Heathcare Reform

The onion rightly sums up the healthcare debate:

Linky

The Onion said: WASHINGTON—After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care. "Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue." "Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added. The legislative stalemate largely stems from competing ideologies deeply rooted along party lines. Democrats want to create a government-run system for not providing health care, while Republicans say coverage is best denied by allowing private insurers to make it unaffordable for as many citizens as possible. "We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population." "That's what America is all about," he added. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on Meet The Press that Republicans would never agree to a plan that doesn't allow citizens the choice to be denied medical care in the private sector. "Americans don't need some government official telling them they don't have the proper coverage to receive treatment," Boehner said. "What they need is massive insurance companies to become even more rich and powerful by withholding from average citizens the care they so desperately require. We're talking about people's health and the obscene profits associated with that, after all." Though there remain irreconcilable points, both parties have reached some common ground in recent weeks. Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) point to Congress' failure to pass legislation before a July 31 deadline as proof of just how serious lawmakers are about stringing along the American people and never actually reforming the health care industry in any meaningful way. "People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind," Reid said. "But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there's no chance in hell that ever happens." "No matter what we come up with," Reid continued, "rest assured that millions of citizens will remain dangerously uninsured, and the inflated health care industry will continue to bankrupt the country for decades." Other lawmakers stressed that, while there has been some progress, the window of cooperation was closing. "When you get into the nuts and bolts of how best not to provide people with care essential to their survival, there are many things to take into consideration," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. "I believe we can create a plan for Americans that allows them to not be able to go to the hospital, not get the treatment they need, and ultimately whither away and die. But we've got to act fast." For his part, President Barack Obama claimed to be optimistic, even saying he believes that a health care denial bill will pass in both houses of Congress by the end of the year. "We have an opportunity to do something truly historic in 2009," Obama said to a mostly silent crowd during a town hall meeting in Virginia yesterday. "I promise I will only sign a clear and comprehensive health care bill that fully denies coverage to you, your sick mother, her husband, middle-class Americans, single-parent households, the unemployed, and most importantly, anyone in need of emergency medical attention." "This administration is committed to not providing health care," Obama added. "Not just for this generation of Americans, but for many generations to come."

/thread

Josh wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Josh, you currently have no healthcare, correct? Have you shopped around for it and found out pricing? I know it wasn't you who said it, but many in this thread have brought up our "unrealistic expectations of comfort." Which I find wholly IRONIC that being posted from a computer, inside an air conditioned building, on a web site dedicated to people who use their spare money to build cars and attend auto-x's and HPDE's. Just saying...

Fancy ad hominem attack you got there :). Nice work. First of all, it's totally irrelevant to the issue (and none of your damn business) what my own personal situation is. But I have priced private health insurance. When I was laid off, I was allowed to pay a month out of pocket to continue on my old policy, but since I worked for a small company I was ineligible for cobra. I would have probably continued on my existing policy had I been allowed to. But I was offered FAR lesser coverage for a higher price as an individual, on a policy that would be restarted every 6 months (not renewed, but rewritten), giving the provider an out to claim "preexisting conditions" on pretty much any continuing illness. I decided (like I'm sure you would have) that this policy was not worth giving up almost half of my unemployment benefit every month. I fail to understand why the "freedom lovers" who oppose any health care reform would want to support a system that drastically limits consumer choice, has major tax loopholes that essentially coerce people into taking a job with a large company rather than working for themselves, and hits people hardest when they can bear it least, such as periods of unemployment, or when trying to start up a new business. If you really want freedom, what we have most decidedly ain't it. As soon as folks admit that, then we can have a meaningful discussion.

When I had private insurance I was denied any future coverage for headaches (nasty concussion and post concussion syndrome after a motorcycle wreck) and also any "mental illness or related problems" because I have battled severe anxiety problems for most of my life and been on and off medication for it over the last five years.

And to your point about it being "none of my damn business" I would argue that it should be. If you expect me to give up my current level of care and pay in even more than I already do in taxes, I think it's a fair question.

At a recent town hall meeting in OK, one of our congressmen indicated that a very large portion of uninsured population could afford to purchase health care. However, they choose to spend it on other things.

I think that's a damn fair point, when I was a contractor and making 20k less a year than I do now, with higher rent and utilities and the same amount of debt, I didn't want to carve out that amount of money every month. But I did because it was more important than car parts/going out to eat/taking vacations.

