Heathcare Reform

alfadriver wrote:

triumph7 wrote: - Require a co-pay on all services under current Medicaid, Medicare and other “entitlement” programs. This action would prevent people from using the ER as a primary care physician.

I get to this point of the "argument" and call BS. People who have Medicare and Medicade go to doctors. Both my parents and my in-laws are on medicare- they go to real doctors, have real, scheduled surguries, and whatnot. ER's are for people who have nothing. Why? Because law challenge after law challenge has told every ER in the country that they HAVE to serve everyone, without question. If they can't pay, we all do. We can complain about ailiens all day long, but the challenge has been held up in many courts over many years- unless laws are strictly, and constitutionally re-written, ER "heathcare" is going to continue without change. We all know that ER care has inflated prices, right? If we get over the flawed idea that we can keep anyone (yes ANYONE) out of an ER, then perhaps we can move on and start finding more effective solutions, both fiscally, and car wise- like letting people go to doctors. Whether you like it or lothe it, EVERYONE is entitled to care at an ER- this isn't my opinion- this is based on challenges in court. So I'd recommend getting over it, and finding better solutions. As for benefiting the lazy- I'd suggest dealing with that, too. To cover the hard working un-insured, like joey, we are going to have to cover everyone. "General Welfare" can be a bitch. The other part- the whole "unwanted legislation"- I'm tired of hearing that. Yes, there is a good part of the country that does not want it, but right now, there's pretty much an equal part of the country that does want it. Eric

Eric, this was not an argument, rather part of a proposed alternative solution. Please re-read. Life is a series of choices. The problem I am addressing is where someone will choose to use their money on tattoos, cigarettes, cable, cell phones or whatever instead of food, shelter and health insurance. "Oh little Jimmy has the sniffles, take him to the ER... IT"S FREE." If they go to a regular doctor there is a co-pay, less money for beer. I think CLINICS are for people who have nothing, the ER is for people with serious injuries/illnesses.

As far as who wants this and who doesn't, from what I've heard opinions flowing into congressional offices is about 80% against. That brings up another issue. There are a number of REPRESENTATIVES that are openly stating they would vote AGAINST the wishes of their constituencies.

alfadriver wrote: With reform, you should be able to choose your provider, which, in theory, should make them far more efficent.

Which was kind of the point of my post, it is more than insurance or pharma that is wonky. The patients and providers need to be reset. The "ME" in my example ignored the "community clinic" OPTION.

Rebuilding the community clinic should be a priority as well. The issue still comes to who is paying for services, how much, to whom, for whom, when and what for.

Josh wrote: Well, I don't have a constitutional *right* not to be on fire, either. Or to know algebra. But we still provide these services. Do you disagree with this practice?

Fire service actually started with individual insurance companies providing services to protect the buildings they insured from fire. If you insured your building you were given a plaque to hang on it so the insurance companies would know which buildings to put out. It grew up to be more efficient to have those services handled publicly in crowded cities. Nonetheless, it is as more a question of protecting everyone else's property around a given building than it is a method of protecting the individual's property from burning. Also, it is actually more efficient for everybody to protect property this way rather than individually. And, also note that there are laws that determine what you're allowed to use to build buildings and what you're allowed to keep in them so they do not explode and burn down.

Most people are actually protected by volunteer fire organizations and I voluntarily contribute annually to my local company to help them provide service for me. should I ever need it.

Health care, however, is centered on the individual, not protecting the people around the individual, unless you want to stretch the analogy and claim everything is an epidemic waiting to happen. Plenty of health care has nothing to do with possible contagion and everything to do with keeping an individual healthy. Do you think that there should be laws determining how you can eat, how much exercise you must get, etc. just like there are laws saying what you have to build with and what you can't keep in your building? We have fire codes - if "the government" is paying for your health care, shouldn't they have health codes as well?

I'm not a big fan of public schooling, either, though I am a product of it to some extent (as are my kids, though in charter school form, which is well away from the normal experience). Everybody loves to bemoan how underfunded our educational system is, but mostly I see waste and idiotic spending choices from many districts, as well as politics and local/federal laws that make schooling difficult. The only way I see public education as a truly cost-effective thing is if you accept the fundamental assumption that you will be paying the uneducated with welfare later anyway.

Personally I'd rather ditch both the educational and welfare systems together rather than maintain the former because you won't get rid of the latter, but you can forget that ever happening.

