Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[hambone8611]

It would take too long to explain to you all the ways you're both wrong. Though, cudos to hambone for responding with an equivalent level of thought.

fair enough

 

[Omnis]

fair enough

Wow, that went smoothly.

 

[FoolKiller]

My favorite Australian plan levies a small tax across the board (2-3%) to give everyone free basic healthcare which can be supplanted by federally subsidized private plans (which would add things like dental, eyecare, and so on). Its an easy alternative to what we have here, but no one wants to talk about it.

It has been about 25 years since I learned basic elementary math, but I am pretty sure 2-3% of your income does not equal free.

It is possible that I am assuming the simple free = 0, but if the case is that I need more complex algebra or calculus to explain that the variable free has a value equal to 2-3% of my income then please feel free to correct me.

 

[YSSMAN]

*sigh*

You people and your words. I'm blown out on pain meds, I'm happy I even wrote a cohesive sentence. Srsly.

 

[Duke]

It has been about 25 years since I learned basic elementary math, but I am pretty sure 2-3% of your income does not equal free.

Problem: We're already paying boatloads of money for crappy health insurance plans. My favorite Australian plan levies a small tax across the board (2-3%) to give everyone free basic healthcare which can be supplanted by federally subsidized private plans (which would add things like dental, eyecare, and so on). Its an easy alternative to what we have here, but no one wants to talk about it.

Problem with your Australian example:

3% of our yearly household income is a little over $4000. Which, coincidentally, is about what we are paying for private health insurance for a family of 4, including dental, eyecare, and catastrophic coverage. So in your government plan, I'd be paying the same thing for less coverage, plus I'd be at the mercy of whatever NHS regulations they dream up, instead of being allowed to pick my doctor myself.

*sigh*

You people and your words. I'm blown out on pain meds, I'm happy I even wrote a cohesive sentence. Srsly.

It's not mere semantics (at least not at the national, popular level). It's a fundamental disconnect of concept that leads directly to the concept of the welfare state.

 

[Biggles]

Yes, those opposed to a national health care system will point out "horror stories" from the Canadian system. I suggest you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" & you will see the other side of the story. Of course, the truth lies somewhere in between - there are pros & cons associated with each type of system.

My own personal experience with the Canadian system has been very positive - my mother-in-law suffered through four cancers, as well as several other serious health problems, over a twenty year period. She always received caring, timely treatment. Personally, I feel more comfortable with a medical profession based on the principle of providing care, rather than the profit motive. (By the way, the government does not "pick" your doctor).

Libertarian issues aside, the problem with the existing US system is that, overall, it is a very inefficient way of delivering health care to the population as a whole, although it may provide excellent care to those who are best able to afford it. The Obama plan seems to be a dog's breakfast though - a compromise that pleases nobody & actually pushes more business into the hands of the big insurance companies.

 

[FoolKiller]

Libertarian issues aside, the problem with the existing US system is that, overall, it is a very inefficient way of delivering health care to the population as a whole,

Please explain.

 

[Biggles]

Please explain.

I don't have time to go into the complex ins and outs - treated objectively, rather than through slogans & 30 second sound bites, it is a very complicated subject. An interesting discussion from the New England Journal Of Medicine on the subject:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

and here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/25/2461

There are a lot of statistics & counter-statistics thrown around. The thing that I find disturbing is the knee-jerk assumption put out by the right-wing (Fox news etc.) that any services offered by "private enterprise" are automatically bound to be far more efficient than those delivered through the government. I don't believe this to be necessarily the case. Overall, the Canadian population receives its health care more efficiently through a single-payer system, that is actually less tangled in administrative costs, duplication & waste than is the case in the U.S.

 

[YSSMAN]

It's not mere semantics (at least not at the national, popular level). It's a fundamental disconnect of concept that leads directly to the concept of the welfare state.

This. I do agree with this. But it does go both ways with each of the political views of the issue (among many others).

 

[Keef]

I got an email today...

January 22, 2010

Dear Keith:

While recent events have left the fate of the Democrats' healthcare proposal unclear, I want to give you an update on where I stand on this important issue. As you know, I voted against the House-passed healthcare reform legislation. Although I oppose this legislation, the American people should have an opportunity to witness the final negotiations as they move forward, and make their voices heard.

