Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[fullmetalfan720]

Our health care system is fubar and quite frankly drags down other parts of the economy with it,
It's actually the other way around.

[mykevermin]

None of this even matters right now. We don't need health care reform. It won't help anything. It's like putting a defective band-aid on a bullet wound. We need a complete reform of this country. We need a productive capacity. On this health care issue, we need to look at the big picture. People not being able to afford health insurance is a symptom of a larger problem. People aren't making enough to get by anymore. The good high paying jobs are drying up. All that is left is service jobs. We are a nation where 2/3s of us are overweight. We don't eat healthy anymore, which is causing many of our health problems. Our money is quickly becoming worthless, and most of it is IMAGINARY! Through the system of fractional reserve banking, and the boom and bust cycle, trillions are created out of thin air! We've been on top of the world for too long, and now the bottom is falling out. We need a productive capacity again. How is it that in the '60s health insurance cost $15 a year, and now it is in the hundreds of dollars a MONTH? We've lost our way. Our coins (≥10cents)used to be made out of silver, and our pennies out of copper. Now they are made out of cupronickel, and zinc respectively. Our money has lost it's value, our labor force is getting paid less and less, and a large amount of our jobs are shipping overseas. We've got people in Detroit who can't afford food, so they have to grow it in their yards. Six million people (or more) will go into foreclosure this year. It isn't just the availability of health care that is falling apart, it's the entire country.

You've hit on a large number of genuine problems faced by Americans here. How you get from this level of clarity to "abolish the federal reserve" and "support a laissez-faire economy" as solutions is way the fuck beyond me, though.

[fullmetalfan720]

You've hit on a large number of genuine problems faced by Americans here. How you get from this level of clarity to "abolish the federal reserve"
The Federal Reserve allows for everything that is wrong with government to happen. Do you really think Bush would have been able to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and start his own little crusade if he had to raise taxes to pay for it? The only way countries are able to start huge wars, and spend trillions of dollars is through inflating their currency. If they raised taxes to pay for these schemes people would be rioting in the streets. They have a printing press that has allowed them to print as much money as they want to. They use that for what they want. Wars, bailouts, whatever. Meanwhile, the ones who are hurt the most are the poor, and middle class. Inflation hits them the worst because they have to spend so much on essentials. They can't keep up with it. Then there is the whole fractional-reserve system of banking which creates money out of thin air. It's a pyramid scheme! Don't people see that? When you let finance capital take over your country, it's over.
and "support a laissez-faire economy" as solutions is way the Fuck beyond me, though.
The market seems to solve many problems better than the government. Without the government propping up these major corporations, the little guy might actually have a chance. Also, why is it that we let these huge compnaies have monopolies over industry? That only breeds corruption.

[mykevermin]

large corporations and monopolies are the natural conclusion of your anti-government free-market philosophy. how can you not see that?

[fullmetalfan720]

large corporations and monopolies are the natural conclusion of your anti-government free-market philosophy. how can you not see that?
If this does happen, we will deal with them. Break them up, whatever.
"What's bad for Wall Street is good for Main Street."-Gerald Celente
That's what we need to realize. Huge corporations don't help this country. Small businesses do.

[mykevermin]

If this does happen, we will deal with them. Break them up, whatever.
"What's bad for Wall Street is good for Main Street."-Gerald Celente
That's what we need to realize. Huge corporations don't help this country. Small businesses do.

That's no longer a free market if you break up monopolies. Now, I understand how silly that sounds as a sentence by itself, but let me put it this way: you no longer advocate for low-government, anti-interventionist policies when you want to put a cap on the size of a corporation.

So you want to bust up Ma Bell. What would separate you, then, from someone like myself who supports a maximum wage in the US? Same idea, right? A cap on wealth, a cap on power.

[thrustbucket]

1) elaborate
Simply talking about how Obama spent a good deal of his talk pointing out the monopolies in many states that health care company's have. He pointed them out as examples of why we need reform (i.e. government involvement) - but what he fails to mention or even seem to understand is that the current system of 2-3 health care company's running the show in each state was caused directly by government regulation preventing national health care company's.

2) see your point #1. if monopolies exist, how does interstate commerce resolve that issue? (never mind that interstate commerce doesn't even begin to solve those who do not have coverage, those who can not afford coverage, those whose employers don't provide coverage, or how much coverage is offered - or really anything, actually).

It may not resolve it, but I don't know that it's every really been tried either. I am not saying interstate commerce will fix things outright, but it could be part of the fix. It seems to me that if you change the laws, suddenly a state with 2 big healthcare company's bullying everyone has to compete with dozens of others - how is that not good?

The point is, healthcare providers have never really had to deal with competition a whole lot because of the laws keeping them inside states. Why not bust those laws as PART of a healthcare reform? It's especially silly to think that we should keep it the way it is and just let them compete with a government option.

[Snake2715]

Some thoughts after watching the presidents sales pitch:

- Isn't it extremely disingenuous to hammer away at how there are so many states with healthcare monopolies with few insurance companies, when trying to make a case for government oversight - when the entire reason that is the case is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION that allowed it to happen?

- I have yet to read/hear/see the Obama/Democratic party argument for why allowing cross-state insurance is a bad idea and they won't support it. What's their argument? Why not allow all insurance companies to compete against each other in the country?

-It felt very uncomfortable to watch him, several times, throw a bone to Republicans and talk as if he really wanted to extend a hand of compromise, and then seconds later toss age-old t-bone steaks to the rabid democratic horde, sending them into a frenzy.

You guys country wide competition is reality. Most of my carriers work in most of the states. Some dont work in certain states, but most have 15-35 states or more they work in. The difference is, like I said since i first posted in here, each state has its own set of rules.. So companies have to come up with new plans (administration) and then the agents have to be licensed per state they sell in, knowing these various rules.

They need to make federal mandates and open it up as the ruling for each state. No further state mandates allowed. That alone with cut administration, stop employees frustration as the plans would all have to have certain minimums. Also carriers would be able to easily enter other states.

The way it is now is a mess. Just like gas and emissions in various states, counties, cities etc.. Each place has a different fuel blend required, which up costs for all involved. When a fuel carrier has to carry 40+ blends per state... same as with health carriers.

Standardized is the first step.

[fullmetalfan720]

That's no longer a free market if you break up monopolies.
Now, I understand how silly that sounds as a sentence by itself, but let me put it this way: you no longer advocate for low-government, anti-interventionist policies when you want to put a cap on the size of a corporation.
I don't want to put a cap on the size of a company. I want to make sure that companies are not cornering the market, and creating a monopoly because they have more resources than a local store. A free market needs to ensure that there is a chance for competition. We can't let monopolies corner the market and take everything over. If that means breaking up some companies, so be it. A free market needs competition.
So you want to bust up Ma Bell. What would separate you, then, from someone like myself who supports a maximum wage in the US? Same idea, right? A cap on wealth, a cap on power.
I don't want a maximum wage. That's a tad bit ridiculous. If a company is dumb enough to pay you $500 million a year, great. Good luck making profits off a ridiculous overhead.

[elprincipe]

More on prevention:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083103854.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall

And a good article to share:
http://reason.com/news/show/135976.html

You might not agree with him (I disagree on a number of things), but he's a straight talker.

[Msut77]

http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php

Go free market go.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php

Go free market go.
Hey look, it's the same organization that's members beat up that guy selling stuff at a town hall.

[mykevermin]

one guy whose association to the seiu was not demonstrated = the entire seiu.

[fullmetalfan720]

one guy whose association to the seiu was not demonstrated = the entire seiu.
I know, but they should have apologized for their idiot members who beat up the guy.

[mykevermin]

was it proven that the attacker(s? more than one?) were SEIU members?

[Msut77]

http://www.slate.com/id/2227984/

[Msut77]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090916/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_uninsured

[perdition(troy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=Aox1AqASxb505Cj9skpXZ 9Gs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM1N2RnMGVsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwO TE2L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3M DMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDc 2VuYXRlczEwLXll

[Msut77]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=Aox1AqASxb505Cj9skpXZ 9Gs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM1N2RnMGVsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwO TE2L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3M DMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDc 2VuYXRlczEwLXll

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/rockefeller-to-baucus-conrad-co-ops-are-a-sham-public-option-is-a-must.php

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You can't trust the Rockefellas. They're part of the NWO.

[mykevermin]

http://www.catsandbeer.com/uploads/2007/11/nwo1en.jpg

Hey, they're wrestlers. Maybe they can be President Ventura's cabinet. State of the Union Ladder match!

[UncleBob]

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337909690110379)

[thrustbucket]

I was just going to post that poll, damn you.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337909690110379)

I consider quitting my job every day the sun rises.

60% of Americans would consider quitting their current jobs.

http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_nocat_Ser383_Par575.html

Here's the thing:

If many doctors quit, their cute little AMA union will be busted.

The government can also restock the supply of doctors by offering free medical school with a commitment to work in the US for Y number of years for X amount of money.

Oh and there are hundreds of countries around the world with doctors. Open the doors and let the brain drain begin.

I'm sure they're not as good as American doctors, but they're a damn sight better than no doctor.

[homeland]

intersting poll considering a poll was released yesterday stating 60+% of doctors support a public option.

Would post the link but writting from my phone.

Also is anyone familiar with Dr. Aaron Carroll? Hes a frequent guest on a Sirius talkshow (stand up with Pete Dominic on POTUS) and has been on The Colbert report apparently . Hes a pediatric Dr who now studies health care policy at Indiana Univ. http://mdcarroll.com . He provides some rational reasoning why single payer is more efficient and better compared to private industry.

[The Crotch]

Oh and there are hundreds of countries around the world with doctors. Open the doors and let the brain drain begin.

I'm sure they're not as good as American doctors, but they're a damn sight better than no doctor.
South Africa is ours, god dammit.

[thrustbucket]

intersting poll considering a poll was released yesterday stating 60+% of doctors support a public option.

Would post the link but writting from my phone.

Also is anyone familiar with Dr. Aaron Carroll? Hes a frequent guest on a Sirius talkshow (stand up with Pete Dominic on POTUS) and has been on The Colbert report apparently . Hes a pediatric Dr who now studies health care policy at Indiana Univ. Will post a link to his blog when i get back from lunch. He provides some rational reasoning why single payer is more proficient and better compared to private industry.

I have several friends, that I consider mostly conservative, that believe very strongly in a single payer system. I've had many discussions and have heard all the arguments for why it would be a better idea. I have no doubt that, in many respects, it would be better for certain people compared to what they have now. The problem is, for many people, it could very likely be worse (on taxes and service provided).

[depascal22]

If you think doctors will walk away from lucrative professions while carrying close to a million in debt (school loans, massive mortgages, etc.), then you're a bigger fool than I thought.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I have several friends, that I consider mostly conservative, that believe very strongly in a single payer system. I've had many discussions and have heard all the arguments for why it would be a better idea. I have no doubt that, in many respects, it would be better for certain people compared to what they have now. The problem is, for many people, it could very likely be worse (on taxes and service provided).

I'll never say this again, but ...

We need the testimonial of a Frenchman.

[homeland]

I'll never say this again, but ...

We need the testimonial of a Frenchman.

while not a man..would my french wife be close enough?

[The Crotch]

Do you consider the Quebecois acceptable?

[UncleBob]

The government can also restock the supply of doctors by offering free medical school with a commitment to work in the US for Y number of years for X amount of money.

Perhaps - but the school won't be "free" - it'll be taxpayer funded.

Oh and there are hundreds of countries around the world with doctors. Open the doors and let the brain drain begin.

The doctors already do that. That's why so many countries are already short-staffed and have huge waiting lists...

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13kristof.html

[depascal22]

Perhaps - but the school won't be "free" - it'll be taxpayer funded.

But we'll get years in return. It's called an exchange of services.

And just to highlight the article that msut just posted. A woman died because she couldn't get insurance with her pre-existing condition. She died at 32 when she could've lived a long normal life is she had just been given coverage.

I guess she should've just accepted responsibility and paid out of pocket, right? Is that going to be the conservative response to another tragic story?

Think about it when you hold onto that extra couple bucks out of your paycheck. Take it out of your wallet and ask yourself whether it's worth someone's life. Maybe it's worth a dozen lives.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Do you consider the Quebecois acceptable?

A Frenchmen who crossed a large body of water? Doesn't sound very French.

However, the testimony of the Frenchwoman would be acceptable if not preferred.

[The Crotch]

A Frenchmen who crossed a large body of water? Doesn't sound very French.

What about St. Pierre and Michelon?

[UncleBob]

Think about it when you hold onto that extra couple bucks out of your paycheck. Take it out of your wallet and ask yourself whether it's worth someone's life. Maybe it's worth a dozen lives.

We won't go into my personal giving, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine and my wife's.

But the huge difference between the two is that I get to pick which charities my money goes to. I don't want to fund ACORN? Great! I can give my money to St. Jude's.

Don't get that choice with the government. They force my money away from me at gunpoint and pick and choose the winners based on whatever wacky criteria they can come up with - crazy wars in the middle east or bridges to no where in Alaska...

Oh, as far as Msut's article goes, how come whenever someone brings in a story about an individual in a country with socialized health care where the individual died because of the long waits or rationing, etc., we're told that's an isolated thing and anecdotal stories don't count... but Msut's story should change all of our cold hearts...

[depascal22]

That's fair, UncleBob.

OK. Let's take all the personal stories out. It comes down to this. There are thousands of Americans that go through each day with the constant fear of losing everything because they can't pay medical bills.