Keep the clinics open 24-7 and the ERs will see less transient business as well.

alfadriver wrote: Oddly enough, we do have that right. Or, more correctly, Congress has the power to supply that right. See Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Nice try but in this case "General welfare" does not mean handing out money to every person and "re-distributing wealth". It means providing a safe environment where you have the freedom to succeed or fail, where you have the freedom to make good or bad choices.

wayslow wrote:

poopshovel said: Here's the big one for me: When did we get a right to live forever (hint: we didn't.) So if we don't have a right to live forever, how long do we have a right to live for? I'm not screaming "OBAMA LIES, GRANNY DIES!" What I'm saying is, at what is your neighbor's life not worth your tax dollars? If your 90 year old neighbor needs $200,000 worth of surgeries to keep his unproductive ass alive for another year, should the government be able to steal that money from you, the young, healthy taxpayer? (seriously, I'm just curious.) I'm just curious if this is the same useless 90 year old who jumped out of a landing craft in Normandy? I should explain that I'm Canadian and may have a different perspective of who owes whom what.

I agree 100%. My point is that, at some point, in ANY AND ALL government run healthcare systems, there WILL be rationing, so someone is going to have to decide what the "cutoff" is.

z31maniac wrote: No one is saying people shouldn't have health insurance, although I wonder what portion of people could afford if they chose not to have a $150 a month cable/internet bill, it's just that I'd like to see a way to reign in costs and promote competition.

FYI - health insurance for a family is MUCH more than $150 a month.

Actually, my cable bill is right around $100. I can't even pay for insurance for myself with that measly amount of money.

Your statement about reining in costs and promote competition are absolutely right.

Duke wrote: The masses will always vote themselves bread and circuses. That doesn't make it the right decision.

Nice Heinlein quote. Still doesn't apply.

The truth is your self-centered in your debate on this issue. You've got yours and are evidently unsympathetic towards people who have less than you for reasons beyond their control like job loss, catastrophic illness, or even a much less advantaged starting point in life. Believe me, most of us who are talking here are a paycheck or 3 away from being without health insurance. Sure, we could hit up an ER. Then we'd have to declare bankruptcy to avoid the bills that would hound us for decades. After declaring bankruptcy and trashing your credit try getting a decent job, affordable car insurance, or a loan. All things tied to credit scores. All things you quite likely take for granted that aren't available if you become sick beyond your means to pay.

The system is broken. Saying that it doesn't need to be fixed is not a solution no matter how badly you wish it were true.

Another thing, it will be expensive. If we cut profit out of the equation it will be much less so.

You must live in a state with the acceptance clauses? Where most pay nearly the same premium?

Here in OK, while I was a contract employee with MerCruiser I was able to buy a plan for $90/month (relatively healthy 26yr old male at that point). That's just the cut of my employer based insurance now.

There is a really good article on Fortune today and I agree with nearly all of it. It's too bad something so straight forward would never get passed.

I'm well aware that insurance for a family is more expensive, which is why I don't have one. I don't have the means to support one.

Xceler8x wrote: The system is broken. Saying that it doesn't need to be fixed is not a solution no matter how badly you wish it were true.

I didn't say the current system doesn't need repair. I said I'm 100% against socialized medicine. There's quite a difference in the two statements.

I will admit that "fair" != "equal", so it is perfectly acceptable to me that some people (me and my own necessities included) do not have some things under a fair system.

The long and short of it is that no one else but Obama and Clinton have had the balls to attempt to change what is a system we all agree is broken.

What other solution has been proposed besides statements along the lines of "I don't want X!" or "We can't change X because then rich guys won't get richer at the same rate they do today!" or "I won't pay for X because I'm already comfortable and society/less fortunate people aren't deserving of my help."

The other truth is Congressmen and Senators have glorious, cheap, and unending health insurance. If it's good enough for them why isn't it good enough for us? Yes, the same people telling you that a public option is bad are the same guys who utilize a public option each day they're sick.

Who's the bigger hypocrite? Shouldn't we all have the same care as aren't we all equal? Some of you claim religious affiliation. What would your religious teachings lead you to do baring cost and personal sacrifice on your part?

triumph7 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Oddly enough, we do have that right. Or, more correctly, Congress has the power to supply that right. See Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Nice try but in this case "General welfare" does not mean handing out money to every person and "re-distributing wealth". It means providing a safe environment where you have the freedom to succeed or fail, where you have the freedom to make good or bad choices.

I still can't understand the equating of health care to a cash prize handout. I would contend that it's pretty hard to have any sort of freedom once you're dead.

What scares me is that everyone agrees the system is broken, but even the government isn't powerful enough to fix it. Thanks to the deep pockets of the health insurance providers and the endless money their lobbyists pour into Washington the possibility for true health care reform is pretty much nil. This reform will go down in flames just like the previous attempts. As long as insurance companies can pour endless money into lobbying, the people (who have insurance) will be at the mercy of the companies. Health insurance is a business, businesses make money, saving lives costs money, what business decision do you think the shareholders will make?

