here's a thought let's just put all the healthcare discussion and such all in one place?

new policy? post it here! new idea? post it here! new gripe? post it here!

(i'll start another thread in a bit about education, same idea)

I'll kick it off with my overly simplistic view of how healthcare can't really be run by the government effectively.

the first and biggest reason why healthcare can't be run by the government (single payer, government provided healthcare etc (like canada/UK etc)) is that when and if you do that, you effectively stifle innovation, motivation and incentives for: new (expensive) cutting edge research, and the best and the brightest that want to go to med school for the dr's life/perks won't be going into that profession as there will be a sharp sharp drop in the income (which bleeding hearts say won't matter but ultimately it does).

secondary reasons which ultimately render the governments involvement mute is that the government won't be efficient with it. medicare is actually run rather well but it's still small by comparison to what is planned.



on another note they apparently are cutting the medicare payout for heart echo's, this will result in not cheaper echos but rather a sharp reduction in the availability of echo's as they are no longer worth the expense to the doctor (equipment, tech pay etc). techs will be out of a job.

i'll add some other thoughts later....

any one else?

[Edited on July 10, 2009 at 2:42 PM. Reason : h]

7/10/2009 2:39:01 PM

hey, let's make another thread about healthcare!

7/10/2009 2:41:43 PM

the idea here is to try to consolidate them

7/10/2009 2:43:44 PM

fail

7/10/2009 2:44:11 PM

says the guy making specific threads

7/10/2009 2:48:11 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/08/biden.health.care/index.html

[Quote]
"Biden cheers deal with hospitals on health care reform


(CNN) -- Vice President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that a deal has been reached with hospitals to help fund health care reform.

"We're here today to make our health care system healthy again," Biden said in announcing the agreement.

Biden said the hospital industry has pledged to contribute $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings in the next decade.

"Hospitals have acknowledged that significant health care savings can be achieved by improving efficiencies, realigning incentives to emphasize quality care instead of quantity of procedures," Biden said.

"In the last several weeks, they've been working with [Senate Finance Committee] Chairman [Max] Baucus and are coming forward with a proposal that produces real savings in federal health care spending. Savings that will be applied toward the president's firm goal ... of enacting health care reform that is deficit neutral."

As the health care system becomes more efficient through technology and innovation, Biden said, increases in Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospital will slow and, as more people are insured, hospitals will bear less of the financial burden in caring for those without adequate coverage.

"Today's announcement, I believe, represents the essential role hospitals play in making reform a reality. And the reality will be we must enact this reform this year," Biden said. "We must, and we will, enact reform by the end of August, and we can't wait."

Biden was joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and representatives of the hospital industry.

The hospital deal follows Obama's announcement last month of an agreement reached with the nation's pharmaceutical industry to cut drug costs for elderly Americans, calling it an example of the kind of compromise required for successful national health care reform.

That agreement discounts medications for Medicare beneficiaries facing high out-of-pocket expenses when their benefits reach a gap in coverage.

Following Biden's announcement, House Minority Leader John Boehner accused the administration and Democrats of "bullying health care groups into cutting backroom deals to fund a government takeover of health care."

"Democrats, Republicans, and health care stakeholders must work together on real reform to give Americans better access to affordable health care, but that's not happening in Washington," Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

"It's time for Washington Democrats to abandon their 'go it alone' approach and work with Republicans on true reform that expands Americans' access to affordable health care," he said."[/quote]


aaronburro's response

"Apparently Biden doesn't understand economics. If the hospitals are going to "ask for less money" from the federal government for the services they will provide, then they will simply recoup the money by charging every one else more. Duuurrrrr. Either that, or they expect to get more out of this deal than they are giving up, thus making the touted "savings" bullshit to begin with. And, if it's neither of those two, then it must be the case that the hospitals are gouging consumers.

Put simply, hospitals aren't going to simply take a pay cut. They will simply do what economics says they will do: shift the cost elsewhere. How's that for the government "competing with the private market?" It amazes me that people who are so fucking ignorant of the basics of economics can rise to be a senator or even the fucking Vice President."http:///message_topic.aspx?topic=570751

7/10/2009 2:50:06 PM

1337 b4k4

Health Insurance or ELSE!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/health/policy/06health.html

Quote :

