National Health Care

[andrewclunn]

Here's the full article

And here's the opening paragraphs.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Finance Committee opened a second day of debate on health-care legislation, tangling Wednesday over whether the full bill should be made available online before the panel votes on it.

The committee has a "conceptual" version of the health-care bill posted on its Web site, rather than a full legislative text of the bill. Compiling the complex language with amendments into a bill and consequently receiving an official cost estimate would take weeks, according to the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus.
[Baucus] Getty Images

By a 12-11 vote, the committee defeated a Republican amendment that would have required it to post the full bill at least 72 hours before it votes on whether to approve the measure.

Open government my ass.

[iNow]

And readers who have been following the discussions very closely already know that this is true.  If you watched Obama's speech promoting healthcare a few weeks ago, he mentioned the individual mandate to buy health insurance.   If there was no individual mandate iNOW, then why would you even need to write

I did not say there was no mandate.  I said people who could not afford it would be given exemptions.

Now I want to address some of your false analogies.  I am not a car, nor am I house.  These things can have a finite value placed on them.  A person's life can't be translated to dollars and this is part of the reason healthcare costs so much in a free market system.  

It was not an analogy, it was a point.  You were railing against mandates.  I was providing an example of existing mandates.  This showed your rage to be incredibly inconsistent.  You were fuming about the mandate of health insurance, and I was simply pointing out how we already have insurance mandates elsewhere.  The issue is that your argumentative stance is not consistent.  We have mandates in many areas of life, and for good reasons.  Crying out that this is socialism (as if caring for our society is somehow a position worthy of denigration) is a rather ridiculous argument to put forth.

Further, we are not a free market economy, so let's just dispose of that old canard right now.  We are a mixed economy, otherwise known as a hybrid economy... incorporating both capitalistic/free market bits and socialistic bits.  History has proven time and again that either of these systems on their own are prone to failure, and cannot meet the public needs.  The point is that if you continue to argue as if we are purely a free market economy, then you are using a false premise as the foundation of your entire argument.

What I would like to explain is that I am opposed to strongly socialist economic systems because they remove a great deal of freedom from the individual and reduce incentive to work harder.

Really?  That's interesting.  Based on your strong stance, I presume you don't drive on public roadways, right?  I presume you did not attend public schools, right?  I presume you do not use public drinking water, right?  I presume you do not think we should have public universities, right?  I presume you oppose fire departments and police forces protecting your community, right?

These are ALL socialistic systems, and yet people still manage to be free, to work hard, and contribute to their society.  I wonder why that is.  Perhaps you can explain it to me.

[LARA]

It was not an analogy, it was a point. You were railing against mandates. I was providing an example of existing mandates. This showed your rage to be incredibly inconsistent. You were fuming about the mandate of health insurance, and I was simply pointing out how we already have insurance mandates elsewhere. The issue is that your argumentative stance is not consistent. We have mandates in many areas of life, and for good reasons. Crying out that this is socialism (as if caring for our society is somehow a position worthy of denigration) is a rather ridiculous argument to put forth.

Nice passage.  I applaud you here iNOW.  I simply love how you typify my posts as emotional, angry and irrational.  But this is not a verbal exchange.  People are free to go back and read the text of my posts.  Also I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension.  It doesn't do any good to "open a book" if you aren't paying attention to what it says.

LARA wrote:
What I would like to explain is that I am opposed to strongly socialist economic systems because they remove a great deal of freedom from the individual and reduce incentive to work harder.

Really? That's interesting. Based on your strong stance, I presume you don't drive on public roadways, right? I presume you did not attend public schools, right? I presume you do not use public drinking water, right? I presume you do not think we should have public universities, right? I presume you oppose fire departments and police forces protecting your community, right?

These are ALL socialistic systems, and yet people still manage to be free, to work hard, and contribute to their society. I wonder why that is. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

I don't think I can explain it to you until you read my words more closely, stop trying to portray me in a false light and check to see if you aren't projecting your own frustrations on to me.

I will repeat my stance again.   I am opposed to strongly socialist systems not strongly opposed to socialist systems.  Roads and schools don't fall under this category.  The military doesn't either.  Yes, they are socialist.  I've often used the same argument myself for people who are completely opposed to the notion of some redistribution of wealth.

There is a point however when a socialist system has crossed the line, when it doesn't leave room for adaptation or makes compliance difficult or next to impossible.  There is a point where a socialist society is starving certain individuals who perform the main working tasks while yelling about how selfish they are.

This is the point where socialism becomes authoritarian.  Individual rights are thrown out the window and society bleeds dry the very people who are providing the resources.