As much as you'd like to think that charities help these people, they don't. A large percentage (I'd say higher than 80% but I'm not sure) only deal with children. Who gives a damn about person in their 20s? They're not cute and adorable. People don't give money to them.

Churches don't have enough money to serve everyone. Having the government step in will (hopefully) even the playing field. EVERYONE in America will have a chance to get decent medical care without cashing out 401(k)s, foreclosing on mortgages, and maxing out credit cards.

Again, no one has a problem that government takes money at gun point for police, fire, and education. Why not healthcare? It just seems hypocritical that most people take advantage of free public schooling but get their panties in a twist about health care.

And please stop bringing up ACORN. Americans pay alot of money to very bad people every day. Wanksters are the least of our problems. I've still seen zero evidence of an ACTUAL child smuggling ring spearheaded by ACORN.

[Msut77]

We won't go into my personal giving, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine and my wife's.

Do you buy private health insurance or are you covered under medicaid or some other government plan?

Medicaid is practically walmarts health care plan, so yes this is an actual question.

Don't get that choice with the government.

You could move to a different country.

They force my money away from me at gunpoint and pick and choose the winners based on...

Not like I haven't heard libertarian prattle before...

Oh, as far as Msut's article goes, how come whenever someone brings in a story about an individual in a country with socialized health care where the individual died because of the long waits or rationing, etc., we're told that's an isolated thing and anecdotal stories don't count... but Msut's story should change all of our cold hearts...

Well for one thing, disseminating the story of one photogenic white girl (the media gold standard) is easier than listing every one of the tens of thousands who die each year (I have seen estimates as high 45 thousand). And if you are admitting that this country rations health care then you already lose whatever argument you think you are making.

[UncleBob]

Again, no has a problem that government takes money at gun point for police, fire, and education. Why not healthcare? It just seems hypocritical that most people take advantage of free public schooling but get their panties in a twist about health care.

For the record, I don't take advantage of "Free public schooling". ;)

Anywhoo, I'm not 100% against the reform of the current health care system. I just have three things that I'd like to see:

1.) No mandate for individual coverage.
2.) No raising taxes to cover spending.
3.) No deficit spending to cover spending.

I don't think those are unreasonable.

[UncleBob]

Do you buy private health insurance or are you covered under medicaid or some other government plan?

Medicaid is practically walmarts health care plan, so yes this is an actual question.
I have private health coverage outside of Walmart's offerings.

You could move to a different country.
On that same token, you could move to a different country that offers socalized health care.

[depascal22]

For the record, I don't take advantage of "Free public schooling". ;)

Did you go to public school?

I did and I still feel horrible that the government sent agents in to forcibly separate the money needed by gunpoint. It was almost like a million little Wacos just to get us some new science text books.

[UncleBob]

Did you go to public school?

I did and I still feel horrible that the government sent agents in to forcibly separate the money needed by gunpoint. It was almost like a million little Wacos just to get us some new science text books.

Stop paying your taxes for long enough and you'll see your own little Waco.

Just because everyone willingly bends over, it doesn't mean the threat still isn't there.

[perdition(troy]

(I have seen estimates as high 45 thousand).

so has anyone else who visits yahoo.com

[Msut77]

I have private health coverage outside of Walmart's offerings.

You and your whole family is covered entirely privately?

On that same token, you could move to a different country that offers socialized health care.

It is much easier to find a nice country that has universal health care then it is to find a country that doesn't tax you.

[Msut77]

Did you go to public school?

It sometimes seems as if 99 percent of those who complain about public schools went to a public school...

But please try not to let Bob derail this thread and turn into one about public schools. He tried that and failed like 50 pages ago.

[dmaul1114]

1.) No mandate for individual coverage.
2.) No raising taxes to cover spending.
3.) No deficit spending to cover spending.

I don't think those are unreasonable.

I think 2 and 3 are reasonable. Number 1 not really as it makes 2 and 3 much harder as people without health care drive up costs when they get a serious injury or illness and have to leach on the system since they can't pay for their care and have no coverage.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-ties-immigration-to-health-care-battle/?feat=home_cube_position1
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

[thrustbucket]

Wow. Awesome.

But how does that prove that Joe Wilson isn't a racist?

[depascal22]

I forgot. A country made by immigrants should actively force illegals to live in the shadows just because they're mostly dirty Mexicans, right?

It's a horrible thing to treat human beings like, well, human beings.

[bmulligan]

Churches don't have enough money to serve everyone. Having the government step in will (hopefully) even the playing field. EVERYONE in America will have a chance to get decent medical care without cashing out 401(k)s, foreclosing on mortgages, and maxing out credit cards.
This is amusing because THESE are the people you feel need to be "evened out" by confiscating their wealth to spread to those that didn't save in a 401k, didn't invest in real estate, and cannot get a credit card because they're a high credit risk. I'm really confused, now, about who's underprivlidgeness you are supposedly fighting for? Now you want to help the middle class as well as the poor people?

Let me review this argument again for my own sanity. We need to even the playing field. We need to fund health care for everyone by taking the money people have made and spreading it between all persons equally to give service to everyone. We know from assumptive history that rich people don't pay taxes because they have shelters, loopholes, and good tax acountants. Therefore, we need to tax those who can pay, like the middle class, to pay for our program. We can't really do that because it's not politically practical. We'll obscure this revenue by making laws that tax businesses, corporations, industries, and retail outlets. The end result is that the general consumers pay those taxes and those general consumers are the middle class. Then, we'll give subsidies to the poor so that they can buy basic necessities leaving any money they have left over to buy that new color TV and the new Air Magneto Sneakers for their child. They don't have to use that little money to invest in their future or rainy day anyway because that's being taken care of already. Got it. Now the system works and everyone is happy. Gee, I can't fathom why all those racist white people don't like this plan. They must be GOP plants trying to gum up the system.

Again, no one has a problem that government takes money at gun point for police, fire, and education. Why not healthcare? It just seems hypocritical that most people take advantage of free public schooling but get their panties in a twist about health care.
We also have local recourse with "the government" taking money for police, fire, and schools. They are called millages, and we choose whether or not to renew them, extend them, raise, or lower them. We also vote on bond issues to build police stations, high schools, and fire stations. In addition, if I don't like the tax rate, I'll move. Or at the very least, canvass my neighborhood and throw the bastards out in the next election.

It sounds like you may have never heard of this process. And they may only take your property, not put you in jail as would likely happen for non-payment of federal income tax.

[Msut77]

This is amusing because THESE are the people you feel need to be "evened out" by confiscating their wealth to spread to those that didn't save in a 401k, didn't invest in real estate, and cannot get a credit card because they're a high credit risk. I'm really confused, now, about who's underprivlidgeness you are supposedly fighting for? Now you want to help the middle class as well as the poor people?

Try reading the rest of the thread, this is about more than just poor people.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=218
Part of Ron Paul's editorial on health care reform:
Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President's speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President's concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.

For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation's product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.

The stipulation that pre-existing conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100 of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.

[speedracer]

1.) No mandate for individual coverage.
If you've mentioned before why you feel that way I apologize for asking again. I haven't read this thread because at this point it's a bit intimidating to try to catch up to.

Why don't you support it? It seems to me that people are going to get sick. They're going to go to the hospital. And then they get to have someone else pay for it. Why not force people to pay since we all know they're all absolutely going to use it at some point?

[KingBroly]

If you've mentioned before why you feel that way I apologize for asking again. I haven't read this thread because at this point it's a bit intimidating to try to catch up to.

Why don't you support it? It seems to me that people are going to get sick. They're going to go to the hospital. And then they get to have someone else pay for it. Why not force people to pay since we all know they're all absolutely going to use it at some point?

Maybe they can't afford it.

[SpazX]

Part of Ron Paul's editorial on health care reform:

Well the individual mandate is definitely a problem if there's no public option, since it would do what he's saying.

IMO, best: public option + mandate (with help for those who can't afford it, of course); OK: public option, no mandate; terrible: no public option + mandate.

We're supposed to be fixing healthcare here, not giving health insurance companies more customers and government subsidies. But of course the health insurance companies would love that, so it would be easiest to get that through congress - it will be pitched as the perfect compromise.

[speedracer]

Maybe they can't afford it.
But then if they break an arm or a head or a kidney, the state pays for it anyway right? So then wouldn't it make sense to put them on a "plan" that at least allows the government to negotiate the price in advance?

I was under the impression that this was one source of "savings" under Obama's ideal plan.

[dmaul1114]

Maybe they can't afford it.

Their are waivers and subsidies for people who can't afford the minimum coverage in the proposals I've seen.

[bmulligan]

Their are waivers and subsidies for people who can't afford the minimum coverage in the proposals I've seen.

Of course there are. That's the whole point of the health care argument. GIVE free healthcare to those who can't afford it. Not subsidized insurance, free, on demand, health services for all while all of the taxpaying citizens pool their money to pay the bill.

Let's stop dancing around all this "single payer", "coverage", "subsidy", and all the other euphemisms we use to obfuscate the fact that we want a fully socialized healthcare system to cover all people, equally, from cradle to grave. Is this not the goal? Or are we going to compromise our principles by negotiating a moderate solution that doesn't work, creates a system that rivals the tax code in complexity, and only serves to make everyone miserable except for the super-rich who can pay out-of-pocket for anything they want, and the new bureaucrats who can siphon off illicit money?

[UncleBob]

Let's stop dancing around all this "single payer", "coverage", "subsidy", and all the other euphemisms we use to obfuscate the fact that we want a fully socialized healthcare system to cover all people, equally, from cradle to grave. Is this not the goal? Or are we going to compromise our principles by negotiating a moderate solution that doesn't work, creates a system that rivals the tax code in complexity, and only serves to make everyone miserable except for the super-rich who can pay out-of-pocket for anything they want, and the new bureaucrats who can siphon off illicit money?

Ding ding ding! - we have a winner!

[UncleBob]

If you've mentioned before why you feel that way I apologize for asking again. I haven't read this thread because at this point it's a bit intimidating to try to catch up to.

Why don't you support it? It seems to me that people are going to get sick. They're going to go to the hospital. And then they get to have someone else pay for it. Why not force people to pay since we all know they're all absolutely going to use it at some point?

I don't support a mandate on health insurance for two reasons.

First of all, it *is* a tax increase.

Second, I believe it violates my right to Freedom of Association. If an individual makes a conscious decision that they do not want to associate with health insurance companies, they should be allowed to make that choice.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I believe it violates my right to Freedom of Association. If an individual makes a conscious decision that they do not want to associate with health insurance companies, they should be allowed to make that choice.

If you are allowed that choice, should hospitals be allowed to deny you assistance unless you prepay for it?

[Msut77]

First of all, it *is* a tax increase.

That isn't a reason.

Second, I believe it violates my right to Freedom of Association.

Libertarian dingbats use that phrase differently than a rational person would.

BTW Bob you never answered whether you or your family is covered (in part or otherwise) by government programs or subsidies.

[thrustbucket]

If you are allowed that choice, should hospitals be allowed to deny you assistance unless you prepay for it?

That's too difficult to regulate. If you do use the emergency room, AFTER deciding you don't want health coverage, and it's discovered that you turned down health care coverage, I'm not opposed to garnisheeing wages to pay for it.

[depascal22]

Of course there are. That's the whole point of the health care argument. GIVE free healthcare to those who can't afford it. Not subsidized insurance, free, on demand, health services for all while all of the taxpaying citizens pool their money to pay the bill.

Let's stop dancing around all this "single payer", "coverage", "subsidy", and all the other euphemisms we use to obfuscate the fact that we want a fully socialized healthcare system to cover all people, equally, from cradle to grave. Is this not the goal? Or are we going to compromise our principles by negotiating a moderate solution that doesn't work, creates a system that rivals the tax code in complexity, and only serves to make everyone miserable except for the super-rich who can pay out-of-pocket for anything they want, and the new bureaucrats who can siphon off illicit money?

You can thank the Republicans for that. They oppose anything that could be called universal healthcare while leaving us with the unfortunate compromise.

It will be an imperfect solution but the system in place is imperfect and leaves many Americans with nothing but the option of using the emergency room after things have gotten so bad they can't do anything.

And thrust, it's much easier for hospitals to deny services than to somehow garnish wages after services were rendered. When you go to the hospital, you're required to give your insurance card (unless you come in by ambulance and you're unable). No insurance card? No service until you pay in full or some certain percentage that hospital administrators agree to.

In the current system, hospitals ask for insurance but can't deny service if you don't have it. Then, they send you a bill in the hopes that it gets paid. Then, you're saying that they would send the bill to the government if it isn't paid in a reasonable time so that it can be garnished from wages. How many more beaurecrats would that take? What about the unemployed, self-employed, illegal immigrant, and other people that get paid under the table? Those are the same people that aren't covered and would be most likely to stiff the hosptial in the long run

[dmaul1114]

That's too difficult to regulate. If you do use the emergency room, AFTER deciding you don't want health coverage, and it's discovered that you turned down health care coverage, I'm not opposed to garnisheeing wages to pay for it.

It wouldn't be that hard to regulate. It would just mean hospitals etc. could refuse to serve people if they didn't haven insurance and their cards got rejected for pre-payment.

But it would be a pretty shitty society to turn away people who urgently needed medical care for such a reason.

So it really needs to be mandated, or there to be some wage garnishing programs for paying off medical debts for the working uninsured who aren't eligible for Medicaid.

[UncleBob]

That isn't a reason.

Libertarian dingbats use that phrase differently than a rational person would.

