do, thus ultimately spend far less on health care than we would have to by default. Hell, the nearest comparison, Japan, has less than one-half our population. I highly doubt we'd be able to reach a level of savings that most western European or Pacific rim nations are able to simply because of our larger population. Indeed if the ultimate conclusion should arise, that being everyone on the government system, I could guarantee it.
Um, no. It's very easy to compare health care between countries despite population differences. You compare per capita...I agree with your position on health care, but considering the fact that our hc system has been based on treating the symptoms instead of preventative care (unlike Europe) for so long, we have become a nation of overmedicated sick people. When health care does pass, we ARE going to be seeing some long lines, unfortunately. But, after a generation of preventative care, then the waiting lines will evaporate. Considering the fact that the U.S. is jumping on the bandwagon so late, we may have some distribution problems ahead, and the Republicans/Libertarians will be ready to declare the entire universal hc system a failure the moment one person is put on a waiting list.
[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
As soon as I get disgusted with Republicans (not just for health care) and start giving the Democrats a new chance, they pull this. Wow. Those geniuses in the Democratic party want to fine those who already can't afford health care. If they go through with this plan, they minus well just hand the majority power back to the Republican party. I seriously doubt most Americans are against a public health plan to compete with private insurance, but eitherthe Republicans are getting in to Democrat's heads, or the Democrats were against the original plan to begin with (I'm starting to think it's the latter). The plan Obama wanted to pass originally was the most tolerable. Fining the people who can't afford health insurance is simply idiotic.
Your thoughts?
Hot-Tamale
it's mostly to target rich folks who forgo health insurance. Remember, if we had universal coverage this would be a nonissue. But how else are we going to raise revenue? This is better than a tax increase...(and you're taking it out of context).
Did you even read the article? A family of three who earns $60,000 is not rich at all (yes, this family will be fined if they don't purchase a $13,000 health policy). In fact, it basically amounts to a tax on the uninsured middle c!ass because they still won't be able to afford a health care (there's no way) and uncle sam will be taking an extra $4,000 a year from them as a result. If the fine were for those earning over $250,000 per year, that would be one thing, but it's clearly not.The bottom line is Obama made some campaing pledges that he needs to stick to. This is just one more way to squeeze the middle c!ass.
[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="duxup"] That is how it works for ALL insurance ;) The benefit is that you have lots of people paying in who don't need to big pay outs (most folks are fairly healthy and don't require lots of care) and those who need the help get it.duxupThat's how it's supposed to work, but for some reason, health insurrance for a single person buying outside of a group plan is astronomical. Besides, insurrance is just like gambling -- the odds are stacked in favor of the house. If health insurrance companies were non proffit, this would be easier to stomach. I don't necessary buy into the idea that non profits would solve the problem but yeah individuals do pay more. Oddly enough I'm willing to bet establishing a non profit will be the end result of the government side of the plan. There already are nonprofit insurance companies, one of which I buy insurance from.
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]
As soon as I get disgusted with Republicans (not just for health care) and start giving the Democrats a new chance, they pull this. Wow. Those geniuses in the Democratic party want to fine those who already can't afford health care. If they go through with this plan, they minus well just hand the majority power back to the Republican party. I seriously doubt most Americans are against a public health plan to compete with private insurance, but eitherthe Republicans are getting in to Democrat's heads, or the Democrats were against the original plan to begin with (I'm starting to think it's the latter). The plan Obama wanted to pass originally was the most tolerable. Fining the people who can't afford health insurance is simply idiotic.
Your thoughts?
psychobrew
it's mostly to target rich folks who forgo health insurance. Remember, if we had universal coverage this would be a nonissue. But how else are we going to raise revenue? This is better than a tax increase...(and you're taking it out of context).
Did you even read the article? A family of three who earns $60,000 is not rich at all (yes, this family will be fined if they don't purchase a $13,000 health policy). In fact, it basically amounts to a tax on the uninsured middle ****because they still won't be able to afford a health care, but they'll be giving uncle sam and extra $4,000 a year. If the fine were for those earning over $250,000 per year, that would be one thing, but it's clearly not. The bottom line is Obama made some campaing pledges that he needs to stick to. This is just one more way to squeeze the middle ****A family of three that makes $60,000 is upper middle, no doubt about it. Remember, this is corresponding to the healthcare legislation that is being proposed. This will only take effect once ALL AMERICANS ARE COVERED. This is supposed to work hand-in-hand with that bill. Just remember that if you read an article, you should relate it to what's going on in politics at the same time.