President Obama has repeatedly looked straight into the camera and told the nation…if you like your current private healthcare plan, you can keep it.

I’m sorry, but this is nothing short of old school, greasy lying politician speak. Again, I’m sorry, I know many of you absolutely adore the president and it serves none of our interests to incite tensions but I have to point out the simple, obvious, & unambiguous facts.

If you get laid off (~10% unemployment makes that a real concern) or if you change jobs (~12% voluntary turnover is typical today) or if your employer drops its private plan (% unknown but could be huge given the difficulty of competing against an entity that doesn’t need to be profitable), you will no longer be eligible for a private plan.

What else can I say…in the most polite, respectful terms I can muster, our president is being disingenuous with us.

The primary justification the president gave us for socializing healthcare was to reduce costs…the OMB has since crunched the numbers and come to the shocking realization that costs would actually go up…no E36 M3 Einstein.

Why didn’t the president drop healthcare reform when he learned it would be counter to his reported objective? I think it’s pretty evident now that he was never in this to lower costs so again, he’s being disingenuous.

Although I don’t believe we have a constitutional right to free health coverage, I do think it’s the humane, civilized thing to do and as others have pointed out, we’re already doing it in the ER so why not legitimize it so it can be better managed?

I’m afraid the improvements will have to wait…the president has been disingenuous at many levels and as a result, I, along with many others, won’t support him on this.

RX Reven' wrote: President Obama has repeatedly looked straight into the camera and told the nation…if you like your current private healthcare plan, you can keep it.

You can keep it - and pay for increased socialized care TOO! That's a win-win situation, right?

RX Reven' wrote: What else can I say…in the most polite, respectful terms I can muster, our president is being disingenuous with us.

Ok, but right or wrong, this is politics. Everyone is disingenuous with everyone, all the time. If that were a valid reason to just give up on something that needs to be done, there is very little chance we would still exist as a nation.

Duke wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: President Obama has repeatedly looked straight into the camera and told the nation…if you like your current private healthcare plan, you can keep it.

You can keep it - and pay for increased socialized care TOO! That's a win-win situation, right?

That's definitely not true. Section 102 of the house bill basically says you can keep your current insurance BUT no one can be enrolled in anything other than the public option after the reform becomes effective, if you like your current insurance don't quit your job or get fired or let your employer go under. On your next job you're stuck with public option.

triumph7 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Oddly enough, we do have that right. Or, more correctly, Congress has the power to supply that right. See Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Nice try but in this case "General welfare" does not mean handing out money to every person and "re-distributing wealth". It means providing a safe environment where you have the freedom to succeed or fail, where you have the freedom to make good or bad choices.

So providing for a safe environment does not include healthcare? How is it a choice that I get sick? Where did I decide that I would get run over while walking on a sidewalk? What bad choice did I make when someone brings back a preventable disease while serving our country overseas and I get it? How do I fail that my parents gave me the genetic pre-disposition to some curable disease?

I didn't say the fancy catch phrase- "re-distributing wealth"- why isn't that ever brought up for national defence (sic?)- the rich pay more for that than the poor.

Oh, and where is your definition of General Welfare stated? Or is it just an opinion that you and most conservatives state? It's intersting that the line is used exactly in the same line where the Consitution tells congress what they are allowed to use tax money explicitly for. Seems as if, as a society, we are allowed to define that "General Welfare".

Why is it so OK to share your healthcare money within a private company, but not the rest of the nation? Granted, you have the option, as Duke says. But the reality is that while YOU have the option to pay for healthcare, we all do not- if YOU get sick w/o insurance, we all pay anyway. So why no just even the field and make it more efficient? Where people WOULD go to a GP instead to an ER for a cold- a system that encourages that would save money. Until the courts decide that the ER isn't open to all, then we need to deal with that FACT, and change the system for the better.

Eric

One more thing, why do we focus on heathcare as a right?

While I'm saying that Congress has the right to tax us to pay for it, I'm not saying that it's a right.

What I AM saying is that it should be a burden that we all share. I share it with my fellow insurance holders with my healthcare company, and I share it with those who can't afford it when they go to the ER. Just share it outright. Spending so much money on a system where the filtering of my money for profit BEFORE it gets to the providers is stupid.

We share roads, bridges, much of our utility infrustructure. We share defense, schools, a system that protects our envoronment. We share oversight of various industries for our good. Why can't THIS be shared? Heck, if you have insurance, IT IS SUBSIDIZED BY A TAX BREAK. Don't equate this with buying a washing machine- my income for that is taxed prior to that purchase- your healthcare isn't taxed either by you or your company. If you REALLY don't want to share heathcare, how about you pay taxes on that benefit??? Or stop claiming a tax break???