The mandate makes Obama's healthcare policy, which is socialist, also authoritarian.  And I don't think we want to bring up the general term for authoritarian socialism in any area of polite society.

Obama will not be president in eight years.  The income levels set in this bill may not be adequate in twenty.  There absolutely can be no mandate.  If the healthcare plan becomes corrupt, or unfeasible, the people absolutely have to have an option to opt out.

[iNow]

I am opposed to strongly socialist systems not strongly opposed to socialist systems.

Thank you for clarifying that.  I did not sense that in your posts.  Either way, though, I disagree with you that the option for people to obtain healthcare from the government (the key word there being "option") is best characterized as a "strongly socialist system."  It has socialistic attributes, sure... but since it is still just an option, it is disingenuous to suggest it is "strongly" socialist.  

Your concerns seem centered around the mandate, and I appreciate that.  However, it's just the only way to make sure it works.  If people don't pay into the system, but then use care which is paid for by the system, the costs will not be balanced with the revenues.  By ensuring everyone pays, we can also ensure everyone receives care.  The logic is really straight forward.  We will need to be careful with how the exemptions and subsidies are setup, but the system will never work unless some sort of mandate is implemented.  Focusing on the term mandate seems odd since it's more about a requirement for any insurance coverage to work.

We're not talking about people surrendering every single dollar they earn to the government so the government can decide how it gets distributed.  We're talking about paying an extra coupla bucks from our paychecks to ensure a basic minimum quality of healthcare is available to our populace, and to help encourage more preventative care thus decreasing the need for catastrophic care.

There is a point however when a socialist system has crossed the line, when it doesn't leave room for adaptation or makes compliance difficult or next to impossible.  There is a point where a socialist society is starving certain individuals who perform the main working tasks while yelling about how selfish they are.

And that point to which you refer is entirely arbitrary and subjective.

This is the point where socialism becomes authoritarian.

So, you are now proposing that providing a basic minimum level of health coverage for all citizens regardless of their financial position is authoritarian?  Am I reading you correctly?

The mandate makes Obama's healthcare policy, which is socialist, also authoritarian.

But, as my examples demonstrate, it is only socialist in the same way that public roadways, public education, public water works, police forces, and fire departments are socialist.  Use of the term "authoritarian" to describe this seems misplaced, but that's just an opinion, so I'll leave it at that since you obviously disagree.

If the healthcare plan becomes corrupt, or unfeasible, the people absolutely have to have an option to opt out.

Why has it worked so well in other countries?  Why do all of my international colleagues rave about the care they are provided back home?  We are the only advanced civilization on the planet which does not provide basic minimum care for its people.  While I understand and appreciate your concerns regarding government involvement and potential challenges in the future, I find that the benefits FAR outweigh the aforementioned potential costs.

Difference of opinion, I suppose.  I know enough about other systems to recognize how easy this is, and how well it can work here at home.  I'm not swayed by arguments based on fear or cries of socialism, yet that's all we hear from the opposition... Hence, my current support of the change.

[Big Mac]

Probably been said but my problems with our system or the reform posed is this.

1.) We Americans can help relieve the burden of our healthcare system by taking care of ourselves.

I know I am being a hypocrite here for being slightly overweight (I am working on it and have lost about 20 pounds now, planning to make it another 15 or so by end of year), drinking a lot (I've cut back due to financial and school reasons and health), and smoke (though I have only roughly 5 or day give or take). I do not consume fast food anymore barring a day where I forget to pack a nutritious lunch.

Most people I know have problems stemming from being lazy fat fucks who think walking up a flight of stairs is a chore. I used to work at Wal-Mart and I'd see these fat asses come in and demand a scooter. Get your ass moving and eat some green vegetables.

I don't mean to sound harsh but why the hell should I have to help pay these lazy bums bills? They got themselves into that mess, get themselves out.

It's why other countries can afford to have the healthcare they do. They walk or bike to their destinations more. They don't eat the garbage we do. They are active in sports more often than we are. They value hard work more than we do. We have become lazy with our top dog status of economic and military might that we are losing that as well.

2.) We could easily alleviate a lot of issues with Marijuana Law Reform as well.

By taxing, regulating, and legalizing pot in the same manner as tobacco and booze we would remove over 700k arrests and imprisonments each year. The cost to house, feed, and guard people who have done nothing more than possess/sold weed is insane. The money from taxes by cutting cost and revenue from sales could help pay for healthcare. Not to mention the use of weed as an alternative to expensive and potentially dangerous/addicted pain killers can also alleviate the cost.

I doubt either party would do it because politicians are spineless cowards who don't actually try do the right thing.

3.) Certain people get coverage who I feel are undeserving.