"All Americans would have access to “essential health care benefits,” with no annual or lifetime limits, employers would have to contribute to the cost of coverage and the government would create a new public insurance program under sweeping legislation drafted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy and circulated Friday. Under the legislation, the government would subsidize premiums for people with incomes up to 500 percent of the poverty level ($110,000 for a family of four), and private insurers would have to pay out a specified percentage of their premium revenues in benefits. The new government-run program would pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, plus 10 percent. ... The bill gives no indication of how Mr. Kennedy would pay for his proposals, other than by requiring contributions by individuals and employers. ... Under the Kennedy bill, individuals would be subject to financial penalties if they did not have health insurance. The Treasury secretary would set the amount of the penalties, at “the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal” of expanding coverage. The penalties would be added to a person’s tax bill and collected by the Internal Revenue Service. People would be exempt from the penalties if “affordable health care coverage is not available” or if the premium payments would cause “an exceptional financial hardship.” President Obama recommended such a “hardship waiver” this week. Under Mr. Kennedy’s bill, the secretary of health and human services would establish a panel of experts, the Medical Advisory Council, to recommend a minimum package of insurance benefits. If Congress did not disapprove the recommendations, insurers would generally have to provide the benefits. The bill stipulates that the “essential benefits” include doctors’ services, hospital care, maternity and newborn care, prescription drugs and mental health and substance abuse services. Any group health plan or insurance company that provided coverage for children and their parents would have to offer to continue “dependent coverage” for the children through age 26. In effect, young adults could stay on their parents’ policies. ... Under the bill, the federal government would make grants to the states to establish insurance marketplaces or exchanges. Those entities, known as health benefit gateways, would disseminate information about premiums and benefits and would help people enroll. The new entities would also act as financial intermediaries, receiving subsidy payments from the government and sending the money to insurance companies. The insurance exchanges would also redistribute money among health insurance plans, from those with a large share of healthy subscribers to those with large numbers of sick people. ... The secretary of health and human services would establish the new government-sponsored plan, which would compete directly with private insurers. Republicans strenuously oppose a government-run plan, but Mr. Obama says it is needed to “keep insurance companies honest.”"

So...

Mandatory health care for all. Not only will you pay premiums, your employer will pay premiums and if you want private insurance (as opposed to .govcare) you will likely pay an additional premium. In addition, your taxes will be used to pay for further premiums to fund .govcare for families making less than 100k per year.

In addition, if you're young and healthy and don't have a need for extensive medical coverage, that's just too damn bad because you don't have a choice. If you don't pay for it out of pocket, you'll pay for it in taxes, which will surely be a very cost effective way to get the money. Interestingly, if affordable coverage isn't available (which just leads to the question as to what the purpose of this is if not to provide affordable coverage) you can get an exemption, so in addition to subsidizing families at +500% of poverty, your taxes will further pay for the entire costs for certain segments of the population that aren't on medicare/caid and for whom this massively expanded program has failed.

And the hell with what YOU want in your insurance. Your benefits will be decided by a panel of politicians, who will determine what services are "necessary". If you are unable medically to have children, you will still pay for maternity care. No plans on doing drugs or becoming a junkie, no family history of alcoholism? Too bad, you will pay for substance abuse coverage.

Finally, in a flash of brilliance, not only will this coverage be paid indirectly via 3 different taxes applied at different locations all going to the same place, but it will then be redistributed to another middle man at the state level (also subsidized by taxes) who will oversee the monies and pass them out to the various insurance companies, guaranteeing equal payments to all, regardless of how good or bad you run your company. Of course, this will be perfectly efficient and no losses or price increases at all will occur due to the increasing number of middle men between you and your doctor. And this probably further rules out people like the doc in NYC who offered all his services at a flat rate of $70/month + $10 a visit who was shut down by the NY government because only insurance companies are allowed to offer medical services at flat rates.

Further if you are an insurance company, you will be required to spend a certain amount of your revenue on benefits no matter what and you will also be required to cover "children" up to age 26, and you will be competing directly with .govcare which is paid for entirely with tax revenue (what happens to funding in a recession?) which means unlike your company, which has to worry about revenue streams and expenses and keeping premiums competitive and collecting your total premiums from individuals, businesses, the state and the federal government, your newest and biggest competitor just has to raise taxes (FOR THE CHILDREN!!) when expenses start exceeding revenue.

I am fully in agreement that our healthcare situation in this country needs fixing, but how in the hell can anyone think this monstrosity is an improvement?

http:///message_topic.aspx?topic=568132

7/10/2009 2:52:00 PM

Socks``

Quote :

"Need More Competition in Health Insurance? Why not drop restrictions that prevent individuals from purchasing health insurance across state lines? Its no wonder that insurance markets are especially concentrated in some, typically small states. From an insurance company's perspective, the more people you cover, the lower your costs will be. As a result, its hard for a large number of insurance companies to stay in business in a single state because they would be slicing the population too thin to be profitable. I don't see why we need more government to improve competition by offering a public option. Its kind of the government's fault that competition is so restricted now. At least that's the way I see it. Let me know if I got something wrong."

http:///message_topic.aspx?topic=569805

7/10/2009 2:56:10 PM

do you enjoy talking to yourself?

7/10/2009 4:23:26 PM

Quote :

"socialism is more efficient than capitalism, which turned out to be false. We tried that and it didn't work. In other words, you have to compare systems not arbitrarily pick out for comparison one type of costs.""

What is this guy smoking? When did we try out socialism? And how is that, in itself, not an arbitrary example?

Quote :

"Put simply, hospitals aren't going to simply take a pay cut. They will simply do what economics says they will do: shift the cost elsewhere. How's that for the government "competing with the private market?" It amazes me that people who are so fucking ignorant of the basics of economics can rise to be a senator or even the fucking Vice President"

You're essentially saying that hospitals operate at 100% efficiency and healthcare costs can't be improved because the market is perfect. You really wonder why people aren't saying what you're saying?

BTW, sorry to call you out in response to Arab13

7/10/2009 4:56:09 PM

Quote :

"What is this guy smoking? When did we try out socialism?"

Russia... China... Eastern Europe...

Quote :

"You're essentially saying that hospitals operate at 100% efficiency and healthcare costs can't be improved because the market is perfect."