Once we get over that, then we can talk about the providers.

Eric

alfadriver wrote: So providing for a safe environment does not include healthcare? How is it a choice that I get sick? Where did I decide that I would get run over while walking on a sidewalk? What bad choice did I make when someone brings back a preventable disease while serving our country overseas and I get it? How do I fail that my parents gave me the genetic pre-disposition to some curable disease?

You do not have any RIGHT whatsoever to be protected from the vagaries of life. You only have the right to protection from having your rights directly infringed by other people. That's what the government is supposed to protect you from (including from itself).

The "government" doesn't owe me a job, education, food, clothing, shelter, health, or happiness. It owes me protection against being attacked, robbed, or defrauded.

C'est tout. I don't have a problem with that.

alfadriver wrote:

triumph7 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Oddly enough, we do have that right. Or, more correctly, Congress has the power to supply that right. See Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Nice try but in this case "General welfare" does not mean handing out money to every person and "re-distributing wealth". It means providing a safe environment where you have the freedom to succeed or fail, where you have the freedom to make good or bad choices.

So providing for a safe environment does not include healthcare? How is it a choice that I get sick? Where did I decide that I would get run over while walking on a sidewalk? What bad choice did I make when someone brings back a preventable disease while serving our country overseas and I get it? How do I fail that my parents gave me the genetic pre-disposition to some curable disease? I didn't say the fancy catch phrase- "re-distributing wealth"- why isn't that ever brought up for national defence (sic?)- the rich pay more for that than the poor. Oh, and where is your definition of General Welfare stated? Or is it just an opinion that you and most conservatives state? It's intersting that the line is used exactly in the same line where the Consitution tells congress what they are allowed to use tax money explicitly for. Seems as if, as a society, we are allowed to define that "General Welfare". Why is it so OK to share your healthcare money within a private company, but not the rest of the nation? Granted, you have the option, as Duke says. But the reality is that while YOU have the option to pay for healthcare, we all do not- if YOU get sick w/o insurance, we all pay anyway. So why no just even the field and make it more efficient? Where people WOULD go to a GP instead to an ER for a cold- a system that encourages that would save money. Until the courts decide that the ER isn't open to all, then we need to deal with that FACT, and change the system for the better. Eric

My interpretation of the term "general welfare" is based not only on the definitions of the words but the fact that it predates any government welfare system.

I also don't consider private insurance to be "sharing" my healthcare dollars. I am purchasing a service from a company that says if I am sick or injured they will pay an agreed portion of the cost.

I have never said the system was perfect and life is not fair. To use an automotive analogy we have a car that needs tires, the proposal on the table is replacing the car with a badly used one that you don't want. Nationalized, socialized, public option, free... whatever you call it, it has been tried in other countries and some states and has failed every time. Go back and plug my original suggestions into the equation, tort reform and some changes to the insurance regulations primarily, and see what happens. For instance, if you were allowed to group with, say, all the other GRM readers for insurance rating you could buy insurance for less. Right now your government makes that illegal. Tort reform has been brought up but government won't fix it, mostly because (primarily) Democrats are supported by the trial lawyers. So you have two points where the government is aggravating the problem and you want us to trust them to fix what they have in some way caused? The less government is involved in our lives the better.

conservative guy said: Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves. In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/ Not entirely on topic, but I thought you guys would like it.

triumph7 wrote: Nationalized, socialized, public option, free... whatever you call it, it has been tried in other countries and some states and has ]failed every time.

Elaborate, because I do believe this statement is wrong.

edit.. Let me elaborate as well. Check out the CIA factbook on infant mortality. find the countries with socialized medicine, find out they are almost always above us.

CIA factbook said: This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

The U.K., France, Netherlands, Australia, Canada... E36 M3 even Cuba.. They all have a better infant mortality rate.

ignorant wrote:

conservative guy said: Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves. In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/ Not entirely on topic, but I thought you guys would like it.

Um - A LOT of us opposed those as well. The Medicare drug benefit was one of the last times I wrote my congressman. The last time was re: immigration reform.

Those were when I still had hope. Now I'm just resigned to try to get out before we hit the side of the mountain.

conservative guy said: ....conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be....

Barney Frank, love him or hate him, I think he has a very appropriate response in this case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8

DILYSI Dave wrote: Um - A LOT of us opposed those as well.

Understood. It just seems like the party dosen't represent it core values well. They truly have become the party of "No" with no alternatives proposed.