If you intentionally harm yourself by ingesting hard drugs, consume morbid amounts of junk food, and/or essentially smoke yourself to an early death with an excessive amount of tobacco (like 2 packs a day), you have no right to bitch about healthcare. You brought your own problems upon yourself, you dig yourself out. If you don't feel you need to work but are able-bodied, you should starve and die off. I have nothing but contempt for people who are shiftless and lazy while I go to school and work full-time at a job I hate. It angers me more that I am being taxed 15 percent of my income to fund idiots on their path to stupidity.

4.) There are no incentives to improve your health under this plan or any plan.

Why not have tax breaks for people who buy healthy food like fruits, veggies, whole-grain breads, etc. and maintain a healthy weight? Why not encourage people who participate in a sporting activity (no, darts do not count, I mean soccer/football/basketball/rugby/fencing/etc.) by helping fund organizations that help people get away from their TV and computer and be social? Our biggest problem in this country is that we have lost the art of conversation and physical activity. People ate worse than we do back in the day but they also burned it off with work. They used to sit at a table together and talk about their day. They would go see their neighbors on an evening stroll and learn something about the people around them.

Now we just sit behind an idiot box and let it slowly suck our brains dry of its amazing faculties. People focus on celebrities' lives to ignore how empty theirs are.

5.) Tort reform is anemic in my opinion.

A lot of doctors have to buy expensive insurance to protect against medical malpractice suits that drain them even if it's frivolous. The costs get passed onto you and I when some idiot wants to win the moron lottery and sue when they don't obey their doctor's orders. I'm not saying some doctors don't deserve to take it in the shorts but for every one that does dozens more are wrongfully sued.

6.) It does kind of put government in control.

As mommasquid said, it's hard for a libertarian to get behind the government subsidizing and essentially controlling a private sector. I do feel we need reform but not something so intrusive. We have a system that is broke and robbing us blind with all the costs and taxes going into it now.

7.) What about organ donor programs and encouraging people to get on them?

I'm an organ donor and feel that we should actively encourage people to become them. What good are your body parts when you're dead? Why not donate what you can to help others who badly need it. Your kidneys could go to someone who needs them desperately to live or your heart valves can be used to help folks who could really use it. Why not have tax breaks on that as well? Sometimes you gotta use greed to get good things done but it's worth it in my opinion.

Just my opinion in all of this.

Here's the problems I have with some opponents of this reform.

1.) There are no fucking death panels. Stop saying stupid shit like this!

The idea of end-of-life counseling it to aid someone in making a tough decision. I for one would not like the idea of being a freak of nature by prolonging a miserable and painful experience with life support. Some people do, let them do it. Some people don't but are in a very stressful and emotional situation. Counseling could help them make the right decision for themselves and help them execute it so there are no regrets.

2.) Stop screaming socialism.

Seriously, this shit is annoying for two reasons: 1.) Socialism does have some good tenets to it. and 2.) When someone shouts something is socialist they have no idea what socialism is.

3.) Stop calling Obama a Commu-Nazi.

You look fucking stupid. It's like being a Black Panther Klansman or a Homophobic Gay Rights Activist. You can't have it both ways and Obama's not one of them. I don't like him personally but stop with the mudslinging. You are no better than your opponent if you both just fling shit at each like monkeys in a zoo. And we look like a bunch of retards to the rest of the world.

4.) Shouting at each other at town hall meetings can be fun but it goes nowhere.

Seriously, I almost went to a town hall meeting to yell but then realized it looks bad for your cause.

[VanReal]

No.  
What we need is a revision of tort law for medical services so that we can get costs down and make it more economical for employers to operate their health plans, and more reasonable in cost for those without health care to be able to pay for it when using State hospitals, etc.  We need to work on the ridiculous cost of prescriptions as well.  This is an economic and cost issue, and while some people feel this type of "plan" works in Europe or Cananda I don't think they are considering the population here.  Physicians with private practice will not be able to operate their practices as they are now, and if we have an issue (such as a blip on a mammogram, for example) it will be two years before we can get in for a biopsy.  We need to curb cost, remove tort liability (thus bring malpractice insurance to a reasonable level) and educate people on wellness and health plans and stop using hopsitals and insurance as "sick policies".  

Medicare has been around for some time, and I don't know if any of you have had any dealings with it but it is a nightmare for the provider and the plan participant and I can only imagine the government taking over our health care.  I think our government has shown they aren't really very good at large-scale national plans or efforts....FEMA, Medicare, Border security, Social Security, and even small things like issuing freaking passports.  They are not capable, nor should they be responsible, nor us subjected to the nightmare.