I really don't like how the US health care system works.
There should be free, universal health care for everybody... it works in the majority of other first world industrialised countries.raynimrod
I agree with you, but many Americans are ardently against helping others, be it through healthcare reform or being witness to a crime and doing nothing. They believe in 'individualism,' which is the belief that self-interest is a virtue. Considering the fact that humans are social animals, and research into the human brain done by prominent psychologists, it has been concluded that individualism is unnatural, unhealthy, and most of all, unnerving. The Libertarians/Republicans who are against all forms of supporting their societies, and therefore their countries, are stuck in the past, and unfortunately contradict themselves to a disturbing degree. They call themselves 'individualists,' but then go online and engage in groupthink on their conservative discussion forums - supporting each others lopsided, deluded thinking. That's collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Conservatives/Libertarians just won't face the facts, and it saddening to see such a large gap between the rich and poor as a result. I just don't want the United States, which had such promise, to turn into a third world country, where the poor live in slums with no government benefit programs to help them through their daily struggle, as the fat cats on Wall Street continue to rake in the cash. :?
[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
it's mostly to target rich folks who forgo health insurance. Remember, if we had universal coverage this would be a nonissue. But how else are we going to raise revenue? This is better than a tax increase...(and you're taking it out of context).
Did you even read the article? A family of three who earns $60,000 is not rich at all (yes, this family will be fined if they don't purchase a $13,000 health policy). In fact, it basically amounts to a tax on the uninsured middle ****because they still won't be able to afford a health care, but they'll be giving uncle sam and extra $4,000 a year. If the fine were for those earning over $250,000 per year, that would be one thing, but it's clearly not. The bottom line is Obama made some campaing pledges that he needs to stick to. This is just one more way to squeeze the middle ****A family of three that makes $60,000 is upper middle, no doubt about it. Remember, this is corresponding to the healthcare legislation that is being proposed. This will only take effect once ALL AMERICANS ARE COVERED. This is supposed to work hand-in-hand with that bill. Just remember that if you read an article, you should relate it to what's going on in politics at the same time.
There's a ton of doubt about it, though it depends on where you live. The poverty levels are wacked. In some areas, $60,000 barely pays the bills. If you live near a big city, you can't even afford your own house on that salary anymore. Add a $13,000 per year expense on top of that and some people will sink. Out in the less populated (and much cheaper) areas, $60,000 does allow you to live a very comfortable life. The fines will be in effect before all Americans are covered, otherwise the fines would never start. Even after the system is overhauled, health care is still going to be prohibitively expensive, and after a few years it will slip back in to the same mess it's in now.[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] Did you even read the article? A family of three who earns $60,000 is not rich at all (yes, this family will be fined if they don't purchase a $13,000 health policy). In fact, it basically amounts to a tax on the uninsured middle ****because they still won't be able to afford a health care, but they'll be giving uncle sam and extra $4,000 a year. If the fine were for those earning over $250,000 per year, that would be one thing, but it's clearly not. The bottom line is Obama made some campaing pledges that he needs to stick to. This is just one more way to squeeze the middle ****psychobrew
A family of three that makes $60,000 is upper middle, no doubt about it. Remember, this is corresponding to the healthcare legislation that is being proposed. This will only take effect once ALL AMERICANS ARE COVERED. This is supposed to work hand-in-hand with that bill. Just remember that if you read an article, you should relate it to what's going on in politics at the same time.
There's a ton of doubt about it, though it depends on where you live. The poverty levels are wacked. In some areas, $60,000 barely pays the bills. If you live near a big city, you can't even afford your own house on that salary anymore. Add a $13,000 per year expense on top of that and some people will sink. Out in the less populated (and much cheaper) areas, $60,000 does allow you to live a very comfortable life. The fines will be in effect before all Americans are covered, otherwise the fines would never start. Even after the system is overhauled, health care is still going to be prohibitively expensive, and after a few years it will slip back in to the same mess it's in now.We'll just have to wait and see. At least we can agree on that. ;)
That is how insurance works. The more people join the lower the prices. I've no problem with that.duxup
thats funny because Ive been shopping for insurance and prices are super low at the moment.