I'm not sure how you get that from what I said. Straw man, much?

7/10/2009 5:36:34 PM

Let's make a unified politics thread, too.

And another for wars. That'll clean this section up reeaaaaaaaaalllll nice.

7/10/2009 8:00:10 PM

Quote :

"Breaking News Alert The New York Times Friday, July 10, 2009 -- 7:40 PM ET ----- House Democrats Plan to Tax the Wealthy for Health Reform To pay for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system,House Democrats will propose a surtax on individuals earning $280,000 and up and couples earning more than $350,000, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said on Friday. In all, the proposal is projected to generate roughly $550 billion over 10 years, which would cover about half of the estimated cost of the $1-trillion-plus health care legislation. But it remains unclear if the Senate would approve such an across-the-board income tax on the wealthy. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na"

SOAK

THE

"RICH"

7/10/2009 8:21:30 PM

rich people do stupid shit like invest with Madoff.

might as well let the gubmet take a shot with their money.

7/10/2009 11:22:07 PM

Let's ask Hoover how well raising taxes in a recession worked out

7/11/2009 6:15:15 PM

Quote :

"House Dems propose tax on wealthy to fund health care"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/house.health.care.tax/index.html

I don't understand.....

Why are people who likely are responsible enough to pay for their own health insurance being charged with funding health insurance for a large portion of the country; many of whom could pay for their own health service. Instead though they lack financial responsibility and would rather pay for premium cable , a 2009 Ford Mustang lease, lotto tickets, and/or booze than ensuring their family receives health care........

I can understand the "progressive" tax for certain aspect of federal spending. The wealthy have more at stake for funding defense, infrastructure, and certain other programs that as a society all members do/can benefit. I never though understood why working high income individuals are expected to subsidize as a higher proportion of income certain non-discretionary spending as retirement, health care, and other such programs for individuals, many of whom are not responsible with the money they do receive to fund themselves. Nobody said that Jimmy needed to have 5 kids with his wife Pamela Sue than whines that he can't afford health insurance.

I've had a revelation lately and perhaps its nothing new. Welfare and other income distribution programs are not zero sum games. $5 taking from mr. rich doesn't disappear when its given to Tyrone welfare recipient. Essentially the "recipients" of such monies are place-holders for wealth. In reality the real winners are consumer goods companies and state governments that profit from Tyrone buying more beer, the ABC store, paying NC sales tax for his 60" TV that he gets instead of saving for retirement, other industries catering to the lowest common denominator. Surely John Kerry's wife's stock in Heinz increases if the working and under class have more money to go to McD's to soak their super size French fries in ketchup.



[Edited on July 12, 2009 at 3:33 AM. Reason : k]

7/12/2009 3:18:25 AM

HUR: I want to address some of your premises that are a little off:

Quote :

"Why are people who likely are responsible enough to pay for their own health insurance being charged with funding health insurance for a large portion of the country; many of whom could pay for their own health service."

Think about it this way, why do people who are healthy have to subsidize the cost of providing healthcare to those who are not? Because those who are healthy will one day be sick. Someone who can afford the cost of healthcare while healthy, will no longer be able to afford it when they become sick. In the same way, those who are able to pay for insurance now while they are healthy, will be shutout when they become sick.

Quote :

"I can understand the "progressive" tax for certain aspect of federal spending. The wealthy have more at stake for funding defense, infrastructure, and certain other programs that as a society all members do/can benefit."

Wealth is not taxed. Income and profits are taxed. Being wealthy is to have accumulated so much money you will never run out. The wealthy don't have much of a dog in this fight because they can obtain healthcare either way and they don't have to pay taxes, unless their wealth grows.

Now, if you are defining wealthy as those who have a lot of income, then my argument above applies. You pay now while you have the income, and you reap the rewards later when you need them. The reason healthcare reform is happening now, is because these people, the middle class are the ones who stand to benefit. The reality is most people who consider themselves rich, if not for the social safety net, are 6 months away from broke.

Ask yourself, if you lost your job, couldn't find another one, and didn't have unemployement, how long could you maintain your families' health insurance (about $900/mo).

Quote :

"Nobody said that Jimmy needed to have 5 kids with his wife Pamela Sue than whines that he can't afford health insurance."

While I don't disagree with frustration at people who grow their families irresponsibly, this is beyond the point. Those children exist. Those children deserve every opportunity to grow up and be a productive citizen. When we let children slip through the cracks, we lose productive citizens.

Quote :

"I've had a revelation lately and perhaps its nothing new. Welfare and other income distribution programs are not zero sum games."

Also, consider this: What is the cost to the wealthy of having desperately poor people walking around? You would certainly see a lot more property crimes, but you would also see more organized crime and things like kidnappings for ransom. To put it another way, would you rather be wealthy in the US or Europe, where taxes are higher but the poor are provided for or in a Central American country with lower taxes and angry, armed peasants hellbent on taking your wealth?

7/12/2009 8:45:29 AM

Why isn't health responsibility the main issue with the entire health-care debate?
Many people like to point out that in a rich, modern and capable society, no one should have to fear losing their job or well-being over a RANDOM illness or injury. I agree.... but this is entirely different from what is actually being promoted. Universal health-care would mean that even if someone is clearly 100% responsible for their illness or injury, that others should have to at least help pay for it.