President Obama pledged to lead "the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history" and he promised to open healthcare negotiations to public scrutiny by broadcasting the proceedings on live television. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a similar promise. Despite the President's stated promise, the Democratic leadership has declared that the final version of their $1 trillion, 2000-page overhaul of our nation's healthcare system will be negotiated behind closed doors. Speaker Pelosi rejected a formal request by C-SPAN to open the final healthcare negotiations to live broadcast coverage. I am disappointed by the House majority's decision to not follow through on the promises they made, in favor of secret discussions held out of sight from public view.

To help achieve the goal of transparency and accountability that was promised by the President and the Speaker, I cosponsored a resolution (H RES 847) that would ensure that any conference committee or other meetings held to determine the content of national healthcare legislation is conducted "in public, under the watchful eye of the people of the United States." I also signed a discharge petition that would force the Speaker to bring this resolution to the floor.

The American people must be fully informed about changes to our nation's healthcare system that profoundly affect every family, senior citizen, and small business owner. Furthermore, I will not vote for any legislation that would weaken longstanding pro-life policies and legal protections or permits the use of public funds to pay for healthcare plans that cover abortions.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Turner
Member of Congress
www.house.gov/miketurner

If the crazies insist on passing this thing and putting it into effect, then at least we all should be able to hear the details and cause a ruckus when we find something we don't like.

 

[orimarc]

It has been about 25 years since I learned basic elementary math, but I am pretty sure 2-3% of your income does not equal free.

Maybe instead of "free" he should said "pre-paid by every tax-payer", so you don't have to pay when you are at the hospital. Let me put another example:

Let's say there's a "Repair disc" tax. It's a small one. You pay it and one day, suddenly, your copy of *insert game/DVD/music disc here* stops working. A cat has scratched it, pissed on it, and other things that end in -ed. You go to the public video game store, and say "I need my disc repaired!". The store clerk takes the disc, and 5 minutes later, you got your disc good as new, for "free".

Understand?

 

[Tornado]

Let's say there's a "Repair disc" tax. It's a small one. You pay it and one day, suddenly, your copy of *insert game/DVD/music disc here* stops working. A cat has scratched it, pissed on it, and other things that end in -ed. You go to the public video game store, and say "I need my disc repaired!". The store clerk takes the disc, and 5 minutes later, you got your disc good as new, for "free".

Understand?

When does the part about other people paying for your "Repair disc" tax come into play.

 

[Keef]

Maybe instead of "free" he should said "pre-paid by every tax-payer", so you don't have to pay when you are at the hospital. Let me put another example:

Let's say there's a "Repair disc" tax. It's a small one. You pay it and one day, suddenly, your copy of *insert game/DVD/music disc here* stops working. A cat has scratched it, pissed on it, and other things that end in -ed. You go to the public video game store, and say "I need my disc repaired!". The store clerk takes the disc, and 5 minutes later, you got your disc good as new, for "free".

Understand?

What about all the genetically healthy people who never use health care but pay for it? Is that fair? What about all the less fortunate people who are forced to use it whether they want to or not? Is that fair? And the people who use it because it's "free", even though they don't have to. That's not fair either.

The only way to satisfy all those people is to let them make their own decisions about their own health care. We don't understand the other philosophy, because it's stupid.

 

[hambone8611]

when I was still raising kids I thought a public option was a good thing I did not make a lot of money and kids need to go to the doc but now that their grown and on their own I take the oppasite view simpley because it would effect my personal and buissnes pockets I guess that makes me selfish and a bit of a douche bag arent you glade I don,t make these decistions

 

[Biggles]

When does the part about other people paying for your "Repair disc" tax come into play.

What about all the genetically healthy people who never use health care but pay for it? Is that fair? What about all the less fortunate people who are forced to use it whether they want to or not? Is that fair? And the people who use it because it's "free", even though they don't have to. That's not fair either.

The only way to satisfy all those people is to let them make their own decisions about their own health care. We don't understand the other philosophy, because it's stupid.

You offer an overly simplistic argument. Both private & public options revolve around the concept of collective insurance. Of course, people who are healthy don't need health care, just like if you're driving a car & are not involved in an accident you don't "need" car insurance. The idea of a single-payer system is to spread the risk among the whole population & reduce overall costs by eliminating duplication & administrative costs, & the profit motive. It does, however, mean giving up the freedom to choose NOT to be insured.