Sometimes you (not you, the general you) have to do E36 M3 you don't want to. Or that doesn't make you happy. Or isn't a barrel of sunshine and roses.

It's about what's more important to you. My girlfriend is a hair stylist, and like many doesn't have health care provided from work, but decided a long time ago that working for herself, setting her own hours and doing what she loves is worth sacrificing other things. She also just bought an affordable policy in the private market.

z31maniac wrote: And to your point about it being "none of my damn business" I would argue that it should be. If you expect me to give up my current level of care and pay in even more than I already do in taxes, I think it's a fair question. At a recent town hall meeting in OK, one of our congressmen indicated that a very large portion of uninsured population could afford to purchase health care. However, they choose to spend it on other things.

That depends on your definition of choice. If I walked down to the Ford dealer and they told me I had to pay twice as much as my neighbor just paid for a Focus, plus taxes that he didn't have to pay, just because he worked for someone else, and I was self employed, I would probably "choose" not to buy the car. Of course, that isn't much of a choice, is it? But even that would be an improvement over the current system where I don't even get to look at the same policies as my neighbor. The choices that individual people happen to make are irrelevant to the inherent unfairness of this situation. They're just a convenient way to discredit or brush aside the concerns of the uninsured, to imply that they "deserve" their situation. They don't deserve unequal treatment under the tax law, plain and simple. I think everyone should have to play by the same rules in terms of income tax and access to policies. The goverment certainly has the power to close the tax loophole. Insurance companies clearly do not want to change the way they operate. They don't want to bother with individual policies (at least not at competitive rates or terms), because it's easy enough and lucrative enough just to deal with employers. Maybe the only way to get the insurance companies to change the way they treat individuals is for the government to create the pool for them? To me, it doesn't seem prudent to let this system go on forever when it's clearly set up to discriminate against certain people, and hide the true costs of coverage from everyone.

It must be the state that you live (not sure where you live, but it basic minimums,etc have a huge effect and those are determined by the STATE legislature) but down here, individiual policies are very reasonable.

Here's an interesting article from a "public-option" advocate:

http://singlepayernewyork.org/news/comehome.php

It has analysis of the history, intent and the inherent problems with the current proposed plan.

This is a direct quote and not taken out of context:

"First, public option advocates violated the basic rule of negotiation by significantly weakening their opening position (i.e., dropping single payer for a public option) without getting any concessions in exchange. In addition, by calling for a major continued role for private for-profit health insurance, public option proponents also removed what should have been a key focus on the health care debate, namely that it was in the public interest to eliminate our present insurance system."

Now, here's an article outlining the current media circus:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-thrill-is-gone-for-Obama-and-the-media_08_24-54389032.html

An observation regarding a recent exchange with the White House Press Secretary:

"When asked recently about the administration’s endless evasions on the public option, Gibbs instead opted to define a monopoly. “If you had one place to eat lunch before you came to the briefing, do you think it would be cheap?” Gibbs demanded of CNN’s Ed Henry.

Henry should have asked Gibbs to define monopsony: a market in which one buyer is so large that it can control suppliers and ruin competitors. Henry could then explain he’d rather pay too much for the sandwich he wanted than have to eat at a government chow line opened across the street to encourage “competition.”

This is why there is apprehension over the single-payer option.

I heard a interesting piece of news regarding the health care bill. Apparently it wasn't written by congress. Most of it was written be a group called the Apollo Alliance. This group also wrote a lot of the stimulus bill that no one in congress read. Some one please explain to me why our elected officials aren't writing these bills they are voting on without reading them.

Toyman01 wrote: I heard a interesting piece of news regarding the health care bill. Apparently it wasn't written by congress. Most of it was written be a group called the Apollo Alliance. This group also wrote a lot of the stimulus bill that no one in congress read. Some one please explain to me why our elected officials aren't writing these bills they are voting on without reading them.

outsourcing at work..

are they in china or india?

Their board of directors reads like the whos who of union and environmental leadership.

ignorant wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: I heard a interesting piece of news regarding the health care bill. Apparently it wasn't written by congress. Most of it was written be a group called the Apollo Alliance. This group also wrote a lot of the stimulus bill that no one in congress read. Some one please explain to me why our elected officials aren't writing these bills they are voting on without reading them.

outsourcing at work.. are they in china or india?