Why don't more liberals propose a national pooling of risk ONLY for the RANDOM illnesses and injuries? The #1 objection to government-provided health-care is that everyone would have to help Joe Couch-Potato pay for his heart surgery -- that was very arguably entirely Joe Couch-Potato's fault. Joe Couch-Potato AND ONLY Joe Couch-Potato should have to pay for his self-caused health-care needs.

Certainly, the line between self-caused and random illness and injury may be unclear, and it's reasonable to err on the side of being at least semi-random, but still: WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYONE ELSE'S SELF-CAUSED MESS? (Unless, of course, they're your legal dependent.)

^

Quote :

"armed peasants hellbent on taking your wealth"

If this happened, I, for one, would gladly donate 10% of my income to private local charities so they could pay for the "peasants" health care. The idea that society would allow poor people to, en mass, turn to crime to pay for their health-care is ludicrous. Sure, some misers would choose to not donate one penny -- and they shouldn't have to. But the minute a local crime increase could be shown to have been caused by desperate, sick, and poor people, then that local society would, without a doubt, choose to donate money to pay for the poor people's care... over simply allowing the "peasants" to become armed and hellbent on theft.

7/12/2009 1:14:34 PM

More good news from he land of mandatory insurance:

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/05/28/insurers_ranked_on_payment_records/

Quote :

"The state government Medicaid plan known as MassHealth, which covers low-income patients who can't afford insurance, was the slowest payer of health claims to Massachusetts doctors last year, averaging 56 days, and denied the highest share of claims, 23.8 percent, according to rankings set to be released today. ... While the data showed insurers paid physicians an average 5.3 percent faster and denied an average of 9 percent fewer medical claims last year than in 2007, national health insurers still took an average of 33 days to pay physicians and denied an average of 7.1 percent of claims. Massachusetts payers took an average of 38.6 days to pay doctors and denied an average of 9.2 percent of claims."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/IrwinStelzer/Don_t-mimic-the-Massachusetts-Way-on-health-care-reform-7917580-49727752.html

Quote :

" While the percentage of uninsured Bay Staters has dropped to 2.6 percent (from about 6 percent), the state has never adequately addressed what causes people to go without insurance in the first place: the cost of health care. In fact, a substantial portion of Massachusetts' newly insured still can't afford to purchase even basic medical services, and are effectively no better off than before the law's passage. Meanwhile, government health spending is spiraling out of control, adding to the state's already massive public debt. The numbers are staggering. In seven of the last eight years, per-capita health spending in Massachusetts has increased faster than the national average, according to Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University. Overall health insurance costs in Massachusetts are almost a third higher than the national average, with a basic plan costing almost $17,000 for a typical family of four. Nearly 30 percent of Massachusetts residents report that their medical costs have increased since MassCare's implementation. ... The centerpiece of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform bill is Commonwealth Care, a government program that provides free and subsidized insurance plans to low- and moderate-income patients. It's spending has doubled in the last two years, jumping from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009. Last year, rising costs lead Commonwealth Care officials to approve a 12 percent rate increase, meaning that basic insurance costs will cut even deeper into the incomes of most participating patients. ... And employers, now required to contribute to employee coverage or pay a tax penalty, are drowning under ballooning healthcare costs. Indeed, businesses that sponsor high-quality insurance plans have seen annual rate increases of 10 to 15 percent since MassCare's inception. This has made it harder and harder for businesses to stay in the state. And it's made the state less attractive for entrepreneurs and investors. ... But many of the newly "insured" still can't access medical care. In fact, over the last 12 months, about 10 percent of state residents failed to fill a prescription, missed a payment on a medical bill, or skipped essential medical care. The reason? As Harvard Medical School professor Dr. David Himmelstein explained, "Many of the policies out there have such huge copayments and deductibles that people can't afford care." In other words, many patients are nominally "insured," but they're spending so much on coverage that they can't afford the most basic medical services. Indeed, the least expensive policy for a young family of four costs about $9,500 annually. But that family will have to pay a $3,500 deductible before many of their benefits kick in. Because of these costs, 23 percent of the patient population still relies on emergency room (ER) care for basic medical treatments, the same percentage as before MassCare was implemented in April 2006. Between 2005 and 2007, the number of ER visits increased seven percent, and total ER costs have gone up 17 percent over the last two years. Most disturbingly, patients on state-subsidized insurance use ER care 14 percent more than the average Bay Stater. Hospital officials have calculated that half of patients visiting the ER could have had their ailments addressed by a regular primary care doctor."

http://wbztv.com/local/independent.nurses.state.2.1077911.html

Quote :

"My Trevor is a darling 10-year-old boy who has complex medical special needs from being born premature," said Karen Zablonski, whose son has cerebral palsy and is legally blind and requires round the clock care. His home nursing is covered by MassHealth, the Medicaid program in Massachusetts. From her kitchen table in Royalston, Zablonski said, "I have a nurse who comes here 58 hours a week and handles all his medications, all his changes, and recently I found out she has not been paid by the state since April." This is not surprising to Christine Coad, an independent pediatric nurse who provides complex care to children with needs like Trevor's. She's paid directly by MassHealth, but says her last compensation came on May 12. "We were told we could apply for hardship, which meant calling MassHealth and begging for money that basically we had already earned," said Coad. "I was owed $9,000, I got half of it." ... Karen Zablonski says she's already had one nurse quit because she wasn't being paid. ... Heath and Human Services spokesperson Jennifer Kritz issued this statement: "A few weeks ago, MassHealth announced that it would temporarily hold some provider claims to allow us to manage our cash flow for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ended June 30. "This temporary delay has happened in previous budget cycles, both last year and in previous Administrations."