 

[DK]

What about all the genetically healthy people who never use health care but pay for it?

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Peter shouldn't have to pay for Paul. But what if Peter is a rich banker who has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, and Paul is a guy who used to work for GM but got laid off through no fault of his own. Paul suddenly gets swine flu. The treatment costs thousands of dollars. Paul's treatment is paid for with Peter's taxpayer dollars. I live in Ireland, where we have a fairly sub-standard healthcare system. There have been horror stories of people being left on trollies for hours and sometimes even days. I have been lucky enough not to be one of the people left on said trollies for said duration of time. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones. ericdemoryGT, keef and all those other users who opposed this bill, let's say one of you got swine flu. The treatment would be covered by the Government. The very system you have condemned would've saved you from being condemned to the grave and becoming another swine flu statistic.

 

[Sam48]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Peter shouldn't have to pay for Paul. But what if Peter is a rich banker who has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, and Paul is a guy who used to work for GM but got laid off through no fault of his own. Paul suddenly gets swine flu. The treatment costs thousands of dollars. Paul's treatment is paid for with Peter's taxpayer dollars. I live in Ireland, where we have a fairly sub-standard healthcare system. There have been horror stories of people being left on trollies for hours and sometimes even days. I have been lucky enough not to be one of the people left on said trollies for said duration of time. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones. ericdemoryGT, let's say you got swine flu. The treatment would be covered by the Government. The very system you have condemned would've saved you from being condemned to the grave and becoming another swine flu statistic.

No matter how poor you are, if your sick, the hospital must accept you by law. So under our current healthcare, as screwed up as it is, you will always be "the lucky one".

 

[hambone8611]

No matter how poor you are, if your sick, the hospital must accept you by law. So under our current healthcare, as screwed up as it is, you will always be "the lucky one".

that coast will be past on to insurance companies who pass it on to the indivdual and the ones who oppose it pay it anyway there is no way to win

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Peter shouldn't have to pay for Paul. But what if Peter is a rich banker who has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, and Paul is a guy who used to work for GM but got laid off through no fault of his own. Paul suddenly gets swine flu. The treatment costs thousands of dollars. Paul's treatment is paid for with Peter's taxpayer dollars.

Paul pays for insurance with his unemployment checks and savings if possible. His insurance then covers the treatment.

edit: That or he becomes a gigolo.

 

[Keef]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Peter shouldn't have to pay for Paul. But what if Peter is a rich banker who has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, and Paul is a guy who used to work for GM but got laid off through no fault of his own. Paul suddenly gets swine flu. The treatment costs thousands of dollars. Paul's treatment is paid for with Peter's taxpayer dollars. I live in Ireland, where we have a fairly sub-standard healthcare system. There have been horror stories of people being left on trollies for hours and sometimes even days. I have been lucky enough not to be one of the people left on said trollies for said duration of time. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones. ericdemoryGT, keef and all those other users who opposed this bill, let's say one of you got swine flu. The treatment would be covered by the Government. The very system you have condemned would've saved you from being condemned to the grave and becoming another swine flu statistic.

Let's say I'm Peter, and you're Paul. I'm a nice guy. If I heard about your problem I might volunteer to help you out--it happens all the time. But I'll be damned if somebody is going to force me to pay for your broke ass. At that point I'll do what I can to avoid paying the tax simply out of spite. But if it was up to me, then yeah buddy, I'll help you out a little bit. You're the guy who built my Cadillac, after all.

But that's just me being a singular filthy rich guy. It probably wouldn't work for an entire economy because people would be wasting all their money helping everyone else out. Oh wait...that's exactly the same thing as the government forcing us to pay for everyone. We all waste our money on everyone else. It could be spent better, and I bet I could figure out better ways to spend it than the government can decide for me.

No matter how poor you are, if your sick, the hospital must accept you by law. So under our current healthcare, as screwed up as it is, you will always be "the lucky one".

Even criminals get medical treatment before they get locked up here in the States. It's great. Everyone can get what they need when they need it. But they're going to have to pay for it somehow, so they'd better find a job.

 

[Biggles]

Let's say I'm Peter, and you're Paul. I'm a nice guy. If I heard about your problem I might volunteer to help you out--it happens all the time. But I'll be damned if somebody is going to force me to pay for your broke ass.

