Org Mobile Site
Thread: The U.S. Health Care Debate
I watched the Rachel Maddow program on MSNBC last night as they did a piece on these so called grass roots protests at the health care debate town hall meetings. FreedomWorks have every right to their expressing their views, but they misrepresent/lie & deceive who they really get paid to speak for and need to be exposed as the charlatans they are. These tactics anger me very much.
There are a few astro-turfers i am sure hidden among the protesters of healthcare. But i think the vast majority are simply people who do not want this bill passed. Remember, over 40% of the country voted for a republican, conservatism isn't completely dead yet.
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan:
Further, the blogger bold-faced lies when they claim this: , as by this:
So basically the requirements for patient protection the blogger so wanted are there, and the blogger decided to ignore it, and feigned bipartisanship by giving the bill only to try and intimidate people into not reading anything that wasn't bolded by said blogger.
Wow, you need to go read what she said again, you're missing the boat entirely. You're referencing the section on the contents of the actual medical orders, not the counseling itself. I don't have the time to go point by point right now, but seriously, look again.Further, the blogger bold-faced lies when they claim this: , as by this:
So basically the requirements for patient protection the blogger so wanted are there, and the blogger decided to ignore it, and feigned bipartisanship by giving the bill only to try and intimidate people into not reading anything that wasn't bolded by said blogger.
In terms of having faith in a free-market system, in reply to Lemur -
It's not 'faith', it's trust in sound economic theory that has worked before. Example - right now we can't buy out of state insurance. Getting rid of that prohibition means the market becomes freer, there's more competition, more choices for the consumer, and cheaper insurance. That's not faith - that's the reasonable expectation using proven economic theory.
Along those lines, another proposal for health care reform from John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods;
CR
It's not 'faith', it's trust in sound economic theory that has worked before. Example - right now we can't buy out of state insurance. Getting rid of that prohibition means the market becomes freer, there's more competition, more choices for the consumer, and cheaper insurance. That's not faith - that's the reasonable expectation using proven economic theory.
Along those lines, another proposal for health care reform from John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods;
Originally Posted by :
An analysis of the impact of what Obama wants to do, in terms of what states that have implemented it have experienced;- Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
- Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
- Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
- Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
- Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
- Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
- Enact Medicare reform.
- Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Originally Posted by :
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That's one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama's proposal for "guaranteed issue" on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
...
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions ("orphan diseases") that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."
I think freeing up the market, making costs transparent, preventing fine-print trickery, would all go so much farther then Obama's "reform".Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That's one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama's proposal for "guaranteed issue" on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
...
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions ("orphan diseases") that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."
CR
Originally Posted by :
Remember, over 40% of the country voted for a republican, conservatism isn't completely dead yet.
OK , given the past two terms and the current bunch of Republican incumbents, how do you make the relation with voting for conservatism?Remember, over 40% of the country voted for a republican, conservatism isn't completely dead yet.
God, guns and gays...
Or God, guns and less gays... and stopping the damn commies... thats pretty much conservatism isn't it ?
Or God, guns and less gays... and stopping the damn commies... thats pretty much conservatism isn't it ?
Originally Posted by :
Or God, guns and less gays...
OK apart from the foot tapping oxycontin fueled meth taking bible bashing poofs which ones?Or God, guns and less gays...
The corrupt lunatic self publicing use my family don't use my family clothes horse type perhaps?
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
God, guns and gays...
Or God, guns and less gays... and stopping the damn commies... thats pretty much conservatism isn't it ?
When all else fails, resort to name-calling. Right? God, guns and gays...
Or God, guns and less gays... and stopping the damn commies... thats pretty much conservatism isn't it ?
Excuse me, not conservatism, i meant the republican party.
Stupid question...
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system, why don't they just let us into their plan.... the one that Congress & their staffers get?
That'd solve the whole problem right there, correct?
This whole insurance reform sounds a lot like "ALL Animals are equal, and some are more equal than others".
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system, why don't they just let us into their plan.... the one that Congress & their staffers get?
That'd solve the whole problem right there, correct?
This whole insurance reform sounds a lot like "ALL Animals are equal, and some are more equal than others".
So true. Because those elder statesmen (seriously disgusted with all politicians at the moment) have such an amazing plan. It is so good and expensive it would probably cost the American taxpayer trillions a year. What i want to see is these old ***** coming down and joining this hybrid bull plan they have developed. Maybe then i would have some faith in it.
end rant
end rant
Things the taxpayer concerns themselves with:
Things they are not bothered with:
So, although most agree that America (nor anywhere else for that matter) can continue increasing the percentage of GDP on health, the money required can not ration treatment, cause waiting times to increase or cost them any more in tax, nor penalise their lifestyle.