Twice as many claims denied and almost half as much time to pay claims as the big evil for profit health care companies. Increasing costs for all, including those who the program was supposed to help in the first place. People are still using the ER for their primary care facility. And best of all, when the money gets tight, on top of denying your claims, they'll just stop paying your doctor outright, ensuring that they will happily continue to accept your worthless insurance. Makes you really enthusiastic for ObamaCare doesn't it?

Our health system has plenty of things wrong with it, including how we approach health insurance vs health care, but none of the plans actually proposed by the government thus far will do anything to address the real problems with the system, and if the Mass .govcare is any indication, it will just make things worse for everyone.

7/12/2009 5:49:35 PM

^ I do not think it will be doomsday but I do agree the gov't involvement will be detremental.

If anything hospitals and doctors need to be unleased to a degree from the smoothering bureaucracy of federal regulations,
insurance guidelines, and the AMA monopoly on precedence.

For example the ER should only be for emergencies. Unless u are having a heart attack, blood is gushing from your arm, or you have a 104.5 degree
fever on a sat night and turning yellow; then hospitals should be able to give you the boot.

The AMA, insurance industry, big pharma, and medical industry knew this day was coming. I fault them for our transition into healthcare socialism for not
be proactive enough to "fix" their problems before a liberal democratic congress took shit into their own hands.

7/13/2009 9:02:59 AM

what do you suggest for people who have chronic health problems and lack the money for health insurance?

7/13/2009 9:16:14 AM

Quote :

"Let's make a unified politics thread, too. And another for wars. That'll clean this section up reeaaaaaaaaalllll nice."

most of the healthcare threads can all easily go together, as the subject is pretty narrow...



overheard recently: "but doctor, why would I diet and exercise when all I have to do to fix the problem is take this pill??"


it would depend on what the chronic health problems stem from.
smoking - too damn bad
poor genetics (rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes) - get some aid but have to pay still too

[Edited on July 13, 2009 at 3:42 PM. Reason : s]

7/13/2009 3:41:16 PM

and who is going to decide what health problems are personal problems and which aren't?

for instance diabetes can often be caused by poor health decisions just as much as lung cancer.

if someone gets lung cancer do they have to prove that they weren't smokers?

7/13/2009 3:53:56 PM

Quote :

"what do you suggest for people who have chronic health problems and lack the money for health insurance?"

Well, what are YOU doing, personally, to help them, besides trying to push their costs onto the rest of society? If they can't afford health insurance, then I doubt they will have much success paying for healthcare, even with insurance.

Quote :

"if someone gets lung cancer do they have to prove that they weren't smokers?"

If it were me giving them the money to pay for treatment, then I'd probably check along those lines.

Quote :

"and who is going to decide what health problems are personal problems and which aren't?"

You damned-well better believe the government will if it ever gets complete control of the system.

7/13/2009 6:39:38 PM

Per the Tax Foundation, if the 5.4% surtax outlined in the House health-care bill is implemented, the top tax rate would rise to over 50 percent in 39 states. NC would be over 54%. If you include sales tax, it is likely just shy of 60%.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/24863.html

7/14/2009 9:32:32 PM

run it like a voucher system. give vouchers for purchasing health care, the same way a voucher system would work if we did it in schools. now you're argument is with the concept of universal access to healthcare and your belief in it as a privileged and not a right, not with the way it's run.

then you're left explaining why it's right for someone who can't afford life saving treatment to be punished for past problems by being allowed to just die.

7/14/2009 11:25:10 PM

or you are left explaining why one person should be able to enjoy a service without ever paying for it.

7/14/2009 11:33:08 PM

do you feel the same way about schools? or how about police?

just because our society doesn't judge basic health care as a right doesn't mean that it shouldn't be.

7/14/2009 11:37:29 PM

I'm just worried about the costs of insuring approximately 50 million people.

We should first address the exorbitant price of healthcare in the country. It seems like Obama has only paid lip-service to the concept of actually lowering health care costs. Inefficiencies in the system and profit-margins only account for a portion of these excessive costs. We also need to lower the barrier to entry in the health care insurance market, and give more choice to the consumer. I'm not sure that a heavily-subsidized government plan modeled after Medicare does the trick. It might be an attractive option to the millions of fat, old and sick uninsured, but it'll be a huge money pit unless many more millions of healthy people join in order to balance out the sick patients. Is the goal for the "public plan" to eventually supplant our current system of employer-based coverage? It'll certainly undermine it, and I'm not so sure that is not the goal.

7/14/2009 11:47:19 PM

Quote :

"Is the goal for the "public plan" to eventually supplant our current system of employer-based coverage? It'll certainly undermine it, and I'm not so sure that is not the goal."

many assume that is the case.