[Sophus]

Does anyone know the actual number of foreigners who come here for health care? I can't imagine it being as high as conservatives suggest it is simply because it's so damned expensive in America.

I also really like the idea of the Estate Tax.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

[AlP]

Does anyone know the actual number of foreigners who come here for health care? I can't imagine it being as high as conservatives suggest it is simply because it's so damned expensive in America.

I also really like the idea of the Estate Tax.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Foreigners come to America for health care? Do you have a link? That seems suspect to me. Why would they abandon free health care for expensive health care? Are we talking third world countries or something?

[iNow]

The mandate makes Obama's healthcare policy, which is socialist, also authoritarian.
<...>
If the healthcare plan becomes corrupt, or unfeasible, the people absolutely have to have an option to opt out.

I read this today, and it seemed relevant to your points, LARA.  In short, you cannot "opt out" of following the speed limit, nor can you "opt out" of having auto insurance when you have a car.  Similar principles at play here.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Word-fro ... ce-Reform/

• The latest en vogue assault in their last-ditch effort to preserve the status quo is an alleged tax that reform will impose on middle-class families

• But here’s the reality: Right now, under the system they wish to preserve, hundreds of millions of Americans who get insurance through their job or buy it on their own are paying a hidden tax of $1,000 to cover the costs of caring for Americans without health insurance.

• And that figure is growing by the day as more and more people lose their insurance.

• What President Obama is proposing is not a tax, but a requirement to comply with the law.
  
  • People are required to obey the speed limit and have to pay a penalty if they get caught speeding?  Does anyone consider that a tax?
  • People are required to have car insurance and can be fined if they are caught without it.  Is that a tax?
  • What we’re talking about is a penalty for the few people who will refuse to buy health insurance â€" even though they can afford it â€" and who expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for their care.

Q: But what about the fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, devicemakers? Won’t that be passed on to consumers as a hidden tax?
 
A: No, for at least three reasons:
 

• First, the fees are lump sum, not per unit, so you should not expect that manufacturers will pass them on.
  
  • Do critics really think the drug companies are holding back their prices today out of the goodness of their hearts and would decide to raise them to make up for this lump sum - but couldn't raise them today to get higher profits?
• Second, these fees are intended to recapture part of the benefits these businesses will get from reform, as they acquire tens of millions of new customers.
  
  • If you believe the lump sum tax put pressure on them to raise prices, then the fact that they are getting lots of revenue from new customers will reduce that pressure.
• Third, the fees are all going to ensure that we are increasing the numbers getting affordable coverage and thus reducing the $1,000 hidden tax that millions of Americans pay for the uncompensated care of the uninsured.
  
  • So even if you believed that somehow companies would find a way to pass them along, that would be more than outweighed by the benefits middle-class families would get from not only hundreds of billions of dollars in health care tax credits but from reducing the hidden tax they currently pay for the uninsured.

[andrewclunn]

Except that in order to pay income tax I have to make money.  In order to pay auto insurance I have to own a car.  in order to pay health insurance all I have to do is be alive.  There's a choice with all of those.  You can live off the grid if you want to (be Amish.)  But now all you have to do is be alive to be taxed "for your own good."

[iNow]

now all you have to do is be alive to be taxed "for your own good."

Read more closely.  You only pay if you can afford it, and by every logical evaluation, the benefits of doing so FAR outweigh the costs.

[LoneMateria]

Here is something interesting I saw on reddit about the Health Care reform.  My original vote was undecided in this but i'm leaning toward agreeing just because I want to see the assholes in the link fucked.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/1/788757/-UK-press-does-the-job-the-U.S.-media-wont

[andrewclunn]

Here is something interesting I saw on reddit about the Health Care reform.  My original vote was undecided in this but i'm leaning toward agreeing just because I want to see the assholes in the link fucked.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/1/788757/-UK-press-does-the-job-the-U.S.-media-wont

Who cares who's lobbying more?  Than doesn't say anything about the facts.  Don't care about polls, don't care about endorsements.  Read the bills, learn the facts and hear reasoned arguments and then decide!  Why is everybody so swayed by all these straw men?!!!

[iNow]

Maybe you can clear something up for me, Andrew.

How is it a strawman to point out the FACT that the insurance companies have spent $380 million lobbying to kill a healthcare reform bill, and to point out how successful their lobbying efforts have been in casting aside the public option despite the FACT that nearly 70% of the US public want it?

Maybe you can clear that up for me.  Considering you are here trumpeting the need for reasoned argument, I am merely requesting that you actually make one in support of your own points.  Thanks.

[McQ]

Reasoned debate, folks. There is no need to get angry. Just talk to one another.

Please.  

Thank you.