BTW Bob you never answered whether you or your family is covered (in part or otherwise) by government programs or subsidies.

A.) It is a reason - and it goes with my three things that I would require for any health care reform - no increasing taxes.
B.) So you're quite okay with the government telling you what products and services you have to buy?
C.) My wife and I are both covered through private insurance with no government assistance. Our dogs are not insured.

If you are allowed that choice, should hospitals be allowed to deny you assistance unless you prepay for it?

Yes. They should be *allowed* to.

You can thank the Republicans for that. They oppose anything that could be called universal healthcare while leaving us with the unfortunate compromise.

Blame the Republicans. The Democrats control the House, The Senate and the Executive Branch... but blame the Republicans...

How long are the Democrats going to get by with blaming Bush and the Republicans before they have to accept some of the responsibility for their own positions?

[thrustbucket]

Blame the Republicans. The Democrats control the House, The Senate and the Executive Branch... but blame the Republicans...

How long are the Democrats going to get by with blaming Bush and the Republicans before they have to accept some of the responsibility for their own positions?

Good point.

I am resigned to the belief that blaming Bush will be a Democratic party favorite for the next 1.5 decades.

[UncleBob]

Don't get me wrong - Bush did a *lot* of damage.

But don't run on the platform that you're "not Bush", then keep doing everything Bush did and blame him for it.

[dmaul1114]

B.) So you're quite okay with the government telling you what products and services you have to buy?


Not in some very limited cases. Like requiring liability insurance if you're going to own and drive a car.

I see requiring some form of at least emergency medical insurance coverage as pretty much the same--keeping deadbeats from screwing the rest of us by leaching off the system when they need urgent care and have no insurance and lack the money to pay for it.

[UncleBob]

I don't mind requiring auto insurance if someone makes the decision to own and drive a vehicle.
But requiring health insurance isn't that.

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...

[dmaul1114]

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...

Most who are that poor are probably on or eligible for medicare.

The problem is those who can't afford coverage currently as their employer doesn't provide subsidized insurance, and the key is getting them coverage and making sure they get it rather than being cheap and not wanting to pay for it.

Maybe there would need to be subsidies for some at the lower income end of this--make too much for Medicare but not enough to easily pay the minimum premiums. That would depend on what the lowest premium available was.

[UncleBob]

Most who are that poor are probably on or eligible for medicare.

The problem is those who can't afford coverage currently as their employer doesn't provide subsidized insurance, and the key is getting them coverage and making sure they get it rather than being cheap and not wanting to pay for it.

Maybe there would need to be subsidies for some at the lower income end of this--make too much for Medicare but not enough to easily pay the minimum premiums. That would depend on what the lowest premium available was.

I would not be against such a plan (again, so long as it wasn't mandated, didn't raise taxes and didn't require deficit spending). One plan proposed that I really liked was set up to give citizens vouchers toward the purchase of health insurance (including the choice of a public option!). The amount of the voucher would be on a sliding scale based on income.

[Koggit]

The individual mandate is one of the most crucial pieces to solve this mess, and if done right, will save our nation (read: taxpayers) billions.

I stopped caring weeks ago what the naysayers have to whine about because we're gonna get heath care passed and it really doesn't matter whether or not the ignorant conservative minority disapproves. Welcome to the rule of the progressive majority, bitches.

[Msut77]

A.) It is a reason

No it isn't.

Fighting WWII required taxes to be raised, that didn't make it reasonable to be against it.

- and it goes with my three things that I would require for any health care reform - no increasing taxes.

B.) So you're quite okay with the government telling you what products and services you have to buy?

I am for Universal Health Care, I am okay with the government telling insurance companies they can't kill people for their bottom line.

Blame the Republicans. The Democrats control the House, The Senate and the Executive Branch... but blame the Republicans...

Republicans have the votes to filibuster any reform, there are ways around but presumably want to avoid the mother of all hissy fits.

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...

People who make much more than you end up dead beats in this system Bob.

[depascal22]

This isn't about Bush at all. I'm saying blame the Republican Party because they used Obama's willingness to compromise to bring any progress on this bill to a grinding halt. Democrats could've shoved a bill down their throats but they tried to bring in too many ideas that Republicans wanted. Now the bill is some sort of Frankenstein full of contradictions. All because Republicans have decided that bi-partisanship only works when you pretend we have to invade a country for "national security reasons."

I'm with Koggit. I'm done arguing about this. None of us are going to get anything done about it and conservatives will continue to whine that their rights and wallets are being raped. Well, I hope you stock up on lube.

[homeland]

[QUOTE=Msut77;6315763]


Republicans have the votes to filibuster any reform, there are ways around but presumably want to avoid the mother of all hissy fits.
/QUOTE]


I thought they only had 40 and a filibuster requires 41?


And still don't know the rational reasoning behind not just having universal health care. Single payer would be more efficient, cost less, and you wouldn't be dealing with corporations who make a profit by having an uneven health pool i.e more healthy people than sick (its how they make money and one of the reasons medicaid is so expensive, since they get the sick people the corporations wont take).

[thrustbucket]

The individual mandate is one of the most crucial pieces to solve this mess, and if done right, will save our nation (read: taxpayers) billions.

I stopped caring weeks ago what the naysayers have to whine about because we're gonna get heath care passed and it really doesn't matter whether or not the ignorant conservative minority disapproves. Welcome to the rule of the progressive majority, bitches.

The way things are going, as depascal said, you aren't getting your ultra-progressive government takeover that you and your progressive overlords have so longed for, so I wouldn't start your circle jerk just yet.

All you can do is hope that they change everything back to the far-left agenda and ram it through, which they can do. It will cost them their majority status in the next election, and they know that (which is why they are trying to compromise) but they can still do it. Pray to Darwin they do.

[RedvsBlue]

I don't mind requiring auto insurance if someone makes the decision to own and drive a vehicle.
But requiring health insurance isn't that.

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...

Choice is the main reason this auto insurance comparison Obama made is a logically flawed. We can choose whether or not we want to own and drive a car. The alternative to choosing not to pay a health tax is death. Essentially they are proposing a tax on living at this point, they are charging a fee (tax) to anyone who chooses not to have health insurance. There's no way around it.

Every other tax we have is avoidable to a certain extent. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't take an income (difficult but not impossible). Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't but anything (shockingly not impossible either). The only way to avoid having to pay the health care penalty/fee/tax is to buy health care, either way you're paying something just to live.

[Msut77]

I thought they only had 40 and a filibuster requires 41?

Theoretically the Democrats have 60 vote but there are a few foot draggers last I checked.

And still don't know the rational reasoning behind not just having universal health care.

That is because there isn't one.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

That is because there isn't one.

There is one. My health care is better than what the government can provide me until I get old or cancer or my wife loses her job with health benefits.

If I was shortsighted enough or thinking only of myself, I wouldn't choose a single payer until I needed it.

Those millions of uninsured aren't my problem.

[SpazX]

Obviously people are too afraid of a single-payer system, but I hope that at least something can pass with a public option, and the mandate would help with costs.

[dmaul1114]

Choice is the main reason this auto insurance comparison Obama made is a logically flawed. We can choose whether or not we want to own and drive a car. The alternative to choosing not to pay a health tax is death. Essentially they are proposing a tax on living at this point, they are charging a fee (tax) to anyone who chooses not to have health insurance. There's no way around it.

Every other tax we have is avoidable to a certain extent. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't take an income (difficult but not impossible). Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't but anything (shockingly not impossible either). The only way to avoid having to pay the health care penalty/fee/tax is to buy health care, either way you're paying something just to live.

That's kind of a silly way of looking at it. Unless you're some loner like Thrustbucket that would like to just live on a farm or something and never see anyone and die whenever you die (and hopefully by his 50's according to him)---you're going to spend more on health care over your life paying your own way vs. paying insurance premiums.

So you're point really only works if you plan to NEVER seek health care of any kind regardless of how sick or injured you are. Other wise, one really major injury or illness will cost you more in out of cost expenses than insurance premiums over your whole life time.

Of course assuming you'd pay your own way and not just refuse to get insurance and then leach off the system and declare bankruptcy etc. when shit happens.

So it's not really a tax on living. Just making sure that people have coverage which saves them money in the long run, and keeps them from leaching on the system by not having coverage and declaring bankruptcy when they need hospitalization or cancer treatments.

It's either that or you have a fucked up society where the hospital stops treating people who don't have insurance or money and lets them suffer and die.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The society in Ubik was completely pay as you go.

[RedvsBlue]

That's kind of a silly way of looking at it. Unless you're some loner like Thrustbucket that would like to just live on a farm or something and never see anyone and die whenever you die (and hopefully by his 50's according to him)---you're going to spend more on health care over your life paying your own way vs. paying insurance premiums.

So you're point really only works if you plan to NEVER seek health care of any kind regardless of how sick or injured you are. Other wise, one really major injury or illness will cost you more in out of cost expenses than insurance premiums over your whole life time.

Of course assuming you'd pay your own way and not just refuse to get insurance and then leach off the system and declare bankruptcy etc. when shit happens.

So it's not really a tax on living. Just making sure that people have coverage which saves them money in the long run, and keeps them from leaching on the system by not having coverage and declaring bankruptcy when they need hospitalization or cancer treatments.

It's either that or you have a fucked up society where the hospital stops treating people who don't have insurance or money and lets them suffer and die.


My whole point was based on choice though. The government penalty is taking that choice away. If I should choose to never, ever seek healthcare or health insurance in my life that should be my priority. The government should not penalize me for that.

[gareman]

My whole point was based on choice though. The government penalty is taking that choice away. If I should choose to never, ever seek healthcare or health insurance in my life that should be my priority. The government should not penalize me for that.
So you admit your position is more idealistic than pragmatic.

[dmaul1114]

Exactly. As it would require being able to deny treatment even in a life and death emergency. Or have some kind of wage garnishing to pay it back--which wouldn't work for some major injury that cost tens of thousands or more in treatment to save your life.

There just really needs to be some kind of minimal, mandated coverage to deal with life threatening injuries and diseases that absolutely require medical care to prevent death.

[RedvsBlue]

So you admit your position is more idealistic than pragmatic.

There was no admission or even elusion to idealism in my post at all.

[gareman]

There was no admission or even elusion to idealism in my post at all.


No but you seem to be accepting people's argument for some sort of mandate to lower costs, and your only stated problems with it has to do with the concept of freedom of choice...which isn't very practical because it will eliminate a lot of debt and help with efficiency and resources, but if its an idealistic line that you won't cross that's fine I have a few idealistic lines I don't cross either.

[RedvsBlue]

No but you seem to be accepting people's argument for some sort of mandate to lower costs, and your only stated problems with it has to do with the concept of freedom of choice...which isn't very practical because it will eliminate a lot of debt and help with efficiency and resources, but if its an idealistic line that you won't cross that's fine I have a few idealistic lines I don't cross either.

I'm not primarily concerned with lowering costs for health care. My concern is the government adding another tax on us and trying to hide behind this fee/penalty idea. I come from a state that has gotten increasingly good at this (MN), sometimes even pushed by our republican governor.

I currently have health insurance through my work but I will be going back to school soon and more than likely moving to working part time then. One of the first things to go for expenses would be my health insurance because as it is right now I just don't use it. There's plenty of mid-20s people out there that just don't feel the need for health insurance. Its a risk definitely but its a risk I'd be willing to take without having the government force me to have coverage by penalizing me $3800 a year.

Two major points that that are being thrown out there during this debate are "choice" and "competition." If that's the case give me the choice to just not have health coverage.

[dmaul1114]

I currently have health insurance through my work but I will be going back to school soon and more than likely moving to working part time then. One of the first things to go for expenses would be my health insurance because as it is right now I just don't use it. There's plenty of mid-20s people out there that just don't feel the need for health insurance. Its a risk definitely but its a risk I'd be willing to take without having the government force me to have coverage by penalizing me $3800 a year.


It's just an ignorant, and irresponsible view to have. You may not use it. But what happens if you get in a car accident? Or come down with cancer? And suddenly have tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses that were necessary to prevent your death?

There needs to be some kind of mandated coverage--or make ER care in life threatening cases completely socialized--so people aren't driving up all our premiums by not having any coverage nor any personal savings and having to leach on the system when something bad happens to them.

You may be willing to take the risk. But you're fucking the rest of us when something happens and you have no coverage to pay for required care.

[homeland]

It's just an ignorant, and irresponsible view to have. You may not use it. But what happens if you get in a car accident? Or come down with cancer? And suddenly have tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses that were necessary to prevent your death?

There needs to be some kind of mandated coverage--or make ER care in life threatening cases completely socialized--so people aren't driving up all our premiums by not having any coverage nor any personal savings and having to leach on the system when something bad happens to them.

You may be willing to take the risk. But you're fucking the rest of us when something happens and you have no coverage to pay for required care.

And its pretty ignorant to think he shouldn't try and better himself as an employee and a member of society by going back to school just so he could stay at a job solely for Health Care.

[thrustbucket]

We need choice and competition. We need the only choice to be Government care and different bureaucracy's within government competing.

[dmaul1114]

And its pretty ignorant to think he shouldn't try and better himself as an employee and a member of society by going back to school just so he could stay at a job solely for Health Care.

I didn't mean it that way. I'm a huge proponent of education being a professor myself.

I just meant the attitude he was phrasing it, and acting like it's a risk that only affects the individual when they decide to go without health insurance.

Universities tend to offer reasonably affordable insurance plans as well that cover just the emergency stuff--since they can go to the health center for a nominal fee ($10 usually) for minor issues.