I think products work that way, but services dont.
sigh...more money down the drain. time to give up this tireless debate and try to really get something done...clinton failed and obama will fail (in healthcare current propsed state) and if he pushes it through without bipartisen support...bye-bye dems in 2010 and 2012 and he knows it...its just all a game and we (the people) are the pawns
I agree with your position on health care, but considering the fact that our hc system has been based on treating the symptoms instead of preventative care (unlike Europe) for so long, we have become a nation of overmedicated sick people. When health care does pass, we ARE going to be seeing some long lines, unfortunately. But, after a generation of preventative care, then the waiting lines will evaporate. Considering the fact that the U.S. is jumping on the bandwagon so late, we may have some distribution problems ahead, and the Republicans/Libertarians will be ready to declare the entire universal hc system a failure the moment one person is put on a waiting list.
Hot-Tamale
That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.
And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well, by making it illegal to discriminate against pre-existing conditions that slashes overhead in half right then and there, which saves about on average, 10-15 cents on every dollar. It's not unreasonable to think that they will streamline their business in light of competition - that's usually what happens - that's the whole point of competition. And even if the private insurers are screwed in the long run - why should the average person care? Why must we keep the private insurers? -Sun_Tzu-
So how do you explain the scenario with the bankers? The executives there didn't care, so why should the insurance executives be more altruistic?
Why must we keep the private insurers? To give people a choice. As soon as the government starts to step in and outright refuses to give people a choice, or by making the choice so undesirable the average person goes along with what the government wants, the society becomes less free.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin
The essential liberty, in this case, being the freedom to choose what coverage one desires, whether public or private.
What choice is being taken away? You get more choice under medicare than you would under private insurers. That argument has no real basis in reality. The health care systems of the rest of the developed world are more "free" than the U.S.'s by a long shot. It's not as if the rest of the developed world is living behind an iron curtain. If anything, the U.S. has the most tyrannical health care system of the developed world.The ability to choose whether or not you want to go with company A, B, or C, the government plan, or no plan at all. Why, after all, should a government force people to do something to their lives (buy into health insurance or forcibly put them on a government plan) that they don't wish to so long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others? In all of the other health care systems of the developed world, you're either forced to pay for the system with taxes, like in the United Kingdom, or by making the system mandatory thus forcing people below a certain income limit to buy into it and subsidizing the cost of private insurance, like in Germany. In either case, you're forced to pay into the system.
In reading up on the various systems (though granted I've had very limited time to do so, and as such can only get a faint glimpse into their inner workings), in every single Western European nation with a public option I was able to read about, as well as every single Pacific Rim nation (including the PRC) with either a public option or government subsidies, you are forced to pay, through a variety of means (most popularly through direct taxation) for the public option. The only nation I have been able to find, insofar, that seems to be able to have a reliable public option while still retaining private options is Switzerland, and even then the Swiss government subsidizes the cost of the private insurers. Where do you suppose they get the money from? To me, that strikes a major tyrannical chord, being forced to pay for a system one may not want.
Now, I'm not about to say that the American system is perfect. Indeed, from my own experience I can tell you it isn't. Our system definitely needs reform, but in the present situation, with military presences in damn near every developed nation on Earth, and sometimes in developing nations, and two unpopular wars being fought, we simply cannot afford it.
[QUOTE="duxup"]That is how insurance works. The more people join the lower the prices. I've no problem with that.mrbojangles25
thats funny because Ive been shopping for insurance and prices are super low at the moment.
I think products work that way, but services dont.
That is now insurance works ;)It's all part of politics...'Poli' meaning "Many" and 'Tic' meaning "Blood sucking insect."
I don't understand the concept of paying for something you don't want, or in some cases can't afford. How is it "cheating" by not getting insurance that you don't want? If an uninsured person goes to a doctor they just have to foot the bill themselves, that's the choice they made, it has no bearing on what anyone else has. If someone wants to bank on them not getting a serious injury or illness then that should be their choice, not a forced upon insurance plan or a fine for not having an insurance provider.
If you think that having a government health care option will, through competition,lower the costs of private insurance, you're delusional. In this "free market" do you think for one second that the big-wigs at the top of the private insurance game are going to lose money from their personal wallets? Hell no. The only thing to happen would be A) They cut coverage, while keeping the price you currently pay on their program or B) Keep the coverage you have, but pay more for it.
More people may move to a government plan because of this, however, with the proposed all of America being covered under some sort of insurance to take advantage of, the hospitals will get flooded with people wanting to use the hell out of their new-found insurance, thus creating waiting lists and long lines, it's inevitable. Or do you expect people to have to pay for something and then them not use the hell out of it? Wishful thinking you have my friend...