Think of it as "domestic" outsourcing - utilizing the talents of people who have invested a lot of time, effort and money to overhaul society to achieve their preferred version.

And, the "follow the money" proviso applies here, as well.

Toyman01 wrote: Some one please explain to me why our elected officials aren't writing these bills they are voting on without reading them.

Because our government is bought and paid for.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Some one please explain to me why our elected officials aren't writing these bills they are voting on without reading them.

Because our government is bought and paid for.

Enabled, regardless of the (D) or the (R) affiliation.

z31maniac wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: It's interesting because in the first few paragraphs it talks about how good an idea the public option would be as it would drive down prices, offer coverage for most families at reasonable rates, etc. It also mentions that higher taxes would result. It does not compute whether the higher taxes would be more than current insurance premiums, less, or a wash.

You obviously did not fully understand what the author was getting at, or you simply stopped reading after the first few paragraphs. It's really pretty straight forward if you took the time to read the article. Again, pretty straight forward. Although, I guess if you were able to draw such ambiguity from something so forward, possibly that explains why people think the gov't can handle this.

From the very article you cited:

Now that it's highly possible that the Obama administration will drop the requirement for a public-insurance option from its health-care agenda, it's enlightening to examine what the remaining plan means for most Americans. If the public option had evolved into a program resembling Medicare for most working Americans --what Conservatives feared and many Democrats wanted -- it might have provided rich coverage, at bargain premiums, for people with moderate incomes. That won't happen with the proposed alternative, medical co-ops, because they won't pack nearly the purchasing power of a government-run plan to push down prices. Nor will the co-ops get the government subsidies that would likely radically lower premiums under a public option, just as they do under Medicare.

Sounds to me like the author liked the public option. They also state it most likely won't be voted into existence. They then go on to explain how the health reform bill will not work exactly because the option they praised in the first 3 paragraphs won't exist.

So...save your snide comments about My Take on the article. I don't agree with you. Get over it.

..actually...I think the author doesn't agree with you either. Their point was this bill is a disaster without the afore-quoted public option.

oldsaw wrote: You can watch that video and still reach your conclusion? Incredible......

..and you believe that youtube is a reliable news source. How scary is that?!

z31maniac wrote: And to your point about it being "none of my damn business" I would argue that it should be. If you expect me to give up my current level of care and pay in even more than I already do in taxes, I think it's a fair question.

He's right. His situation is none of your business. It's called The Right To Privacy. It's pretty well respected in most free countries.

So yeah, it's a valid point. You aren't entitled to know everything about a guy to decide whether he should be healthy or receive medical care.

The fact is medicine is given without judging the person asking in all other industrial countries. After all, when you ask for personal information it really is to judge them and to judge their need. "Oh, I see you ate at McDonald's last night. If you had skipped that you would be able to pay us $25 for that aspirin we were about to give you. No more sir! No more! You are wasteful!"

z31maniac wrote: At a recent town hall meeting in OK, one of our congressmen indicated that a very large portion of uninsured population could afford to purchase health care. However, they choose to spend it on other things. I think that's a damn fair point, when I was a contractor and making 20k less a year than I do now, with higher rent and utilities and the same amount of debt, I didn't want to carve out that amount of money every month. But I did because it was more important than car parts/going out to eat/taking vacations.

You're talking about the cost for yourself. What about someone with a family to provide for as a sole bread winner? (Great cost) What if someone was stricken with anything determined as a preexisting condition? (Denied coverage or astronomical cost) What if you lost your job? (unexpected great cost)

All of these situations have been taken care of in every other industrialized country but ours. Successfully as well. I do know it's expensive. What price would you pay to be healthy? Myself, quite a lot as I currently do. What is wrong with us that we can't find a solution to this problem?

What is wrong with us in that we begrudge the poor the medical care they absolutely need? A poor person's child should die because we're too cheap to offer adequate care? That or we are ok with an insurance company denying care until the child is too far gone to be saved? There is a special place in hell for someone who refused to help those who can't help themselves all while they have the very means to do so.

Too werds:

KASH FOR KIDNEYS! ***

*** Looneys for Lungs in Canada, eh?

Xceler8x wrote: What price would you pay to be healthy? Myself, quite a lot as I currently do.

You would pay quite a lot to be healthy, so you choose to do so. Others have made the choice not to. Why do you want to remove their freedom to choose to be unhealthy?

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: What price would you pay to be healthy? Myself, quite a lot as I currently do.

You would pay quite a lot to be healthy, so you choose to do so. Others have made the choice not to. Why do you want to remove their freedom to Not pay the inflated cost of health insurance?

Fixed

Xceler8x wrote:

..and you believe that youtube is a reliable news source. How scary is that?!

No more scary than one who cannot understand or care that the "public-option" is a political tool, not the magnanimous gesture it's claimed to be.

Edit for double post.

MrJoshua wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: What price would you pay to be healthy? Myself, quite a lot as I currently do.

You would pay quite a lot to be healthy, so you choose to do so. Others have made the choice not to. Why do you want to remove their freedom to Not pay the inflated cost of health insurance?

Fixed

I love that arguement "I don't need no health insurance, I don't get sick and I'm careful".

Fine, please sign this waiver denying any possible health care services until you choose to contribute. Also, please have "DNR" tattooed on you wrist for the EMS teams.

So of course what happens? Said "invincible" person gets hurt and is taken straight to the emergency room. They never pay the bills and could care less about ever paying the bills. So instead the hospital charges my insurance company $20 for an aspirin to cover the costs.

Please don't confuse my example with those who can't afford but want health insurance, it's two separate ideas. I'm talking about those who can afford but choose not to.

At this point I don't even care about HOW health care reform takes place, just that is DOES. Nobody has yet to comment on the point I made about the power of the health care companies. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just as scared of a overly controlling government as I am a business sector that is out of the reach of the laws. Maybe if I'm lucky I can get a job as a henchman for Water & Power....

I Choose to get catastrophic coverage that only covers the big stuff. Because of that my monthly costs are very low. That is my right. Do not tell me that I HAVE to have lots of coverage for my own good. We drive used cars, we have minimal cable, we bought a house within our means, we do as much child care as we can with our schedules. We do not jack your price for an aspirin up to $20 because we PAY our bills.

This argument that people who don't pay the bills are responsible for $20 aspirin drives me nuts. Aspirin are about $2 per 100. The current inflated estimate is that 20% of americans don't have health insurance. Even if that entire 20% used the medical system enough to cost as much as the entire remaining 80% the population, the most you could blame them for is doubling the cost of a hospital aspirin. Now your $.02 aspirin should be $.04.

slefain wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: What price would you pay to be healthy? Myself, quite a lot as I currently do.

You would pay quite a lot to be healthy, so you choose to do so. Others have made the choice not to. Why do you want to remove their freedom to Not pay the inflated cost of health insurance?

Fixed

I love that arguement "I don't need no health insurance, I don't get sick and I'm careful". Fine, please sign this waiver denying any possible health care services until you choose to contribute. Also, please have "DNR" tattooed on you wrist for the EMS teams. So of course what happens? Said "invincible" person gets hurt and is taken straight to the emergency room. They never pay the bills and could care less about ever paying the bills. So instead the hospital charges my insurance company $20 for an aspirin to cover the costs. Please don't confuse my example with those who can't afford but want health insurance, it's two separate ideas. I'm talking about those who can afford but choose not to. At this point I don't even care about HOW health care reform takes place, just that is DOES. Nobody has yet to comment on the point I made about the power of the health care companies. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just as scared of a overly controlling government as I am a business sector that is out of the reach of the laws. Maybe if I'm lucky I can get a job as a henchman for Water & Power....

And pray the tattoo artist doesn't give you a communicable disease athat causes you years of expensive medical bills that you must prepay.

Xceler8x wrote: A poor person's child should die because we're too cheap to offer adequate care? That or we are ok with an insurance company denying care until the child is too far gone to be saved? There is a special place in hell for someone who refused to help those who can't help themselves all while they have the very means to do so.

That, sir, is a rather large exaggeration which works if fear mongering is the name of the game. It's pretty unlikely that you know too many people in this country who have experienced this.

While 40,000 children die daily in other parts of the world from hunger alone, almost no child in the US would die because of denied care.

There are fringe exotic treatments which are too expensive to offer in general practice, but those wouldn't be covered anyway, even with health care.