Though I'd love to see the health care reform with a public option provide free coverage for emergency care for full time students not covered on parents plans or through an employer.

[willardhaven]

I remember at my local state school health insurance was $1,000 dollars a year.

[saturninus]

I just read a book by T.R. Reid. His description of the German healthcare (Bismarck Model) is pretty amazing. Basically there are tons of insurers and you get it through your work. However, if you lose your job the government pays your premium until you get back to work. Perhaps some aspect of that could work for the United States.

[homeland]

I just read a book by T.R. Reid. His description of the German healthcare (Bismarck Model) is pretty amazing. Basically there are tons of insurers and you get it through your work. However, if you lose your job the government pays your premium until you get back to work. Perhaps some aspect of that could work for the United States.

Why would you want tax dollars going towards private healthcare when a single payer option is cheaper? Seems like paying more just for the hell of it.

[dmaul1114]

I remember at my local state school health insurance was $1,000 dollars a year.

Which isn't bad. I pay like $108 a month for medical/prescription, $26 for dental and $6 for vision.

But if you can't afford it, you can't afford it--more students should look into medicare if they're not a dependent under their parents. College students who aren't dependents are often eligible for that, food stamps etc. and don't know about it or are too embarrassed to apply.

[UncleBob]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

[willardhaven]

Which isn't bad. I pay like $108 a month for medical/prescription, $26 for dental and $6 for vision.


Yeah, I was mentioning it because $1,000 a year is quite reasonable.

[saturninus]

Why would you want tax dollars going towards private healthcare when a single payer option is cheaper? Seems like paying more just for the hell of it.

I am an advocate of single-payer. However, I don't think that's going to happen in the US anytime soon. Even this bs "public option" compromise is probably not going through either.

[Msut77]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player

[DarkNessBear]

There will always be people that bitch about anything.

But, in reply on this subject. Just imagine if USPS didn't exist and UPS and FedEx got to make all the shipping decisions. We'd be fucked.

[UncleBob]

There will always be people that bitch about anything.

But, in reply on this subject. Just imagine if USPS didn't exist and UPS and FedEx got to make all the shipping decisions. We'd be fucked.

Really?

Now, if you had a package that you *had* to get delivered next business day. I'm talking life-or-death situation. Do you use UPS/FedEx or the USPS?

Keeping in mind that the USPS doesn't guarantee any of their timed services...

[Snake2715]

Which isn't bad. I pay like $108 a month for medical/prescription, $26 for dental and $6 for vision.

But if you can't afford it, you can't afford it--more students should look into medicare if they're not a dependent under their parents. College students who aren't dependents are often eligible for that, food stamps etc. and don't know about it or are too embarrassed to apply.

medicaid you mean.

[DarkNessBear]

Really?

Now, if you had a package that you *had* to get delivered next business day. I'm talking life-or-death situation. Do you use UPS/FedEx or the USPS?

Keeping in mind that the USPS doesn't guarantee any of their timed services...

Yea, USPS may not be the "best". But, it does not allow UPS and FedEx to rule however they see fit. And helps keep the costs of shipping low. If we gave up all responsibility to UPS and FedEx to decide prices and let them compete, then we'd be seeing much higher prices.

[docvinh]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

For the most part, I think it's just morally wrong. I don't know as a doctor if you could turn someone away knowing they would die if you didn't treat them.

[SpazX]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

You shouldn't deny them anyway, you'd just charge them rather than insurance, but they likely wouldn't be able to afford that, which is why doctors would rather have an insurance company that will be able to pay them.

So do you not treat them because they chose not to have insurance and you're not sure they can afford the treatment otherwise?

It all comes down to affording it, the entire point of insurance is to make sure you can afford it since you likely won't just have the cash to pay for the expensive treatments when you need them.

[Msut77]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

Tax money is spent trying to talk someone down who looks like they will be jumping off a building.

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

Any particular reason you care about this distinction now?

[willardhaven]

There will always be people that bitch about anything.

But, in reply on this subject. Just imagine if USPS didn't exist and UPS and FedEx got to make all the shipping decisions. We'd be fucked.

Well USPS is just contracted by the government right? So it's not the best analogy. Although I think USPS is much more affordable than UPS and FedEx.

Really?

Now, if you had a package that you *had* to get delivered next business day. I'm talking life-or-death situation. Do you use UPS/FedEx or the USPS?

Keeping in mind that the USPS doesn't guarantee any of their timed services...

USPS is reliable for me and much cheaper than UPS or FedEx. Since they coexist people can choose. Right now there is no cheap reliable health care.

[dmaul1114]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

1. A society isn't worth living it if it's going to kick people who go to the curb who show up at the ER with mortal woulds and illnesses that will kill them if they aren't treated.

2. What about people that are mortally wounded and bleeding out and show up at the hospital unconscious? Even if you are fine not treating people, ERs get people unconcious from accidents all the time and have to treat them right then and not take time to figure out if they have insurance etc.

But number 1 is more important.

Now if you're just talking people with a cold, flu, sinus infection, allergies, rash etc. etc. Then sure you can deny coverage. But who the fuck wants to live in a society where people care so little about others that they're fine with the ER being able to turn away people who are in urgent need of medical care to save their life because they don't have insurance and can't afford the out of pocket expenses. Or deny treatment to some one with cancer treatment that will save their life as it was caught early etc.

[willardhaven]

Agreed.

[speedracer]

We need choice and competition. We need the only choice to be Government care and different bureaucracy's within government competing.
If you're going to quote Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, you should attribute the quote.

Yes, I listen too.

[gareman]

"Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?" I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

Disease, panic, violence, and lower quality of life. You don't think someone is going to cut off their hand with a table saw, and say "aww man this smarts oh well I made the decision to not have health insurance gonna have to deal!" No they are going to freak the fuck out. And attempt to get help no matter what the costs whether it be stealing, robbing, forcing people to help at gun point whatever.

[perdition(troy]

you've been watching to many movies.

[gareman]

you've been watching to many movies.


You don't think someone is going to panic and/or do something crazy if they find out the need cancer treatment immediately or need a hand reattached, and all the hospital can do is say "we are sorry you have no health insurance, so unless you have tens of thousands of dollars required to treat this there is nothing we can do for you."

When will people learn that Welfare and universal health care is protection for us all. If there is no safety net for basic things such as food, health care, and housing crime is going to up.

Yes it sucks to have to pay money for health insurance, but if you want a for profit health care system then you have to find a way to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that people choose not to pay or simply can't. You can't have it both ways either universal health care and no forced insurance, or a for profit system with mandated health care.

[UncleBob]

Let's take this another way. Even though I disagree with the analogy (and did a great job debunking it!), since Mr. President seems to keep trying to use it, we'll go with this one...

Let's say I drive a vehicle, but I refuse to buy insurance. Then, let's say I'm driving along, sneeze, swerve off the road and hit a tree. I'm safe, but my car is totaled.

Should my car be fixed for free?

[Msut77]

Let's take this another way.

You have been comparing people to cars for months now Bob.

Let's say I drive a vehicle, but I refuse to buy insurance. Then, let's say I'm driving along, sneeze, swerve off the road and hit a tree. I'm safe, but my car is totaled. Should my car be fixed for free?

The person driving the car should be provided medical assistance.

[UncleBob]

Msut - you're barely worth responding to anymore. The only time I've brought up the "car-person" comparison is in direct response to some idiot trying to say that mandated health insurance is the same as mandated auto insurance.

So, you're saying that if an individual refuses to buy automotive insurance, then totals out their car, that individual should be responsible for the damages to their vehicle?

[Msut77]

Msut - you're barely worth responding to anymore.

I don't consider many of your posts actual responses.

The only time I've brought up the "car-person" comparison is in direct response to some idiot trying to say that mandated health insurance is the same as mandated auto insurance.

The concept of mandated insurance isn't exactly a novel idea in other countries or for drivers here. The comparison is perfectly valid which is something that was patiently explained to you more than once.

So, you're saying that if an individual refuses to buy automotive insurance, then totals out their car, that individual should be responsible for the damages to their vehicle?

I am saying the person in the car accident should receive medical care.

[saturninus]

Let's take this another way. Even though I disagree with the analogy (and did a great job debunking it!), since Mr. President seems to keep trying to use it, we'll go with this one...

Let's say I drive a vehicle, but I refuse to buy insurance. Then, let's say I'm driving along, sneeze, swerve off the road and hit a tree. I'm safe, but my car is totaled.

Should my car be fixed for free?

Cars aren't people.

[UncleBob]

The concept of mandated insurance isn't exactly a novel idea in other countries or for drivers here. The comparison is perfectly valid in which is something that was patiently explained to you more than once.

You can patiently explain how God created the Heavens and Earth until you're blue, but that doesn't make it true. Mandated Health Insurance is *not* the same as Mandated Automotive Insurance. As has been explained before, no individuals are required to have automotive insurance. They choose to do so.

I am saying the person in the car accident should receive medical care.

That's all well and good. Except for the part where I didn't ask that at all.


Let's go a different direction. Individual is told smoking is bad, don't do it. Does it anyway. Gets Lung Cancer. Many expensive treatments later, the individual is still smoking. Gets throat cancer. Many more expensive treatments later, someone still survives. Continues smoking.

Now, let's say you, Must, are paying for all of the treatments out of your own pocket. The patient, however, is kind enough to pay for his own cigarettes. How many different times are you going to continue to pay for his various forms of cancer?

Cars aren't people.

Agreed. Now, tell Obama that.

[gareman]

Hey I was that moron!

btw Cigarette smokers actually lower elderly health care costs due to lung cancer fatility rates and lower life expectancies thus less end of life and extended care.

[Msut77]

Mandated Health Insurance is *not* the same as Mandated Automotive Insurance.

Things don't have to be *exactly* the same for there to be a comparison Bob.

That's all well and good. Except for the part where I didn't ask that at all.

Just trying to keep things on topic.

Let's go a different direction.

Into a slightly different shade of irrelevancy or into a less disingenuous direction?

Now, let's say you, Must, are paying for all of the treatments out of your own pocket. The patient, however, is kind enough to pay for his own cigarettes.

Why do I even bother to ask?

[UncleBob]

Things don't have to be *exactly* the same for there to be a comparison Bob.

You're right. I mean, you *can* compare Apples to Rocks. But I'm not going to start eating rocks.

Just trying to keep things on topic.

Why do I even bother to ask?

Why do you bother to reply without even making an attempt at answering.

What is wrong with asking individuals to take up some personal responsibility?

[Msut77]

Why do you bother to reply without even making an attempt at answering.

You intentionally ask silly questions etc. and then get upset when people refuse to play along.

For example.

Did I somehow miss a proposal where health care is going to be funded through a buddy system?

[UncleBob]

We'll all get to be everyone's buddies!

And who said I was upset? I can assure you, I actually find it more reassuring when you don't answer. See, it's better than you giving some BS answer like "Yes, I'll give away everything I own to possibly save one other life."

[Msut77]

We'll all get to be everyone's buddies!

Which is much different than any bundle of irrelevancies you think you were making a point with.

And who said I was upset?

I did.

[UncleBob]

I did.

You say a lot of things that are completely and factually wrong.

[Msut77]

Disease, panic, violence, and lower quality of life. You don't think someone is going to cut off their hand with a table saw, and say "aww man this smarts oh well I made the decision to not have health insurance gonna have to deal!" No they are going to freak the fuck out. And attempt to get help no matter what the costs whether it be stealing, robbing, forcing people to help at gun point whatever.

I think I have said it literally a thousand times, people with health insurance shouldn't be happy.

Considering the chances of bankruptcy and crap like this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019818.php

"In one of the more infamous examples, a woman in Texas was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. Soon after, her insurer dropped her -- the company found an instance in which she visited a dermatologist for acne, and didn't tell the insurer about it. "Rescission" at work."

[gareman]

You're right. I mean, you *can* compare Apples to Rocks. But I'm not going to start eating rocks.



You sure can compare apples to rocks if your making an analogy. EX: the genetically altered apple while it taste better--more sweet and has added caffeine the actual nutritional value is that of eating a rock.

[StarKnightX]

Here's a completely unrealistic and radical idea , how about instead of trying to make affordable and effective health insurance system , we make it so that medical treatment isn't so fucking expensive in the first place?

I mean that would solve all the problems of this mess. If you choose to have insurance and get sick/injured , then the insurance covers it , if you choose not to have insurance (or can't get any) then if you get sick/injured it wouldn't cost so much that you'd have to spend your life savings to cover it (or file for bankruptcy).

I mean , I know it's never going to happen , but it seems like a much simplier solution that everyone could agree on.

[dmaul1114]

Fact of the matter for me is that any decent human being who cares about more than themselves and their loved ones can get behind a system of health care for everyone paid for by everyone, where no one is denied treatment they truly need to survive or have a decent quality of life and no one is going bankrupt for medical reasons.

And unfortunately we have no proposals getting at that as people are so afraid of true universal health care despite it working in other countries. Sure they may have to wait longer for elective care, but that seems a fair trade off for lower costs and everyone being covered. I can wait to get an aching shoulder looked at if it means all urgent cases are being treated quickly and everyone has coverage and no one's going bankrupt for medical reasons.

[speedracer]

Here's a completely unrealistic and radical idea , how about instead of trying to make affordable and effective health insurance system , we make it so that medical treatment isn't so fucking expensive in the first place?

