Quote :

"The only possible way for healthcare to be sustainable is if people pay for what they use. Our current system does not do this and neither will the current govcare plan."

Exactly.

Quote :

"Except public transportation is non-existent in most of North Carolina, and the US, where riding a bicycle is as impractical as walking. I guess you could use a scooter, but that is an asinine alternative to tell someone with a family. Not having a car for the vast majority of Americans is in no way a practical choice, and it's extremely naive to treat or view it as such. That's like saying people could choose not to live in a house/apt/condo, and be perfectly normal, contributing members of society. It's theoretically possible, but is not something normal people treat as a rational option."

OH MY FUCKING GOD. YOUR INCESSANT PROPENSITY TO CONTINUE TO COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT IS SO FUCKING MADDENING, IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT.

It doesn't matter how impractical not driving is -- THE POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT MANDATORY. DO YOU FUCKING KNOW WHAT "MANDATORY" MEANS? IF YOU WANT TO STOP DRIVING AND QUIT HAVING AUTO INSURANCE -- YOU ARE PERFECTLY LEGALLY ABLE TO. Why? Because it's not mandatory. What the fuck is wrong with you that you keep thinking that the practicality of not driving HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE POINT BEING MADE? How do you fucking do it? What is fucking wrong with your brain?

Say it with me: "Voluntary is not mandatory. Mandatory is not voluntary."

Quote :

"I'm not dodging the point"

Yes, you are.

Quote :

"The overwhelming majority of services/things that our tax dollars go towards, I will never, ever use."

And you should have a problem with that.

Quote :

"Tax dollars going to peoples' healthcare (which happens already... even illegal immigrants' !1!!!) is not comparable to saying everyone has to pay car insurance whether you drive or not. To put it simply, not everyone has a car, but everyone does in fact have health"

First of all, not one penny should go to people's healthcare (not counting social services, of course,) IN THE FIRST PLACE. You cannot use the fact that we already [wrongly] do this to further justify doing it. That is not logical.

Second, the comparison is perfectly apt, because both are instances of something that people exclusive own as theirs and not society's or the government's. I can choose to not have a car, and I can choose to not care about my health or seek health-care. The part you messed up on is the assumption that everyone has (or should have,) an equal interest in their health. This is wrong. I own my health, not the fucking government. If someone wants to live unhealthily, harm or endanger themself, or kill themself, IT IS THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT. Likewise, I can own a car without insurance, and let it rust in my garage -- IT'S MY FUCKING CHOICE, AND NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 8:48 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 8:32:17 AM

1st Point: Again-- how is that argument not an argument against all types of insurance? The whole point of insurance is to take in semi-equally and dole-out very unequally. It does in fact work.

2nd Point: He gets it, he just thinks it's retarded. Is this really the only philosophical opposition you can come up with? The fact that you're fine with de facto manditory insurance, but really manditory insurance is anathema? Lame.

7/22/2009 8:43:14 AM

Quote :

"The fact that you're fine with de facto manditory insurance, but really manditory insurance is anathema? Lame."

Not lame.
The difference between the two is among the most important distinctions in all of human experience.

MANDATORY IS NOT VOLUNTARY. THE FACT THAT YOU DIRTY FUCKING SOCIALISTS CAN SO EASILY DISREGARD THE UNIVERSE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE COMPLETELY OPPOSITE AND INCOMPATIBLE IDEAS IS PROOF THAT YOU'RE ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG. EITHER YOU WILL LEARN YOUR MISTAKE AND QUIT, OR REAL AMERICANS WILL FUCKING WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH YOU BLOOD.

7/22/2009 8:54:49 AM

WITH ME BLOOD

7/22/2009 8:56:04 AM

Laugh all you want, but if Civil War II breaks out, I'll won't think twice about killing you socialist fucks.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 9:13:11 AM

Just curious-- would you consider property tax to also be non-mandatory? (working with the assumption that property taxes are necessarily passed on to tenants in renting situations).

7/22/2009 9:18:19 AM

^
Of course it is. You don't have to buy or rent a home.
What is wrong with you? -- Do you not understand that even one instance disproves what you're suggesting?
Do you not know one person (over 16) that doesn't have a car?
Do you not know one person (over 18) that doesn't pay anything towards a home?

Repeat after me:

"Any person may, without breaking the law, choose to discontinue buying or not buy in the first place, auto insurance. Any person may, without breaking the law, choose to discontinue buying or not buy in the first place, a place of residence. Under the proposed health-care plan, EVERY person will not, without breaking the law, be able to choose to discontinue buying or not buy in the first place, health insurance."

Every adult can and should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have, and pay for, auto insurance.
Every adult can and should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have, and pay for, a place of residence.
Every adult can and should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have, and pay for, health insurance.

What is so fucking hard to understand here?

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 9:35:59 AM

i'm admittedly jumping into this current conversation late. but is there any mandate being proposed in the current law?

7/22/2009 9:39:39 AM

I get the sentiment you're spewing. I just think it's retarded.