The average American appears to be unaware that their life for the last 30+ years has been based on others buying their debt. Something has to give - just not the quantity, quality or availability of the healthcare...
- Cost in their taxes
- Perceived access
Things they are not bothered with:
- Overall cost in terms of GDP
- Sustainability
- Anything that they feel won't affect them
So, although most agree that America (nor anywhere else for that matter) can continue increasing the percentage of GDP on health, the money required can not ration treatment, cause waiting times to increase or cost them any more in tax, nor penalise their lifestyle.
The average American appears to be unaware that their life for the last 30+ years has been based on others buying their debt. Something has to give - just not the quantity, quality or availability of the healthcare...
Originally Posted by :
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
What a silly bunch these anti reform wingnuts are . "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Do you think they got embarrased when Stephen Hawking wheeled into the fray to say they was talking bollox?
Are you referring to this?
I also find it funny that some idiot Torrie criticized the NHS so much that there party has had to reassure us (UK voters) that the NHS is "safe in there hands" lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8200817.stm
Originally Posted by :
UK newspapers the Guardian and Daily Telegraph reported Prof Hawking as saying that he "wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8198084.stmUK newspapers the Guardian and Daily Telegraph reported Prof Hawking as saying that he "wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS".
I also find it funny that some idiot Torrie criticized the NHS so much that there party has had to reassure us (UK voters) that the NHS is "safe in there hands" lol
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8200817.stm
Originally Posted by :
I also find it funny that some idiot Torrie criticized the NHS so much that there party has had to reassure us (UK voters) that the NHS is "safe in there hands" lol
Whats funny is that it was the part privatisation of aspects of the NHS done by the tories and continued under Thatcherlite Blair which have given rise to many of the cost and treatment problems the NHS has nowI also find it funny that some idiot Torrie criticized the NHS so much that there party has had to reassure us (UK voters) that the NHS is "safe in there hands" lol
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
What a silly bunch these anti reform wingnuts are .
Do you think they got embarrased when Stephen Hawking wheeled into the fray to say they was talking bollox?
Right-wingers are unsurpassed in their ability to have heard about things that discount their arguments. Something to do with only reading news sources that provide them with shop-bought opinions with 'facts' neatly bulleted after for easy reading.What a silly bunch these anti reform wingnuts are .
Do you think they got embarrased when Stephen Hawking wheeled into the fray to say they was talking bollox?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Right-wingers are unsurpassed in their ability to have heard about things that discount their arguments. Something to do with only reading news sources that provide them with shop-bought opinions with 'facts' neatly bulleted after for easy reading.
Left-wingers are unsurpassed in their ability to have heard about things that discount their arguments. Something to do with only reading news sources that provide them with shop-bought opinions with 'facts' neatly bulleted after for easy reading. Right-wingers are unsurpassed in their ability to have heard about things that discount their arguments. Something to do with only reading news sources that provide them with shop-bought opinions with 'facts' neatly bulleted after for easy reading.
Sure, it's entirely off-topic and inflamatory, but it feels good to say, right?
It is amazing whenever a right winger finds anything sort of anti reform fact. Because almost all of the news sources are left, msnbc, ney york times, washington post, cbs,........ you name it. 
Maybe Mr Hawking said it in Persian or Arabic or something else originally, right wingers seem to have problems translating such statements without turning them into support for thier own position... ?
Could we perhaps focus on the actual topic instead of beating the poor old dead "right/left/whatever-wingers are sooo stoopid"-horse?
Highly appreciated.
Highly appreciated.
But the right wingers are really....
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system, why don't they just let us into their plan.... the one that Congress & their staffers get?
AFAIK thats kinda how its done in Britian, the politicians have access to the same tax paid healthcare we do... or they can pay extra for private healthcare... like any wealthy Briton can....
So its a pretty fair system... the one part I wasn't sure about is if they get some kind of private health insurance as part of thier job perks...
In my ideal system the politicians would have to use exactly the same system that people who cannot afford private health insurance have to use, I don't think they would be so quick to cut funding then....
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system, why don't they just let us into their plan.... the one that Congress & their staffers get?
AFAIK thats kinda how its done in Britian, the politicians have access to the same tax paid healthcare we do... or they can pay extra for private healthcare... like any wealthy Briton can....
So its a pretty fair system... the one part I wasn't sure about is if they get some kind of private health insurance as part of thier job perks...
In my ideal system the politicians would have to use exactly the same system that people who cannot afford private health insurance have to use, I don't think they would be so quick to cut funding then....
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Wow, you need to go read what she said again, you're missing the boat entirely. You're referencing the section on the contents of the actual medical orders, not the counseling itself. I don't have the time to go point by point right now, but seriously, look again.