I mean that would solve all the problems of this mess. If you choose to have insurance and get sick/injured , then the insurance covers it , if you choose not to have insurance (or can't get any) then if you get sick/injured it wouldn't cost so much that you'd have to spend your life savings to cover it (or file for bankruptcy).

I mean , I know it's never going to happen , but it seems like a much simplier solution that everyone could agree on.
Because creating middle men that functionally do nothing but skim a percentage is the American way of life. If you're suggesting that HMOs don't deserve the 15% operating profit increase every year despite a inflation rate and increase in costs that doesn't get to even 5% a year, you're a goddamn communist that hates the free market.

And don't even think about connecting private insurance to rationing or you'll be burned at the stake by the Zombie Mises.

[thrustbucket]

Here's a completely unrealistic and radical idea , how about instead of trying to make affordable and effective health insurance system , we make it so that medical treatment isn't so fucking expensive in the first place?

I mean that would solve all the problems of this mess. If you choose to have insurance and get sick/injured , then the insurance covers it , if you choose not to have insurance (or can't get any) then if you get sick/injured it wouldn't cost so much that you'd have to spend your life savings to cover it (or file for bankruptcy).

I mean , I know it's never going to happen , but it seems like a much simplier solution that everyone could agree on.

Those are good points. My uncle use to be an exec in a medical equipment supply company. He was always lamenting on how expensive that equipment is to maintain. Because if a device fails, and someone dies, everyone from the hospital to the manufacturer of the parts for the devices gets their asses sued into oblivion.

In another country, let's take Ecuador as an example, you have the same devices and same equipment, for the most part, and you'll get pretty much the same quality of care, but it's much much less expensive because if a heart monitor stops working and someone happens to die from it, good luck suing anyone.

But they don't have to pay $400 an hour to some technician to run diagnostics on their equipment twice a week.

I am not advocating zero accountability but the U.S. is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum and that goes a long way to ensuring we have insane health care costs.

[homeland]

Those are good points. My uncle use to be an exec in a medical equipment supply company. He was always lamenting on how expensive that equipment is to maintain. Because if a device fails, and someone dies, everyone from the hospital to the manufacturer of the parts for the devices gets their asses sued into oblivion.

In another country, let's take Ecuador as an example, you have the same devices and same equipment, for the most part, and you'll get pretty much the same quality of care, but it's much much less expensive because if a heart monitor stops working and someone happens to die from it, good luck suing anyone.

But they don't have to pay $400 an hour to some technician to run diagnostics on their equipment twice a week.

I am not advocating zero accountability but the U.S. is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum and that goes a long way to ensuring we have insane health care costs.

Whenever someone brings up malpractice or torte reform wil do nothing substantial in reducing health care cost. Its such a small amount it would be like putting a bandaid on an amputated arm and thinking its really going to help. Check out http://mdcarroll.com/2009/09/23/malpractice-reform-a-primer

[Snake2715]

This is one cluster F*. Seriously.

The problerm with your example dmaul:

And unfortunately we have no proposals getting at that as people are so afraid of true universal health care despite it working in other countries. Sure they may have to wait longer for elective care, but that seems a fair trade off for lower costs and everyone being covered. I can wait to get an aching shoulder looked at if it means all urgent cases are being treated quickly and everyone has coverage and no one's going bankrupt for medical reasons.


People then would slack off on getting healthier... Its honestly McDonalds and all these other shortcut meals as we over extend ourselves and are on the run the entire time. So its a quick fast food dinner, or a microwave dinner, or some other crap... Its the weght issue.

The top four killers are almost all preventatible, yet its not happening.

The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

And giving people free prevention is not going to change that. Most group health plans now offer some degree of free preventative medicine (checkups, physicals, possibly mammograms, etc) Yet most are not used. So why opening that up to the entire country is going to somehow change americas lazy ass ways, is apparently out of my grasp.

It is prevention and lifestyle. Yet no one gives a crap.

[gareman]

Fact of the matter for me is that any decent human being who cares about more than themselves and their loved ones can get behind a system of health care for everyone paid for by everyone, where no one is denied treatment they truly need to survive or have a decent quality of life and no one is going bankrupt for medical reasons.

And unfortunately we have no proposals getting at that as people are so afraid of true universal health care despite it working in other countries. Sure they may have to wait longer for elective care, but that seems a fair trade off for lower costs and everyone being covered. I can wait to get an aching shoulder looked at if it means all urgent cases are being treated quickly and everyone has coverage and no one's going bankrupt for medical reasons.

On top of that if people are so concerned about waiting for elective care and other things, then they can purchase private insurers or hire private doctors. Much like how the police are a free service, but if one wants to spend money or needs extra protection they can hire or install private security.

[Msut77]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/60141-republican-leader-to-cancer-victim-beg-for-charity

[thrustbucket]

On top of that if people are so concerned about waiting for elective care and other things, then they can purchase private insurers or hire private doctors. Much like how the police are a free service, but if one wants to spend money or needs extra protection they can hire or install private security.

I'm glad you used that example, it's almost is good as Obama's car insurance example.

If I have enough money to afford my own private security, all they can do is try to prevent people from hurting me. That's it. Unfortunately that is not equal to the police and the authority the police have. They don't get to do all the things regular police can, and they don't have the authority to. They can't arrest anyone. They can't question someone. They can't use any type of force without far more accountability and liability, and their power in the court system matters much less than the police.

In other words, it's a waste of money for anyone except the extreme rich that have money to blow. And if you are a company that provides private security, you'd get some business, but you'd never be more than niche.

The same would likely correlate to national health care in a very real (scary?) way. So again, good example.

[dmaul1114]

It is prevention and lifestyle. Yet no one gives a crap.

I agree. Any insurance reform that's not "free" should require yearly physicals or get hit with increased premiums.

And as I've said many time, I'd be 100% fine with people who didn't smoke, kept their bodyfat % in the health percentage for their ages, kept their blood pressure and cholesterol in the healthy ranges etc. earning discounts on their premiums--just like safe drivers who don't get tickets or accidents get breaks on car insurance.

No reason those of us taking the time to eat right and work out should pay the same as people who don't and lead unhealthy lives. I work anywhere from 50-80 hours a week depending on how much crap I have going on, and I still find time to eat pretty healthy most of the time and get to the gym 3 or 4 times a week. People are just lazy and/or cheap and make excuses.

[dmaul1114]

In other words, it's a waste of money for anyone except the extreme rich that have money to blow. And if you are a company that provides private security, you'd get some business, but you'd never be more than niche.

The same would likely correlate to national health care in a very real (scary?) way. So again, good example.


I do agree with that mostly. There was a Canadian in last week's Newsweek who put it well saying something to the effect of "We don't really mind waiting for elective care, so long as the poor and rich are waiting the same amount of time).

A national health care really has to be totally national and not have any private options to avoid the rich just paying there way to better and quicker care and pissing off the masses.

[thrustbucket]

Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.

[dmaul1114]

Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.

Yep, which is why you have to go 100% national health care, or just have a small government ran insurance option that's not much different from the best private ones currently to create more competition in places that don't have enough.

Coupled with more preventative care, regulations on public and private insurance in regards to not denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, executive salaries, etc., malpractice reform and other ways of lowering costs etc.

I don't think you could have some private doctors and some public doctors. But I think you can have a public insurance option out there as long as it's not too cheap to drive all the others out of business. People who are working have an obligation to cut uneeded expenses and pony up for health care--but they shouldn't have to pay more than those of us who get good insurance through our employers.

There probably just needs to be regulations on costs of procedures etc.--if insurance all pays out the same in an area, no reason for a doctor to not accept all the plans.

[SpazX]

Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.

Meh, insurance companies don't always like to pay out, the government plan probably always will, and there will probably be a lot of people on the government plan since it will more than likely be cheaper. You can make arguments both ways for who the doctors will like. There are also some doctors who actually like treating people more than money, so there might be some who aren't influenced by such things as the insurance companies perhaps paying more in some situations. If doctors just always went with the money we'd all be fucked because there would only be plastic surgeons.

A single-payer system would be better since it would avoid all this crap, doctors wouldn't have to deal with any of it, and it would be cheaper, but we'll be damned if we have that. Everything works better if it's private, regardless of whether or not it works better.

[UncleBob]

Is anyone against raising taxes on tobacco products to cover the costs of tobacco-related illnesses?

[dmaul1114]

Nope, seems reasonable to me. Even being a beer lover, I'd be ok with a higher alcohol tax for treating alcohol related illnesses.

[homeland]

throw soda and fast food and I think ur onto something bob.

[gareman]

I'm glad you used that example, it's almost is good as Obama's car insurance example.

If I have enough money to afford my own private security, all they can do is try to prevent people from hurting me. That's it. Unfortunately that is not equal to the police and the authority the police have. They don't get to do all the things regular police can, and they don't have the authority to. They can't arrest anyone. They can't question someone. They can't use any type of force without far more accountability and liability, and their power in the court system matters much less than the police.

In other words, it's a waste of money for anyone except the extreme rich that have money to blow. And if you are a company that provides private security, you'd get some business, but you'd never be more than niche.

The same would likely correlate to national health care in a very real (scary?) way. So again, good example.

Except that private and public security involves other people and their rights directly. I don't understand what part of security not being able to throw people in jail would be equatable in my analogy to private health coverage? Are you saying a private doctor would be able to stop a bleeding patient from dying but not be able to get them into surgery for some reason?

[gareman]

Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.


That's not true there would not be enough of demand for every person out of medical school to become a rich private doctor. Just like how Blackwater employees make huge amounts of money, but it doesn't hurt the army's enlistment because the demand is not as high and since they are private they demand more experience, and believe it or not a lot of soldiers would rather support the army than "sell out" and go in to some private military business.

All of you bring up excellent points, but then we begin to get into this paradox. If someone has the resources shouldn't they be allowed to get a cancer screening every 6 months? I am all for universal health care and equal fundamental care, but isn't what most of the conservatives are so upset about is the lack of choice and free market when it comes to their health which is fine. My point is if you want your colon examined every month instead of a once or twice a year I am not going to stop you, but I don't think the government should have to pay for it.

Sorry about my incoherence its too early.

[thrustbucket]

So I want to relay a story that just happened to my sister and her husband this past week in Houston that I think relates to this thread.

He has had bad abdominal pains for about a week. He couldn't even start his new teaching job. They went to the doctor and the doctor decided to check him into a hospital while they run tests. Two days and two tests later, in the hospital, they discharged him saying they can't find anything wrong. $12,000 hospital bill. After their insurance they owe $3,200 that they don't have.

Understandably they are pissed. He just sat in the hospital for two days (one of the overnights simply because the specialist needed for a test was off for the day) and missed his first two days of work for nothing. They asked several times if they could just go home and come back for the test and they said no.

So, they feel like they were just asked to stay at the hospital so the hospital could make money.

Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?


Except that private and public security involves other people and their rights directly. I don't understand what part of security not being able to throw people in jail would be equatable in my analogy to private health coverage? Are you saying a private doctor would be able to stop a bleeding patient from dying but not be able to get them into surgery for some reason?

The analogy comes into play where private insurance will become so incredibly expensive, with almost no advantages compared to the public option, that having a private option will eventually be pointless except for those with money to waste.

[perdition(troy]

You can't be forced to stay in a hospital. If he wanted to get up and walk out, he could have got up and walked out.

[SpazX]

So I want to relay a story that just happened to my sister and her husband this past week in Houston that I think relates to this thread.

He has had bad abdominal pains for about a week. He couldn't even start his new teaching job. They went to the doctor and the doctor decided to check him into a hospital while they run tests. Two days and two tests later, in the hospital, they discharged him saying they can't find anything wrong. $12,000 hospital bill. After their insurance they owe $3,200 that they don't have.

Understandably they are pissed. He just sat in the hospital for two days (one of the overnights simply because the specialist needed for a test was off for the day) and missed his first two days of work for nothing. They asked several times if they could just go home and come back for the test and they said no.

So, they feel like they were just asked to stay at the hospital so the hospital could make money.

Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?

Well that's a bit cynical and kind of demonizing the hospital, but I can see where they're coming from. Really they're mostly upset because they didn't find anything, if they had found some life-threatening condition they would gladly pay the $3,200, I'm sure it's worth his life. But, unfortunately, sometimes there's nothing to find (hopefully they didn't just do a shitty job), but the same tests are necessary and cost just as much whether they find something or not.

As for the hospital stay, I'm sure it's possible they wanted to make money, but severe abdominal pain can be pretty serious. I don't know his symptoms or all the possible diagnoses, but if he had something like appendicitis and that fucker burst and he wasn't close enough to a hospital he could die pretty quickly. I'm sure that's not the only abdominal-pain-related illness that could kill quickly, so it may have been in his best interest to stay.

Obviously $12,000 seems crazy high for 2 nights and a few tests. I dunno if anything anybody is proposing would fix that, but a single-payer system might...:-P.

[dmaul1114]

Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?


No proposal is going to eliminate incompetence at the individual level.

But stuff like that would fall into what Obama's talking about when harping over and over on needing to make the system more efficient and cut out wasteful spending on stuff like that--uneeded tests (not this case maybe), unneeded hospital stays (definitely in this case) etc.

But no reform will totally fix it, as you can legislate incompetence out of humanity unfortunately. All you can do is try to limit it as much as possible.

[perdition(troy]

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?sho wall

[Snake2715]

You can't be forced to stay in a hospital. If he wanted to get up and walk out, he could have got up and walked out.


Exactly... he could have walked..

Was he in too much pain to walk?


They are trying to avoid a death and or lawsuit if something happened.