To want to WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH BLOOOOOOOOOD-D-D over the hair-width's difference between de facto mandatory taxation and de jure mandatory taxation is silly.

The rationale behind compulsory car insurance and compulsory health insurance is identical. The only difference is the nature of that which is being insured.


^Hah. Eff me. I allowed him to get me started on a red herring.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 9:45 AM. Reason : ,]

7/22/2009 9:43:33 AM

Just out of curiosity, let's say hypothetically that the proposed plan or some other universal healthcare plan was fiscally feasible and could be implemented without any significant increase in the average person's tax liability. It would accomplish the goal of granting everyone access to an affordable healthcare option while simultaneously lowering the costs associated with healthcare in general.

Would you Obama bashing right-wing zealots still be against it? I'm just trying to figure out if your opposition to it is simply because you don't believe it's practical, or do you have an actual ideological aversion to the idea of everyone getting healthcare? Is this simply a case of not trusting the government to not fuck this up, or does the whole idea of "universal healthcare" just not jive with you?

7/22/2009 9:43:59 AM

well I could live in the woods completely off the grid or become homeless.

so technically I do have a choice of not paying health insurance.

also When the Civil War 2 breaks out will the people fighting against big government want to use all of those huge guns, bombs and tanks that were bought by tax dollars no one had a say in forking over? or will they go to wal-mart?

7/22/2009 9:45:27 AM

Quote :

"Impossible. Humans are inherently imperfect. "

If you get rid of the existing healthcare system and go to an out of pocket system your healthcare is between you and your doc. Humans aren't perfect, but increasing the size of their bureaucracy as per your plan will only give them more avenues for corruption.

7/22/2009 10:03:14 AM

^^
Because if you're opposed to taxes being spent one way, you must be opposed to taxes being spent every way

Quote :

"To want to WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH BLOOOOOOOOOD-D-D over the hair-width's difference between de facto mandatory taxation and de jure mandatory taxation is silly."

No. It's not. It's bloody serious. You're obviously not going to change your mind, even though you are universally wrong, but really -- de facto and de jure aren't the same, and the distinction is paramount. You are truly a fool... It's as though you're arguing to a mathematician that the difference between 50% and 50.1% is no less significant that the difference between 99.9% and 100%... "It's only a tiny one-tenth of a percent... come on -- it's practically the same, so why not treat it as the same?"
Fucking sad.

Quote :

"I'm just trying to figure out if your opposition to it is simply because you don't believe it's practical, or do you have an actual ideological aversion to the idea of everyone getting healthcare? Is this simply a case of not trusting the government to not fuck this up, or does the whole idea of "universal healthcare" just not jive with you?"

actual ideological aversion, duh.
I couldn't care less if universal healthcare would be cheaper or more efficient... (which I doubt in the first place.) Frugality and efficiency are nowhere near being a higher priority than human freedom. If you like the frugality and efficiency of more socialist-style nations, then fucking move there... because this rock is for free people. Free to be unhealthy, free to be greedy, free to be whatever we want that doesn't, with consent, harm or unreasonably endanger anyone else's person, property, liberty or right to the same. And we will win. (And we're not "right-wing"... fuck republicans and other social conservatives.)

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 10:04:26 AM

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, let's say hypothetically that the proposed plan or some other universal healthcare plan was fiscally feasible and could be implemented without any significant increase in the average person's tax liability. It would accomplish the goal of granting everyone access to an affordable healthcare option while simultaneously lowering the costs associated with healthcare in general."

If that were the case I'd still be against it on the principle that the gov should stay out of my healthcare, but it would mean that private insurance in its current form is also sustainable. In which case the choice of gov care or private insurance would make it a non-issue for me. The simple fact is neither system is sustainable.

7/22/2009 10:06:25 AM

Quote :

"And we will win."

what is a victory for you? because we're certainly not going to transition into libertarian dreamland.

7/22/2009 10:07:27 AM

^
Yes we will. Just you fucking wait.

7/22/2009 10:11:53 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter how impractical not driving is -- THE POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT MANDATORY. DO YOU FUCKING KNOW WHAT "MANDATORY" MEANS? IF YOU WANT TO STOP DRIVING AND QUIT HAVING AUTO INSURANCE -- YOU ARE PERFECTLY LEGALLY ABLE TO. Why? Because it's not mandatory. What the fuck is wrong with you that you keep thinking that the practicality of not driving HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE POINT BEING MADE? How do you fucking do it? What is fucking wrong with your brain?"

Just because you don't see my point, doesn't mean i'm missing your point.

DO YOU know what "practical" means? It doesn't mean things that happen in your magical fantasy dream world, it means how things work in the real world... in "practice". In the real world, saying that driving is a simple choice is naive and impractical, a fact which our court systems (and really anyone with a lick of sense) recognizes.