7/14/2009 11:51:56 PM

i don't believe any of those are rights, no.

But then again, I paid for my college and now pay for the children of others to go to school.
I pay for police.

healthcare is not a right. Any one should be able to purchase health care, if he has the funds. That is the furthest extent that such a "right" exists. A right such as that cannot exist where one man must give up his labour or property in order for another man to "exercise" his right. Just like McD's shouldn't be forced to give a meal to any slob who wanders in off the street and says he wants a burger without paying. McD's can freely give that man a burger if they want (and I believe they might even have a policy to do so, or is that Wendy's), but the gov't shouldn't force them to do so. So it is with healthcare.

You'll duly note that the gov't provides food stamps, and I don't believe it should. If you can't make enough money to be able to afford food, then you should probably die, because you are a waste of life and space. Laid off? I understand that, that's what charities, friends, and savings are for. Can't find any of them? You should have planned better or been nicer to people. It's cold, it's heartless, but it's the truth.

What about the kids? If you are such a loser that you can't afford food, then I'd prefer your kids die, too, so we stop passing along the stupid genes. Millions made it through before the advent of food stamps, so why should we assume people today can't?

7/14/2009 11:52:39 PM

Quote :

"But then again, I paid for my college and now pay for the children of others to go to school. I pay for police."

in the same way that taxes could potentially pay for your health care.

Quote :

"What about the kids? If you are such a loser that you can't afford food, then I'd prefer your kids die, too, so we stop passing along the stupid genes. Millions made it through before the advent of food stamps, so why should we assume people today can't?"

jesus at least when you were young you were just a loser. now you seem to have added huge asshole on top of that. i don't give a shit about someone who wishes kids dead.

[Edited on July 14, 2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2009 11:56:41 PM

Quote :

"You'll duly note that the gov't provides food stamps, and I don't believe it should. If you can't make enough money to be able to afford food, then you should probably die, because you are a waste of life and space. Laid off? I understand that, that's what charities, friends, and savings are for. Can't find any of them? You should have planned better or been nicer to people. It's cold, it's heartless, but it's the truth. What about the kids? If you are such a loser that you can't afford food, then I'd prefer your kids die, too, so we stop passing along the stupid genes. Millions made it through before the advent of food stamps, so why should we assume people today can't?"

lol either you do a good job of playing a dick on the internet or you're a massive piece of shit. gonna guess the former since i doubt you'd have the cajones to go to a public clinic and tell some old bagwoman to die.

plus you've always made a TWW career of playing the massive idiot. now go throw some flags at sidney lowe or something.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

7/15/2009 12:05:37 AM

such fantastic responses.

7/15/2009 7:08:09 AM

Quote :

"You'll duly note that the gov't provides food stamps, and I don't believe it should. If you can't make enough money to be able to afford food, then you should probably die, because you are a waste of life and space. Laid off? I understand that, that's what charities, friends, and savings are for. Can't find any of them? You should have planned better or been nicer to people. It's cold, it's heartless, but it's the truth."

"its the truth"? Actually, that sounds like a value judgement. And its always pretty hard to argue that value judgments are true or false. In fact, a few people would argue that these types of statements cannot be assigned truth values at all. But I guess thats a metaethical discussion that could be tabled for later.

What I really want to know is what value system has led you to the conclusion that people "should" starve to death when they cannot afford food. Ussually when I run across this type of statement, its coming from someone with a rudimentary understanding of some theory of "inalienable or natural rights". The argument usually goes something like "every human being on earth has a certain set of rights, one of which is the right to own property and exclude others from its use. Saying some people can take the property of others if they are starving will contradict our fundamental right to own property. Therefore, if you cannot buy food yourself, it is better to starve to death than to violate the rights of your fellow man by stealing (either through burglary or through taxes)."

This would be the type of argument I would expect from Ayn Rand. Of course, I say this is a rudimentary understanding of "rights" because on a moment's thought you can see a large number of different problems of using this system to make value judgments. First, the most obvious and fundamental problem is explaining where these rights come from and why anyone should respect them (Rand never came up with a good answer). Second, even if you were to somehow address the first problem, using this type of conception of "absolute property rights" can lead us to very uncomfortable moral conclusions (you'd be surprised how hard it is to define what constitutes "property rights violations" without making every day activities like breathing a violation of other people's property rights). All of these problems have been pointed out by many philosophers, but I think one of the best summaries of these arguments is by Economist David Friedman in his book "The Machinery of Freedom." You can find a webbed version of the relevant chapter here:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

Anyway, aaronburro based on your earlier comment about "rights", I suspect your argument follows the structure laid out above. But I hope it doesn't. Would you mind describing why you think it is necessarily "true" that people that cannot afford to eat should starve to death???

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM. Reason : ``]

7/15/2009 7:55:37 AM

Quote :

"so we stop passing along the stupid genes."

I agree with this statement though kids starving the street is politically incorrect.

Perhaps would could tie welfare benefits to some kind of penalty for having additional children or offer increased public funds for being sterilized.

The current system is broken as chronic recepients of social welfare programs (food stamps, welfare check, medicaid, etc) are rewarded
for reproducing more children. Statistically these kids will either end up in jail, repeat the cycle, or both.

Have kids, make $25000 and would rather spend your money on Victoria secret, kenny chesney concerts, and expanding your trailer to a double
wide instead of providing health insurance?

No worries our liberal congress as a solution for you! Publicly funded healthcare insurance funded by the evil rich people who charge you
$120 extra on your last cable bill after you decided to watch 8 pay-per-view pr0ns.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 8:36 AM. Reason : a]

7/15/2009 8:30:00 AM

^^
Cycle of life, baby.
(Except I disagree about the kids -- It's not their fault, they shouldn't be punished by starving to death -- it's bad enough that they'll be taken by social services while their parents continue to suffer....)
Also, this whole "starve to death" thing is really just a liberal scare-tactic.
OUR SOCIETY IS NOT EVIL. WE ARE NOT CANNIBALS. WE WOULD NEVER LET CROWDS OF PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH, UNLESS THEY CHOSE TO REFUSE HELP.

They overwhelming best part about this, AND LIBERALS SHOULD FUCKING LOVE THIS, is that when the government stops stealing the property and fruits of labor from successful people in order to give it out as food stamps (which often buy junk-food and crack, anyway,) then the many hungry and starving people that are still unable to fend for themselves will still need a source of free food -- and this food will come from private charities, as it already does, but in larger amount to meet the rising need. As these private groups, most of which would be churches, spend more money on helping the poor, they would be left with little money to spend on their efforts to push their other less-than-noble agendas. In other words, if 95% of your charity goes to feeding the poor, THERE'S NOT MUCH LEFT OVER FOR: 1) trying to keep creationism in the schools. 2) trying to keep abstinence-only education in the schools, 3) trying to keep drugs illegal, 4) trying to prevent gay marriage, 5) trying to get homosexuality labeled a disorder, 6) trying to encourage patriarchal families, 7) trying to keep "in god we trust" on the money, and other bullshit agendas. What's that? The church is discontinuing it's fight against ________ [some backwards shit] because it needs the money to feed starving people? OH NOES.

Quote :

"healthcare is not a right. Any one should be able to purchase health care, if he has the funds. That is the furthest extent that such a "right" exists. A right such as that cannot exist where one man must give up his labour or property in order for another man to "exercise" his right. Just like McD's shouldn't be forced to give a meal to any slob who wanders in off the street and says he wants a burger without paying. McD's can freely give that man a burger if they want (and I believe they might even have a policy to do so, or is that Wendy's), but the gov't shouldn't force them to do so. So it is with healthcare. You'll duly note that the gov't provides food stamps, and I don't believe it should. If you can't make enough money to be able to afford food, then you should probably die, because you are a waste of life and space. Laid off? I understand that, that's what charities, friends, and savings are for. Can't find any of them? You should have planned better or been nicer to people. It's cold, it's heartless, but it's the truth."

Well put.

Quote :

"Perhaps would could tie welfare benefits to some kind of penalty for having additional children or offer increased public funds for being sterilized."

Yes, yes, yes. How the fuck could anyone be against that? If you already can't afford to support yourself, how do you have a right to have a child that needs even more resources you don't have? That is theft. If you are on welfare for 1 year, and then become pregnant, you should not get one additional penny. Any additional tax-money spent on that situation should come in the form of extra vigilance of social services workers to determine if and when to remove the new child. When thousands of welfare queens have their children taken from them, and they don't get a larger welfare check -- THAT CREATES PROCREATION ACCOUNTABILITY. When other's see this, they'll think twice about getting pregnant intentionally and will tend to practice more responsible safe sex. Good. Less welfare babies. DO YOU FUCKING LIBERALS ACTUALLY THINK BROKE PARENTS SHOULD JUST HAVE AS MANY KIDS AS THEY PLEASE? ANSWER THIS. DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OCTOMOM? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT ONE MILLION OCTOMOMS? ANY PROBLEMS THERE? I mean, you like sustainable agriculture and sustainable water usage, and sustainable city development, etc., SO WHY NOT SUSTAINABLE CHILD-BEARING? HUH?

Quote :

"Have kids, make $25000 and would rather spend your money on Victoria secret, kenny chesney concerts, and expanding your trailer to a double wide instead of providing health insurance? No worries our liberal congress as a solution for you! Publicly funded healthcare insurance funded by the evil rich people who charge you $120 extra on your last cable bill after you decided to watch 8 pay-per-view pr0ns."

Exactly. Exactly.


HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT. PERIOD.
YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T A RIGHT.
AND MOST OF ALL, SOMETHING THAT MUST CONFLICT WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS, CANNOT BE A RIGHT.
How you fucking liberal thieves can't see that, I'll never understand. You love to talk shit about others' moral shortcomings, but you fucking advocate theft. You are thievery-sympathizing, robin hood circle-jerking, irrationally wishful fools.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 9:05 AM. Reason : ]

7/15/2009 8:44:37 AM

I understand the rationale of part of the current system. To an extent those with high income or inheriting high volume of wealth have
more to lose due to social unrest, increased crime due to poverty, a soft national defense, and a crumbling infrastructure as well as the ability to maniupluate/lobby/influence
favorable legislation as a positive feedback for their income/wealth generation; hence the rationale for a progressive income tax and taxes
on wealth like the estate tax. I do support a more "flat tax."
This also seems to be the rationale for the basic "safety net" of gov't subsidized housing and food stamps.