So hows his pain? Gone? I imagine if it was that bad its coming back.. He better get to a gastroenterologist asap.

Also since he most likely hit his deductible he needs to get the rest of the testing done this year so he doesnt have to start over in january, as i am guessing he is on a calendar year plan.

Lastly if he would have walked out it would have been covered under the ER copay (if he has this on his policy). But since he was checked in, that changes things..

There must have been some bad pain for them to check him in for two days.

[thrustbucket]

Exactly... he could have walked..

Was he in too much pain to walk?


They are trying to avoid a death and or lawsuit if something happened.

So hows his pain? Gone? I imagine if it was that bad its coming back.. He better get to a gastroenterologist asap.

Also since he most likely hit his deductible he needs to get the rest of the testing done this year so he doesnt have to start over in january, as i am guessing he is on a calendar year plan.

Lastly if he would have walked out it would have been covered under the ER copay (if he has this on his policy). But since he was checked in, that changes things..

There must have been some bad pain for them to check him in for two days.

The only details I know is he said it felt like someone just punched him in the gut, for almost a week. Said on a scale of 1-10 the pain was a 7.

There was blood in the urine but urinary infections and kiddney stones were negative. So they wanted to have some specialist test his pancreas (I believe) but he couldn't do it until the next day, so they just sat in the hospital and did nothing for over night.

I don't know what state he is in now other than the hospital said they could find nothing wrong.

Edit: Their insurance had an 1100 dollar deductible with an 80/20 copay, or something like that.

[speedracer]

Those are good points. My uncle use to be an exec in a medical equipment supply company. He was always lamenting on how expensive that equipment is to maintain. Because if a device fails, and someone dies, everyone from the hospital to the manufacturer of the parts for the devices gets their asses sued into oblivion.

Understandably they are pissed. He just sat in the hospital for two days (one of the overnights simply because the specialist needed for a test was off for the day) and missed his first two days of work for nothing. They asked several times if they could just go home and come back for the test and they said no.
Perhaps they were afraid of being sued?
Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?
I'm willing to bet that if the Republicans offered to support the public option in exchange for medical tort reform, we'd have a deal the next day. A compromise! Call Beck on Monday for approval and let's make it happen thrust.

The analogy comes into play where private insurance will become so incredibly expensive, with almost no advantages compared to the public option, that having a private option will eventually be pointless except for those with money to waste.
Are you arguing that the private sector can't compete against a hyper efficient beast like the US Government?

[Snake2715]

Are you arguing that the private sector can't compete against a hyper efficient beast like the US Government?


Can the private insurance companies just write IOU's to the docs? This might allow them to cut some costs over the next while?

[Snake2715]

Edit: Their insurance had an 1100 dollar deductible with an 80/20 copay, or something like that.

To much mountain dew? Ask javeryh....

Anyway.

Sounds correct 1100 deductible (per person non aggregate)

80/20 split (coinsurance) to the stop loss of 10,000 or any number really... sounds as if its actually 10,500 here. So their stop loss is the 2100 (20% of 10,500)...

Now thats in network. I would just give them a heads up there is no way thats been processed yet and most plans (not all) will not count the PAR or RAP as in network. The RAP is radiologist, Pathologist and Anesthesiologist... so they may have another incoming bill eventually for an out of network rad or path. Why join a network. As any of those three dont need to agree to the discounts to get work everyday. When was the last time you asked about your anesthesiologist before a surgery and if they are in your insurance network... you cant. Its the luck of the draw who you get that day... so warn them there may be out of network charges as well.


They may not be maxed, but based on the fact that the bill was 12k it sounds like they maxed his portion for the time and most likely remainder of the year. There are plan year deductibles and coinsurances as well. While less common his could run from month x to month x (same). Probably from Jan to Jan however.*

* To elaborate here. The deductible and coinsurance typically run in 12 month cycles. Either from renewal month (x) to renewal month(x). Or they run in a calendar year, so Jan to Jan.



Maybe kidney stones if he had blood. i would have that and the gall bladder checked. If he is not having any stool symptoms then its probably not IBS or related.

There was a small recall on some vegetables again recently... maybe he got into that.

[thrustbucket]

Thanks for all that info. I apologize I was wrong about something, it was not pancreas they checked it was gall bladder.

I'll relay this info though.

[SpazX]

I'm just glad they have private insurance and not a public plan. There would be so much bureaucracy if it was run by the government.

[Msut77]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/cbo_a_strong_public_plan_saves.html

----

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/poll-even-republican-voters-favor-the-public-option.php

BTW the public option happens to be popular in the districts of several blue dogs who imply otherwise.

[speedracer]

Can the private insurance companies just write IOU's to the docs? This might allow them to cut some costs over the next while?
Someone tell VA and Medicare doctors! And private insurance sure is the friend of the doctor...

[speedracer]

And since we're on the numbers, anyone able to explain whether the CBO is wrong and the public option won't cost $85 billion less than the plan without one?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/cbo_a_strong_public_plan_saves.html

[ElwoodCuse]

Yea, USPS may not be the "best". But, it does not allow UPS and FedEx to rule however they see fit. And helps keep the costs of shipping low. If we gave up all responsibility to UPS and FedEx to decide prices and let them compete, then we'd be seeing much higher prices.

Yep. I laugh when people whine about the money the USPS loses. What, so they should double the cost of stamps? There's no way in hell UPS and FedEx would let you mail stuff for 44 cents if they were allowed to enter that market. And if you lived someplace "unprofitable" to deliver to, they just wouldn't. Enjoy picking up your mail at a shipping center god knows where for the rest of your life.

I'm just glad they have private insurance and not a public plan. There would be so much bureaucracy if it was run by the government.

Yes because private insurers never deny care to their policy holders

[UncleBob]

And if you lived someplace "unprofitable" to deliver to, they just wouldn't. Enjoy picking up your mail at a shipping center god knows where for the rest of your life.

Ummm... you do realize that the USPS does this, right?

Several small communities do not have home delivery - if you live in one of these areas, you get to go to your local post office to pick up your mail.

[willardhaven]

USPS is a private company contacted by the government though, I would assume this changes the rules.

[homeland]

I'm just glad they have private insurance and not a public plan. There would be so much bureaucracy if it was run by the government.


I know.

Let me share what happened yesterday, my brother in law in France woke up in so much pain he was shaking and stuck on the ground in the fetal position with a high fever. His g/f called 15 (equivelant to 911) and the EMTs came and took him to the hospital. They did a bunch of tests including xrays,blood tests, a doppler test, and seseveral others. All the tests came back negative amd the docotrs consluded it was probably either a potassium deficiency and stress. At the end of the day they said he could either go home or spend the night if he wanted to, so he stayed . This morning he was released and doing fine. He
had to pay a total of $0 though he night get a bill later but he also has private insurance that covers the co-pay so he proably wont be paying that much that.
Ontop of that hes getting 8 days off paid from work. Tomorrow hes going to his regular doctor and might be getting another week off paid from work.

[gareman]

Get outta here with your socialist propaganda Homeland!

But on another note extreme stomach pains are very serious, and they kept him over night in case something happens before the specialist could seem him and if they just sent him home the hospital could be in a serious legal problems.

[perdition(troy]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

at least we are starting to unite on the issue.

[thrustbucket]

I did get a bit more information for anyone that cares. Apparently my bro-in-law was diagnosed with something wrong with his gall bladder, but the hospital decided that it wasn't severe enough to remove it just yet. That makes little sense to them, or me, but whatever.

[SpazX]

I did get a bit more information for anyone that cares. Apparently my bro-in-law was diagnosed with something wrong with his gall bladder, but the hospital decided that it wasn't severe enough to remove it just yet. That makes little sense to them, or me, but whatever.

I don't think gall bladders are that big of a deal - they're basically unnecessary and they can take them out laparoscopically AFAIK. Other than that they have some stuff that can try to dissolve stones, but I don't see why they wouldn't just take it out unless he's old or it would otherwise be risky for some reason.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33161911/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
WASHINGTON - Many middle-class Americans would still struggle to pay for health insurance despite efforts by President Barack Obama and Democrats to make coverage more affordable.The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance — through an employer, a government program or by buying it themselves. But new tax credits to help with premiums won't go far enough for everyone. Some middle-class families purchasing their own coverage through new insurance exchanges could find it out of reach.
Lawmakers recognize the problem.
"For some people it's going to be a heavy lift," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. "We're doing our best to make sure it's not an impossible lift."
Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: "We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable." Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday.
Ballpark estimates
A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament.
The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide. Nonetheless, the results are revealing.
A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money. Maybe it's less than the rent, but it's probably more than a car loan payment.
Kaiser's calculator doesn't take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand, to a family's total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income for some families by 2016.
'Lurking in the background'
The issue of affordability "has been lurking in the background and is nowhere near resolved yet," said Kaiser's president, Drew Altman. "It's tricky because it doesn't take a lot of people to make affordability a political problem. It just takes some very visible and understandable cases."
At the root of the concerns is the push to cut the overall cost of health care overhaul legislation. Congress is trimming the budget for subsidies to meet Obama's target of $900 billion over 10 years — as the Baucus plan does. It means premiums will be higher than under earlier Democratic proposals.
The trade-off directly affects people who buy their own coverage. For those with job-based insurance, employers would continue to cover most of the costs.
Most of the uninsured are in households headed by someone who's self-employed or works at a business that doesn't provide coverage. It's this group that Democrats are trying to help.
Because health insurance is so expensive, lawmakers recognize that if they're going to pass a law requiring all Americans to get coverage, government has to defray the cost. The size of those subsidies makes an enormous difference.
Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance, according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums — a difference of about $2,500.
"This is not the loaves and the fishes — you can't just throw some subsidies out there and expect that will take care of everybody's needs," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University professor who studies the insurance market for people buying their own coverage.
The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four. That's where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.
Subsidies taper off
But as income rises, the subsidies taper off.
For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium under the Baucus plan, according to the Kaiser calculator.
For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.
A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.
Another problem is that people won't be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes. To hold down costs, the assistance won't come until 2013, after the next presidential election.
White House officials say that while Obama wants the cost of the final bill to stay manageable, it has to provide affordable coverage.
"The president is absolutely committed to making this affordable. That's the whole point," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the White House health reform office.
Douglass said it's premature to draw any conclusions while the bill is being shaped in Congress. But House leaders are also cutting back their legislation to meet Obama's target.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus' committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean leaving at least 2 million more uninsured — not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
"I think we've got to do something about it," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We've got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class."

[saturninus]

Politicians need to focus on getting down the administrative costs of these insurance companies. Their admin costs come out to something like 20% meanwhile in contrast Medicare is like 3%. I think I read that in the latest T.R. Reid book and another book Health Care Half Truths.

[UncleBob]

And to answer your question, I did manage to finish the bill. I find it much easier to debate an issue that I'm informed on. It's easier to sniff out the bull shitters.

Why the fuck does it matter if I had two lawyers with me when I read the bill. I can look things up if I don't understand them. It's called research.

Dang, depascal, you need to go work for this guy (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/health_bill_baffles_dem_G61Rm6zZZj5ypLYVSNhPMP)...

"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life," Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told an online news service.

And Carper says he doubts his fellow members of the Senate Finance Committee will read their handiwork either.[...]
Carper told CNSnews.com that the bill was "incomprehensible" and "hard stuff to understand.

[Msut77]

Politicians need to focus on getting down the administrative costs of these insurance companies. Their admin costs come out to something like 20% meanwhile in contrast Medicare is like 3%. I think I read that in the latest T.R. Reid book and another book Health Care Half Truths.

I am getting Reid's book today, I would also recommend Sick by Jonathan Cohn.

[SpazX]

I really wish there was a controlling majority that gave a shit...then it could be more like "alright, we watered it down and you're still bitching...fuck it, single-payer it is, fuck all you guys" but then again it never would have gotten to this point if that were true.

Ah, to dream.

[saturninus]

All other industrialized nations have it and fight for it, the US once again is a strange anomally.

[thrustbucket]

The controlling majority already have insurance.

[Msut77]

I really wish there was a controlling majority that gave a shit...then it could be more like "alright, we watered it down and you're still bitching...fuck it, single-payer it is, fuck all you guys" but then again it never would have gotten to this point if that were true.

Ah, to dream.

I am still pretty confident some sort of fairly strong public option will pull through.

[elprincipe]

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/DenialsByInsurer2008.jpg

[UncleBob]

Source on that chart and those numbers? I find it amazing that Medicare has the highest percentage of denied claims...

[speedracer]

And what's a claim edit?

[UncleBob]

Here's the source on that chart - the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf)...

Don't they support a government option?

[Msut77]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457392831216478.html

[elprincipe]

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/10/05/217fe8146deb0243fd196f4610112cee.jpg

[SpazX]

Kind of weird stats elprincipe. The # of CT and MRI machines doesn't necessarily translate into anything, especially considering that the US is more spread out and would require more machines just so that people had access. And the # of angioplasties and coronary bypasses is a little weird to use as a metric since you have to be unhealthy in order to get them, so having a higher number doesn't necessarily mean the health care is better, it would be better to know how many people needed them and didn't get them.

The fatality rates are more interesting, and some are pretty close, the only way out ones would be the UK's, at least as far as prostate and breast cancer. Perhaps skewed by longer lifespans, but not that skewed. A higher percentage of people in the UK and Canada smoke too, apparently.