You know, I keep going over that, and apparently I just keep missing the boat, because I don't see how else to interpret the statements.Wow, you need to go read what she said again, you're missing the boat entirely. You're referencing the section on the contents of the actual medical orders, not the counseling itself. I don't have the time to go point by point right now, but seriously, look again.
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
But the right wingers are really....
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system, why don't they just let us into their plan.... the one that Congress & their staffers get?
AFAIK thats kinda how its done in Britian, the politicians have access to the same tax paid healthcare we do... or they can pay extra for private healthcare... like any wealthy Briton can....
That is the system. Everyone pays, anyone can use. Though "everyone" only includes those who work.But the right wingers are really....
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system, why don't they just let us into their plan.... the one that Congress & their staffers get?
AFAIK thats kinda how its done in Britian, the politicians have access to the same tax paid healthcare we do... or they can pay extra for private healthcare... like any wealthy Briton can....
Originally Posted by :
So its a pretty fair system... the one part I wasn't sure about is if they get some kind of private health insurance as part of thier job perks...
You mean does the UK government pay for private healthcare for MP's etc.So its a pretty fair system... the one part I wasn't sure about is if they get some kind of private health insurance as part of thier job perks...
No, of course not. That would be utterly absurd.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You mean does the UK government pay for private healthcare for MP's etc.
No, of course not. That would be utterly absurd.
That's what expenses are for, or just using one's clout to jump the que (mrs Blair had an extra SpR in Obstetrics with her in her NHS hospital).You mean does the UK government pay for private healthcare for MP's etc.
No, of course not. That would be utterly absurd.
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
Could we perhaps focus on the actual topic instead of beating the poor old dead "right/left/whatever-wingers are sooo stoopid"-horse?
Highly appreciated.
That's what the debate eventually boils down to isn't it? Could we perhaps focus on the actual topic instead of beating the poor old dead "right/left/whatever-wingers are sooo stoopid"-horse?
Highly appreciated.
"You're stupid because you don't understand"
"No you are"
"No you"
etc...
Why let all the issues and other distractions get in the way?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
That's what expenses are for, or just using one's clout to jump the que (mrs Blair had an extra SpR in Obstetrics with her in her NHS hospital).
Not so much using one's clout. More what Tudor Hart referred to as the "inverse care law". What happens with supposedly universal services is that the wealthier and more educated you are, the more you end up getting out of the system, based on 3 major factors:That's what expenses are for, or just using one's clout to jump the que (mrs Blair had an extra SpR in Obstetrics with her in her NHS hospital).
- You are on the same/similar social class as the doctors and beauraucrats and understand how the system works
- You live, or can move, to the better provisioned areas (this happens a lot with state schooling in the UK)
- You can afford to embellish the universal care with extras.
I am still entirely in favour of universal schooling and medical treatment - it just has issues.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Not so much using one's clout. More what Tudor Hart referred to as the "inverse care law". What happens with supposedly universal services is that the wealthier and more educated you are, the more you end up getting out of the system, based on 3 major factors:
- You are on the same/similar social class as the doctors and beauraucrats and understand how the system works
- You live, or can move, to the better provisioned areas (this happens a lot with state schooling in the UK)
- You can afford to embellish the universal care with extras.
I am still entirely in favour of universal schooling and medical treatment - it just has issues.
Well, no system is perfect.Not so much using one's clout. More what Tudor Hart referred to as the "inverse care law". What happens with supposedly universal services is that the wealthier and more educated you are, the more you end up getting out of the system, based on 3 major factors:
- You are on the same/similar social class as the doctors and beauraucrats and understand how the system works
- You live, or can move, to the better provisioned areas (this happens a lot with state schooling in the UK)
- You can afford to embellish the universal care with extras.
I am still entirely in favour of universal schooling and medical treatment - it just has issues.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Stupid question...
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system
The answer is that Obama doesn't want to do that. Number two, and number threeStupid question...
If the Democrats want to outlaw private insurance and force everyone into a one-payer system
Obama is going to stop Washington-protected monopolies. And use Washington to create competition.
Want market and choice? Support reform, to put an end to lucrative state-protected monopolies.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Most Insurance policies do not include coverage for elective abortions, only to save the life of the mother from impending doom. The new single payer trainer would. Democrats say "It would be taking away coverage if we didn't include it" they are lying here as well. BTW
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Most Insurance policies do not include coverage for elective abortions, only to save the life of the mother from impending doom. The new single payer trainer would. Democrats say "It would be taking away coverage if we didn't include it" they are lying here as well. BTW
Yeah, and proper healthcare reform will ensure that children with Cancer ALWAYS get treated.Most Insurance policies do not include coverage for elective abortions, only to save the life of the mother from impending doom. The new single payer trainer would. Democrats say "It would be taking away coverage if we didn't include it" they are lying here as well. BTW
If abortion is what you are going to focus on, you're seriously missing the point.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO