bstone
Forum Deputy Chief
- 2,066
- 1
- 0
We will agree to disagree, alright?
Health Care Reform
- Thread starter Melbourne MICA
- Start date
We will agree to disagree, alright?
- 703
- 9
- 18
Well the Democrats would sure like you to believe that health care is a civil right and they've gone to the extent of making comparisons to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the problem in getting people like myself to swallow this notion is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by majorities of both parties. The health care reform legislation took every push, deal, barter, threat, etc. just to get enough democrats to sign off on it. Hardly a historical undertaking that deserves prominence in the same bastion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wouldn't you agree?
Republicans aren't against health care reform, they along with independents and democrats alike don't like this version of so called reform. Hal9000 brought out some excellent points on this already.
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
So what gives healthcare more of a, err, right, to be a right, over say, food and water? You aren't guaranteed food or water. No one is forced to give you food or water based on your ability to pay.
Why is healthcare the exception?
Healthcare as a human right is debatable. Healthcare as a civil right is not. It is NOT a civil right. It is not guaranteed in any government form or legislation, from the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution, to its 27 amendments, all the way up until this piece of crap was passed the other day. Not one time was it mentioned.
But the debate isn't whether or not people should get healthcare. No. the debate is the federal government doing something wrong and imposing its will on the majority of the country who did not want it. THAT is wrong... more wrong then someone not having healthcare.
The majority of the country were against this bill in this form. Anyone who denies that is living in lala land. If more than 50% of the country is against something, doesn't that mean it should be looked at a lot more closely, and not just pushed through? Does that not mean that things should be worked out to make more of the country atleast content, if not happy, with the proposed idea?
Since when do the desires of an individual trump the rights of a nation?
Why is healthcare the exception?
Healthcare as a human right is debatable. Healthcare as a civil right is not. It is NOT a civil right. It is not guaranteed in any government form or legislation, from the Declaration of Independence, to the Constitution, to its 27 amendments, all the way up until this piece of crap was passed the other day. Not one time was it mentioned.
But the debate isn't whether or not people should get healthcare. No. the debate is the federal government doing something wrong and imposing its will on the majority of the country who did not want it. THAT is wrong... more wrong then someone not having healthcare.
The majority of the country were against this bill in this form. Anyone who denies that is living in lala land. If more than 50% of the country is against something, doesn't that mean it should be looked at a lot more closely, and not just pushed through? Does that not mean that things should be worked out to make more of the country atleast content, if not happy, with the proposed idea?
Since when do the desires of an individual trump the rights of a nation?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hal9000
Forum Captain
- 405
- 3
- 18
We'll agree that our posts will be judged by those who read them based upon their own logic and life experiences. What conclusions they'll reach are known only to them. However, "we'll agree to disagree" is simply an end-plate for any discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
ExpatMedic0
MS, NRP
- 2,237
- 269
- 83
Wont this result in every ambulance transport resulting in a payment? There has been a Paramedic lay off in my area for a while due to private ambulance companies not being reimbursed for services rendered.
MusicMedic
Forum Captain
- 499
- 0
- 0
I Agree with Hal9000, that this Bill/Legislature is not perfect... It should have been more thought out and not soo rushed...
also Healthcare is not a Civil Right, more so of a Social Privilege, kind of a "gift" from the government to their people
Just like the Public Education system... If the goverment really wanted they could stop funding of the education system and say "f-it". Not like they would, it wouldnt be in their best intrest but in theory they could do it, sure there would be Private schools, but their prices would go up drastically.. not everyone would be able to afford an education
anyways... now that i come to think of it... I wish this Bill would have a "Public Option" instead of forcing everyone into having Healthcare insurance.. I would much rather have people choose between Private or Public, Just like the schooling system
anyways just my two cents
i sure as hell hope it works out though
also Healthcare is not a Civil Right, more so of a Social Privilege, kind of a "gift" from the government to their people
Just like the Public Education system... If the goverment really wanted they could stop funding of the education system and say "f-it". Not like they would, it wouldnt be in their best intrest but in theory they could do it, sure there would be Private schools, but their prices would go up drastically.. not everyone would be able to afford an education
anyways... now that i come to think of it... I wish this Bill would have a "Public Option" instead of forcing everyone into having Healthcare insurance.. I would much rather have people choose between Private or Public, Just like the schooling system
anyways just my two cents
i sure as hell hope it works out though
TraprMike
Forum Lieutenant
- 230
- 2
- 18
how can you call making it mandatory that every person has to buy there own insurance??? and if you don't ,, you get fined...