Diabetes is crazy though, the US is similar to Canada, but fucking insane compared to the UK, 20.3 per 100,000 for the US and 6.7 for the UK in 2005 (as far as the US goes, in 2007 it was 6.2 in the UK)

[elprincipe]

Kind of weird stats elprincipe. The # of CT and MRI machines doesn't necessarily translate into anything, especially considering that the US is more spread out and would require more machines just so that people had access. And the # of angioplasties and coronary bypasses is a little weird to use as a metric since you have to be unhealthy in order to get them, so having a higher number doesn't necessarily mean the health care is better, it would be better to know how many people needed them and didn't get them.

The fatality rates are more interesting, and some are pretty close, the only way out ones would be the UK's, at least as far as prostate and breast cancer. Perhaps skewed by longer lifespans, but not that skewed. A higher percentage of people in the UK and Canada smoke too, apparently.

Diabetes is crazy though, the US is similar to Canada, but fucking insane compared to the UK, 20.3 per 100,000 for the US and 6.7 for the UK in 2005 (as far as the US goes, in 2007 it was 6.2 in the UK)

Yeah I know, I just posted it because I found the numbers interesting. Maybe we have more angioplasties because we have more heart problems, although the mortality rate is interesting. I was most struck by the cancer survival rates. And of course, these are cherry-picked stats from a known right-wing source, so I'm sure that they took the numbers most compatible with their viewpoint. Again, I just found some of the numbers interesting and a good talking point maybe. Always take stuff like this with a grain of salt - someone put something like this together because they want you to see it and think one way, so realize this and keep and open mind as to other information.

[The Crotch]

Hmm.

Have a heart-attack in Canada. Get breast cancer in the US. Stay the fuck out of the UK.

And Christ, why do you guys have so many angioplasties?

[Msut77]

Hmm.

Have a heart-attack in Canada. Get breast cancer in the US. Stay the fuck out of the UK.

And Christ, why do you guys have so many angioplasties?

That would be the pound of cure.

See also the diabetes stats, lopping your foot off is no problem paying for preventative care is an uphill battle.

[SpazX]

Yeah I know, I just posted it because I found the numbers interesting. Maybe we have more angioplasties because we have more heart problems, although the mortality rate is interesting. I was most struck by the cancer survival rates. And of course, these are cherry-picked stats from a known right-wing source, so I'm sure that they took the numbers most compatible with their viewpoint. Again, I just found some of the numbers interesting and a good talking point maybe. Always take stuff like this with a grain of salt - someone put something like this together because they want you to see it and think one way, so realize this and keep and open mind as to other information.

I guess the OECD stats are good though, you can get the spreadsheet here:
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

Though I imagine that comparing stats wouldn't be a direct thing anyway. The rates in Canada and the UK, even though higher than the US, have still steadily declined over the same period as the US, and even if we switched to a single-payer system there would still be the same number of hospitals and what-not, which really give the care, not the insurance companies.

It seems like one of the goals of the insurance companies is to link themselves to the care. Like they're the ones who are saving lives. They pay for it, sure, if you pay them, but the doctors are really the ones doing all the work, and as long as they're paid it doesn't matter who's paying them.

[Msut77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ery7RZ4tZ2Y

[thrustbucket]

The health insurance industry is pulling out their tanks (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091012/D9B9QLO81.html) at the most critical period for the legislation now.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That would be the pound of cure.

See also the diabetes stats, lopping your foot off is no problem paying for preventative care is an uphill battle.

Shouldn't preventative care be handled at the individual level? Not eating tons of sugar, getting regular exercise, etc.

I haven't read through all 1400+ posts, but I think a topic worth discussing is the amount of crap put into our food and sources of food that is causing disease. It's not something I've heard in the media when discussing the healthcare issue; but if we weren't constantly eating garbage disguised as food it's very likely that we wouldn't have such severe medical issues in America.

I'm not for government run healthcare; I really don't feel that it's fair for me to pay for the consequences of some idiot eating fast food or _______ every day. I'm not sure that a potential government option or single payer system would encourage people to take care of their bodies any worse than they are now, as most people simply don't care or think about health when eating, but I'm not quite sure if it'd make that situation any better. I just don't see anything changing when it comes to the way most Americans eat/take care of themselves.

I'm kind of blabbering at this point, but I don't see anything getting fixed unless we attack the root problem of our healthcare here in America, instead of worrying about symptoms. On top of that, I really doubt the politicians who are bought and paid for in part by the food and medical lobby are about to give up that ghost any time soon.

[dmaul1114]

Part of preventive care can involve monitoring body fat %, cholesterol, blood pressure etc. in annual physicals, giving doctors opportunities to press the importance of eating right and exercising.

Hard to get people to follow that, but I have had friends and family finally make some changes to be healthier after getting a check up and having cholestorol and other issues.

As I've said earlier, one way I'd support to encourage it is have discounts you can earn/keep on your insurance premiums for having your body fat, cholesterol, blood pressure etc. in health ranges for your age in the physical. The same idea as having safe driver discounts on auto insurance to encourage people to drive slower and be more careful.

[Msut77]

Shouldn't preventative care be handled at the individual level? Not eating tons of sugar, getting regular exercise, etc.

All preventative care? No.

Some of it is pretty basic but you would be surprised at how much one would learn with a single consultation with a nutritionist etc. which is something insurance companies do not like to pay for.

It seems you like might be looking more towards the public health side of things.

I haven't read through all 1400+ posts, but I think a topic worth discussing is the amount of crap put into our food and sources of food that is causing disease. It's not something I've heard in the media when discussing the healthcare issue; but if we weren't constantly eating garbage disguised as food it's very likely that we wouldn't have such severe medical issues in America.

It is about the fifth or so time someone has brought it up.

No one is going to defend eating McCrap for your entire life, however.

One of the fittest people I know got into a jet ski accident and his shitty insurance only covered a pittance.

I'm not for government run healthcare;

That is not an argument against health care reform.

I really don't feel that it's fair for me to pay for the consequences of some idiot eating fast food or _______ every day.

Thank you Ashton Kutcher.

I'm not sure that a potential government option or single payer system would encourage people to take care of their bodies any worse than they are now, as most people simply don't care or think about health when eating, but I'm not quite sure if it'd make that situation any better. I just don't see anything changing when it comes to the way most Americans eat/take care of themselves.

Other countries have better health care outcomes than we do, in a very large part due to their universal health care programs.

I'm kind of blabbering at this point, but I don't see anything getting fixed unless we attack the root problem of our healthcare here in America, instead of worrying about symptoms. On top of that, I really doubt the politicians who are bought and paid for in part by the food and medical lobby are about to give up that ghost any time soon.

We shall see, although people who are against reform even though they have admittedly little clue about how things work aren't helping.

[perdition(troy]

One of the fittest people I know got into a jet ski accident and his shitty insurance only covered a pittance.

If he hadn't been doing something dangerous he wouldn't have needed to use his health insurance. It's just like when you sky dive, if you get hurt, tough shit. Don't do stupid stuff and then be surprised when not everything gets paid for if you get hurt.

[elprincipe]

If he hadn't been doing something dangerous he wouldn't have needed to use his health insurance. It's just like when you sky dive, if you get hurt, tough shit. Don't do stupid stuff and then be surprised when not everything gets paid for if you get hurt.

I don't think that's a reasonable response. The more relevant question is whether the policy covered jet ski accidents, which clearly it didn't since the claim was denied (unless there is a lawsuit over this or it's in dispute or something). Perhaps the person who had the accident had no idea that this was the case because the insurance company put in some shady, hard to understand legalisms in the agreement. There are so many unknowns here it's hard to say if the person who had the accident has a legitimate beef with the insurance company.

[UncleBob]

If you can ignore all of the partisan stabs in this column, can anyone explain to me how they voted on a bill that doesn't even exist yet?

http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2009/10/12/show_me_the_bill!?page=full

[mykevermin]

First and foremost, you'll forgive me if I don't care to read an op-ed who describes Islam in this way:

"These are not church bells, folks. This is the sound, however muted, of the world’s most aggressive religion rearing up and lyrically cooing its desire to master the world under Allah. Islam means, literally, Submission to Allah."

Now, that's not relevant, but it does provide a context to figure out how this guy writes his claims.

What the Senate Finance Committee did was approve of the budget for the bill. That's the jurisdiction they had: to say "oh, sure, we can pay for this." That's the extent, really, of their powers. Yes we can fund this or no we can't.

[AdultLink]

First and foremost, you'll forgive me if I don't care to read an op-ed who describes Islam in this way:

"These are not church bells, folks. This is the sound, however muted, of the world’s most aggressive religion rearing up and lyrically cooing its desire to master the world under Allah. Islam means, literally, Submission to Allah."

Now, that's not relevant, but it does provide a context to figure out how this guy writes his claims.

What the Senate Finance Committee did was approve of the budget for the bill. That's the jurisdiction they had: to say "oh, sure, we can pay for this." That's the extent, really, of their powers. Yes we can fund this or no we can't.

Obviously it's not relevant, but you added that line anyway. So lets add another non-relavent line. You believe so much in the same politicians who already admit to not reading bills:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao

So your voice is irrelevant to a conversation about reading bills to begin with.

[Msut77]

If he hadn't been doing something dangerous he wouldn't have needed to use his health insurance. It's just like when you sky dive, if you get hurt, tough shit. Don't do stupid stuff and then be surprised when not everything gets paid for if you get hurt.

A troll is as a troll does I suppose.

My non-video game hobby happens to be bicycling, what you said applies to basically every activity more strenuous than whacking off.

[UncleBob]

What the Senate Finance Committee did was approve of the budget for the bill. That's the jurisdiction they had: to say "oh, sure, we can pay for this." That's the extent, really, of their powers. Yes we can fund this or no we can't.

That's like me approving my wife to go out and buy a car without any idea of how much she plans to spend on it (I do the budgeting in the household...). How can they say "We can afford this" without any idea what is in the bill that doesn't exist yet?

[mykevermin]

Because a bill does exist.

You just choose to believe an op-ed on Town Hall.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, there is a bill, with a budget attached. That committee just can't vote on the bill. They say they can pay for it, as myke said, and now the bill can go forward and be debated on the floor etc. At least that's my understanding from a couple articles I read earlier today.

[UncleBob]

Because a bill does exist.

You just choose to believe an op-ed on Town Hall.

So, you're saying there is a finalized bill?

[speedracer]

If you can ignore all of the partisan stabs in this column, can anyone explain to me how they voted on a bill that doesn't even exist yet?
So, you're saying there is a finalized bill?
we need time for the smart folk to read the bill and tell us what's in it. Then, we need time for the other smart folk to read the bill, read what the first smart folk said and either agree with it or debunk it. For this reason, I very much support putting the initial drafts up for distribution. If the bill is good enough for the House or Senate to be spending time on debating, then it should be good enough for the American people to get to spend some time analyzing/debating it.
wat

[UncleBob]

I'm not sure what you're confused about there.

I'm not opposed to distribution of initial drafts of bills.
I'm opposed to voting for initial drafts of bills.

[speedracer]

Then I guess I'm confused about what you want from an initial draft of important legislation. This thing is just getting out of committee, which is why the insurance industry has waiting till now to really let the PR dogs of war loose.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. Are you saying we shouldn't use committees to draft legislation? They have to vote on em before they hit the floor. That's just the way they do it.

[UncleBob]

Maybe I'm confused... this committee says "We can afford to do this bill." - except that there are absolutely no plans to vote on or enact this legislation as is.

So what's the point of someone saying "Yeah, we can afford this" when "this" isn't ever going to be in the realm of what we're looking to buy into?

[thrustbucket]

Because that's the process. This is another illustration of what's broken in our "system". It has to pass the finance committee to go any further, but everyone knows that there will be huge compromises between both houses before it ever ends.

In a nutshell, it's a joke. The entire thing is a joke.

This whole thing keeps reminding me of a bumper sticker I once saw:

"Government Policy: If it ain't broke, fix it till it is."

[dmaul1114]

Maybe I'm confused... this committee says "We can afford to do this bill." - except that there are absolutely no plans to vote on or enact this legislation as is.

So what's the point of someone saying "Yeah, we can afford this" when "this" isn't ever going to be in the realm of what we're looking to buy into?

Just the way it works. They have to approve they could pay for what's in the current bill, and then it goes before the house and senate etc.

I assume either they can't make changes that increase cost . Or if they can, it has to be approved by this committee again. But I'd be interested in the specifics as well.

[speedracer]

Because that's the process. This is another illustration of what's broken in our "system". It has to pass the finance committee to go any further, but everyone knows that there will be huge compromises between both houses before it ever ends.

In a nutshell, it's a joke. The entire thing is a joke.

I knew unhinged faux-libertarian conservatism often produces anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, and ultimately hate for anything about one's country but total reformation - but I'd never really seen it first hand until thrustbucket's posts.

[fullmetalfan720]

The way that I understand it is, yesterday the Senate Finance Committee voted to move their bill ("The Baucus Bill") out of conference. This bill lacks a public option, and well, is nothing more than a 829 billion dollar bailout of the insurance companies.

[elprincipe]

The way that I understand it is, yesterday the Senate Finance Committee voted to move their bill ("The Baucus Bill") out of conference. This bill lacks a public option, and well, is nothing more than a 829 billion dollar bailout of the insurance companies.

They voted to advance the Senate Finance Committee bill to the floor. The Democrats will now take the bill passed by the HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and combine it with the Finance bill. Basically, from what Reid said today, there will be four people deciding what's in the final bill: Baucus, Reid, Dodd (who was in charge of the HELP bill while filling in for Kennedy, even though the HELP Committee is now chaired by Harkin), and a White House representative (today Rahm Emanuel was there to begin negotiations). So bottom line is that you have two bills, one with the public option and one without, and four people are going to sit behind closed doors and decide what goes in the bill that goes to the floor and what doesn't.