Quote :

"The part you messed up on is the assumption that everyone has (or should have,) an equal interest in their health. This is wrong. I own my health, not the fucking government. If someone wants to live unhealthily, harm or endanger themself, or kill themself, IT IS THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHT."

lol. I had a feeling you would say this, because it is the next step from your shallow understanding of the issue. Go read up on how the first "insurance company" was formed. Or just even sit for a minute and think what insurance is, and why people tolerate it.

Secondly, it is not, in any way, someone else's inalienable right to live an unhealthy life in modern society. If you get a stroke while driving on the road, and plow in to me, that's not your right. If you travel to China and get bird flu and spread it everywhere, that is also not your right. Healthcare is, and has been for decades, a "public" issue. If you have ever traveled to any shithole 3rd world countries, you would be able to see the effect poor healthcare (combined with general poverty) can have on a society.

7/22/2009 10:26:08 AM

Quote :

"Frugality and efficiency are nowhere near being a higher priority than human freedom. If you like the frugality and efficiency of more socialist-style nations, then fucking move there... because this rock is for free people. Free to be unhealthy, free to be greedy, free to be whatever we want that doesn't, with consent, harm or unreasonably endanger anyone else's person, property, liberty or right to the same. And we will win. (And we're not "right-wing"... fuck republicans and other social conservatives.)"

Nothing about universal healthcare will make this country any less "free". Again, every other developed country in the world guarantees affordable healthcare for all it's citizens. I've yet to see a reasoned argument from anyone how this is a bad thing.

Quote :

"If that were the case I'd still be against it on the principle that the gov should stay out of my healthcare, but it would mean that private insurance in its current form is also sustainable."

This is the other argument I don't get. Right now healthcare in this country is run lawyers, health insurance companies, and hospitals which only care about their bottom line. Again, ignoring ideology, how could the government running it be any worse? Besides that, the whole idea that universal healthcare means the government will be making your healthcare decisions is more fantasy than anything else.

7/22/2009 10:43:02 AM

Quote :

"^ Yes we will. Just you fucking wait."

haha ok go start a commune in Montana or something

7/22/2009 11:01:25 AM

Quote :

"Millions Would Lose Private Insurance Under Health Reform Bill, Study Shows WASHINGTON, JULY 21, 2009-- More than 88 million Americans could lose their private, employer-based coverage, according toa new analysis of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 released this week by The Heritage Foundation. Heritage commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact the House health reform bill would have on private insurance when a government-run health plan is introduced in the marketplace. The study found that 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.4 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan. "This flies in the face of the current promises that if you like your health insurance coverage, you will keep it," said Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler. "If the public plan is implemented as detailed in this House bill, people with private insurance will be moved on a public plan, regardless of what they want, because their employers will make that decision because of the financial incentives in the bill." Other key points from the Lewin study include: --Yearly premiums for Americans with private coverage could jump as much as $460 per person as a result of more cost-shifting, which would stem from the public plan. --Doctors stand to lose thousands of dollars of income under the legislation. Annual physician net income is estimated to drop by 6.3 percent or $13.4 billion (coming in at an average $18,900 per physician) when compared with current trends. "

7/22/2009 11:01:38 AM

Quote :

"it is not, in any way, someone else's inalienable right to live an unhealthy life in modern society."

That's it. I see no point in arguing with an unapologetic socialist. You are evil. You simply don't recognize the supremacy of the individual -- you might not even recognize the concept of the individual. Furthermore, you're completely without logic. To you, practical is actual -- and yet (lol) you suggest that others are the ones with fantastical beliefs....

And your straw-men never cease! Read this again: "...free to be whatever we want that doesn't, with consent, harm or unreasonably endanger anyone else's person, property, liberty or right to the same." You see?...I'm not even talking about instances where someone's lack of health (that was their responsibility,) harmed or unreasonably endangered someone -- that's a crime. Simply being unhealthy doesn't harm or unreasonably endanger anyone -- it is a right of all individuals... but as you've revealed -- you are a piece of shit socialist troll and will likely never say or believe much of anything that makes any sense. I'm through with you.

Quote :

"Nothing about universal healthcare will make this country any less "free"."

Sure it would. If the government, by force, makes me pay for, even in a small part, the health-care costs made necessary because of another individual's irresponsible actions, then I lose the freedom to own my own property. Taxes funding anything other than the proper and limited role of government is, quite simply, theft.

Quote :

"Again, every other developed country in the world guarantees affordable healthcare for all it's citizens. I've yet to see a reasoned argument from anyone how this is a bad thing."

I was unaware that any of those countries were free, or even supposed to be -- in fact, don't many of them have official religions and shit? No thanks. America has a constitution that recognizes inalienable individual rights and the proper limited role of government. Who else has that? Like I said, if you like every other developed country in the world so much, why don't you move somewhere there? Besides, we can all have affordable healthcare without the government providing it.... Ask the Soap Box Libertarians how.

Quote :

"Right now healthcare in this country is run lawyers, health insurance companies, and hospitals which only care about their bottom line. Again, ignoring ideology, how could the government running it be any worse?"

Wow. Really? The reason lawyers, health insurance companies, and hospitals run the game now is because they are a fascist prop of the government. Letting the government run things would simply be removing the facade that suggests that the lawyer/health insurance company/hospital complex is actually in the private sector. Things would only get worse.

If it were much easier for any qualified person to become a lawyer, start a health insurance company with whatever policies they wanted, open a hospital with it's own rules and philosophy, become a doctor or other health-care provider, make or sell drugs, etc., then the market would take care of things. Right now, these lawyers, health insurance companies, and hospitals are too big and too rigid because the government has made it that way with bullshit fascist policies. Government is not the proper role for providing, or really having anything to do with, health-care.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 11:08:37 AM

Aahahahahahahahha.

Let anyone be a doctor. The market will sort it out!

7/22/2009 11:31:45 AM

Quote :

"any qualified person"

Nice job reading, troll.

7/22/2009 11:40:53 AM

Who defines "qualified"?

7/22/2009 11:51:54 AM

People qualified to do so, duh... (science + philosophy + democracy + logic + reason)
Do you disagree that there is such a thing as being qualified for something?
Couldn't you easily imagine examples of qualified and unqualified people for various things?
Could you draw the line somewhere in between?
In other words, that's what we strive to define. The exact definition may change as society changes -- much the same way the concept of what is and isn't "reasonable". Is speeding 10 over an unreasonable endangerment to others?...15 over?...50 over? At what exact point does it become unreasonable? Just because you can't answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- the same is the case in finding and defining various de facto authorities as society has done entirely in the private sector in the past.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 12:07:21 PM

isn't that exactly what we've done with requiring a specific training program and licensing procedure for doctors?

7/22/2009 12:54:36 PM

in summary for this thread, obama=fail

7/22/2009 12:54:56 PM

Quote :

"This is the other argument I don't get. Right now healthcare in this country is run lawyers, health insurance companies, and hospitals which only care about their bottom line. Again, ignoring ideology, how could the government running it be any worse? Besides that, the whole idea that universal healthcare means the government will be making your healthcare decisions is more fantasy than anything else."

At best govcare will be equally as bad as the current system. The same people who run the current system are planning the new system, plus we're giving more power to a government that has a history of incompetence, nepotism, and corruption. If the best possible outcome is that its the same as the current system then why bother changing? Better to focus on real reform then a half assed system that essentially shifts payment from employers -> insurance to employers -> taxes -> gov insurance.

7/22/2009 1:01:12 PM

Quote :

"Better to focus on real reform then a half assed system...."

7/22/2009 1:03:23 PM

Well, according so some reporters/journalists, it isn't a failure of Obama...it's now a "fallback strategy."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090722/D99JFEHO0.html

7/22/2009 1:06:39 PM

Quote :

"At best govcare will be equally as bad as the current system."

Except everyone will have access to affordable health care....... See, even if everything you say is true, it's still better than the current system because it (mostly) fixes the problem of people who can't afford or aren't allowed to get health care. People are forgetting what the main goal is here. Fixing all the problems with the healthcare industry will happen overtime and with continued reform, this is just the first step that fixes the major issue.

7/22/2009 1:09:29 PM

hes not winning people over across the board, and he's losing support in his own party because hes to far left

7/22/2009 1:10:23 PM

Quote :

"Except everyone will have access to affordable health care....... See, even if everything you say is true, it's still better than the current system because it (mostly) fixes the problem of people who can't afford or aren't allowed to get health care. People are forgetting what the main goal is here. Fixing all the problems with the healthcare industry will happen overtime and with continued reform, this is just the first step that fixes the major issue."

More people get care at the cost of more tax money and a shorter life of the system. That not a better system. Its a waste of time and money that should be spent on complete reforms. In an out of pocket system where most americans pay for their own care as they need it, the government would pay for poor people through a system similar to medicare. The patient goes to whatever doc is participating and the doc bills the gov. It will still have the same inefficiencies, but not anywhere on the scale of the current system or the proposed system where all people would be in govcare. In addition you would make donations to charities that pay for the healthcare of poor people completely tax deductable.

7/22/2009 1:50:45 PM

What is with the idea that system would have a short life or be unsustainable? There is no evidence for that. If it's sustainable for Canada, Britain, France, and the rest of the world, it should be for us as well. You can't tell me $1 trillion a year on defense spending is sustainable, or the trillions we've sent to Israel, but somehow UHC is not. It's estimated that getting everyone under this new system will cost ~$1 trillion over the next decade, which is a relatively small increase over what we already spend on health care but a massive improvement in the effectiveness of the system.

7/22/2009 2:18:30 PM

Quote :

"What is with the idea that system would have a short life or be unsustainable? There is no evidence for that"

From page 3:

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – Democrats' health care bills won't meet President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, Congress' budget umpire warned on Thursday, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the bank. [...] From the beginning of the health care debate, Obama has insisted that any overhaul must "bend the curve" of rapidly rising costs that threaten to swamp the budgets of government, businesses and families. Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that — as things stand now — "the curve is being raised." Explained [CBO Director Doug] Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." Even if the legislation doesn't add to the federal deficit over the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

From pg 4:

Quote :

"Simply expanding coverage only shortens the government's path to insolvency."

*http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9216/Letter-to-Ryan.1.1.shtml

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2009 2:36:03 PM

Quote :

"What is with the idea that system would have a short life or be unsustainable? There is no evidence for that. If it's sustainable for Canada, Britain, France, and the rest of the world, it should be for us as well. You can't tell me $1 trillion a year on defense spending is sustainable, or the trillions we've sent to Israel, but somehow UHC is not. It's estimated that getting everyone under this new system will cost ~$1 trillion over the next decade, which is a relatively small increase over what we already spend on health care but a massive improvement in the effectiveness of the system. "

Those systems aren't sustainable. In Canada and Britain they control costs by rationing healthcare. As more and more people enter the system, wait times increase. In our govcare we'll either end up doing the same thing or we'd have to pay more to increase available services. Rationing is a much much better way to control costs because it usually means people will only go to the doctor if they absolutely have to. If we try to continue our relatively quick service by increasing costs, it will result in the continued overuse of healthcare that has caused problems in our existing system.


As to defense spending, its certainly not sustainable and we are already planning cuts on programs of questional value (f-22).

Im not saying we should just ignore the poor and let them die, I'm saying we can improve the system, lower costs, and then leave a govcare/charity system for the poor. Each of us would essentially pay our doctors directly. This in itself reduces costs because the doc doesn't have to worry about haggling with an insurance company. It also means we pick our own docs instead of the gov or an insurance company. For people who cant afford to pay, the doc would then bill the gov.

If the average american pays for what they consume, we wont get into this social security style debacle where theres more money going out of the system then coming in. Yes, we will all end up paying for healthcare for the poor, but thats not a big deal if overall costs are controlled.

7/22/2009 3:03:13 PM

When is the vote?

7/22/2009 3:06:45 PM

senate hasn't come up with a bill yet.

7/22/2009 3:10:43 PM

Quote :

"Those systems aren't sustainable. In Canada and Britain they control costs by rationing healthcare. As more and more people enter the system, wait times increase. In our govcare we'll either end up doing the same thing or we'd have to pay more to increase available services. Rationing is a much much better way to control costs because it usually means people will only go to the doctor if they absolutely have to. If we try to continue our relatively quick service by increasing costs, it will result in the continued overuse of healthcare that has caused problems in our existing system."

We ALREADY spend more on healthcare than any other nation, and yet don't offer any sort of comprehensive universal coverage. So our costs are already spiraling out of control, we already have rationing and waiting (go ahead and see how long it takes to get an appointment with a specialist), and yet we are leaving 15% of our population out in the cold. In other words, this bill is a huge improvement over our current system regardless of what other problems may still remain.

Quote :

"If the average american pays for what they consume, we wont get into this social security style debacle where theres more money going out of the system then coming in. Yes, we will all end up paying for healthcare for the poor, but thats not a big deal if overall costs are controlled."

The average american can't pay for what they consume though because the costs are just too damn high. Insurance is the only thing that enables most people to ever see a doctor. You have to reduce costs first. This bill is the first step in doing that, as well as granting every citizen health care. Costs will never go down if you leave it in the hands of the private sector, you need the government to put downward pressure on health care providers. UHC is the only way to do this. Every other developed nation has figured this out, why haven't we?

7/22/2009 4:24:29 PM

show me where it says health care is a right

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 4:26:38 PM

Why does it have to be a right?

7/22/2009 4:31:41 PM

its a luxury

7/22/2009 4:45:36 PM

Quote :

"We ALREADY spend more on healthcare than any other nation, and yet don't offer any sort of comprehensive universal coverage. So our costs are already spiraling out of control, we already have rationing and waiting (go ahead and see how long it takes to get an appointment with a specialist), and yet we are leaving 15% of our population out in the cold. In other words, this bill is a huge improvement over our current system regardless of what other problems may still remain. "

So your logic is that by increasing the patient load on our already constrained system, we're going to magically have better care? Or is it that the decline in care is ok if we cover everyone?

Quote :

"The average american can't pay for what they consume though because the costs are just too damn high. Insurance is the only thing that enables most people to ever see a doctor. You have to reduce costs first. This bill is the first step in doing that, as well as granting every citizen health care. Costs will never go down if you leave it in the hands of the private sector, you need the government to put downward pressure on health care providers. UHC is the only way to do this. Every other developed nation has figured this out, why haven't we? "

This bill WILL NOT reduce costs and thats the problem. All it does is increase costs to tax payers.

Current Healthcare costs = doctor costs + insurance padding + + insurance company bureacracy + socialized risk.

Govcare = doctor costs + insurance padding + government bureacracy + socialized risk.

out of pocket = doctor costs

In an out of pocket system the thousands of dollars your company current pays the insurance companies on top of your premiums will become income for you. You would then put this money pre-tax into an HSA and save it for when you need it once you're older

Combine this with accident insurance thats allowed to price based on risk (something our current system cant do) and is allowed to operate accross state lines.

Thats how you control healthcare costs.

7/22/2009 4:48:30 PM

I loved the part where a number of posters openly admitted that they'd choose ideology over the best solution.

7/22/2009 4:53:18 PM

Quote :

"So your logic is that by increasing the patient load on our already constrained system, we're going to magically have better care? Or is it that the decline in care is ok if we cover everyone?"

No, my logic is that our current system already carries with it the same problems nations with UHC have, just without the UHC. I'm talking about a marginal increase in costs to at least facilitate a universal plan. And yeah, if there is an increase in wait times or whatever, I'm ok with that. If I'm waiting in line, it means someone else ahead of me is getting care, which is OK. If that makes me a socialist, than so be it. I'd like to think it just makes me a decent human being.

Quote :

"This bill WILL NOT reduce costs and thats the problem. All it does is increase costs to tax payers. Current Healthcare costs = doctor costs + insurance padding + + insurance company bureacracy + socialized risk. Govcare = doctor costs + insurance padding + government bureacracy + socialized risk. out of pocket = doctor costs"

You got this from where? Ah, out of your ass, just like I thought. It will reduce costs, because a government option will force private insurance companies to reduce their premiums. Further reforms targeting specific inefficiencies in the health care system will reduce costs more. This bill isn't about fixing our entire health care system in one fell swoop, it's just getting us on the right path, the path that works for the rest of the developed world.

Quote :

"In an out of pocket system the thousands of dollars your company current pays the insurance companies on top of your premiums will become income for you. You would then put this money pre-tax into an HSA and save it for when you need it once you're older Combine this with accident insurance thats allowed to price based on risk (something our current system cant do) and is allowed to operate accross state lines."

So you have faith in private companies taking that extra health insurance money and putting it into your pockets instead of hoarding it? On top of that, even if they did, there is no way that extra income could cover the average persons health care needs with how much things costs now. Nor does it guarantee that costs will go down any significant amount, at least quickly.

You're still going to have people going bankrupt and paying for expensive procedures for the rest of their lives. Hell, you're still even proposing insurance that many people still won't be able to afford. It doesn't solve any of the short term problems and nor is it guaranteed to fix anything in the long term. It's just a mish mash of wishful thinking.

7/22/2009 5:20:28 PM

Quote :

"That's it. I see no point in arguing with an unapologetic socialist. You are evil. You simply don't recognize the supremacy of the individual -- you might not even recognize the concept of the individual. Furthermore, you're completely without logic. To you, practical is actual -- and yet (lol) you suggest that others are the ones with fantastical beliefs...."

Ha... recognizing that you are a living organism whose health is directly tied to your environment and society you live in is not socialist, it's basic common sense (something that relies on the ability to reason, which is a skill you are obviously not well versed in). You are not an island.

And this is just laughably wrong...

Quote :

"Simply being unhealthy doesn't harm or unreasonably endanger anyone"

haha

Outside of if you think i'm a "socialist" or not, I don't see how you think this statement is anywhere remotely close to being true. The effects of being unhealthy aren't so simple where you can assert a level of unhealthiness that causes no harm to society. You are like the 16 year olds in high school who read Ayn Rand and think they know exactly how the world, politics, and people work. It would be cute if your profile didn't say you were 25 years old (hopefully that's not accurate though).

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 6:17:37 PM

Quote :

"Just curious-- would you consider property tax to also be non-mandatory? (working with the assumption that property taxes are necessarily passed on to tenants in renting situations). "

Property tax vs mandatory heal insurance are two different things.

Quote :

"The rationale behind compulsory car insurance and compulsory health insurance is identical. The only difference is the nature of that which is being insured. "

No not really. The rationale behind care insurance is that you are responsible for the crimes you commit. Note that you are not required to get insurance to cover your car, your property or your health. You are required (if you drive certain vehicles on public roads) to carry insurance to cover the damage that you are liable for to someone else.

Health insurance (and its requirement) are very different things.

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, let's say hypothetically that the proposed plan or some other universal healthcare plan was fiscally feasible and could be implemented without any significant increase in the average person's tax liability. It would accomplish the goal of granting everyone access to an affordable healthcare option while simultaneously lowering the costs associated with healthcare in general. "

Assuming this were possible, I would not support it, but I would be OK with it, on the following additional conditions:

1) That it not be mandatory for people to pay into the system.
2) That it be implemented or not on a state by state basis.
3) That it not in any way interfere with the ability of private citizens and their care givers to decide the best course of action for care and be able to take that course if funding for such a course is available.
4) That the change in tax burden be implemented fairly and equally, none of this soak the rich bullshit that politicians love.

But there are still a number of concerns, namely with the government database which will now have your medical history on file (and surely a DNA sample or two, for the children of course). The increased intervention of the government would also open new avenues for lobbying and regulation. Imagine, some med school like UNC and Pfizer have both developed a very effective treatment for say HIV. It's not a huge stretch to imagine a scenario where Pfizer successfully lobbies for their treatment to be the only one covered by .gov care.

But yes, I do have an ideological opposition, but above that is my belief that states should be allowed to invest in whatever (misguided or not) plans their tax payers are willing to pay for and that there are some things the government can do better.

However, such a scenario does not exist today, and so I remain opposed to increased government interference in health care.

Quote :

"Or just even sit for a minute and think what insurance is, and why people tolerate it. "

Insurance is (or is supposed to be) the payment of a third party to accept the risk of loss that the first party is exposed to. That is, you have a potential risk of loss (be it a car, a shipment, or your money as a result of injury). When you buy insurance, what you do is effectively gamble and pay a third party money on the bet that you will suffer the loss. The insurance company on the other hand, is better that you wont suffer the loss for the duration of your coverage.

The fact that as a country we have turned our health insurance into a health maintenance contract (and then are surprised that the cost has gone up when the chance of payout nears 100%) is a perversion of our understanding of insurance and a failing of our society. But health insurance to cover day to day medical expenses is akin to those crappy all coverage repair warranties you can buy for cars, in the end you will pay out way more than you would have if you paid on your own, the only thing you're getting for your extra money is peace of mind that you will have the "money" when the bill comes due.

Quote :

"If you get a stroke while driving on the road, and plow in to me, that's not your right. If you travel to China and get bird flu and spread it everywhere, that is also not your right."

Neither the having a stroke (nor engaging in activities that can cause you to have a stroke) nor getting bird flu are illegal, unlawful or a violation of anyone's rights. The crime in both of your scenarios is damage caused to another. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one, as it is also the distinction in our earlier discussion of the difference between car insurance and health insurance.

Quote :

" Again, every other developed country in the world guarantees affordable healthcare for all it's citizens. I've yet to see a reasoned argument from anyone how this is a bad thing. "

Well, a police state guarantees a high level of safety for citizens, and a dictatorship provides a level of government efficiency many times above our own, yet there are problems with both of these models in the rights the take away and the risks they present to the future of the citizens. So it goes with a public health option too. Note that our state finds itself in a budget crisis where mandatory obligations like health care and education require (or suggest) that our legislature raise our taxes (to higher rates than before the budget problem). Had the government not been in these areas, or had the government been less entrenched in these areas, there would not be such a need to raise taxes. Obligations reduce the ability of one to respond to changing economic conditions. That's why you're supposed to have a low debt to income ratio, and why increased government obligations are a bad thing.

Please not before responding that I am not intending to suggest that a police state or dictatorship poses an equal risk to society as a socialized healthcare system, I am merely pointing out that saying that "X does good, so it must be good and must be the best way to do good" is a fallacious argument.

7/22/2009 8:42:30 PM

Quote :

"This is the other argument I don't get. Right now healthcare in this country is run lawyers, health insurance companies, and hospitals which only care about their bottom line. Again, ignoring ideology, how could the government running it be any worse? Besides that, the whole idea that universal healthcare means the government will be making your healthcare decisions is more fantasy than anything else."

Because none of the government proposals to date do anything to change the existing problems, they merely add government bureaucracy into the mix. I said it once in another discussion on this topic. If we were to go whole hog and switch health care to an entirely socialized model, it might just work, but this is america and doing that would fundamentally change the nature of this country, its founding principles and core beliefs and so we could never go whole hog which means we'll wind up with some half assed system that is the worst of both worlds and will never be able to adequately change it for the better.

There's also the fact that the lawyers and the insurance companies have so much sway precisely because the government is so involved (giving your employees health care is a tax break, but paying them extra to buy their own is not, etc). Adding more government to the healthcare mix (the entity that is supposed to provide us with recourse against the insurance companies and lawyers) does not seem like it will improve that problem.

Quote :

"Except everyone will have access to affordable health care....... See, even if everything you say is true, it's still better than the current system because it (mostly) fixes the problem of people who can't afford or aren't allowed to get health care. People are forgetting what the main goal is here. Fixing all the problems with the healthcare industry will happen overtime and with continued reform, this is just the first step that fixes the major issue."

Affordable insurance and affordable healthcare are two vastly different things. For an example of this, please see the articles I have recently quoted regarding Massachusetts' attempt at implementing such a system. To summarize, on top of running out of money, they have stopped helping poor people enroll, stopped paying doctors and nurses, are cutting services, raising premiums and the cheapest coverage is still so pricey and has such high deductibles that the people who can only afford it still can't actually afford care, they're just paying premiums for something they can't use. And now, they're investigating a system that has already failed once before (in the 90's tried by private insurance companies, widely panned by both citizens and governments), where by the put doctors on a budget per patient and that's all the doc will get, regardless of services performed.

Affordable healthcare is achieved by making the market for providing care competitive, for proof, see the cost of drugs after they go generic, the $4 drug plans at places like walmart and kroger, and see also the cost of elective medical procedures not covered by health insurance such as LASIK, which is now so cheap, that one could have both of their eyes surgically corrected for roughly 4 years of the average cell phone plan.

By comparison the cost of a broken arm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/07/GR2006040700882.html

Affordable health insurance can be achieved the same way.

It's also worth noting that many people who are quoted in the uninsured quotes do indeed have access to affordable health care, they just don't know or take advantage of it, and I am 100% behind the government finding new ways to reach these people.

Quote :

"What is with the idea that system would have a short life or be unsustainable? There is no evidence for that."

Massachusetts.

Quote :

"We ALREADY spend more on healthcare than any other nation, and yet don't offer any sort of comprehensive universal coverage. "

There are a number of reasons for this and while out of control costs are one of them, they are not the only one, nor ones that the government necessarily can or will fix. A significant amount of cost comes from over medication and poor lifestyle choices, not something that .gov care will fix.

Quote :

"In other words, this bill is a huge improvement over our current system regardless of what other problems may still remain. "

And amputating an arm infected with gangrene is an improvement over letting it continue to fester and make the whole person ill, but that doesn't make it the best choice.

Quote :

"The average american can't pay for what they consume though because the costs are just too damn high. Insurance is the only thing that enables most people to ever see a doctor. You have to reduce costs first. This bill is the first step in doing that, as well as granting every citizen health care. Costs will never go down if you leave it in the hands of the private sector, you need the government to put downward pressure on health care providers. UHC is the only way to do this. Every other developed nation has figured this out, why haven't we?"

The costs are so high because the people consuming the service aren't the ones paying for it. Ever wonder why you can treat cancer in your dog for less than the cost of a car, but you can't treat your own cancer for less than the cost of an airplane? It's because you aren't paying for it, so you don't give a damn how much it costs. When was the last time you looked at what your provider billed your insurance company and said: "Wow, $200 for an office visit is fucking outrageous, I'm going to get a new doctor."

I'll bet you never have.

I also would like to remind once again that a doctor in NYC did indeed try to lower health care costs the private way by offering to treat his patients for $79 / month and a $10 office visit fee for any service he could provide at his office. And I would like to remind that it wasn't the evils of the market that stopped him, it was the NY State government, stepping in at the behest of the insurance companies who mandated that he could not offer his services in such a manner as that was equivalent to offering insurance and only insurance companies are allowed to do that.

(yes I know I talk too much)

7/22/2009 8:43:11 PM

Quote :

" We ALREADY spend more on healthcare than any other nation, and yet don't offer any sort of comprehensive universal coverage. "

Are you aware of the predominant drivers of expenditure growth? Shifting to universal health insurance will do nothing to “bend the cost curve.” Given we cannot afford what is already on the books, what sense does it make to expand an already-insolvent welfare program? Simply expanding coverage amounts to treating the symptoms of a much broader disease.

Quote :

"So our costs are already spiraling out of control, we already have rationing and waiting (go ahead and see how long it takes to get an appointment with a specialist), and yet we are leaving 15% of our population out in the cold. "

The number of uninsured who cannot afford health insurance is well under 15% (depending on your definitions, it may be as low as 3.5%. For a detailed breakdown; see ex-NEC deputy director, Keith Hennessey’s article: http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/

Quote :

" In other words, this bill is a huge improvement over our current system regardless of what other problems may still remain. "

How so?

Quote :

"And yeah, if there is an increase in wait times or whatever, I'm ok with that. If I'm waiting in line, it means someone else ahead of me is getting care, which is OK. If that makes me a socialist, than so be it. I'd like to think it just makes me a decent human being. "

What about those behind you who may die or become seriously ill while waiting for a simple diagnosis?
If you are worried about helping people, why force 85% of Americans (more like 90-ish percent, but I will go with the inflated 85%) into a government-run system when all that is needed are simple vouchers to cover the tiny minority that truly needs help? Spending trillions of dollars on everyone, rich and poor alike, makes no sense when we can spend billions helping those who actually need the help. Why do you disfavor narrowly-targeted vouchers?

Quote :

"So you have faith in private companies taking that extra health insurance money and putting it into your pockets instead of hoarding it? "

You do realize that HSA’s vastly reduce the amount of money that goes through insurers?

Quote :

"Nor does it guarantee that costs will go down any significant amount, at least quickly. "

Nothing can be guaranteed; but the evidence is overwhelming. It is well documented that procedures, such as Lasik and elective surgeries, that are predominantly not covered by insurance and thus largely paid for by consumers, have exhibited falling prices despite huge advances in technology – sort of like every other sector in our economy where the consumer pays the bill and is thus incentivized to question prices and assess value.


[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2009 8:56:10 PM

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

http://www.star-telegram.com/238/story/1504240.html

Some of you on the left were howling about "states' rights" in the "Guns" thread. I'll bet you fold like a two-dollar suitcase as it relates to this issue.

7/24/2009 1:28:16 PM