MrJoshua wrote: I Choose to get catastrophic coverage that only covers the big stuff. Because of that my monthly costs are very low. That is my right. Do not tell me that I HAVE to have lots of coverage for my own good. We drive used cars, we have minimal cable, we bought a house within our means, we do as much child care as we can with our schedules. We do not jack your price for an aspirin up to $20 because we PAY our bills. This argument that people who don't pay the bills are responsible for $20 aspirin drives me nuts. Aspirin are about $2 per 100. The current inflated estimate is that 20% of americans don't have health insurance. Even if that entire 20% used the medical system enough to cost as much as the entire remaining 80% the population, the most you could blame them for is doubling the cost of a hospital aspirin. Now your $.02 aspirin should be $.04.

You choose to have health insurance, therefore you are at least taking responsibility for the cost of taking care of you in case of an emergency. I had catastrophic coverage for years, nothing wrong with it. I'm not blaming you for the cost of health care, you stated outright you have insurance.

You're not quite getting the point about the $20 aspirin. It's not that aspirin costs that much, it's about the hospital having to come up with money somewhere to cover losses in other areas. Hospitals are businesses, period. You're absolutely right about the cost of aspirin has no reason to be so high. So something needs to be done about it, but by who and how?

That's the whole argument I'm making, there is NOTHING and NOBODY to encourage the costs of health care to go down. There is no way to stop the ever increasing costs of health care. Talk free market all you want and "speak with your dollars" but when there is collusion and price fixing you're options are now gone. Add on top of that an industry that is untouchable by any governing body and your options are now "take it" or "leave it".

oldsaw wrote: No more scary than one who cannot understand or care that the "public-option" is a political tool, not the magnanimous gesture it's claimed to be.

It's your "opinion" that it is a political tool. There is no proof of that other than your own suspicions. There is ample proof that healthcare in this country is getting more and more expensive while offering less and less for our costly premiums.

What's your solution? What would you like to see changed? Beside the mantra of "NO!" how about suggesting a fix that is different than the current unsustainable system?

MrJoshua wrote: The current inflated estimate is that 20% of americans don't have health insurance. Even if that entire 20% used the medical system enough to cost as much as the entire remaining 80% the population, the most you could blame them for is doubling the cost of a hospital aspirin. Now your $.02 aspirin should be $.04.

Inflated? Got any numbers to back that up? Or is that more of your "feelings" just expressed in numbers?

Here are some numbers:

• The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) estimated that the percentage of uninsured Americans under age 65 represented 27 percent of the population. According to the MEPS data, nearly 54 million Americans under the age of 65 were uninsured in the first-half of 2007. 2
• A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage. Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.
• The large majority of the uninsured (85 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.
• Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006

There are more at the link. Btw - that non-profit is chaired by George Bush Sr and Jimmy Carter. It's not a liberal hold-out by any means.

SVreX wrote: That, sir, is a rather large exaggeration which works if fear mongering is the name of the game. It's pretty unlikely that you know too many people in this country who have experienced this. While 40,000 children die daily in other parts of the world from hunger alone, almost no child in the US would die because of denied care. There are fringe exotic treatments which are too expensive to offer in general practice, but those wouldn't be covered anyway, even with health care.

New Ads Sheds Light on Real 'Death Panels'

Cancer Girl's Lawyer Blames CIGNA For Her Death

Guest column: A personal health-care story

Wrongfully Denied Insurance Claims - Read the testimony by State Rep. Mike Simpson.

Judge Rules Against Unum in Long-Term Disability Case

A Guide Through a Medical Wilderness - It's bad enough that people are paying "experts" to fight the insurance companies for them.

With all this data I could argue, time being of the essence in treatment, that any delay could cost anyone their lives.

Btw - Death panels? No socialized medicine but stay away from Medicare? The stance of "We're fine! Don't worry about it!" I'd say fear mongering is the name of the game. At least on one side of the debate.

85% of the uninsured are American Citizens. So the new plan doesn't account for non citizens so knock 15% off of your uninsured numbers. Taking a 6 month snapshot is the way you get the absolute highest uninsured numbers you can. Many people go without insurance between jobs, or after graduating college and before employment, etc... A 1 year without insurance, or 2 year without measurement is more representative of the real numbers. Another thing your stat doesn't take into account is those who qualify for medicaid but are not currently registered.

My "Feelings" are that the insurance industry is as big or bigger a problem than the number of uninsured.

So you dont like my numbers, so what. Tell me how taxing us to pay for insurance for the 20-40% of the population who doesn't have it is going to reduce costs. You are attaching the IRS to a bloated health insurance industry to pay for exaggerated hospital costs and disguising it as a feel good program we cant afford to be without. Bah!