I already have insurance, I'm single so my employer covers my cost, I barely use my insurance, I'm young and healthy so I really don't have much need for it other than the couple of visits a year for blood-work or something simple like that which I only pay $10 in co-pay per visit. But that's only because, I'm not footing the bill for my insurance, it's provided for me to use by my employer, but if it weren't provided by my employer I wouldn't get insurance because I'm young and healthy, I'd take the risk vs. the cost of insurance at the moment. Because if I were to have to pay for insurance that I really only need for a couple of visits a year which amount to say around$500 if uninsured(I've checked)why in the hell would I want to pay a couple grand a year for insurance to cover me? If I did I would be at the doctor way more than I really need to be, because there's no way I'd pay for something that I wasn't getting my money's worth on. I'd rather just pay for what I use, nothing more, nothing less. Why should I be fined for that?
It's that exact concept that has left the current health care providers in such a mess, people making tons of claims because they get every test imaginable to get everything they can out of what they're paying in to insurance and/or greedy doctor's ordering tests that aren't needed because hey, they have the insurance to cover it and/or also the greedy people at the top of insurance that will always take whatever money they can for themselves. It's the problem with any insurance plan, you give it to people to use and it will eventually be abused of exploited somehow, someway by someone.
The only way for this proposed government plan to work is for people to actually only use what they need, doctor's doing their job rightly not ordering unneeded tests and people not getting greedy when the cash starts to flow...good luck having any of those things happen, let alone all three.
So if I wasn't responsible and neglected to acquire insurance, I'd be fined by the federal government, and then by my state government (to the tune of $1,068 per year)? Why don't I just send my entire paycheck to the Feds and then they can tell me what I can and can't do?FragStainsppl pay for irresponsibility all the time. you forget to renew your car insurance or registration well you get fined. you forget to put cash in your checking or go over your limit you get fined. oh and 1k a year isn't much for the ppl this fine would target (ppl that can afford insurance but do not get it)
[QUOTE="FragStains"]So if I wasn't responsible and neglected to acquire insurance, I'd be fined by the federal government, and then by my state government (to the tune of $1,068 per year)? Why don't I just send my entire paycheck to the Feds and then they can tell me what I can and can't do?Ontainppl pay for irresponsibility all the time. you forget to renew your car insurance or registration well you get fined. you forget to put cash in your checking or go over your limit you get fined. oh and 1k a year isn't much for the ppl this fine would target (ppl that can afford insurance but do not get it)Why does the government profit from irresponsibility. If someone can afford insurance, but doesn't get it, and then goes to the doctor's office, how does that hurt anyone other than the moron who didn't get insurance?
[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="FragStains"]So if I wasn't responsible and neglected to acquire insurance, I'd be fined by the federal government, and then by my state government (to the tune of $1,068 per year)? Why don't I just send my entire paycheck to the Feds and then they can tell me what I can and can't do?FragStainsppl pay for irresponsibility all the time. you forget to renew your car insurance or registration well you get fined. you forget to put cash in your checking or go over your limit you get fined. oh and 1k a year isn't much for the ppl this fine would target (ppl that can afford insurance but do not get it)Why does the government profit from irresponsibility. If someone can afford insurance, but doesn't get it, and then goes to the doctor's office, how does that hurt anyone other than the moron who didn't get insurance? That's exactly what I don't understand about the whole proposed government fine...what does it matter if someone doesn't get insurance?That's their problem to deal with, not the governments.
[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="FragStains"]So if I wasn't responsible and neglected to acquire insurance, I'd be fined by the federal government, and then by my state government (to the tune of $1,068 per year)? Why don't I just send my entire paycheck to the Feds and then they can tell me what I can and can't do?FragStainsppl pay for irresponsibility all the time. you forget to renew your car insurance or registration well you get fined. you forget to put cash in your checking or go over your limit you get fined. oh and 1k a year isn't much for the ppl this fine would target (ppl that can afford insurance but do not get it)Why does the government profit from irresponsibility. If someone can afford insurance, but doesn't get it, and then goes to the doctor's office, how does that hurt anyone other than the moron who didn't get insurance? there is no profit. the point is to lower costs because everyone gets insurance not just when you need it. after all if the government puts into place regulation that says insurance companies can't reject you for pre-existed conditions then you can just game the system by only getting the insurance after you need treatment. clearly that makes no sense for the market.
[QUOTE="FragStains"]Why does the government profit from irresponsibility. If someone can afford insurance, but doesn't get it, and then goes to the doctor's office, how does that hurt anyone other than the moron who didn't get insurance? crazygamer1That's exactly what I don't understand about the whole proposed government fine...what does it matter if someone doesn't get insurance?That's their problem to deal with, not the governments. since the ER's will take anyone even those without the means to pay those that can afford insurance but don't get it will still get those emergency operations etc even if they can't pay for it. this would mean we all pay for it with higher costs for treatment and premiums. that's the problem. also if they add the regulation to no allow denials because of pre-existing conditions ppl would game that pretty easy.
[QUOTE="crazygamer1"][QUOTE="FragStains"]Why does the government profit from irresponsibility. If someone can afford insurance, but doesn't get it, and then goes to the doctor's office, how does that hurt anyone other than the moron who didn't get insurance? OntainThat's exactly what I don't understand about the whole proposed government fine...what does it matter if someone doesn't get insurance?That's their problem to deal with, not the governments. since the ER's will take anyone even those without the means to pay those that can afford insurance but don't get it will still get those emergency operations etc even if they can't pay for it. this would mean we all pay for it with higher costs for treatment and premiums. that's the problem. also if they add the regulation to no allow denials because of pre-existing conditions ppl would game that pretty easy. Why would we pay for it? Send the bill to the moron who didn't get insurance and let him deal with it.
Why would we pay for it? Send the bill to the moron who didn't get insurance and let him deal with it.FragStainsER bills without insurance are VERY expensive. if they can't afford it the ER bill? we're all stuck paying more through increased costs and premiums. it's built into the system like that.
[QUOTE="FragStains"]Why would we pay for it? Send the bill to the moron who didn't get insurance and let him deal with it.OntainER bills without insurance are VERY expensive. if they can't afford it the ER bill? we're all stuck paying more through increased costs and premiums. it's built into the system like that. Again, why does it come back to us? If I send my $130 car payment in 3 days late I get 15 phone calls threatening me with repossession. But a guy who doesn't get insurance, goes to the ER and has a $15,000 bill is just going to say, "Oh well, screw you guys." and the hospital will say, "Ok, nevermind. Have a nice day."? Collect the bill from him even if it bankrupts him. It's called an unfortunate life lesson. Happens all the time.
No, because the government thinks that you make enough money that you should be buying insurance. And if you don't, they are going to take the money from you, and also not give you insurance.Fined because you can't afford insurance? Wow. :|
CBR600-RR
[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="FragStains"]Why would we pay for it? Send the bill to the moron who didn't get insurance and let him deal with it.FragStainsER bills without insurance are VERY expensive. if they can't afford it the ER bill? we're all stuck paying more through increased costs and premiums. it's built into the system like that. Again, why does it come back to us? If I send my $130 car payment in 3 days late I get 15 phone calls threatening me with repossession. But a guy who doesn't get insurance, goes to the ER and has a $15,000 bill is just going to say, "Oh well, screw you guys." and the hospital will say, "Ok, nevermind. Have a nice day."? Collect the bill from him even if it bankrupts him. It's called an unfortunate life lesson. Happens all the time. notice how for the car you're forced to get insurance. this is so that if you do miss a payment they can take the car or insurance money if your wrecked the car. if they didn't force you to get insurance and you got into an accident you could walk out on the rest of your debt and they would not likely get that money back. sure they'll hound you but they aren't going to get all that money back. the fact is that if he can't pay that 15000 you're not going to get it even if you bankrupt him. this leaves the hospital with debt that it forces the rest of us to make up.
Is Baucus making statements like this as some stealth tactic to torpedo this bill? I hope so. This health care bill is a multi-generational trainwreck waiting to happen.
Is Baucus making statements like this as some stealth tactic to torpedo this bill? I hope so. This health care bill is a multi-generational trainwreck waiting to happen.
MarcusAntonius
I don't mind universal healthcare. Nobody should be denied medical treatment. The problem I have is the way this new bill is set up, it essentially increases taxes significantly fora part of the middle class, which Obama promised not to do. I wouldn't even mind increasde taxes as long as the increases in taxers amounted to the same amount you'd pay for a subsidised policy and you no longer had to pay for it at work.
The Democrats need to tread carefully if they want to keep majority power.
P.S. If someone wants to start a party for moderates, I'll be the first to sign up. A third party is badly needed if for nothing else than to baby sit the Democrats and Republicans. If there was a third party, something might actually get accomplished in Washington.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
Is Baucus making statements like this as some stealth tactic to torpedo this bill? I hope so. This health care bill is a multi-generational trainwreck waiting to happen.
psychobrew
I don't mind universal healthcare. Nobody should be denied medical treatment. The problem I have is the way this new bill is set up, it essentially increases taxes significantly fora part of the middle class, which Obama promised not to do. I wouldn't even mind increasde taxes as long as the increases in taxers amounted to the same amount you'd pay for a subsidised policy and you no longer had to pay for it at work.
The Democrats need to tread carefully if they want to keep majority power.
P.S. If someone wants to start a party for moderates, I'll be the first to sign up. A third party is badly needed if for nothing else than to baby sit the Democrats and Republicans. If there was a third party, something might actually get accomplished in Washington.
I oppose any government healthcare. The costs will NEVER be kept in check, it just isn't possible. Look at Social Security. Rationing can be the only option to make government-run healthcare even remotely workable, and difficult decisions will have to be made on whether to care for the elderly while the qualit of care will inevitably plummet. I oppose granting the government greater powers of life and death on general priniciple.
Sorry, but even a government is bound by scarcity.
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
I agree with your position on health care, but considering the fact that our hc system has been based on treating the symptoms instead of preventative care (unlike Europe) for so long, we have become a nation of overmedicated sick people. When health care does pass, we ARE going to be seeing some long lines, unfortunately. But, after a generation of preventative care, then the waiting lines will evaporate. Considering the fact that the U.S. is jumping on the bandwagon so late, we may have some distribution problems ahead, and the Republicans/Libertarians will be ready to declare the entire universal hc system a failure the moment one person is put on a waiting list.
tycoonmike
That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.
And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.
Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Rationing can be the only option to make governemtn healthcare even remotely workableduxupI find the rationing argument amusing. Rationing is exactly what you get with private insurance. They determine what / how much care you get.
I can always go to a competitor, that's the difference. I'm not saying the present system works really well. But the alternative being proposed is beyond horrifying. The potential civil rights violations are alarming enough as it is, before even getting into the health care bit. I'd rather we tweak the law to allow hospitals to prevent care for those without health insurance along with tort reform. That alone would cause a drastic drop off in costs. You stop giving a product away for free while reducing liability, and WOW! The costs will drop, it's so simple. People seem to think there is some magical pixie dust that exempts health care from free market forces, what lunacy.
As long as we're caught in between the insurance companies and the government, the problem will never be adaquately addressed, but no bill is better than this bill.
[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
Is Baucus making statements like this as some stealth tactic to torpedo this bill? I hope so. This health care bill is a multi-generational trainwreck waiting to happen.
I don't mind universal healthcare. Nobody should be denied medical treatment. The problem I have is the way this new bill is set up, it essentially increases taxes significantly fora part of the middle class, which Obama promised not to do. I wouldn't even mind increasde taxes as long as the increases in taxers amounted to the same amount you'd pay for a subsidised policy and you no longer had to pay for it at work.
The Democrats need to tread carefully if they want to keep majority power.
P.S. If someone wants to start a party for moderates, I'll be the first to sign up. A third party is badly needed if for nothing else than to baby sit the Democrats and Republicans. If there was a third party, something might actually get accomplished in Washington.
I oppose any government healthcare. The costs will NEVER be kept in check, it just isn't possible. Look at Social Security. Rationing can be the only option to make government-run healthcare even remotely workable, and difficult decisions will have to be made on whether to care for the elderly while the qualit of care will inevitably plummet. I oppose granting the government greater powers of life and death on general priniciple.
Sorry, but even a government is bound by scarcity.
The elderly are on Medicare and are irrelevant to any new government run healthcare plan. Social Security is a mess because of baby boomers.
Democrats are a weak-kneed bunch. Why they even bothered to cater to the GOP is beyond me. The private health insurance model is not worth saving. There's no regional competition, so it's a stagnant market. If the market for health insurance were like that of auto insurance, with lots of options and competition and catering to specific needs of its customers, I could see it was worth saving. I live in central Ohio, the home of many major insurance companies, and even I only have 2 (nearly identical) choices for health care. When it's that bad, it is the fault of the insurance companies if they can't compete with a government plan.
And to the "government is always bad" or "spending is out of control" crowds, why are you so silent on existant, expensive, and government-run programs like national defense? If you really believed and practiced what you preach (screech?), you would be advocating for an entirely private defense system, where companies like Blackwater (still partying hard as Xe) were the first and only line of defense.
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
I agree with your position on health care, but considering the fact that our hc system has been based on treating the symptoms instead of preventative care (unlike Europe) for so long, we have become a nation of overmedicated sick people. When health care does pass, we ARE going to be seeing some long lines, unfortunately. But, after a generation of preventative care, then the waiting lines will evaporate. Considering the fact that the U.S. is jumping on the bandwagon so late, we may have some distribution problems ahead, and the Republicans/Libertarians will be ready to declare the entire universal hc system a failure the moment one person is put on a waiting list.
Hot-Tamale
That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.
And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.
Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).
How do you come to this conclusion, exactly? What prevents employers from unloading their ever increasing health benefits pacakges onto the likely cheaper government public option? Temporary wait lists? That seems delusional at best. Think mandated coverage works? I can tell you it doesn't. It's an economy killer when private health companies are turned into health care financiers. I lived in Hawaii which has employer mandated health care, essentially, a socialized system. Then people are so shocked when Hawaii has such a fragile economy, and is a perennial leader in foreclosures, deliquent loans, and bankruptcies because wages are stagnated and employers flee to other states.
Tort reform? Naw. Let's force doctor's to provide care unconditionally and then stick them with 100% of the liability. Smashing! No wonder why universal children's health care died within one year. Shall I go further about doctors sending patients to mainland hospitals for routine, basic medical procedures such as a MRI, because the costs in Hawaii are so prohibitive?
When it's that bad, it is the fault of the insurance companies if they can't compete with a government plan.
sieg6529
That's because no one can compete with an entity that can legally levy taxes at will to fund itself. Nice try.
I find the rationing argument amusing. Rationing is exactly what you get with private insurance. They determine what / how much care you get.[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Rationing can be the only option to make governemtn healthcare even remotely workableMarcusAntonius
I can always go to a competitor, that's the difference. I'm not saying the present system works really well. But the alternative being proposed is beyond horrifying. The potential civil rights violations are alarming enough as it is, before even getting into the health care bit. I'd rather we tweak the law to allow hospitals to prevent care for those without health insurance along with tort reform. That alone would cause a drastic drop off in costs. You stop giving a product away for free while reducing liability, and WOW! The costs will drop, it's so simple. People seem to think there is some magical pixie dust that exempts health care from free market forces, what lunacy.
As long as we're caught in between the insurance companies and the government, the problem will never be adaquately addressed, but no bill is better than this bill.
A competitor? They're also a private insurance company, who rations care.[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]
That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.
And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.
Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).
How do you come to this conclusion, exactly? What prevents employers from unloading their ever increasing health benefits pacakges onto the likely cheaper government public option? Temporary wait lists? That seems delusional at best.
There's already a waiting list in many parts of the US. Unless it's an emergency, it often takes a month before I can see my doctor. It usually takes longer if I need to see a specialist. Finding an office that's accepting new patients is almost impossible. I get so tired of hearing the waiting list excuse because it's already the same thing here. You have so many doctors -- if they are available, you get seen right away. If not, you wait. Your insurance plan, be it public or private won't make a difference when it's the number of doctors that are the determining factor.[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).
psychobrew
How do you come to this conclusion, exactly? What prevents employers from unloading their ever increasing health benefits pacakges onto the likely cheaper government public option? Temporary wait lists? That seems delusional at best.
There's already a waiting list in many parts of the US. Unless it's an emergency, it often takes a month before I can see my doctor. It usually takes longer if I need to see a specialist. Finding an office that's accepting new patients is almost impossible. I get so tired of hearing the waiting list excuse because it's already the same thing here. You have so many doctors -- if they are available, you get seen right away. If not, you wait. Your insurance plan, be it public or private won't make a difference when it's the number of doctors that are the determining factor.I've never encountered a waiting list on any health plan I've ever paid into.:|
There's already a waiting list in many parts of the US. Unless it's an emergency, it often takes a month before I can see my doctor. It usually takes longer if I need to see a specialist. Finding an office that's accepting new patients is almost impossible. I get so tired of hearing the waiting list excuse because it's already the same thing here. You have so many doctors -- if they are available, you get seen right away. If not, you wait. Your insurance plan, be it public or private won't make a difference when it's the number of doctors that are the determining factor.[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
How do you come to this conclusion, exactly? What prevents employers from unloading their ever increasing health benefits pacakges onto the likely cheaper government public option? Temporary wait lists? That seems delusional at best.
MarcusAntonius
I've never encountered a waiting list on any health plan I've ever paid into.:|
So you get to see your doctor the same day you call? I don't. Appointments are made weeks in advance when I'm lucky.
My dad had to wait three months to see a cancer specialist for cancer that was on the verge ofmetastasizing.
Edit: I just remembered this....