The current situation though is starting to get out of control. Nowadays any lazy piece of shit, baby popping mama, or trailer trash can
get gov't subsidized housing, food stamps (that could feed me like a king for a month), healthcare, a welfare "check" on top of their food
stamps pay outs, and can even get a FUCKING CELL PHONE WITH PREPAID MINUTES thanks to uncle sam. I heard an advertisement on the radio today.
Who would have thought I always considered it a privilege to have a mobile phone. Herbert Hoover had his famous speech today
in 2009, instead of being a chicken in every pot a car in every garage. He would be advocating a Cell phone in every pocket, a 60" big
screen in every living room, and a leased Lexus in every garage.


[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM. Reason : d]

7/15/2009 9:51:14 AM

you know why they're doing the cell phone thing right? besides having access to emergency services if needed, one big obstacle to the poor getting jobs is not having a phone at which they can be reached when applying for jobs. either they can't afford a phone at all or they don't keep up with their phone bill consistently so their number is often disconnected or they change numbers frequently. that was the main argument behind that program. so that they would have a better chance of getting a job and getting off the government teat.

7/15/2009 10:26:49 AM

Quote :

"...food stamps (that could feed me like a king for a month)"

Exactly. I'm trying to pay all my bills, like a responsible person, and my grocery budget is less than what food stamp recipients receive. Also, a great many food stamp recipients buy tons of crap -- I've seen it. I know a guy on food stamps, and he and his xanax-addicted girlfriend buy candy, soda and snacks -- and no actual food. (I actually fished two of their grocery receipts out of the trash. When I get a chance, I'll scan and post them.) I'm sitting here working hard to earn money to hope to be able to justify buying a block of cheese to go with my beans and rice, and they're sitting around getting high, eating junk, probably wondering why I'm trying so hard. ....Shit fucking pisses me off.

I propose that food stamp recipients should have to have all of their food stamp purchases published for society to see. Seriously. Some food stamp recipients buy healthy and cheap food, I'm sure, but people would be shocked to learn just how much crap some are buying... not to mention the crap isn't healthy, so now they have obesity, diabetes, etc. THAT THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR.

KILL THE FUCKING WELFARE STATE WITH FIRE. It has to go.

Quote :

"so that they would have a better chance of getting a job and getting off the government teat."

So, after they cash their first paycheck, they lose the government-provided phone, right?
(Not to mention... if you have housing, food, cellphone, health-care, etc. all free -- why do you even need a job? DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT?)

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/15/2009 10:30:51 AM

haha i wonder if Willy Nilly and HUR are intentionally trying to sound like the villian from a Lucky Ducky comic. "Those poor have it so good because they live near squalor on my dime!!! "

7/15/2009 10:57:22 AM

^
What your cute little cartoon fails to show are the politicians who used Lucky Ducky in order to gain power. If politicians hadn't created a welfare state in order to garner votes, Lucky Ducky's life might have been a lot different.

7/15/2009 11:24:24 AM

^ yah, i feel the same way. if the government didn't provide unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc no one would be poor. I mean, they couldn't afford to be, right? Force a man to either work or starve to death and dad gum it he will work or starve to death. I mean, obviously the only reason anyone lives in poverty is because they are too lazy to throw themselves off the government tit!

7/15/2009 12:03:09 PM

Quote :

"OUR SOCIETY IS NOT EVIL. WE ARE NOT CANNIBALS. WE WOULD NEVER LET CROWDS OF PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH, UNLESS THEY CHOSE TO REFUSE HELP. "

Quote :

"What about the kids? If you are such a loser that you can't afford food, then I'd prefer your kids die, too, so we stop passing along the stupid genes. Millions made it through before the advent of food stamps, so why should we assume people today can't?"

7/15/2009 1:02:45 PM

If only our poor could live like these people did, without government handouts:

Or like this people:


Instead our poor have to suffer the poor misery of government imposed poverty:


[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2009 1:38:20 PM

GOP's Healthcare Organizational Chart of Democrats Health Plan:

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

7/15/2009 1:51:51 PM

^^

With section 8, you get this:


http://www.barker-inc.com/vacancies/details.php?id=691

7/15/2009 3:19:37 PM

Section 8 pays for part of that. The tenant has to pay too.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM. Reason : And a lot of the places that accept Section 8 look like moron's post.]

7/15/2009 3:39:51 PM

haha the small buildings look exactly like the building I live in.

also Im pretty sure the big building isnt government housing. could be wrong tho.

one more thing, the majority of section 8 housing in new york city has very long waiting lists and normally the rents range around 300-400 for a 1bedroom apartment if your lucky. Im not sure what section of the bronx this photo is but chances are 1bedrooms will run around 800 dollars a month at the cheapest.

[Edited on July 15, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : ya dig.]

7/15/2009 5:18:52 PM

^ yeah, that's my point...

Our poor people are still poor, but they have opportunities not to be destitute thanks to anti-poverty programs. Our societies are better off not having the slums seen at the early part of last century, or in other countries where the gov. doesn't have the means to aid their poor.

There could always be reform in the system, but there is absolutely no rational reason to eliminate the programs.

7/15/2009 5:25:08 PM