So, Sec is a gift also?? when we retire the .gov "gives" us money because we worked so hard the prior 30-40 years??
MusicMedic
Forum Captain
- 499
- 0
- 0
Trapr: Note that i put the word "Gift" in quotations, not everyone might find it as a gift..
and i didnt say that MANDATORY health insurance was a gift, i meant to imply that the whole program of a Public Option is more of a "Gift" or "Offer" from the goverment.. like i said before these are Social Privileges not Rights... If the Goverment REALLY REALLY wanted to they could stop or cut Social Security
there are plenty of countries with out a social Security program, or a Public Option for Healthcare... if their government really wanted to they could start those programs.. but they dont...
what i really want to say is this
There are Social Privileges
and there are Rights
Rights= Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.... Etc
Social Privileges= Socialized Medicine, Free Education System.... Etc...
and i lost my train of thought....
i really dont know the point of this post
and i didnt say that MANDATORY health insurance was a gift, i meant to imply that the whole program of a Public Option is more of a "Gift" or "Offer" from the goverment.. like i said before these are Social Privileges not Rights... If the Goverment REALLY REALLY wanted to they could stop or cut Social Security
there are plenty of countries with out a social Security program, or a Public Option for Healthcare... if their government really wanted to they could start those programs.. but they dont...
what i really want to say is this
There are Social Privileges
and there are Rights
Rights= Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.... Etc
Social Privileges= Socialized Medicine, Free Education System.... Etc...
and i lost my train of thought....
i really dont know the point of this post
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
You don't have the right to pursue happiness....
/end knit-pick.
/end knit-pick.
Bloom-IUEMT
Forum Lieutenant
- 135
- 0
- 0
Yeah it's debatable if you are from Texas.
The all developed nations agree that healthcare is a human right and I could argue so does the United States constitution.
@ Melbourne, the anger comes from a nearly religious devotion in this country to the ideals of the free market and the notion that any government intervention is sacrilegious. We have been led to believe we are the greatest nation in the world because our GDP is higher than any other----and of course there is scientific articles that support the idea that high GDP is correlated with a higher ranking of capitalist ideals. And of course it doesn't matter if the top 1% hold most of wealth at everyone else's expense.
You see in order to fight a war or hate an enemy who's villany is not self-evident you have to convince your citizenry that the enemy's way of life is villanous or else you loose public support for your war. When the soviet union became powerful after WWII and it's economy and world influence rivaled the USA they powerful needed to convince our citizens that our way of life was in danger. But to make a long essay short suffice to say our acquired hatred of communism has caused Americans to hate anything associated with that spectrum of politics. That is why Americans constantly use the word socialism as if it's a bad word. What is more, we wrongly associate socialism with despotism because that was/is a staple of most communist regimes.
Furthermore, anytime a person feels that something is evil or good and this premise is not fact-based that person gets emotional when they are confronted with opposition to their beliefs. This is of course why religious zealouts get angry when you ask "why do you believe in god?" With stunning consistency, many people who I have debated on this topic tend to just name call or use the "s" word as if it is all they need to make their point. You see if socialism is evil, and what I propose is anything resembling socialism, any argument I put forth is useless because you can't reason with evil (hmmmm sounds familar Mr. Bush)
What people don't realize is that we spread wealth already in this country and you can't have a functional democracy if you don't spread the wealth to some degree. If you don't believe me why don't you ask a Kuwaiti, or a Saudi, or a citizen of the UAE (what do you call them? :unsure
People in this country also don't tend to realize that we are actually moving further away from socialism and towards capitalism. The richest tax bracket in our country was taxed at a rate 90% in the 1950's!! Under Reagan the top tier tax bracket was 50%. It is now at approximately 38%. That is, a person making 100 million a year is taxed the same as a person making 300,000/yr. But no one can seem to answer this: why is it that every developed country in the world believes everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, should have access to affordable healthcare?