You're still not getting the simple concept of collective insurance. You're not "paying for Paul", you're paying, through your taxes, for everyone's insurance, including your own, so that if either you, or Paul, become sick, you will receive health care. Ultimately, everybody stands to gain from having a healthier society. It is a similar thing to having a national school system. Without public schools most parents would still find a way to send their children to school, but the millions of children who grew up NOT going to school, would end up effecting society as a whole in a negative way - even impacting the lives of those who did go to school.

Every other western country has universal health care - it is not a radical concept, but the "norm" in the rest of the developed world. Of course, no health care system is perfect, but the fact remains that the U.S. spends significantly more than any other country on health care & still trails most developed countries in many measures of health outcomes.

 

[Sphinx]

Let's say I'm Peter, and you're Paul. I'm a nice guy. If I heard about your problem I might volunteer to help you out

I know very little about private health care, hence my questions;

The rich guy Peter loses everything in the global recession, but at least he still has his personal health care plan. Phew! Shortly after however, he is diagnosed with a life changing illness that will require constant medical attention for the remainder of his life, let's say he's going to live for a further 25 year before he pops his clogs.

Will his personal health care plan cover him for the remainder of his years?

If not, then what will happen to poor old Pete?

Directed at anyone who wishes to answer.

 

[Tornado]

The idea of a single-payer system is to spread the risk among the whole population & reduce overall costs by eliminating duplication & administrative costs, & the profit motive.

That really isn't true.

Will his personal health care plan cover him for the remainder of his years?

Yes. If he still has his personal health insurance they will still pay for his treatments.

 

[Biggles]

That really isn't true.

Why have all other developed countries adopted a single-payer, universal health care system? There are certainly some disagreements about the details, but the professional consensus is that the US system delivers worse overall health care outcomes, in spite of investing considerably more money per capita than any other developed country.

I don't have time to go into the complex ins and outs - treated objectively, rather than through slogans & 30 second sound bites, it is a very complicated subject. An interesting discussion from the New England Journal Of Medicine on the subject:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

and here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/25/2461

There are a lot of statistics & counter-statistics thrown around. The thing that I find disturbing is the knee-jerk assumption put out by the right-wing (Fox news etc.) that any services offered by "private enterprise" are automatically bound to be far more efficient than those delivered through the government. I don't believe this to be necessarily the case. Overall, the Canadian population receives its health care more efficiently through a single-payer system, that is actually less tangled in administrative costs, duplication & waste than is the case in the U.S.

 

[Danoff]

Why have all other developed countries adopted a single-payer, universal health care system? There are certainly some disagreements about the details, but the professional consensus is that the US system delivers worse overall health care outcomes, in spite of investing considerably more money per capita than any other developed country.

The "worse overall healthcare outcome" statement is based on inequality of service - which is a good thing. Especially if you want innovation, which is something the US provides the rest of the world. You're welcome BTW.

 

[Biggles]

The "worse overall healthcare outcome" statement is based on inequality of service - which is a good thing.

I don't think it's a good thing. If, hypothetically, half a dozen of the richest people in the world lived forever due to "inequality of service" - would that be a "good thing"?

Especially if you want innovation, which is something the US provides the rest of the world. You're welcome BTW.

A typically arrogant & ignorant attitude.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

If, hypothetically, half a dozen of the richest people in the world lived forever due to "inequality of service" - would that be a "good thing"?

If they can afford it, why not?

 

[Tornado]

Why have all other developed countries adopted a single-payer, universal health care system?

Considering all that a single party system does is move administration costs from businesses to the government (and normally inflates them) rather than actually eliminating them, I doubt it has particularly much to do with efficiency in cost.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think it's a good thing. If, hypothetically, half a dozen of the richest people in the world lived forever due to "inequality of service" - would that be a "good thing"?

Inequality of service is necessary for innovation - which is why it's a good thing.

A typically arrogant & ignorant attitude.

Nice to see you're not above personal attacks. Feel free to actually refute my statement.

 

[Keef]

Inequality of service is necessary for innovation - which is why it's a good thing.

Sounds like you're talking about insurance companies offering different coverages, causing customers to shop around, causing the companies to compete amongst one another by coming up with new plans and ideas to attract more customers. Competition, then.