The U.S. Health Care Debate

[Don Corleone]

Other provisions instruct federal officials to “give priority” to construction of Indian health clinics in Minnesota, Nevada and New Mexico; provide scholarships for training veterinarians, among others; and require health plans to pay a fee — perhaps $2 a year for each subscriber — to finance research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments.

I can see the clinics on Indian reservations, probably long overdue (though the procedural purist in me who loathes omnibus bills would argue it should be a seperate bill), the mandated industry-funded effectivity studies I could see other way...

But veterinary scholarships?????

[Banquo's Ghost]

But veterinary scholarships?????

Our Lizard Overlords require priority.

[Beskar]

Hurray! 56% more of America can now afford Healthcare, it isn't privileged to just 40% of the population anymore.

Also, I link this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8247534.stm

This is disgusting, anyone who rejected Healthcare reform should not be allowed to get Healthcare or be charged outlandish prices. Seriously, anyone who is against reform don't even value the lives of people, and are barbarians. I am so glad I has the NHS, and to those in the America who scoffed at it, I rather have it than yours and I am laughing at the bank while I am not dying of some illness which was wiped out in the United Kingdom back in the 1940's which is still rampant in America today.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This costs a trillion dollars. Not even the government can afford it anymore.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This costs a trillion dollars. Not even the government can afford it anymore.

No, it costs a trillion dollars PLUS, and the estimate is being provided by the good ole U.S.G., and they've never had an issue with underestimating....

The cost will exceed two trillion if this version is enacted.


However, politics being what it is, the Senate version will not be quite as sweeping. The conference Bill will be somewhere in between, but trending toward the Senate version a bit (this process is pretty normal).


Jab'

Insurance companies don't actually have to relocate. They merely have to be given the opportunity to compete for business in a given state within the guidelines of that state's regulations. That is exactly what happens with property, car, and life insurance at the current time.


Beskar:

Relax, the USA will follow down the path laid out by Britain. It will be slower and a bit more haltingly at first -- after all we've 280+ millions and 3000+ mile distances involved, PLUS, we have to figure out how to pay for the 20-30 millions from Mexico who will use our system as well -- but we'll be where you are soon enough.

[jabarto]

Jab'

Insurance companies don't actually have to relocate. They merely have to be given the opportunity to compete for business in a given state within the guidelines of that state's regulations. That is exactly what happens with property, car, and life insurance at the current time.

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't saying that the legislation requires them to move, I'm saying they would *choose* to move to the state that allows them the greatest amount of power. The same thing happened with the credit card companies moving to Delaware.

[Strike For The South]

to figure out how to pay for the 20-30 millions from Mexico who will use our system as well -- but we'll be where you are soon enough.

TU MENTIRA

[Beskar]

For the record, I am releaxed. Though, if I wasn't after all this time, I would need seriously mental health check.

[Lemur]

Relax, the USA will follow down the path laid out by Britain. It will be slower and a bit more haltingly at first -- after all we've 280+ millions and 3000+ mile distances involved, PLUS, we have to figure out how to pay for the 20-30 millions from Mexico who will use our system as well -- but we'll be where you are soon enough.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. At its most radical, the Dem proposal would put maybe five million people into a government sponsored insurance exchange. The much-dreaded "public option." And yet somehow this means we're going to become like Great Britain, where every medical professional is an employee of the state, where a truly socialist system of healthcare is entrenched?

I don't mean to say slippery slope, but man, that is a very friction-free incline you're standing on. The proposals, as they stand, are disappointingly modest, especially if we want to carve real cost efficiencies from the half-rabbit half-antelope system we currently have.

I really, truly wish the Repubs had been more involved in crafting the bill, rather than screaming "Socialism!" from the gallery. If both parties would just work together in good faith ... ah, who am I kidding?

[Samurai Waki]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. At its most radical, the Dem proposal would put maybe five million people into a government sponsored insurance exchange. The much-dreaded "public option." And yet somehow this means we're going to become like Great Britain, where every medical professional is an employee of the state, where a truly socialist system of healthcare is entrenched?

I don't mean to say slippery slope, but man, that is a very friction-free incline you're standing on. The proposals, as they stand, are disappointingly modest, especially if we want to carve real cost efficiencies from the half-rabbit half-antelope system we currently have.

I really, truly wish the Repubs had been more involved in crafting the bill, rather than screaming "Socialism!" from the gallery. If both parties would just work together in good faith ... ah, who am I kidding?

Have the parties ever worked together in good faith? I always thought it was quid pro quo, which the Republicans could have done; they were practically getting handed the ball for shaping HCR, when the Dems didn't really need to, and they failed miserably. What happened to the days when the Republicans would have jumped all over the opportunity to make themselves look coherent?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. At its most radical, the Dem proposal would put maybe five million people into a government sponsored insurance exchange. The much-dreaded "public option."

Um, the House bill included the option to throw people in jail for not buying insurance - not buying insurance for yourself is to be a crime.
And complete government control over what insurance companies must offer and charge.
And forcing people through regulation into using the government option.
And control over what Doctors can prescribe in the way of treatments.
And forcing insurance companies to except everyone, including the people who waited until they got sick until buying insurance, and charging everyone the same price.

I think you are severely understating the scope.

If they had wanted to insure five million people, they could have put together some subsidy for people who can't afford insurance. And if they wanted competition and cost cutting, allow people to buy out of state insurance and allow companies to charge people doing unhealthy things more. And government price fixing always (@&$(s things up.

But they don't care about reform; it's about control, by having the government force itself into another huge facet of people's lives.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. At its most radical, the Dem proposal would put maybe five million people into a government sponsored insurance exchange. The much-dreaded "public option." And yet somehow this means we're going to become like Great Britain, where every medical professional is an employee of the state, where a truly socialist system of healthcare is entrenched?

This is utter Rubbish, and the mind boggels as to how the American media continues to press this. My Dentist is private, for example. I go once a year, pay up front and even my parents (who have horrific teeth) consider it cheap and worthwile.

Your system is totally broken, but it isn't to do with the public/private issue.