Bloom-IUEMT
Forum Lieutenant
- 135
- 0
- 0
some reading material
The more I look into the prospect of universal healthcare the more it becomes a no-brainer. I'll address some issues with it.
First its not socialized healthcare, its universal healthcare. Which means the doctors, practices and hospitals remain private, but they are paid by the government through tax dollars. In a socialized system the doctors, nurses, etc would all be government employees. That's the problem with Walter Reed; its was run by the Department of Defense and its conditions are/were indicative of how the Bush administration views injured veteran care (Bush, along with many conservatives made huge cuts in veteran's benefits and money allocated to the VA health system).
VA hospitals are truly government run and they function very well. In fact, the highest paid jobs for psychologists (my original field of interest) are in the VA system.
Second, the system will not suffer, the system is already suffering. Again we have the poorest health and disease-related outcomes of any developed nation. How good is that? The system functions as well as the amount of money invested in it.
Third, the will be no bureaucracies. The only person you deal with is your doctor. Currently we have to have our treatments approved by some :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: at an insurance company and we have to mess with insurance applications, claim forms, paperwork, paperwork, and more paperwork.
Fourth, its more efficient. By reducing adminstrative costs we can effectively funnel all healthcare dollars into ..... (gasp!) ...healthcare. We spend twice as much money on adminstration costs than any other country with universal healthcare. Also, by taking away the profits that go into the pockets of CEOs of insurance companies and CEOs of for-profit hospitals healthcare will become cheaper for the American taxpayer. Instead of a CEO pocketing 1 million dollars a year that money goes to YOU. You pay.....and you get what you pay for.
Fifth, you wont be taxed to death. It will cost an average of $179/month for a person making $50k a year---for universal healthcare. That's equivalent to what the average working person pays for health insurance anyway plus you get unlimited treatment.
Sixth, you and your doctor make health decisions not an insurance company. When you pay an insurance company for healthcare they essentially own your health. They can legally decide what treatments or drugs to pay for and they can reject you based on pre-existing health conditions.
Seventh, Docs pay won't suffer. In fact, in most countries with universal HC doctors pay are almost equivalent. In fact, primary care physicians (PCPs) make more in Canada than PCPs in the US. That is because the need for PCPs is great both in Canada and the US but the Canadian centralized market can respond to this need by raising PCP salaries whereas the US economy can't.
Eighth, medical innovation will not decrease because of decreased monetary incentive. Indeed, most medical innovation happens in the public sector not in the private. The last five of seven Nobel Prize winners for Medicine came from National Institute of Health in the US. The other two came from the national healthcare system in Britain! Besides, most innovation comes from university settings just like it has been for the past 150 years.
There is much more. But here is a start
And who pays? We do. We all do. We already pay for Medicare through taxes and Medicare accounts for 45% of all healthcare dollars----and we pay twice as much per capita than the next highest healthcare spending country (Luxembourg).
Sources:
"Flatlined: Resuscitating American Medicine" Guy Clifton, MD
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq
The more I look into the prospect of universal healthcare the more it becomes a no-brainer. I'll address some issues with it.
First its not socialized healthcare, its universal healthcare. Which means the doctors, practices and hospitals remain private, but they are paid by the government through tax dollars. In a socialized system the doctors, nurses, etc would all be government employees. That's the problem with Walter Reed; its was run by the Department of Defense and its conditions are/were indicative of how the Bush administration views injured veteran care (Bush, along with many conservatives made huge cuts in veteran's benefits and money allocated to the VA health system).
VA hospitals are truly government run and they function very well. In fact, the highest paid jobs for psychologists (my original field of interest) are in the VA system.
Second, the system will not suffer, the system is already suffering. Again we have the poorest health and disease-related outcomes of any developed nation. How good is that? The system functions as well as the amount of money invested in it.
Third, the will be no bureaucracies. The only person you deal with is your doctor. Currently we have to have our treatments approved by some :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: at an insurance company and we have to mess with insurance applications, claim forms, paperwork, paperwork, and more paperwork.
Fourth, its more efficient. By reducing adminstrative costs we can effectively funnel all healthcare dollars into ..... (gasp!) ...healthcare. We spend twice as much money on adminstration costs than any other country with universal healthcare. Also, by taking away the profits that go into the pockets of CEOs of insurance companies and CEOs of for-profit hospitals healthcare will become cheaper for the American taxpayer. Instead of a CEO pocketing 1 million dollars a year that money goes to YOU. You pay.....and you get what you pay for.
Fifth, you wont be taxed to death. It will cost an average of $179/month for a person making $50k a year---for universal healthcare. That's equivalent to what the average working person pays for health insurance anyway plus you get unlimited treatment.
Sixth, you and your doctor make health decisions not an insurance company. When you pay an insurance company for healthcare they essentially own your health. They can legally decide what treatments or drugs to pay for and they can reject you based on pre-existing health conditions.
Seventh, Docs pay won't suffer. In fact, in most countries with universal HC doctors pay are almost equivalent. In fact, primary care physicians (PCPs) make more in Canada than PCPs in the US. That is because the need for PCPs is great both in Canada and the US but the Canadian centralized market can respond to this need by raising PCP salaries whereas the US economy can't.
Eighth, medical innovation will not decrease because of decreased monetary incentive. Indeed, most medical innovation happens in the public sector not in the private. The last five of seven Nobel Prize winners for Medicine came from National Institute of Health in the US. The other two came from the national healthcare system in Britain! Besides, most innovation comes from university settings just like it has been for the past 150 years.
There is much more. But here is a start
And who pays? We do. We all do. We already pay for Medicare through taxes and Medicare accounts for 45% of all healthcare dollars----and we pay twice as much per capita than the next highest healthcare spending country (Luxembourg).
Sources:
"Flatlined: Resuscitating American Medicine" Guy Clifton, MD
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq
Hal9000
Forum Captain
- 405
- 3
- 18
Bloom,
Respectfully, your jab at Texas does somewhat undermine your credibility. Next, I believe you're not talking about the current legislation, though at first glance it seems so. Furthermore, your sources are indeed quite biased. Also, including so much partisan slant might turn some people off.
Regarding your question, it's not incumbent upon us to match any other country arbitrarily.
So, what are your thoughts on the current legislation?
Respectfully, your jab at Texas does somewhat undermine your credibility. Next, I believe you're not talking about the current legislation, though at first glance it seems so. Furthermore, your sources are indeed quite biased. Also, including so much partisan slant might turn some people off.
Regarding your question, it's not incumbent upon us to match any other country arbitrarily.
So, what are your thoughts on the current legislation?
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
I will say this for the umpteenth time to the umpteenth person who keeps failing at getting a simple premise:
We ARE NOT against people getting healthcare regardless of pay. We are against the federal government doing it in the way that they did.
Go ahead, argue it. I would love to see how you twist words that have existed for over 240 years without so much of a peep of healthcare in it, into getting a right that is not explicitly there.
Bloom-IUEMT
Forum Lieutenant
- 135
- 0
- 0
What? Biased? Only the website of the Physician for Universal Healthcare. Other than that you have no merit for your argument other than you disagree. And as I have said in a previous post my "slant" only turn off those who are firmly entrenched in an unwaivering position.
My jab at Texas is fine. I'd be willing to bet once I opened my mouth and esposed my leftist ways I lost credibility in your eyes. Or maybe I'm not being fair. Based on my experience probably not.
Tell you guys what----instead of answering my argument with your own argument that is not related to arguments I've posited, respond to my post. I've spent time researching my views so you can spend time researching refutations.
And Mr Linuss, arguing against the prospect of healthcare as a right or practicality very much reveals your position on the overall idea of universal access to healthcare.
ANd the constitution---see 9th Amendment and the preamble, notably "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Study some of Jefferson's writings and some of THomas Paine...they likely would be for Universal Healthcare. But that is speculation.
Hal9000
Forum Captain
- 405
- 3
- 18
Yes, biased. Please, don't go espousing things such as "left" and "right." I don't believe in using such restrictive speech, but I do believe it encourages a partisan divide. For your information, having a combative tone, with which you are presenting, is known as a style of communication most often found not to be competent. So there's no need for that.
As for your points, you'll see that I have addressed many of them in my original post, and with CBO verified numbers. I've also included historical trends and a more metacognitive style argumentation.
If you reread my original post, you'll note that I never ruled out and specific action. I simply addressed, as I noted just above, the metacognitive arguments. As such is the case, and as I used various sources, please don't jump off the boat and into the waters of emotionalism which you do protest against so.
Now, before I continue, I need to know if your "research" is on the current legislation, or is it on a different proposal. If it's a different proposal, I can't debate more than speculatively about the merits of it. However, if you wish, I can post more and give more thoughts.
In any case, please don't poison the well. I merely need a solid foundation upon which to work. Unlike some, I'm very cautious when it comes to posting on such matters. I want to be efficient, logical, and correct.
As for your points, you'll see that I have addressed many of them in my original post, and with CBO verified numbers. I've also included historical trends and a more metacognitive style argumentation.
If you reread my original post, you'll note that I never ruled out and specific action. I simply addressed, as I noted just above, the metacognitive arguments. As such is the case, and as I used various sources, please don't jump off the boat and into the waters of emotionalism which you do protest against so.
Now, before I continue, I need to know if your "research" is on the current legislation, or is it on a different proposal. If it's a different proposal, I can't debate more than speculatively about the merits of it. However, if you wish, I can post more and give more thoughts.
In any case, please don't poison the well. I merely need a solid foundation upon which to work. Unlike some, I'm very cautious when it comes to posting on such matters. I want to be efficient, logical, and correct.
Bloom-IUEMT
Forum Lieutenant
- 135
- 0
- 0
Lol, the question marks begs an answer as indicated by the fact that it is a QUESTION MARK. Thus, you will need to demonstrate why you BELIEVE the sources are biased. Again, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's biased. Have you read the sources or is this an assumption? The OECD report is a nonpartisan study that is fact based. It's only a description of findings not opinion based. I'd also say that no matter how "biased" a source is, if it posits good arguments and supports the arguments with sound research, it is still a valid source. Hell, I'd even source Fox News if it put forth sound arguments.
You can't have a debate about healthcare without talking about the political spectrum particularly because the current was divided along party lines.
Neither is ignoring an argument and focusing on my style of didactic. And it's not combative; I can be much more combative than that.
Again, argue against the merits of the argument not it's tone. Metacognitive....you mean vague, lol.
Emotion is part of discussion and to think any and all discussion can be devoid of emotion is naive. My arguments however motivated by the emotion of knowing fellow citizens are dying needlessly, are still researched, coherent, and logical. There is no appeal to emotion; please recognize the difference.[/QUOTE]
My research is on healthcare. That is the focus of the argument. I will apologize for not stating I support the current bill because of the demonstrated need for universal access to healthcare and this bill, however watered-down, is a step in the right direction.
As long as we talking about argument style you should understand yours is a bit tangential, just FYI
I will say the CBO likely underestimates the cost of healthcare because they cannot predict the degree in which physicians will perform more procedures to increase income.
Melbourne MICA
Forum Captain
- 392
- 13
- 18
Healthy debate or is that health Care debate?
If anybody is interested I can brifly describe how a universal health care system works from one who uses it directly.
The biggest difference I see between the system in the US and ours is your reliance on private enterprise to manage health care (funding?). As some have said there is (apparently) a deep distrust of government interventions into just about anything in the US. I won't elaborate on the point but just suggest, what better area is there for a government to get involved? If the private sector has done so well why would there be any need to discuss the matter at all. If they haven't then the only logical course of action is to look at other options. As a simple matter of fact, the majority of your fellow westerners governments use a "universal" health care model and fund health care differently.
Here we use levys' for the most part. For Medicare, its a levy at tax time,a percentage of income. Currently 1.5%. For road related injuries we pay a "third party" insurance levy as part of your car registration every year. That also covers the damage bill for the other car if you have an MVA (but not your own. That's managed by the Traffic Accident Commission separate from Medicare. Pharmaceuticals are covered under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, considered the best system of its type in the world. Ambulance you get free if you have health care card (pension) or you pay a yearly subscription fee of about $100 a family. Cover you for all ambulance services including fixed and rotary wing Ts & Rx anywhere in Australia. There are also supplementary income support payments for disabilities and the like as well as a "Medicare Safety net" which rebates you up to 80% of your total out of pocket health care expenses if you exceed more than $1800/yr. There are also baby bonus payments - $3000 for your first child, reduced after that.
And there are other supplements, either means or income dependent to boot.
And there is private health insurance.
All this is underpinned by the government, the Medicare Schedule which stipulates the "scheduled" fee for service across the board and other regulations to which both the public and private sectors have to be compliant.
Australia is not bankrupt - never has been. And we have not overthrown our evil untrustworthy governments. (Don't get me wrong - it doesn't mean we actually like most politicians!!!).
There's rorting, waste, mismanagement, waiting list for public services and its far from perfect. But it works.
Every single Australian has at least basic health cover irrespective of any caveat you might like to put on any demographic of the population.
MM
If anybody is interested I can brifly describe how a universal health care system works from one who uses it directly.
The biggest difference I see between the system in the US and ours is your reliance on private enterprise to manage health care (funding?). As some have said there is (apparently) a deep distrust of government interventions into just about anything in the US. I won't elaborate on the point but just suggest, what better area is there for a government to get involved? If the private sector has done so well why would there be any need to discuss the matter at all. If they haven't then the only logical course of action is to look at other options. As a simple matter of fact, the majority of your fellow westerners governments use a "universal" health care model and fund health care differently.
Here we use levys' for the most part. For Medicare, its a levy at tax time,a percentage of income. Currently 1.5%. For road related injuries we pay a "third party" insurance levy as part of your car registration every year. That also covers the damage bill for the other car if you have an MVA (but not your own. That's managed by the Traffic Accident Commission separate from Medicare. Pharmaceuticals are covered under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, considered the best system of its type in the world. Ambulance you get free if you have health care card (pension) or you pay a yearly subscription fee of about $100 a family. Cover you for all ambulance services including fixed and rotary wing Ts & Rx anywhere in Australia. There are also supplementary income support payments for disabilities and the like as well as a "Medicare Safety net" which rebates you up to 80% of your total out of pocket health care expenses if you exceed more than $1800/yr. There are also baby bonus payments - $3000 for your first child, reduced after that.
And there are other supplements, either means or income dependent to boot.
And there is private health insurance.
All this is underpinned by the government, the Medicare Schedule which stipulates the "scheduled" fee for service across the board and other regulations to which both the public and private sectors have to be compliant.
Australia is not bankrupt - never has been. And we have not overthrown our evil untrustworthy governments. (Don't get me wrong - it doesn't mean we actually like most politicians!!!).
There's rorting, waste, mismanagement, waiting list for public services and its far from perfect. But it works.
Every single Australian has at least basic health cover irrespective of any caveat you might like to put on any demographic of the population.
MM
I thought one of the biggest reasons health care reform was needed was the current system is a jobs killer.
Companies have to pay for employees health insurance, as a result companies are less likely to hire someone, and will pay lower wages to compensate for the money they spend on health insurance. As a result everybody loses, except for insurance companies.
America is less competitive in the world because our companies compete against overseas companies which arent saddled with health insurance costs for their employees.
Problem is this bill not only fails to address this, but seems to add to the problem, forcing more companies than before to provide insurance, or pay a fine.
Either eliminate the private insurance company middle man completely and go with a single payer system, or whats the point? This wont happen any time soon because the insurance industry has such deep pockets. Any politician who butts head with them can count on a well funded, sustained attempt to drive them from office.
Companies have to pay for employees health insurance, as a result companies are less likely to hire someone, and will pay lower wages to compensate for the money they spend on health insurance. As a result everybody loses, except for insurance companies.
America is less competitive in the world because our companies compete against overseas companies which arent saddled with health insurance costs for their employees.
Problem is this bill not only fails to address this, but seems to add to the problem, forcing more companies than before to provide insurance, or pay a fine.
Either eliminate the private insurance company middle man completely and go with a single payer system, or whats the point? This wont happen any time soon because the insurance industry has such deep pockets. Any politician who butts head with them can count on a well funded, sustained attempt to drive them from office.
Hal9000
Forum Captain
- 405
- 3
- 18
Lol, the question marks begs an answer as indicated by the fact that it is a QUESTION MARK. Thus, you will need to demonstrate why you BELIEVE the sources are biased. Again, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's biased. Have you read the sources or is this an assumption? The OECD report is a nonpartisan study that is fact based. It's only a description of findings not opinion based. I'd also say that no matter how "biased" a source is, if it posits good arguments and supports the arguments with sound research, it is still a valid source. Hell, I'd even source Fox News if it put forth sound arguments.
You can't have a debate about healthcare without talking about the political spectrum particularly because the current was divided along party lines.
Neither is ignoring an argument and focusing on my style of didactic. And it's not combative; I can be much more combative than that.
Metacognitive....you mean vague, lol.
Emotion is part of discussion and to think any and all discussion can be devoid of emotion is naive. My arguments however motivated by the emotion of knowing fellow citizens are dying needlessly, are still researched, coherent, and logical. There is no appeal to emotion; please recognize the difference.
My research is on healthcare. That is the focus of the argument. I will apologize for not stating I support the current bill because of the demonstrated need for universal access to healthcare and this bill, however watered-down, is a step in the right direction. As long as we talking about argument style you should understand yours is a bit tangential, just FYI
I will say the CBO likely underestimates the cost of healthcare because they cannot predict the degree in which physicians will perform more procedures to increase income.[/QUOTE]Firstly, no emotion is not part of the discussion, unless we're going back to high school, and neither is the political spectrum. Cost is merely based upon upon simple mathematical analysis, however "vague" and "tangential" you might find that. If you wish, you can let yourself be influenced by emotion to whatever degree and then deflect by saying it's not and appeal to emotion, but that isn't at all the point. While you're doing so, please don't make silly graspings to determine my party affiliation or whatever thing you consider me to be.
Secondly, your answer as what you would so jokingly call "vague." Regardless, I won't try to pin you down on that. You have presumably decided not to read my first post, and instead mock me by calling my answer vague. Indeed, indeed.
First, let's review this bill which you claim is progressive. Is it a big blow to the insurance companies? Supposedly, yes, it looks our for citizens. In reality, AHIP/HIAA has proposed plans almost exactly similar-minus the political pork, which I suppose you would lump into the "no-brainer, doesn't need math, that's emotional, too" category. In any case, does this "affordable plan" which you so support actually remain affordable. Here's one response featured on the Huffington Post. (I'm sure only vague, right-wing sorts go there.)
"Here’s a version of one family’s total household costs under the plan: a middle class family with two cars and some child care costs. Note, in this scenario, I’m assuming the middle class family will pay 7.9% of its income for health insurance premium, significantly less than the 9.8% the plan assumes that family could pay to get the subsidies available. This, then, shows what a family would be required to pay (or incur a penalty) under the 8% opt-out rule.
301% of Poverty Level: $66,370
Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)
State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)
Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $7,712 (12% of income)
Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)
Child care (average cost for just one pre-school child in MI): $6,216
Health insurance premium: $5,243 (7.9% of income, max amount before opt-out w/o penalty allowed)
Transportation (assume 2 cars, 12,000 miles each, @IRS deductible cost of $.55/mile): $13,200*
Heat, electricity, water: $1,500
Phone, cable, internet: $1,200
Total: $64,276 (97% of income)
Remainder (for health care out-of-pocket, debt, clothing, etc.): $2,091
In other words, assuming this family had no debt (except for that related to the two cars), no clothing costs, and no other necessary costs–all completely unrealistic assumptions–it would be able to incur just $6,970 of medical care out-of-pocket costs before spending all that $2,091 and going into debt (the opt-out is based on an insurance plan that provides 70% of costs, so this assumes the family will pay 30% of health care costs). Yet that family would be expected to spend up to $5,882 more out of pocket before the “subsidies” started picking up its out-of-pocket expenses. (If the family paid the full 9.8% of its income on premiums–at which point it would become eligible for subsidies under the plan–it would have just $825 left to spend on all other expenses, including health care out-of-pocket expenses.)
This family couldn’t even go through a normal childbirth without going into debt."
So, does this plan resemble the original HIAA plan? Let's see what both plans proposed to do, and what has happened:
- Every American was required to buy ‘an essential package’ of benefits
- The government would help define the essential package and private insurers would provide the standard package “regardless of a person’s medical history”
- Only the essential package would be protected from taxation. If employers bought more than the basic benefits, the premiums pad for the extra coverage “would be treated as income to the employees, and they would have to pay income tax on it.”
- The government would work with private insures to “stabilize health-care prices” and make sure private insures and government programs pay similar amounts for the same services in the same geographic area.
Oh, wait, so a non-pork-laden version of this bill was drawn up years ago by the health insurance industry to be (quoting Carl Schramm, the president of HIAA), "the only way you preserve the private health insurance industry. It’s plain-out enlightened self-interest.” And you support that, because in 2017 there might be a chance that states could apply to have their own, state-based universal care, which they could be doing right now without this bill that supports the insurance industry, but they'll probably only get a chance in 2020 or 2024. Wait, is it really 2017, people ask? Let's look at the bill section 1332, which you so applaud as moving us in the right direction toward you vision,
(1) IN GENERAL- A State may apply to the Secretary for the waiver of all or any requirements described in paragraph (2) with respect to health insurance coverage within that State for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Such application shall:
(A) be filed at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) contain such information as the Secretary may require, including--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(i) a comprehensive description of the State legislation and program to implement a plan meeting the requirements for a waiver under this section; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(ii) a 10-year budget plan for such plan that is budget neutral for the Federal Government; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(C) provide an assurance that the State has enacted the law described in subsection (b)(2)."
So, states won't even be able to apply to run a MA-style plan until 2017. Realistically, this date will probably be bumped in the early to mid 2020s due to a likely power-shift amidst politicians. How is that a good thing?
I wonder why that seems bad? Maybe it's not as efficient as claimed? Maybe it costs lots of money and is overly restrictive? The big, no-brainer reason you support it is, in reality, just a slowing-down of reaching universal healthcare. By passing this bill into law, your goal has actually been impeded. I can only suppose that you did not read much of it, or that you did not comprehend. Combined with arbitrarily assigning me some political affiliation of course. Your jabs give your posts this elitist quality...
Now, is that a great plan? Is it worth "maybe breaking even if everything goes well?" Will it be able to be rolled back, knowing that our government rarely rolls entitlements back? Seeing as the past historical estimates note that the government is usually off by at least 100% of the cost estimate for heatlhcare-proposal costs, I ask you this: with our country conservatively estimated to have a federal debt of 90% of our GDP by 2020, is this spending helpful? (CBO Report: U.S. National debt will rise to 90% of GDP, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289628)
For now, I'll stop here (lunch), but I'll continue, if you wish. I think you need to take a breath and consider which "side" I'm on. If you do, you'll find I'm on the side of efficiency and affordability, no matter what shape it takes. Please, please get rid of the preconceived notions you've made about the need for emotionalism and political ties. They aren't needed, and they're truly just the Jedi-mind trick of politicians for which you're falling.
(Sorry for any spelling and grammar errors. I don't have time to proofread right now, and the text box only shows a wee bit of what I wrote.)
Bloom-IUEMT
Forum Lieutenant
- 135
- 0
- 0
Surgery May Not Be The Answer To An Aching Back
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125627307
"The new health overhaul law sets up a new institute that would do studies like Deyo's, comparing the risks and benefits of various treatments for various conditions. The law explicitly says the information can't be used by insurers or government to set reimbursement policies, but Weinstein says the institute could make a big difference. "
"He says health overhaul plans need to go beyond what's in the new law. "Right now we have health insurance reform," he says. "We need health care delivery reform, we need to change how we're delivering practice and how we're reimbursing for it." What he'd like to see is a system that pays doctors and hospitals based on overall patient care, not separately for individual procedures."
Lol, maybe this is one of those "biased" sources
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125627307
"The new health overhaul law sets up a new institute that would do studies like Deyo's, comparing the risks and benefits of various treatments for various conditions. The law explicitly says the information can't be used by insurers or government to set reimbursement policies, but Weinstein says the institute could make a big difference. "
"He says health overhaul plans need to go beyond what's in the new law. "Right now we have health insurance reform," he says. "We need health care delivery reform, we need to change how we're delivering practice and how we're reimbursing for it." What he'd like to see is a system that pays doctors and hospitals based on overall patient care, not separately for individual procedures."
Lol, maybe this is one of those "biased" sources