5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: h-p

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
The reason you've seen little offered by the Republican to the existing proposal is that it is so far off the scale that there's little that can be done with it.
No, an actual socialized healthcare system would've been off the scale. But no one has even brought that up. As for the Republicans position, I think it would be a solid 0.


Make no bones about it, the total lack of compromise is on the Democratic side.
Bullshit. The only idea the Republicans have seriously offered is to start from scratch. If I were the President, after putting up with their obstructionist tactics for a year, agreeing to a pointless summit, then hearing that ... I would tell them to go fuck themselves, live on CSPAN. The only reason we're even still talking about this is because the Democrats unnecessarily tried to go across the aisle when this legislation was first proposed. Baucus tried to court Snowe and others ... and they strung the Democrats along for months, succeeded in getting the bill pared down, then voted against it anyway. Plus throwing every procedural hurdle they could summon in the way of this legislation.

At this point, I can only hope that the Democrats grow a spine and pass everything, even public option as it originally stood, through reconciliation. The Republicans have shown that their only interest is in politicking; not in creating a solid healthcare bill.

And just before you go along party lines, remember that in the House, almost 20% of Democrats voted against the House version of health care. And there are significant indications that the number will rise if presented anew.
You assume they all voted against it because it was too liberal? I remember at least a few representatives saying they'd vote against any healthcare bill that didn't include a public option or universal coverage.

When labor, that traditional bastion of the left, says "we'll only go along with this if you write the legislation so that we are left out of it" -- well, that says a LOT.
This again. Labor opposed it because of the 40% "Cadillac tax" on group negotiated premium healthcare plans. That doesn't say anything but the very obvious fact that no one wants to pay a 40% tax on top of their already ridiculous healthcare premium.

* keep people that have coverage from losing it
* help people with lower incomes pay for coverage
* crush all the administrative overhead of the individual states around differing regulations that while small do nothing but run up overhead and costs.
I thought you wanted to avoid the financial aspect of this argument? :lol: Considering it's a losing one for those advocating the wholly private system. Crushing "administrative overhead" could be accomplished by largely dismantling the private insurance market. Interestingly enough, this current legislation would accomplish all 3 of your goals. Well, maybe not the last one, but it's a half-ass plan anyway.
 

Steve Levin

Master of Disaster
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,482
Location
Sunnyvale, California
Car(s)
Spec Racer Ford!
If you can look at the current legislation and think that there was any consideration of anything bipartisan in its creation, then you really haven't paid attention. From soup to nuts this bill has been nothing other than a gigantic, Democrat-only proposition that was only watered down enough to actually get enough Democrats behind it to pass it, since in the House, despite having an 85 seat advantage, they only managed to pass it by what, 5 votes?

And if you are arguing that government programs are more efficient... when was the last time YOU went to a DMV office? :)

But I guess we could go down the Canadian road... where our President goes to other countries to be treated because he can't get the health care he needs at home. Yep, that'd be an improvement. :)

Steve
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
But I guess we could go down the Canadian road... where our President goes to other countries to be treated because he can't get the health care he needs at home.
a) Canadian "President" ... lulz
b) Sauce is required.
 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
a) Canadian "President" ... lulz
b) Sauce is required.

He's talking about Danny Williams, who is the premier of Newfoundland, who went to the US for a treatment that was available in Newfoundland but [insert newfie joke]. If I was a resident of Newfoundland that would be pretty worrying, since healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction and Williams has clearly fucked something up over there and isn't telling anyone.

I was not aware that Danny Williams had become the president of Canada, but hey, Steve Levin clearly knows everything about our country and its healthcare system, right? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
If you can look at the current legislation and think that there was any consideration of anything bipartisan in its creation, then you really haven't paid attention. From soup to nuts this bill has been nothing other than a gigantic, Democrat-only proposition that was only watered down enough to actually get enough Democrats behind it to pass it, since in the House, despite having an 85 seat advantage, they only managed to pass it by what, 5 votes?
The legislation was proposed by the Democrats and the White House. I'm certainly not refuting that. But every single step of the way they've asked (pointlessly in my opinion) for Republican debate, input and support. This summit is just yet another example of that. Some Democrats still want the Republicans to play a meaningful part in the debate over this legislation ... instead of just saying it's socialist, will kill our old people, and whatever else they can dream up. I can respect that attempt at bipartisanship even if (at this point) I wholly disagree with it. Having a real fiscal conservative take a good look at legislation like this, and offering an opinion that they didn't catch on a Glenn Beck highlight reel, would be a good thing.

As for the House vote, again I maintain that many representatives (who are generally more attuned to the desires of their constituencies than senators) voted it down because it was too conservative. Many in the House supported the public option, considering it's what the American people asked for; an alternative to getting raped by insurance companies. When the Senate shot that down many Reps were left in an awkward position. In my opinion that's indicative of a larger structural failure of our bicameral legislature (that the upper house has more power than the lower), but that's something for another thread.

Also, the only reason this legislation was watered down in the first place was to get 60 votes. The Democrats don't actually need 60 votes, it's just become this arbitrary new majority marker since they're ... idiots. They can pass all of this through reconciliation (that's the sneaky back door method Republicans have been complaining about ... the same one they're so familiar with). The simple fact that the Democrats tried to get to 60 votes to beat the filibuster is enough evidence that they attempted bipartisanship. At least more so than the Republicans.

Another telling indicator of the Republicans failure is the simple fact that they proposed no real alternative than the status quo. They've had a few little ideas. The predominate one being that we begin this year long debate all over again (which I think would be wholly unacceptable to the public). I suppose Rep. Ryan did create a very interesting shadow budget, one which would privatize social security and medicare ... and still leave us in debt ... 50 years from now. The Republicans have offered no alternative. They've only said "no, no, no, no, no." That's not bipartisanship. That's not even pretending to be bipartisan. That's obstruction, plain and simple, and it's the only agenda they've got. They've stated as much.

And if you are arguing that government programs are more efficient... when was the last time YOU went to a DMV office? :)
You see things too black and white Steve. Simply put, healthcare and the DMV aren't even in the same ballpark. There are some programs that are better administered privately (the DMV) and some programs that, at least in part, are bettered administered publicly (healthcare). Missouri has privatized DMV offices. They are fantastic. There can be a line to the door and you'll be out of there in well under an hour. No fuss, no problems, buy your tags for a couple years out. Kansas is the total opposite. Publicly run, there can be five people in there with ten receptionists and you'll still wait half an hour ... then have to drive across town so the Highway Patrol can fill out a form that says your VIN is correct. Awful system.

But comparing healthcare and the DMV is apples to oranges. There's plenty of proof that a privately run DMV is better. There's plenty of proof that a public/private hybrid system is better for healthcare. But I fear that you're unwilling to consider anything that's not wholly black or white (private or public) when in reality there are systems that operate in that grey area. Systems that operate much more efficiently than our own, even with substantial government involvement.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
How much will the US government have to give the Insurance companies in a big bag with dollar sign on it, so they'll release their men and women in the Senate?
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
How much will the US government have to give the Insurance companies in a big bag with dollar sign on it, so they'll release their men and women in the Senate?

They have paid over $1.2 billion dollars to lobbyists - with eight lobbyists per Congressman.

Of course, that money will have come from their customers, who will surely thank them when they get refused the coverage they paid for.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Yes, but how much will you have to pay the companies so they'll let their senators vote freely?
 

Steve Levin

Master of Disaster
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,482
Location
Sunnyvale, California
Car(s)
Spec Racer Ford!
a) Canadian "President" ... lulz
b) Sauce is required.


Making yourself look stupid trying to make someone else look stupid... epic :)

You think America would have to change it's entire political system just to have Canadian healthcare?

Steve
 
Last edited:

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
There is now the President of Canada? What is going on - have the French finally won?

It seems that healthcare in the US raises strong emotions. Those opposed that I have seen have two driving forces:
1. I do not want to pay for anyone else's healthcare (Insurance is that, you premium pays for the claims of others btw)
2. I do not want to buy something I do not need

OK fair enough.

The key points I would make I think is cost, US citizens are each paying around 7,500 USD per annum for their healthcare. In the "Socialist" equivalent system the cost is around 3-4000 USD approx. All I can think is that they are insane and need to make a claim immediately.

Oh I think our system has some problems that means it is not as good as France or Canada (Best version of social healthcare, which is a bit ironic being a neighbour) but I am so paranoid about getting ill when I go to the US I take 2million dollars cover as well as repatriation cover too, just in case.

If I am sick I call 999 get the ambulance go to hospital, get fixed, come home by car - bill=zero. No one runs up to me or my family with reams of paperwork, just does not happen.
 
Last edited:

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
It was a jab at how little some Americans seem to know about anything outside of the US, let alone about their own country.
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
There is now the President of Canada? What is going on - have the French finally won?

Tony Blair had his heart op done on the NHS.

The key points I would make I think is cost, US citizens are each paying around 7,500 USD per annum for their healthcare. In the "Socialist" equivalent system the cost is around 3-4000 USD approx. All I can think is that they are insane and need to make a claim immediately.

Ezra Klein writes

The American system biases doctors toward overtreatment by paying them for everything intervention they try. The British system does the opposite by paying them a lump sum for each patient, and every treatment comes out of that total. The effects are predictable: The American system is extremely expensive. But the British system is extremely cheap. Uncommonly cheap. Weirdly cheap. About 41 cents for every dollar we spend per capita cheap.

Just think what people could do with that 59 cents of every dollar that they would get back.

If I am sick I call 999 get the ambulance go to hospital, get fixed, come home by car - bill=zero. No one runs up to me or my family with reams of paperwork, just does not happen.

And of course, our recovery is aided by the fact that we aren't worried about who will pay the medical bills.
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
Get sick again and have to return (quite possibly multiple times) to get the problem fixed properly.

Oh dear, I think I'm going to have to use small words with this one.

Which system is more geared towards making sure the patient returns multiple times? Is it:

A) The one were the medical profession and companies involved gets paid when, and only when, the patient interacts with it
B) The one were the medical profession and companies involved get a lump sum per person and make more money the less that the patient interacts with it.

Now go away and work it out. Use a crayon if need be.
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
Thanks for answering the question and not resorting to ad hominem insults.

No! Wait! The other one!
 

Lupin_IV

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
3,876
Location
about 10 miles north of Carlisle, PA
Car(s)
'84 Pontiac Parisienne, '93 Chevy Caprice
Okay, I'll explain it for you.

The less a service costs to the populace directly, the more likely they are to use it just because it's available rather than because they need it. Quality of service, in turn, suffers.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Okay, I'll explain it for you.

The less a service costs to the populace directly, the more likely they are to use it just because it's available rather than because they need it. Quality of service, in turn, suffers.
... and yet most Europeans, who are burdened with that dreadful system, typically live longer, healthier lives than we do. They see their physicians regularly. they're not stressed about medical bills. They're not filing bankruptcy over medical bills. What they're doing is paying nearly half as much per capita as we are for medical care and leading long, healthy lives. Interesting how reality differs from over-simplified theories.
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
The attitude is so totally different to the US, but is simple. Just because it is there whenever we want it, we don't feel the need to take it.

Our system is designed to prevent the expensive stuff ever actually happening. I go to a dentist every six months and pay $25 for a checkup. So far, a couple of fillings about six years ago. Caught early.

A few months ago I was suffering from chest pains. Went to see the doc (same day appointment) who checked my heart, breathing and blood pressure. A quick chat and she says it is just stress. She offers me some pills, but I decline. Even though those pills will cost less than $10, and hundreds in the US. She also pulls out a few leaflets and says "here a few websites, do a bit of reading on relaxation techniques". Done and dusted, half an hour, feeling better by the time I leave the building.

In the US, I would have paid for the docs time. They would have sent me for a battery of tests. Then they would have pushed a bunch of pills on me which I would have been on for six months. All the time this is coming out of any insurance money I've paid and sets me up ten years down the line for "pre-existing condition". All this adding to the underlying problem of stress, when all I really needed was "You are working too hard. Slow down." But where is the profit in saying that? In whose interest is it to tell me I'm working too hard - absolutely no-one in the medical profession, that is who. The doc can't get paid for a referral, the hospital can't get paid for the tests and the drug company doesn't get paid for its products.
 
Last edited:
Top