If that isn't convoluted and secretive enough, on the floor probably hundreds of amendments will be offered, so the bill could be changed significantly further. When they finally get through the amendment process, the Democrats will need 60 votes to cut off debate and go to a vote.

Then, even if they go to a vote and pass the bill, it will depend on what the House does. If the House passes a bill also, the Senate and House will appoint negotiators to sit in a House-Senate conference committee to decide what parts of each bill are kept and what is thrown out.

At that point, when the conference committee agrees on a final bill, it goes back to both houses to be voted up or down without amendment.

If it passes both houses in this stage it goes to Obama for his signature or veto.

You're welcome for the civics lesson :)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

This bill lacks a public option, and well, is nothing more than a 829 billion dollar bailout of the insurance companies.

Every time you post something like that, I have a certain feeling about the health care reform.

http://varifrank.com/images/Got_A_Bad_feeling.jpg

[UncleBob]

They voted to advance the Senate Finance Committee bill to the floor. The Democrats will now take the bill passed by the HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) and combine it with the Finance bill. Basically, from what Reid said today, there will be four people deciding what's in the final bill: Baucus, Reid, Dodd (who was in charge of the HELP bill while filling in for Kennedy, even though the HELP Committee is now chaired by Harkin), and a White House representative (today Rahm Emanuel was there to begin negotiations). So bottom line is that you have two bills, one with the public option and one without, and four people are going to sit behind closed doors and decide what goes in the bill that goes to the floor and what doesn't.

If that isn't convoluted and secretive enough, on the floor probably hundreds of amendments will be offered, so the bill could be changed significantly further. When they finally get through the amendment process, the Democrats will need 60 votes to cut off debate and go to a vote.

Then, even if they go to a vote and pass the bill, it will depend on what the House does. If the House passes a bill also, the Senate and House will appoint negotiators to sit in a House-Senate conference committee to decide what parts of each bill are kept and what is thrown out.

At that point, when the conference committee agrees on a final bill, it goes back to both houses to be voted up or down without amendment.

If it passes both houses in this stage it goes to Obama for his signature or veto.

You're welcome for the civics lesson :)

So, basically, the entire idea of any kind of "budget" committee passing this bill is worthless?

[AdultLink]

So, basically, the entire idea of any kind of "budget" committee passing this bill is worthless?

At this point any kind of 'budget commitee' for the government is worthless anyway, they'll spend our money regardless.

[elprincipe]

So, basically, the entire idea of any kind of "budget" committee passing this bill is worthless?

We are talking about the Finance Committee, not the Budget Committee. The Budget Committees deal with the federal budget as a whole and set out a preliminary plan (with input from the president via the budget he proposes), but this is done usually in February/March/April.

For a bill like this, they are going to do what they want. If they want to add to the deficit, they will. Who knows how it will end up at this point. Obama declared he wouldn't support a bill that would add "one dime" to our unbelievably huge deficit, but all the options so far proposed either do that (by engaging in fantasy accounting such as believing that Congress will cut $500 billion from Medicare, as the Baucus bill does) or dramatically raise taxes/"fees" (especially the House Ways and Means Committee bill). The House has PAYGO rules ("pay as you go") where you are supposed to either cut something else or raise government revenue to cover new costs incurred. But of course, that can be waived (and often is) if enough reps are willing. The Senate has no such rules.

[Msut77]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/steele-we-dont-need-comprehensive-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa

"Because our health care system," he continued, according to a transcript posted by Latina Lista, "while it remains the best in the country and while it provides largely the services that people need and the quality of those services are very, very good, there are costs associated with this system that needs to be address more directly."

America has the number one health care system in America.

[dmaul1114]

Well, for those saying there was "no bill" here's the whole 1,500 page bill that came out of the Finance Committee.

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

[thrustbucket]

Well, for those saying there was "no bill" here's the whole 1,500 page bill that came out of the Finance Committee.

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

Can anyone understand this shit? Even our big bad Master and PhD's? Really?

It's pretty clear they purposely write this stuff in a way so that a lot of it is wild card and a lot of it opens the door to easily implement a lot of other things.

Oh well. Everyone knows that particular bill is a "starting point" and it will be heavily modified into something totally different by the time this is all over.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Can anyone understand this shit? Even our big bad Master and PhD's? Really?

It's pretty clear they purposely write this stuff in a way so that a lot of it is wild card and a lot of it opens the door to easily implement a lot of other things.

Quit being a pussy. It's only 1500 pages.

...

I saw an interesting commercial on CNN while on break. Some group wants those making over $250,000 to pay their fair share instead of the middle class paying a 40% tax rate.

Are the richest 1% of us clogging our ER rooms and hoarding all of the hospitals, doctors, nurses and medicines?

Is universal health care really going to cost 40% of wages?

[thrustbucket]

Quit being a pussy. It's only 1500 pages.



Uhuh. Anyone want to guess how many of our elected officials will read the entire thing? Anyone?

[UncleBob]

Uhuh. Anyone want to guess how many of our elected officials will read the entire thing? Anyone?

I'm more interested in how many of them will read and understand the entire thing...

[mykevermin]

Crazy busy this week, but doesn't it stand to reason that a longer document contains greater specifications and therefore fewer opportunities for a "wild card"?

If we really wanted a wild card bill, it would be quite short, no?

ARTICLE I:

Eh, whatever.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Crazy busy this week, but doesn't it stand to reason that a longer document contains greater specifications and therefore fewer opportunities for a "wild card"?

If we really wanted a wild card bill, it would be quite short, no?

ARTICLE I:

Eh, whatever.

It is easier to bury "A Tale of Two Cities" in the middle of a 1500 page document than a one page document.

No great percentage of people are going to read this due to its length and that is why legislation is made longer.

[SpazX]

Honestly, with something like this I'd think you'd want it as long and specific as possible. You'd also want your representatives to read it, but I think I'd rather it be long and specific than short and vague just so somebody can say they read it.

Plus, c'mon, it's 1500 pages, but it's like 1500 pages of large print reader's digest, we're not talking War and Peace here.

[dmaul1114]

Legislators won't read it. Their staffers and aides will and will prepare bullet points for them etc.

[thrustbucket]

Legislators won't read it. Their staffers and aides will and will prepare bullet points for them etc.

I hate that.

[speedracer]

TPM has a story saying that the House Dems are sitting on a plan with a public option that will be cheaper than the Senate plan without one. I guess the idea is that they wait for the CBO to drop the $$ figure on the Senate bill then ride in like saviors with the cheaper public option plan.

For those with strong feelings about omitting a public option, would that in any way sway your opinion? Or is it more the RAWR SOCIALISM thing ya'll is after? I'm curious how much is fiscal vs. ideological.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/house-leaders-work-to-present-conservative-democrats-with-fiscally-responsible-health-care-bill.php?ref=mp

[UncleBob]

I've said before, I'm not against a government option, so long as it's ran equally and fairly against the private options. Meaning it shouldn't be funded at the taxpayer's teat and should comply with all rules and laws that private insurers have to deal with.

[Snake2715]

I've said before, I'm not against a government option, so long as it's ran equally and fairly against the private options. Meaning it shouldn't be funded at the taxpayer's teat and should comply with all rules and laws that private insurers have to deal with.


Exactly..

And recently we are hearing talks f eliminating the cross state regulations so that competition can open up in all states.. one federal guideline. That really has to happen as i have been saying for this to work, otherwise its just not going to work in some states, and the price will vary for each states required coverage limits, that you will notice a new influx of people moving to those states with the cheapest options from the government..

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I've said before, I'm not against a government option, so long as it's ran equally and fairly against the private options. Meaning it shouldn't be funded at the taxpayer's teat and should comply with all rules and laws that private insurers have to deal with.

You know private insurance would lose against public insurance.

1. No need to have profits in public insurance.

2. The government can rewrite rules to favor its own insurance.

[UncleBob]

You know private insurance would lose against public insurance.

1. No need to have profits in public insurance.

2. The government can rewrite rules to favor its own insurance.

Likely.

As with Myke, however, I'm not too concerned about the profits of private insurance. However, so long as the government option is required to fund itself (including payouts, administrative costs, office space, etc.) and not be allowed to make the general tax payer population pay for it, I'm fine with it.

As for the second one, ideally, any rules they rewrite should work in everyone's favor. I would be wholly against something like "All health insurers must do X - the Government Option is exempt from this." This is the fairly competing part.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

As with Myke, however, I'm not too concerned about the profits of private insurance. However, so long as the government option is required to fund itself (including payouts, administrative costs, office space, etc.) and not be allowed to make the general tax payer population pay for it, I'm fine with it.

How would the public option pay for itself without taxing the general population?

If the public option doesn't tax the general population, the only people taking the public option are the rejects the private options won't cover. The pool will be all high cost participants who can't pay their own way already. So, the public option will fail without an infusion by taxing the general population.

For example, old people aren't the only ones paying for Medicare or Social Security.

[dmaul1114]

How would the public option pay for itself without taxing the general population?


I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.

It could still be cheaper for members than private insurance as it's not being ran to maximize profits, pay executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses etc., finding ways to cut down wasteful spending/unneeded care etc. Its not like medicare/medicaid where it's for people who generally aren't working, or are making very little and paying little taxes.

Whether it can be pulled off is another question, but that's the idea of how to do it with out raising taxes across the board.

[UncleBob]

I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.

It could still be cheaper for members than private insurance as it's not being ran to maximize profits, pay executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses etc., finding ways to cut down wasteful spending/unneeded care etc. Its not like medicare/medicaid where it's for people who generally aren't working, or are making very little and paying little taxes.

Whether it can be pulled off is another question, but that's the idea of how to do it with out raising taxes across the board.

What he said.

The government claims that the government option is to "compete" with private insurers. If that's the case, then it needs to compete fairly. Unless we're going to let private insurers start taxing citizens, then the competing government option should not be allowed to either.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.

It could still be cheaper for members than private insurance as it's not being ran to maximize profits, pay executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses etc., finding ways to cut down wasteful spending/unneeded care etc. Its not like medicare/medicaid where it's for people who generally aren't working, or are making very little and paying little taxes.

Whether it can be pulled off is another question, but that's the idea of how to do it with out raising taxes across the board.

There are three variables: X, Y and Z.

X is the maximum amount a person can pay for insurance.

Z is the amount a person would be charged for private insurance.

Y is the amount a person would be charged for public insurance.

X is greater than Z. So, a person can't afford private insurance.

Y is less than Z. Y is some value between 0.5Z to 0.8Z.

If the public option will be successful without taxes, Y must be equal to or less than X.

If Y is greater than X, it will have to subsidized through taxes against the general population.

Considering the average value of Z for users who can't afford private insurance is between 2X and 10X, the average value of Y for them would be between 1X (hurray!) and 8X (boo!).

[Msut77]

What he said.

The government claims that the government option is to "compete" with private insurers. If that's the case, then it needs to compete fairly. Unless we're going to let private insurers start taxing citizens, then the competing government option should not be allowed to either.

If we really wanted to be "unfair" to insurance companies we would enact single payer.

It looks to me as if your priorities are a wee bit messed up.

[mykevermin]

As with Myke, however, I'm not too concerned about the profits of private insurance.

As with who? Did I misspeak? I certainly don't agree with that. Everyone in the private healthcare industry can drop fuckin' dead this second and I won't shed two tears of sympathy.

[dmaul1114]

I think he was agreeing with you in part---saying he didn't care if profits for private insurance went down drastically after a public option funded by member premiums.

[mykevermin]

Oh. Well, I'm a big jerk, aren't I.

[dmaul1114]

If the public option will be successful without taxes, Y must be equal to or less than X.


Shouldn't be that hard to do since premiums can be much lower than private insurance since it can be ran as a non-profit just trying to break even or make small profits for rainy days, and thus can cut out millions in salary and other overhead, bonuses etc.

Add in some subsidies for people who's income is below a level to afford the public option, but too high to qualify for medicaid and it could be pretty successful IMO.

[perdition(troy]

Add in some subsidies

Just call it what it is. Take tax money from people that pay taxes and give it to people who don't providing them with free health care.

[Msut77]

Just call it what it is. Take tax money from people that pay taxes and give it to people who don't providing them with free health care.

Just like in this example?

http://news.aol.com/article/bill-caudle-joins-army-to-insure-cancer/722838

[dmaul1114]

Just call it what it is. Take tax money from people that pay taxes and give it to people who don't providing them with free health care.

Not totally free--that's medicaid. But yes, it's taxing those of us who are better off to help those who can't afford the public option fully but make to much to qualify for medicaid.

Ideally there should be no tax increase, just cut wasteful spending in defense and other areas to shuffle the tax money around.

[Thomas96]

i thought the goal was to make health care cheaper overall.

[thrustbucket]

So given the fact that the average profit margin for health care providers is 3.6%, we don't care if we let government deeply cut into that, and we don't care about how many thousands of jobs are lost because they go under.

Yet we need to do everything possible, at tax payer expense, to try and prevent job loss for auto-workers? We need to bail out the auto-worker, because their employer made shitty decisions?

The rampant unfounded popularism for hating health care company's is insane.

I think there is a lesson here, kids: I guess the conclusion that can be drawn is that the Health care industry really needs to unionize better so that they can afford to make our politicians>media>us care about them.