My brother got married in England. After his wedding (and before he left on his honeymoon), he got sick. He called a doctor in England late in the morning and was seen that day. He was not charged for the visit or the prescription, got better, and enjoyed his honeymoon. While I can see a doctor the same day, I have to call in at 8AM and pray the lines aren't bussy. If all the emergency appointments are taken up for the day, I'm out of luck. Granted there are a shortage of doctors, but that's the point. It's the number of doctors available in an area that will determine the waiting period, not the health plan.
[QUOTE="sieg6529"]
When it's that bad, it is the fault of the insurance companies if they can't compete with a government plan.
That's because no one can compete with an entity that can legally levy taxes at will to fund itself. Nice try.
Wow, that's smug. Sure, the gubmint can always fund itself through taxes (what a freakin' concept!), but the private companies just have to offer an option that provides more value (read: not necessarily cheaper) to the companies and/or the individual. If the government option is cheap, then the private companies need to offer a bare-bones plan that is cheaper still. Besides, if the government were in the habit of levying taxes regularly to fund it's expensive healthcare programs, we wouldn't be needing to trim $400B from Medicare.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
[QUOTE="psychobrew"] There's already a waiting list in many parts of the US. Unless it's an emergency, it often takes a month before I can see my doctor. It usually takes longer if I need to see a specialist. Finding an office that's accepting new patients is almost impossible. I get so tired of hearing the waiting list excuse because it's already the same thing here. You have so many doctors -- if they are available, you get seen right away. If not, you wait. Your insurance plan, be it public or private won't make a difference when it's the number of doctors that are the determining factor.psychobrew
I've never encountered a waiting list on any health plan I've ever paid into.:|
So you get to see your doctor the same day you call? I don't. Appointments are made weeks in advance when I'm lucky.
My dad had to wait three months to see a cancer specialist for cancer that was on the verge ofmetastasizing.
Edit: I just remembered this....
My brother got married in England. After his wedding (and before he left on his honeymoon), he got sick. He called a doctor in England late in the morning and was seen that day. He was not charged for the visit or the prescription, got better, and enjoyed his honeymoon. While I can see a doctor the same day, I have to call in at 8AM and pray the lines aren't bussy. If all the emergency appointments are taken up for the day, I'm out of luck. Granted there are a shortage of doctors, but that's the point. It's the number of doctors available in an area that will determine the waiting period, not the health plan.
And which state would you be living in?Did you even read the article? A family of three who earns $60,000 is not rich at all (yes, this family will be fined if they don't purchase a $13,000 health policy). In fact, it basically amounts to a tax on the uninsured middle ****because they still won't be able to afford a health care, but they'll be giving uncle sam and extra $4,000 a year. If the fine were for those earning over $250,000 per year, that would be one thing, but it's clearly not. The bottom line is Obama made some campaing pledges that he needs to stick to. This is just one more way to squeeze the middle ****[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
it's mostly to target rich folks who forgo health insurance. Remember, if we had universal coverage this would be a nonissue. But how else are we going to raise revenue? This is better than a tax increase...(and you're taking it out of context).
Hot-Tamale
A family of three that makes $60,000 is upper middle, no doubt about it. Remember, this is corresponding to the healthcare legislation that is being proposed. This will only take effect once ALL AMERICANS ARE COVERED. This is supposed to work hand-in-hand with that bill. Just remember that if you read an article, you should relate it to what's going on in politics at the same time.
$60,000 is not upper middle class :| Especially for a family.
[QUOTE="raynimrod"]
I really don't like how the US health care system works.
There should be free, universal health care for everybody... it works in the majority of other first world industrialised countries.Hot-Tamale
I agree with you, but many Americans are ardently against helping others, be it through healthcare reform or being witness to a crime and doing nothing. They believe in 'individualism,' which is the belief that self-interest is a virtue. Considering the fact that humans are social animals, and research into the human brain done by prominent psychologists, it has been concluded that individualism is unnatural, unhealthy, and most of all, unnerving. The Libertarians/Republicans who are against all forms of supporting their societies, and therefore their countries, are stuck in the past, and unfortunately contradict themselves to a disturbing degree. They call themselves 'individualists,' but then go online and engage in groupthink on their conservative discussion forums - supporting each others lopsided, deluded thinking. That's collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Conservatives/Libertarians just won't face the facts, and it saddening to see such a large gap between the rich and poor as a result. I just don't want the United States, which had such promise, to turn into a third world country, where the poor live in slums with no government benefit programs to help them through their daily struggle, as the fat cats on Wall Street continue to rake in the cash. :?
Wow, you are full of nonsensical quotes today. Individualism is unnatural :lol: Almost sig worthy. I would love to know what past us Libertarians are living in.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment