PDA

View Full Version : Debate: US Health Care Reform


Netto Azure
August 6th, 2009, 12:11 PM
Well this Summer has shown another stool in the Domestic policy of the Obama Administration, my favorite topic: HealthCare reform

The Current Status of United States Healthcare Reform
(July 27, 2009)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46091000/jpg/_46091242_obama_ap226b.jpg
US President Barack Obama says he wants to pass Healthcare reform by the end of 2009.



America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:)
(Yes there's only 1 Act LOL)

Introduction
“To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.”


Summary: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act#Elements_of_the_bill)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act#Elements_of_the_bill)The summary of the bill includes the following elements, among others: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act#Elements_of_the_bill)


Establishes a mandate to purchase health insurance for most legal United States residents with an income above poverty level.
Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions.
Prohibits premium variances, except for age, geographic area, or family (vs. individual) enrollment.
Prohibits cancellation of coverage except for evidence of fraud.
Limits annual out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.
Outlines a public health insurance option to be established which would operate based on average private insurance pricing.
Establishes a Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) within a proposed Health Choices Administration, to provide individuals and employers access to health insurance coverage choices. The HIE would contract with various insurers to offer benefit plans at competitive prices, by establishing a risk-pooling mechanism. This will allow individuals and small companies to band together to bargain for lower rates.
Provides a tax credit for low-income individuals and families to help pay insurance premiums.
Requires employers with payroll costs over $250,000 that are using the HIE to provide health insurance.
Provides for a tax on individuals without health insurance and employers that do not provide the required health insurance.
Provides for a tax on individuals with adjusted gross income exceeding $350,000.
Reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with excessive re-admissions.
Establishes a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which would analyze cost variances for similar treatments across the country.
Further expands Medicaid eligibility and scope of covered preventive services, for lower-income individuals and families.
Increases Medicaid payments to physicians for primary care.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop quality measures for the delivery of health care services in the United States.
Establishes the Health Benefits Advisory Committee chaired by the Surgeon General.
Ways of funding is currently being debated.


Status:

US House of Representatives
Currently, the Healthcare reform effort has stalled in the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Vote on the bill might be voted on the US House floor before the August Congressional Recess if “Blue Dog House Democrats” agree on it’s passage or US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) might bypass the deadlocked committee and bring the Bill into a House vote.

Tri Committee:
House Energy and Commerce: In consideration/Being Debated
House Ways and Means : Bill revised/Passed (23 Yes – 18 No)
House Education and Labor: Bill revised/Passed (26 Yes - 22 No)

Referred Committees:
House Oversight and Government Reform: In consideration/Being Debated
House Budget: In consideration/Being debated

US Senate:
Currently, the Healthcare reform effort has stalled in the US Senate Finance Committee chaired by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MO). US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said that the US Senate floor will not be able to vote on the bill before the August Congressional Recess.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee: Bill revised/Passed (13 Yes – 10 No)
Senate Finance Committee: In Consideration/Being Debated


Healthcare around the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46217000/gif/_46217836_healthcare_stats_466_2.gif


United States - Private system
Private sector funded, with more than half from private sources. Private health insurance available through employer, government or private schemes.

15.3% of population (45.7 million people) do not have health insurance.
Federal government is largest healthcare insurer - involved in two main schemes, Medicaid and Medicare, each covering about 13% of population.
Medicaid - joint funded federal-state programme for certain low income and needy groups - eg children, disabled.
Medicare - for people 65 years old and above and some younger disabled people and those with permanent kidney failure undergoing dialysis or transplant.
Most doctors are in private practice and paid through combination of charges, discounted fees paid by private health plans, public programmes, and direct patient fees.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals. Hospitals are paid through a combination of charges, per admission, and capitation.

UK - Universal, tax-funded system

Public sector funded by taxation and some national insurance contributions.

About 11% have private health insurance. Private GP services very small.
Healthcare free at point of delivery but charges for prescription drugs (except in Wales), ophthalmic services and dental services unless exempt.
Exemptions include children, elderly, and unemployed. About 85% of prescriptions are exempt.
Most walk-in care provided by GP practices but also some walk-in clinics and 24-hour NHS telephone helpline. Free ambulance service and access to accident and emergency. In patient care through GP referral and follow contractual arrangements between health authorities, Primary Care Trusts and the hospital.
Hospitals are semi-autonomous self-governing public trusts.

France - Social insurance system
All legal residents covered by public health insurance funded by compulsory social health insurance contributions from employers and employees with no option to opt out.
Most people have extra private insurance to cover areas that are not eligible for reimbursement by the public health insurance system and many make out of pocket payments to see a doctor.

Patients pay doctor's bills and are reimbursed by sickness insurance funds.
Government regulates contribution rates paid to sickness funds, sets global budgets and salaries for public hospitals.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals (not-for-profit and for-profit). Doctors in public hospitals are salaried whilst those in private hospitals are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Some public hospital doctors are allowed to treat private patients in the hospital. A percentage of the private fee is payable to the hospital.
Most out-patient care is delivered by doctors, dentists and medical auxiliaries working in their own practices.

Singapore - Dual system
Dual system funded by private and public sectors. Public sector provides 80% of hospital care 20% primary care.

Financed by combination of taxes, employee medical benefits, compulsory savings in the form of Medisave, insurance and out-of-pocket payments.
Patients expected to pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more for higher level of service. Government subsidises basic healthcare.
Public sector health services cater for lower income groups who cannot afford private sector charges. In private hospitals and outpatient clinics, patients pay the amount charged by the hospitals and doctors on a fee-for-service basis.
_____________________________________

Well for me there's a solution for this...Universal Single-Payer Publicly funded-Privately Administered HealthCare similar TO THE REST OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORLD. >.>


What are the other options...keep everything private? The Obama Private-Public funded campaign plan? So opinions? Socialized Medicine/Harry and Louise arguments again?


These videos just summarizes what I think. Seriously. =|
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
_______________________________________

Update (August 21, 2009): As we do have a US Democratic Congressional Majority and Administration. I will have to draw the line with compromises by having a Medicare-based Public Insurance Option and having any State in the Union keep the right to opt-out of the Federal program in order to institute their own plans.

Yamikarasu
August 6th, 2009, 02:33 PM
I'm all for universal health care. A little bit of socialism is a good thing. Really. As it stands, I think the US has some of the best health care in the world, but definitely not one of the better health care systems. Until everyone has insurance, the system is fundamentally flawed, and needs to be fixed.

One of the problems I have with health insurance corporations is that they do not exist to provide insurance, but rather to make money and continue existing. The only way we can change this is to either get rid of them entirely or give them strict rules to follow. I'm not sure how well the government is capable of doing this, but I think Obama is an alright guy and I don't think he's out to screw us over.

The US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation without universal health care. (http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848) I think that should mean something in the current debate.

It's sad that people hear the word "socialism" and think "OH MY GOD COMMUNISTS!" :/

.little monster
August 6th, 2009, 02:36 PM
I am all for a US Health Care reform. We have the most expensive health care system in the world. Millions of Americans have no health insurances. And about a million people die in America alone because they cant afford treatment they need. Health care is so expensive here, that prices will continue to rise and the U.S. will eventually bankrupt itself. Anyone who says it is bad, anyone who thinks what we have no are complete idiots, and everyone knows that. Except those said idiots anyways.

Also, anyone who goes "OMFG COMMUNIST" when hearing "socialism" is an idiot as well. :|

Cassino
August 6th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Require individuals to have health insurance.
The only thing I argue is that the insurance should be optional.

.Seth
August 6th, 2009, 05:41 PM
"If you guys can't even run Cash for Clunkers, what in the hell makes you think you'll be able to run a federal healthcare plan?"
That just about sums up what I think on the subject.

Esper
August 6th, 2009, 10:34 PM
In Consideration/Being Debated, Or: How HMOs Pay Elected Officials To Drag Their Feet And Keep Good Bills From Becoming Law.

I'd like to say I'd be happy to see any version of the health care bill pass, but I'm afraid American government is too business friendly for real universal health care. I wish it weren't so, but when it's a question of when effective universal health care will become available I'm not holding my breath.

Camisado
August 6th, 2009, 10:46 PM
I'm not all that good with US politics (or my own, for that matter, and I'm a government employee), but as a UK resident with a "free" National Health Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service), paid for by small deductions each month from my wages, I have to say, this sort of system works fantastically =< my godmother had life saving treatment to her heart on the NHS last year, and I've had free physiotherapy treatment for my bad back from which I've just been discharged. I couldn't have afforded a chiropractor. =(

I'm really baffled by a nation as strong as the US not having that sort of healthcare system. All our NHS hospitals and general practitioners are free for our use, as well as a good proportion of medication, and there is always the private healthcare option if you really want it it.

Went
August 6th, 2009, 11:19 PM
I think the same way as Camisado- here, in Spain, we got an Universal Health Care system during a fascist dictatorship, and it's as fine as ever, so I seriously can't understand how the most developed Western country still has millions of people dying each year because they just can't afford going to the doctor's.

I'm afraid that the system that will be set up will be a cheap version forced by Insurance Companies and the Republicans in an attempt to damage Obama's image, but even the cheapest Universal health Care system will be an absolute improvement from what they have right now. Seriously, 40 million people have to pay to go to the hospital? Spain pays free health care for just as many people- and we spend about 9 times less than the US in oursystem. And there are little complaints, as far as I know.

Cherrim
August 7th, 2009, 04:43 AM
Cue another non-American coming in to express disbelief at the fact that the US can even function without "proper" health care.

Canada's yet another with a socialized health care system. I honestly just can't imagine it any other way. It is SO nice to be able to walk right into a medi clinic over something small like a cold. I don't have to worry about insurance, or wait only until I "need" care. I just can't even fathom that some people can't seek treatment because they can't afford it... or I can't imagine that someone could be sick, know it, and not be able to go to the hospital for fear of being bankrupt afterwards. (Hospital stays are expensive. D:)

The only argument against social health care that I can even begin to entertain is the wait times. I know Canadian wait times for some things like scans, diagnostics or even surgeries can be pretty icky, depending what you need. No one I know personally has ever had an issue with this, though. The longest I've waited for a test was... a month, maybe? Not too long in the grand scheme of things, definitely. Otherwise I've never had problems.

I'm definitely one of the people who makes good use of the health care system. There's almost always something wrong with me, haha. If it weren't for our universal health care, my family would probably be pretty broke. Either that or I would definitely have not been able to afford most (any?) of the treatments I've had in the past. I guess maybe I'd have insurance but I assume that only goes so far? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how insurance works down there--here, my parents' medical coverage from work usually just goes towards prescriptions and the like because the basics are all covered from the start.

TRIFORCE89
August 7th, 2009, 05:48 AM
The only argument against social health care that I can even begin to entertain is the wait times. I know Canadian wait times for some things like scans, diagnostics or even surgeries can be pretty icky, depending what you need. No one I know personally has ever had an issue with this, though. The longest I've waited for a test was... a month, maybe? Not too long in the grand scheme of things, definitely. Otherwise I've never had problems.
I haven't had to experience it, but I don't mind the waits too much either. I look at like this...

In the States there aren't wait times because so few people can afford the procedures and tests they need. Here, everyone has the opportunity. So, naturally there'd be a bit of wait. It's not like say...if your arm got cut off you're going to be waiting six months or something (which the American media keeps implying). They get to you sort of in order of need. That would be a big one. Years ago my brother split his face open. It's not like we showed up at the hospital and they said "come back later". XD They worked on him right away.

I think another part of our wait problem is that we're short on doctors. My uncle's brother is a doctor. While hiring everywhere, the most openings are in the more northern and rural areas. Nobody wants to work there lol We also don't pay as much as they do in the US (which has nothing to do with our health care system. You get paid a lot more in America for everything. If my dad held the same position in the States that he has now, I'd be typing this from a yacht). As a result they end up working in the states. I believe my relative is now in New England.

I've been seeing American commercials recently saying stuff like "Do you want the government running your health care system?" Well, you know what? They don't run it here in Canada. All the doctors run their own private practices just like in America. The difference is just how we pay them. There are also some things that you still need insurance for (not everything is covered. Unnecessary cosmetic surgery say. I've had some vaccinations before they made it under the plan. Meds).

As long as there's a profit in keeping you sick and having you pay for unnecessary medication, surgery, and tests you're going to stay a sick nation.

Cherrim
August 7th, 2009, 06:00 AM
In the States there aren't wait times because so few people can afford the procedures and tests they need. Here, everyone has the opportunity. So, naturally there'd be a bit of wait. It's not like say...if your arm got cut off you're going to be waiting six months or something (which the American media keeps implying). They get to you sort of in order of need. That would be a big one. Years ago my brother split his face open. It's not like we showed up at the hospital and they said "come back later". XD They worked on him right away.
Well, emergency rooms in Canada use the same triage system as everywhere else. (Or at least, a triage system.) For emergencies and dire medical needs, of course those who really need treatment are fast-tracked. It's the same thing in the states. Even if you're paying money and you end up in the emergency room, if you go in bleeding to death from a gaping wound, they're gonna treat you before the person who came in complaining about a stomach ache in the middle of the night. 8|;;

It's mostly just basic tests or diagnostics that can take a while. Like iirc if you book an MRI it may very well not happen the same-month. Specialist appointments are another one... even once you get a referral, it can take a few months to get in with an appointment to a pain clinic or rehab centre, depending what it's for. :( Frustrating, definitely, but not life-threatening.

TRIFORCE89
August 7th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Well, emergency rooms in Canada use the same triage system as everywhere else. (Or at least, a triage system.) For emergencies and dire medical needs, of course those who really need treatment are fast-tracked. It's the same thing in the states. Even if you're paying money and you end up in the emergency room, if you go in bleeding to death from a gaping wound, they're gonna treat you before the person who came in complaining about a stomach ache in the middle of the night. 8|;;

It's mostly just basic tests or diagnostics that can take a while. Like iirc if you book an MRI it may very well not happen the same-month. Specialist appointments are another one... even once you get a referral, it can take a few months to get in with an appointment to a pain clinic or rehab centre, depending what it's for. :( Frustrating, definitely, but not life-threatening.
I know. I was commenting more on advertisements I've been seeing and the annoying talking heads on TV. I swear I've seen them talk random "Canadians" (supposedly) who say they had to go to the States because if they waited a week for their life-altering surgery they would have died. @___@

Netto Azure
August 7th, 2009, 06:56 AM
"If you guys can't even run Cash for Clunkers, what in the hell makes you think you'll be able to run a federal healthcare plan?"
That just about sums up what I think on the subject.

Now where did that come from?

Cash for Clunkers has been hailed as one of the great successes of the stimulus (More appropriately, stabilization) package.

People flocked to exchange their cars. @~@

(But meh, the fuel standards for the rebates were a bit low IMO, but meh.)

In Consideration/Being Debated, Or: How HMOs Pay Elected Officials To Drag Their Feet And Keep Good Bills From Becoming Law.

I'd like to say I'd be happy to see any version of the health care bill pass, but I'm afraid American government is too business friendly for real universal health care. I wish it weren't so, but when it's a question of when effective universal health care will become available I'm not holding my breath.

Ok, Healthcare, this mostly boils down to people being all anti-government and such, as for the Insurance HMO thing. DEAR GAWD GET READY FOR THE AUGUST "FLOOD THE AIRWAVES" WITH PICTURES OF PEOPLE PILING UP DEAD ON THE STREETS OF CANADA TO AUSTRALIA. @~@

I'm exaggerating, but that's the feel that you get from the stuff that comes out of the critics.

And I truly agree, this coverage bill has been contorted and compromised so much that the costs GO UP instead of DOWN. TT^TT

But meh, I'll take anything by this point....

.Seth
August 7th, 2009, 07:33 AM
Now where did that come from?

Cash for Clunkers has been hailed as one of the great successes of the stimulus (More appropriately, stabilization) package.

People flocked to exchange their cars. @~@

(But meh, the fuel standards for the rebates were a bit low IMO, but meh.)

Well, they said it was going to last several months, but it only lasted like two weeks, and it might only run for another week.
They're OUT of money for it already.

Basically, what I mean by that, is that they can't estimate very well, and that is not good in a healthcare budget especially, which could lead to more and more unnecessary spending and money being "lost" somewhere, and could eventually drive the US bankrupt before everything recovers.
It's like my mom said:
"I think that healthcare could use a little reform, but not this much."

Netto Azure
August 7th, 2009, 08:02 AM
Well, they said it was going to last several months, but it only lasted like two weeks, and it might only run for another week.
They're OUT of money for it already.

Basically, what I mean by that, is that they can't estimate very well, and that is not good in a healthcare budget especially, which could lead to more and more unnecessary spending and money being "lost" somewhere, and could eventually drive the US bankrupt before everything recovers.
It's like my mom said:
"I think that healthcare could use a little reform, but not this much."

Sorry for the off topicness. XD
(I would make another thread, but I don't want to be called as someone flooding OC with political debates ;~; )

Well, ever since when did tax-rebates become bad to our capitalist system? They ran out of money because NOBODY really expected people to actually take advantage of the program as much, seriously, it's more of a win-win really. The government got money out to support the auto-industry, we're saving gas and help the environment.

As for your Mom's comment, you do know that under the current system, insurance companies and employers can arbitrarily cancel your policy or jack up your rates so high that you cant pay it to "Hold down costs" or more appropriately "jack up the profits."

And the thing is, costs are spiraling out of control as we have a quantity and reactive based system than a preventive one.

.little monster
August 7th, 2009, 08:19 AM
Well, emergency rooms in Canada use the same triage system as everywhere else. (Or at least, a triage system.) For emergencies and dire medical needs, of course those who really need treatment are fast-tracked. It's the same thing in the states. Even if you're paying money and you end up in the emergency room, if you go in bleeding to death from a gaping wound, they're gonna treat you before the person who came in complaining about a stomach ache in the middle of the night. 8|;;

It's mostly just basic tests or diagnostics that can take a while. Like iirc if you book an MRI it may very well not happen the same-month. Specialist appointments are another one... even once you get a referral, it can take a few months to get in with an appointment to a pain clinic or rehab centre, depending what it's for. :( Frustrating, definitely, but not life-threatening.

I thought I would just say this:

I broke my arm so badly that I needed 3 surgeries on it to fix it (ironically my mom filed for bankruptcy 3 months later.) Three people came in after me, while I was waiting. Each with minor things..fevers, flu, things like that. They all went before me, because they had insurance. :/

Aurafire
August 7th, 2009, 09:11 AM
Ugh, I don't have the patience to write a huge response, so I'll just keep it short.

Contrary to popular belief, most Americans actually like the health insurance they have now and don't want the government in control of healthcare. They also don't like the trillion dollar plus price tag that comes with it, which will send us only deeper into debt. Seriously, we've already spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that really didn't stimulate anything, and now we want to spend even MORE money? If Obama thinks he can pay for all this spending without raising taxes on middle-class America, then he is sorely mistaken. (By the way? He already broke his promise of not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 by adding a new $33 billion dollar cigarette tax, and the carbon cap-and-trade bill raises the taxes of all Americans)

So comments like "Well we have universal healthcare, why doesn't America?" and "Omg, how does America survive without universal healthcare!" are essetially short-sighted and ignore the fact that the majority of Americans simply do not want this to happen. The polls don't lie, and they show that Obama is quickly losing support. I'll say it again, Americans want healthcare reform. What they don't want is a pitifully put together and hastily rushed 1,000 page nightmare of government madness being slammed through Congress as fast as possible without their opinions being heard.

If Obama would just slow it the hell down and allow for a somewhat bi-partisan bill with compromise and debate, this whole debacle would be going much more smoothly.

lx_theo
August 7th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Where do you get this info that most Americans don't want health care reform?

Aurafire
August 7th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Where do you get this info that most Americans don't want health care reform?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html

All the major polling data, not just the Rasmussen Repots, indicate that there is more opposition for Obama's plan then there is support.

Netto Azure
August 7th, 2009, 09:50 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574330442429438938.html

All the major polling data, not just the Rasmussen Repots, indicate that there is more opposition for Obama's plan then there is support.

And yet that poll essentially shows a partisan split on the issue. ;D

And how are supposed to have an intelligent debate when we have the other side muzzled by the mainstream media, and all of these tea-baggers and birthers disrupting debates? XD (http://www.examiner.com/x-15877-Kansas-City-Young-Democrat-Examiner%7Ey2009m8d7-Orchestrated-outrage-fake-protesters-disrupt-healthcare-town-hall-meetings)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32323732#32323732

Seriously, we need to hear all sides, not just the "Centrists and right-wingers"

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html

White House advises Democrats on protests (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32329508/ns/politics-white_house/)


http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/ap/f22cdd0f-7ba1-4c26-b0f7-5923d5a38d08.h2.jpg
Protesters gather in front of a clinic in Denver, Colo., on Thursday where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke about health care.


WASHINGTON - Top White House (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32329508/ns/politics-white_house/#) officials counseled Democratic senators Thursday on coping with disruptions at public events on health care this summer, officials said, and promised the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising. These officials also told skittish senators that fresh polling suggests an emphasis on issues such as barring insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions is a political winner, able to increase support among independents, women, seniors and rural voters.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss details of the closed-door session that took place hours before lawmakers headed to their home states for a monthlong vacation.

'Destructive efforts'
Pushing back, Democrats have accused Republicans of sanctioning mob tactics, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32329508/ns/politics-white_house/#) D-Nev., accused protesters of trying to sabotage the democratic process.

The Republican Party says it's not behind the protests, but Reid scoffed at the notion that the protesters reflect grass-roots sentiment. He held up a piece of artificial turf during a session with reporters.
"These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having," Reid said Thursday. "They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets."

Republicans answered back.

"All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the president's health care plan," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Democrats are ginning up this cynical shell game."

Also Thursday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to mobilize labor activists to attend town hall meetings in 50 congressional districts this month to counter the conservative protesters.White House aides David Axelrod and Jim Messina traveled to the Capitol for their presentation to Democratic senators. Senators saw videos of disruptions at events held by House members, and were told to organize their events more carefully as well as work with labor unions and other friendly groups to generate enthusiasm.


Oh dear goodness, has this turned into mob rule? @~@

Aurafire
August 7th, 2009, 10:20 AM
Lol, muzzled the mainstream media? It's going to take more than a few disrupted town hall meetings to do that.

And what's wrong with a protest? Since when have people lost the right to protest something they disagree with? My god, the media creates such a double standard. Protest something that fits their agenda and it's totally fine, but protest something that goes against their agenda and oh boy are you in trouble! The center-right core of America is speaking out and the media whines that they're not allowing for a fair debate. =/

Netto Azure
August 7th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Lol, muzzled the mainstream media? It's going to take more than a few disrupted town hall meetings to do that.

And what's wrong with a protest? Since when have people lost the right to protest something they disagree with? My god, the media creates such a double standard. Protest something that fits their agenda and it's totally fine, but protest something that goes against their agenda and oh boy are you in trouble! The center-right core of America is speaking out and the media whines that they're not allowing for a fair debate. =/

Well, let's just say that the talk of a single-payer system has been muzzled and Michael Jackson got more coverage than our echo protest down the street of the UCLA Medical Center!

LOL I'm the guy with the mic. XP

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss37/vtommy1/100_0723.jpg
http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss37/vtommy1/100_0720.jpg

Whoah, whoah, whoah, While this country might be called Center-right, (The demographics are shifting) it still voted for a center-left coalition. It's not as if Obama is pulling this out of a hat. He's been campaigning on this platform for a while now! XD

Yamikarasu
August 7th, 2009, 12:47 PM
Well, to counter the argument that health care reform would put us in deeper in debt, we're already spending 3 to 4 trillion dollars a year on health care now (more than any other country, yet we don't have the highest life expectancy (http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/LEvsSpend2_75.gif)), and that's more than the cost of the stimulus package earlier this year. If we can streamline the health care system, giving everyone coverage no matter what, that will save us money within just a few years.

Businesses would also benefit from universal health care because they would no longer have to pay for health care for their employees. This would help turn around the recession.

Netto Azure
August 11th, 2009, 09:00 AM
Oh, too bad I don't have time to post here as much. D:
But Time had a great summary of the up's and downs of reform: Understanding Health-Care Reform: a User's Guide (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694,00.html)

Very enlightening, and non-partisan. :P

The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and yet ranks behind 18 other industrialized nations in medically preventable deaths. The U.S. is far down the list in other important categories as well, including the average number of years citizens live a healthy life. Spending more than $1 trillion on health reform may improve these rankings — and yet as Congress and the Obama Administration struggle to agree on the nature of reform, it has become harder to understand how the current U.S. system would actually change. Here is a primer on the parties with a stake in the health-care system and how they, and you, might be affected by proposals on the table.

A User's Guide




Understanding Health-Care Reform (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694_1913683,00.html)
If You Are Insured Through Employer (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694_1913684,00.html)
If You Are Insured Independently (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694_1913685,00.html)
If You Are Insured Through a Public Program (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694_1913686,00.html)
If You Are The Owner of a Small Business (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694_1913687,00.html)
If You Are Uninsured (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913694_1913688,00.html)


Big Players




The Insurance Companies (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913695_1913698,00.html)
The Hospitals (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913695_1913699,00.html)
The Doctors (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913695_1913700,00.html)


Insurance Vocab




Health Care Glossary (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913707_1913696_1913703,00.html)

Autistic Lucario
August 11th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Have you seen the anger from the American people on Health Care? They are sensing that something is wrong with this health care plan. Why the rush? Why don't they take a moment to read their own bills?

I'm a teenager with Asperger's Syndrome. I take medication to control my paranoia. Under this plan, it seems I'm going to be denied health care, period. It's because I have special needs, and the people in Congress want to ration health care. They say that people who have special needs, or are handicapped, elderly, very young, etc, aren't worth the time and money.

Excuse me, but I don't want the Government taking my medicine away. And what if I develop cancer? Will the answer be "you're not worth our time"?

Netto Azure
August 11th, 2009, 10:38 AM
Have you seen the anger from the American people on Health Care? They are sensing that something is wrong with this health care plan. Why the rush? Why don't they take a moment to read their own bills.

I'm a teenager with Asperger's Syndrome. I take medication to control my paranoia. Under this plan, it seems I'm going to be denied health care, period. It's because I have special needs, and the people in Congress want to ration health care. They say that people who have special needs, or are handicapped, elderly, very young, etc, aren't worth the time and money.

Excuse me, but I don't want the Government taking my medicine away. And what if I develop cancer? Will the answer be "you're not worth our time"?

Misplaced anger if you ask me. @_@

First of all Mental health benefits aren't even part of most employer provided plans under the current system.
Secondly, all this talk about rationing is a bunch of misinformation, the current plan in Congress is quite modest by the standards of the Industrialized Countries.
Thirdly, has anybody even bothered to read the acts that any legislative branch of government that every country passes? Because this anger over "read your own legislation" is a very impossible task to do, while it might be great in theory, who can analyze every legalese that comes out of the Legislative branch of government?

I mean have you even bothered to read the PATRIOT Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/%7Ec107jgBJAi::) that was supposed to protect us from terrorists?

Bianca Paragon
August 11th, 2009, 10:39 AM
Have you seen the anger from the American people on Health Care? They are sensing that something is wrong with this health care plan. Why the rush? Why don't they take a moment to read their own bills?

I'm a teenager with Asperger's Syndrome. I take medication to control my paranoia. Under this plan, it seems I'm going to be denied health care, period. It's because I have special needs, and the people in Congress want to ration health care. They say that people who have special needs, or are handicapped, elderly, very young, etc, aren't worth the time and money.

Excuse me, but I don't want the Government taking my medicine away. And what if I develop cancer? Will the answer be "you're not worth our time"?
wut? Under this plan you won't have to pay a private company for your medication; it will be provided to you by the government with no additional up-front cost. This scare-mongering about "rationing" is total BS. I take two (and at some points, three) different hormonal replacement drugs and I'm on fairly aggressive doses; but there'll never be a point where I'm told "You've had your share, we're taking it away". It doesn't work that way!. Do some research @_@

Timbjerr
August 11th, 2009, 12:45 PM
when it comes to politics, I pride myself in being able to see and understand both sides of an issue even if I don't agree with both sides...

But I really don't understand why people in this country are so vehemently opposed to the government offering optional cheap healthcare as opposed to having to deal with insurance companies. I suppose there's a question of quality medical care, but as far as I'm concerned, if my doctor has a diploma on his wall from an accredited medical school, it makes no difference if he's a cheap governement doctor or a wealthy insurance-backed doctor.

I'm sure my general ignorance of the american healthcare system in general is obvious in this post, but one more point I have to mention is that people that associate Socialism with communism are really getting on my nerves. >_>

Anti
August 11th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Lol, muzzled the mainstream media? It's going to take more than a few disrupted town hall meetings to do that.

And what's wrong with a protest? Since when have people lost the right to protest something they disagree with? My god, the media creates such a double standard. Protest something that fits their agenda and it's totally fine, but protest something that goes against their agenda and oh boy are you in trouble! The center-right core of America is speaking out and the media whines that they're not allowing for a fair debate. =/

But they aren't allowing a fair debate, at least in these town hall meetings where they just drown out their Congressman/Congresswoman with angry shouts and even personal attacks. If that's your idea of a fair debate, where one side does all the yelling and the other side takes a merciless beating, then I guess I can only disagree with you and leave it at that. I would be perfectly for conservative/Republican Americans showing up to Town Hall meeting and calmly giving an informed opinion for their Congressperson to take in, but that's isn't what is happening. the fact that people have been arrested shows just how "fair" these "debates" are. More like shouting matches.

...But come on, the media doesn't have anything to do with this. Actually, Jon Stewart had a very good piece on the conservative media (aka FOX News) was basically making fun of left-wing people protesting something that Bush did in his second term. It goes both ways. The liberal and conservative medias are both guilty in setting a double standard - don't act like it's just the liberals. And yes, I know Jon Stewart is obviously biased since he's obviously liberal, but his points were perfectly fair and as usual exposed the hypocrisy of the right. I'm not saying the left isn't hypocritical too (they are), but don't bring the liberal media into this when the conservative media is just as bad.

Ugh, I don't have the patience to write a huge response, so I'll just keep it short.

Contrary to popular belief, most Americans actually like the health insurance they have now and don't want the government in control of healthcare. They also don't like the trillion dollar plus price tag that comes with it, which will send us only deeper into debt. Seriously, we've already spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus package that really didn't stimulate anything, and now we want to spend even MORE money? If Obama thinks he can pay for all this spending without raising taxes on middle-class America, then he is sorely mistaken. (By the way? He already broke his promise of not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 by adding a new $33 billion dollar cigarette tax, and the carbon cap-and-trade bill raises the taxes of all Americans)

I can't disagree with what you're saying about the spending, and this is where I agree with Republicans. You're also right about Obama breaking his campaign promise. Still, that was on the campaign trail. This is reality. That was a pretty big promise to begin with, but at the same time, I don't really think that an American making $225,000 a year is middle class lol. Yeah, he broke the promise, but that simply became inevitable and his bar was set mighty high for "middle class" Americans.

But of course, I have to disagree with you about government controlling health care since that isn't even the plan - a public option is. "The government is taking over everything!!!!" approach is basically a GOP scare tactic (which appears to be working). There's also Sarah Palin talking about Obama's death panel and how it will choose the fate of her child (which is her bringing her children into politics again and being a total hypocrite AGAIN, but I won't get into my disgust for Sarah Palin right now).

If you want to criticize the bill for being too expensive, I can't disagree. But if you're going to call it a government takeover or (and I know you didn't do this one, so don't take this as me putting words in your mouth) go as far as Palin and just make things up, then I can only take your argument as GOP talking points. I know that as a conservative, you're against the expansion of government, so Obama's presidency probably hasn't been very happy for you. The spending partis getting out of control, and there I agree with you. But this isn't a government takeover, and frankly, I don't really think that the tens of millions of people without health insurance really care who gives them some relief.

So comments like "Well we have universal healthcare, why doesn't America?" and "Omg, how does America survive without universal healthcare!" are essetially short-sighted and ignore the fact that the majority of Americans simply do not want this to happen. The polls don't lie, and they show that Obama is quickly losing support. I'll say it again, Americans want healthcare reform. What they don't want is a pitifully put together and hastily rushed 1,000 page nightmare of government madness being slammed through Congress as fast as possible without their opinions being heard.

Your statement is ignoring the fact that our health care system is insultingly poor compared to countries that have universal health care, and any majority is slim and still inconclusive - there is a lot of work to be done still and a lot can change. I don't know how in the world such statement are short-sighted at all since these health care systems have worked much better than ours (which, again, is insanely bad). If anything, it's thinking more for the future since any short-term thinking is being held up by the very polls you mentioned and Obama's waning support.

Also (and I'm aware this is an extreme point but it's the best analogy I can come up with), the majority of people in Italy after World War I supported Mussolini when he came to power ("Mussolini got the trains running on time!"), but that didn't turn out well for them. And of course, the same problem would confront the Russians after Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power, only World War II didn't wipe out the Soviet regime. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes the people can be misled or downright wrong (reelecting Bush, man did that work out!), so throwing polls and a slim majority at those who want the bill passed and acting like it somehow bolsters your argument is pretty unfair. I'm not saying you should ignore the will of the people (quite the opposite), but divided and partisan numbers that lean toward the GOP doesn't mean that your side is somehow more right than Obama's, which is unfortunately what your statement implied. Lack of support =/= a lack of viability in the plan itself.

If Obama would just slow it the hell down and allow for a somewhat bi-partisan bill with compromise and debate, this whole debacle would be going much more smoothly.

I am inclined to agree a lot more with this, though August is providing a time for debate, but it hasn't been capitalized on - Obama cannot be blamed for that, however. Also, it's probably wishful thinking to assume that we can get a bipartisan bill smoothly through Congress. There is so much division right now both in Congress and the country as a whole that the prospects of that are looking bleak. I really wish Obama wouldn't just ram it through with the majority (which John McCain made a good point about, essentially saying that this isn't bipartisan at all), but that might be the only way for it to pass at this point.

Time will tell. I hope they don't since I tend to agree with you that with bill seems rushed and will probably be too costly and ineffective, but I think that a lot of your criticisms (and by extension, those of the Republican party) are a bit unfair. I don't support the bill, but there isn't going to be a government takeover or death panels (again, I know you didn't say anything about those).

Vallander
August 11th, 2009, 09:38 PM
wow lol just because that is a whole lot to read, im just going to post my general opinon about this whole mess.

ok firstly, the health care, this is what needs to happen:

Health Care for everyone: YES! this needs to happen, but people dont understand HOW it needs to happen;
-Health Care should be provided for everyone who NEEDS it. like if you're living in poverty and having zero health care because you cant afford it, how can someone living comfortably (not rich mind you, just comfortable) whine and complain about how they have to pay "soooo" much for it?
i think it should be free to those who do not have the means to pay for it, or to those who it would be an extreme burden to pay for it.

honestly i could say more but im not going to rant about it and then get bashed by someone who disagrees, so ill leave it there (high five for anyone else in this thread who thinks the same or somewhat the same) :)

now to address the "anger" issue surrounding this:
it might sound cold but:
PEOPLE NEED TO GET A LIFE AND QUIT YOUR DAMN COMPLAINING!
the real reason people are gettin mad at obama now is because they all voted for him because he promised alot of positive change.
now while i do definitely agree he may have promised a little more than he realized he could realistically do, people have no right whatsoever to get angry that this country isnt in some damn golden age after only like what 4-5 months??? i mean cmon really?
as if everyone thought this country's economy was going to magically change as soon as obama got into office. it also doesnt help that congress doesnt support him very well (since lets be honest congress is really who runs this country)
now for why people are getting mad at the health care reform, get an education!!! im not pointing anyone in this thread out mind you, just the general american population. most people getting mad about this really dont have a leg to stand on when they argue all they know is what some random people have told them because people in this country make decisions based on OTHERS opinions.
they just know Canada has free health care for everyone so they think: "Oh well why wont obama do this? he sucks!"
well guess what, free health care for everyone is what really sucks here!
go into the doctor's office with cancer...
-Doctor: oh yes its all in order we'll get you your treatment with no cost to you :)"
-patient: yay i might live! (or something lol i dont know just work with me here :P)
-Doctor: yep you'll get your lung transplant and chemo in...oh about 8-11 months.
-patient: 0_0........

hmm now whats wrong with this picture.

i guess just to sum this up, people need to step back and look at the facts before opening their big mouth in argument, making their OWN decision instead of using ideas put in their head by someone else. know what you're talking about before spouting off random crap, and actually give obama a chance, not just start bashing him when he hasn't even finished unpacking his things in the white house yet. and probably the most important of all:
things aren't going to be perfect. it sux big time, but this is life, not your ego.
there's going to be pros and cons to both sides of this argument but people just start ignoring all the pros once they hear of one con that just gets to them.

thats all im gonna say on this topic (for now at least; i think i want to read even more into this)

and bravo to everyone on this thread who showed their intelligence by actually KNOWING what the hell they're talking about and looking at all aspects of this. *high five here's a cookie ^_^* and i know i obviously dont sound like a genius with this and ill admit im not really into politics and i dont follow it with a whole lot of enthusiasm to be honest.

and @ Anti: very good points in your argument ( i dont really like Palin either but whatever she's not really a future issue i dont think)
and yeah you are absolutely right that people gotta realize its going to be expensive, just like EVERYTHING ELSE IN AMERICA, but i think with time it will get better. to me this is like consolidating your debts (house, car, utilities, etc.) i think thats what they're trying to do and you never know it just may make the ultimate difference here, but people have to be willing to listen and give it all a chance. like you said what do you care WHERE you get relief from as long as your GETTING it in the first place? its an irrational fear that is taking over this country.....again (Red Scare anybody? i know its not the same but it has a couple similar elements at play). basically people are afraid of whats going to happen and they're reacting with anger and in some violence because they dont know what else to do.

Cherrim
August 12th, 2009, 05:23 AM
I still see nothing that convinces me that socialized health care is not a good idea. I don't understand at ALL why people think it's a bad idea. Yeah, if you put a system together too hastily, that's bad, but it's moreso the people who are so vehemently against even the idea of free health care that absolutely baffle me.

In order to get treated for anything in the US, you basically need insurance, right? I don't see how paying for insurance and paying extra out of your taxes for health care is any different--just one will hike up your premiums if they can get away with it once they find out you're sick and actually NEED the insurance, and the other will continue to provide you with health care whether you're sick and dying or perfectly healthy and going in for a check up. And the latter will help OTHER people too. Don't think of it like you're paying for poor people to piggy-back off the system... think of it like you're paying for your OWN RIGHT to access any aspects of the health care system that you need just like everyone else is. Honestly, I'm trying not to, but it's hard not to associate the "I'm not paying for someone else's health care!" argument as "I don't think everyone has the right to be healthy." :(
they just know Canada has free health care for everyone so they think: "Oh well why wont obama do this? he sucks!"
well guess what, free health care for everyone is what really sucks here!
go into the doctor's office with cancer...
-Doctor: oh yes its all in order we'll get you your treatment with no cost to you :)"
-patient: yay i might live! (or something lol i dont know just work with me here :P)
-Doctor: yep you'll get your lung transplant and chemo in...oh about 8-11 months.
-patient: 0_0........

hmm now whats wrong with this picture.
I've never known anyone to wait for things like chemo for that long. iirc when my grandmother had cancer, her chemo started maybe a few weeks after it was ordered. When I had surgery last year, the requisition was sent in at the end of September and I was booked in for the end of October. It was a minor surgery but... still, those aren't super long wait times. I know my grandpa was waiting... quite a while for an eye transplant or surgery or something like that but the only reason he was waiting was because nothing was available. :( Quite literally the day something opened up, he was called up and asked to come in right away. It's not like they just pick an arbitrary number and ask you to wait that long.

This site (http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_public_mn.html) outlines the current wait times for several different procedures in Ontario. Depending on the hospital, they can be pretty extensive wait times and some hospitals bump the provincial wait time average up by a substantial amount but the less busy ones don't have much of a wait at all. o_O; Some are as low as 20 days for some diagnostics (not bad at all and you CAN be fast-tracked if your doctor deems it necessary, iirc) and for most of the cancer surgery wait times I checked, the highest wait was 3 months. I'm not sure if other countries have the same problems though--Canada has a severe doctor shortage last I knew AND honestly, we don't have enough hospitals here in the GTA which is the most populous area of Canada. I tossed in my own postal code to check near me so those wait times are probably a bit more than you'd expect country-wide. (The suburban city I'm in doesn't even have its own hospital despite being one of the largest cities in Canada fffff.) The wait times aren't going to be as much of an issue there if they aren't already, I would imagine.

Honestly, I don't know many Canadians at all (if any??) who dislike our health care system, wait times and all. :( Anyone I've ever spoken to about it has always mentioned that they just can't imagine it any other way.
Have you seen the anger from the American people on Health Care? They are sensing that something is wrong with this health care plan. Why the rush? Why don't they take a moment to read their own bills?

I'm a teenager with Asperger's Syndrome. I take medication to control my paranoia. Under this plan, it seems I'm going to be denied health care, period. It's because I have special needs, and the people in Congress want to ration health care. They say that people who have special needs, or are handicapped, elderly, very young, etc, aren't worth the time and money.

Excuse me, but I don't want the Government taking my medicine away. And what if I develop cancer? Will the answer be "you're not worth our time"?
Lol what? :( Please read up on socialized health care because you've got it all wrong! With universal health care, EVERY CITIZEN has access to the health care system. So whether you break your leg and have to visit the ER, you visit the doctor for a physical, or you just head to the doctor to get a prescription filled, the visit won't cost you. They can't deny you health care. The health care isn't going to be rationed. Honestly, if you have insurance right now, which you must, then you yourself won't notice all that much of a difference. You'll still go to the doctor like always, you'll still get the same prescriptions as always, and you'll go on with your life.

The government will recognize your disability just as much as your insurance company will, I think. And if not? You still have the option to continue buying private insurance. Most companies here offer, instead of health insurance, a drug plan of sorts since health care is covered already--so your medication would still be free (or heavily subsidized) and as a bonus, you don't have to worry about crazy premiums and whatnot.

If you develop cancer or something similar, they won't turn you away. On the contrary, you won't have to worry about your insurance company hiking up your prices (after having deemed you a "risk" client) and you'll have access to the same procedures and treatments as anyone else. I don't know where you got the idea that because you have a mental disorder, they'll drop you from the universal health plan for everyone entirely. Nuh-uh, it doesn't work that way.

TRIFORCE89
August 12th, 2009, 06:35 AM
The way the media is portraying the wait time issue (which isn't even a big deal) is truly weird. Essentially saying that the government will make you wait.

You're waiting because, unlike before, everyone can actually go to the hospital. Of course there's going to be an increase in traffic and usage. More people using the hospital...how is that bad?

You're not going to be denied anything. You can still use private insurance if you want. The government isn't running anything. You're just paying in a different manner.

I'm watching the town halls and...I'm just dumbfounded. Not just that people are so violently opposed to even the idea and concept of universal healthcare but that so many are just...ridiculously uninformed. I saw someone say something like "I want the government to stay the hell away from my Medicare". Uhhh.... clearly someone doesn't know Medicare is. XD

Death panels, denying and rationing health care, increased costs, lower-quality health care are just all incredibly ridiculous claims. Mind boggling.

Netto Azure
August 12th, 2009, 07:25 AM
Obama tackles healthcare critics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8196007.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46101000/jpg/_46101272_monitor_pa226b.jpg
Healthcare reform in the US is entering a critical phase

US President Barack Obama has accused some opponents of his healthcare reform proposals of trying to "scare the heck" out of people.
Anti-reform campaigners had created "bogeymen out there that just aren't real", he said at a town-hall style meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Passing a healthcare reform bill is Mr Obama's top domestic priority for 2009.
But in recent weeks, opponents of reform have been making serious accusations about his proposals.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, said last week that the president wanted to set up "death panels" of government officials with the power to determine whether disabled or elderly Americans are "worthy of healthcare".
In fact, under proposals drawn up by the US House of Representatives, the government would pay for elderly Americans to receive voluntary consultations with doctors to discuss their end-of-life care.
"The rumour that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on Grandma because we've decided that its too expensive to let her live anymore," said Mr Obama.
"Somehow, it has gotten spun into this idea of death panels. I am not in favour of that, I want to clear the air here."
Tsk, all of this talk is a bunch of outright lies no?

I mean I was laughing when I saw people say "Stay out of my Medicare," and talk about "Death Panels" just shows how much misinformation and crazy stuff is permeating out there. Meh, he could certainly have done better by framing this as more of a moral issue than an economic one. @~@

Also as for the cost issue, this is essentially an outgrowth of making concessions and starting with the compromised positions. While I do heavily criticize the bill for first keeping the profiteering private insurance companies in place (which drives up costs) secondly, making pharmaceutical concessions which does nothing to actually "bend the curve" of the prices of prescription drugs (Have you seen drug prices in the US lately? @_@) and finally the possibility that the public option will become a "dumping ground" for the uninsurable and therefore drive up the cost of operating it, as it does not have the risk pool of the more healthy constituents to dilute the cost.

But to be frank, I'm willing to hold my nose and accept this bill as it is the only one which has traction right now, and can be amended through future omnibus bills. Hay, if only Single-Payer "Socialized Health Insurance" aka "Medicare for all" was in the table right now and that the Congressional Budget Office would truthfully show the American People that it is one of the better plans that is not only "Cost-neutral" but actually "Bends the curve." Then maybe this bill would appear heck of a lot more bi-partisan as it is. ~_~

Cherrim
August 12th, 2009, 07:29 AM
Wait, I haven't been keeping up with this entirely. What is a "death panel", exactly? Is it what I'm hoping it's not, and a group of government officials who would essentially decide who would and would not have access to health care (and thusly who dies, who lives, etc.)?

And people really believe this stuff?? Seriously!? :( I think you guys have more issues than just health care to rectify atm...

Bianca Paragon
August 12th, 2009, 07:31 AM
The problem is that people see that the notion for assisted end of life is being contemplated (and so it ought to be; people in palliative care ought to be allowed to decide how their own life comes to an end) and instantly that becomes "hOMG death panelz!". It's so very easy to incite mass hysteria in our American cousins :(

TRIFORCE89
August 12th, 2009, 07:42 AM
Wait, I haven't been keeping up with this entirely. What is a "death panel", exactly? Is it what I'm hoping it's not, and a group of government officials who would essentially decide who would and would not have access to health care (and thusly who dies, who lives, etc.)?

And people really believe this stuff?? Seriously!? :( I think you guys have more issues than just health care to rectify atm...
Yeah. That's the idea floating around. Kicking out those who would be a strain on the system. I'm not sure what the original (and hopefully not evil?) version of it was before it expanded into this mess in the media and the minds of people.

But clearly people aren't fond of "We're going to kill your grandma" version. XD

Cherrim
August 12th, 2009, 07:46 AM
@Sawah: Yeah but... but it's one thing to propose that someone be able to decide their own fate if they're near the end of their life and another entirely to put a committee together that decides who gets to live and who doesn't omg. If that was the original meaning just hoooow does the media bastardize it so much. And why do people believe it. I don't get iiiit. Don't they teach critical thinking? D8
Yeah. That's the idea floating around. Kicking out those who would be a strain on the system. I'm not sure what the original (and hopefully not evil?) version of it was before it expanded into this mess in the media and the minds of people.

But clearly people aren't fond of "We're going to kill your grandma" version. XD
I just don't understand how anyone could take something like that seriously. Like if I heard someone reporting that I'd just question wtf happened to the integrity of the news station and leave it at that because, well, I though it would be obvious, but no government in a country like the US would ever propose something as ridiculous as that. :|

TRIFORCE89
August 12th, 2009, 07:53 AM
@Sawah: Yeah but... but it's one thing to propose that someone be able to decide their own fate if they're near the end of their life and another entirely to put a committee together that decides who gets to live and who doesn't omg. If that was the original meaning just hoooow does the media bastardize it so much. And why do people believe it. I don't get iiiit. Don't they teach critical thinking? D8

I just don't understand how anyone could take something like that seriously. Like if I heard someone reporting that I'd just question wtf happened to the integrity of the news station and leave it at that because, well, I though it would be obvious, but no government in a country like the US would ever propose something as ridiculous as that. :|
I found this...

"A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill."

"It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option."

"AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals."

"Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a

So....uhh...huh? Death panels?

Bianca Paragon
August 12th, 2009, 07:55 AM
What an interesting evolutionary path the media takes from "Allowing end of life option consultations" to "DEATH PANELS"

Netto Azure
August 12th, 2009, 07:59 AM
@Sawah: Yeah but... but it's one thing to propose that someone be able to decide their own fate if they're near the end of their life and another entirely to put a committee together that decides who gets to live and who doesn't omg. If that was the original meaning just hoooow does the media bastardize it so much. And why do people believe it. I don't get iiiit. Don't they teach critical thinking? D8

I just don't understand how anyone could take something like that seriously. Like if I heard someone reporting that I'd just question wtf happened to the integrity of the news station and leave it at that because, well, I though it would be obvious, but no government in a country like the US would ever propose something as ridiculous as that. :|

Obama wants to kill your Grandma! (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/index.html)

Five right-wing myths about healthcare reform, and the facts

Aug. 6, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Turning America socialist apparently wasn't enough for him -- now President Obama is trying to make old people kill themselves, callously deny important medical procedures, funnel tax dollars to abortion clinics and wiggle the government's way into every doctor's office in America.
At least, that's the sense you might have about the healthcare reform proposals Congress is considering from listening to opponents describe them. Already, conservative activists have erupted against the plan, with protesters hanging Democratic lawmakers in effigy (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Rep_Kratovil_hung_in_effigy_by_health_care_protester_.html) and disrupting town hall meetings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0).

As both the House and the Senate clear out of the Capitol for the month, expect the viral buzz -- and the TV battle (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/31/grassroots/) -- about what's in the bills to grow louder and louder. The White House finally seems to have realized that the administration can't win the policy debate without addressing some of the attacks from the right. Aides recently released a video (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) rebutting some of the claims about what healthcare reform would and wouldn't do. An administration official told Salon Wednesday that the White House will soon launch a Web site modeled on the "Fight the Smears" (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/20/obama/) site Obama's campaign ran last fall, where voters can find -- and debunk -- some of the rumors about the reform proposals, and the White House is already collecting chain e-mails at "[email protected]," an address Obama aides set up to receive them.


But the administration might already be behind the curve. Over the last few weeks, opponents have managed to get out their spin on the bill through talk radio, blogs, chain e-mails and other channels. And their talking points depend on a notably elastic approach to the truth. Here's a fact check of some of the more alarming claims that the right is making about healthcare reform, claims that are already hardening into myth.

Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother. This claim seems too outlandish on its face to get much traction, but Republicans actually made some headway on it recently. Two House GOP leaders put out a statement warning that the healthcare reform bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia." (http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=139131) To hear opponents of reform talk about it, the legislation would force seniors to go in for sessions once every five years -- and more frequently if they're sick -- where doctors will encourage them to end their lives. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., summarized the scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hea-4VJZXRE)," and therefore, wouldn't be pro-life. The GOP has pushed this line especially hard with some of the conservative groups behind the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case a few years ago, hoping to get antiabortion allies on board fighting reform. "Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?" one-time GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked about the alleged euthanasia scheme (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25486.html) on his radio show last month. "They're going to counsel you on preparing you to die," Rush Limbaugh pronounced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asaMKCt66a0) a few weeks ago. Proof of how far this attack has spread came last week, when a caller to an AARP forum asked Obama about it directly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111341716). (Probably unwisely, the president tried to make light of the question, saying there weren't enough government employees to go meet with old people to talk about end-of-life care.)

There is a kernel of truth at the root of this attack: The legislation would order Medicare to pay for consultations between patients and doctors on end-of-life decisions, which it currently doesn't cover. But the consultations wouldn't be mandatory; if your grandmother doesn't want to go talk to her doctor about end-of-life care, she won't have to. Because Medicare doesn't pay for this kind of planning now, only 40 percent of seniors who depend on the government insurance say they have an advance directive (http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/233/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_Transforming_End-of-Life_Care.pdf) that tells healthcare providers what measures they do and don't want used to prolong their life, even though 75 percent say they think it's important. The lack of planning actually costs a lot of money. Medicare spends billions and billions of dollars annually on expensive treatment during the last year of a dying patient's life. Without allowing Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations, it's hard to know whether patients even want to go to such expensive lengths.


Well this Salon article pretty much summarizes the outlandish smear and lies campaign coming out. While I do agree with Anti that both sides do need to learn how to sit down and debate maturely, plus that this costs too much, the problem is people seem to be content with shouting matches and putting forward new opinion polls as facts. >.>

It seems that the middle ground either costs too much or will not cover everyone. @~@

TRIFORCE89
August 12th, 2009, 08:05 AM
I lean right. I'm conservative. I'm for universal health care. There's a bunch of scary people in the GOP.

Netto Azure
August 12th, 2009, 08:32 AM
I lean right. I'm conservative. I'm for universal health care. There's a bunch of scary people in the GOP.

To be frank I would have probably listened more to the US Republicans if they were more like the moderate European or Canadian conservatives. Seriously I was even willing to support the Canadian CP during the last snap election! (But now...I'm trending more leftward due to the whole Financial Crisis and everything, so I'm currently leaning with the LP. XD)

Well I do think that since we do have a 2-Party system here in the US...that most of the Moderate Republicans were swept out during the 2008 election (so we see the whole Blue Dog Drama) and are now left with the Anti-government libertarian Right-wing base. @_@ (Sorry Aura. D: )

The "death panels" are already here (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/11/denial_of_care/index.html)


Sorry, Sarah Palin -- rationing of care? Private companies are already doing it, with sometimes fatal results
The future of healthcare in America, according to Sarah Palin, might look something like this: A sick 17-year-old girl needs a liver transplant. Doctors find an available organ, and they're ready to operate, but the bureaucracy -- or as Palin would put it, the "death panel" (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/07/palin/) -- steps in and says it won't pay for the surgery. Despite protests from the girl's family and her doctors, the heartless hacks hold their ground for a critical 10 days. Eventually, under massive public pressure, they relent -- but the patient dies before the operation can proceed. It certainly sounds scary enough to make you want to go show up at a town hall meeting and yell about how misguided President Obama's healthcare reform plans are.
Except that's not the future of healthcare -- it's the present. Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-delpriore3jan03,0,5149977.story?coll=la-opinion-center), after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.
That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."



Coverage of Palin's remarks, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's defense of them, over the weekend did point out that the idea that the reform plans would encourage government-sponsored euthanasia is one of a handful of deliberate falsehoods (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/) being peddled by opponents of the legislation. But the idea that only if reform passes would the government start setting up rationing and interfering with care goes beyond just the bogus euthanasia claim.
Opponents of reform often seem to skip right past any problems with the current system -- but it's rife with them. A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper).Well don't worry everyone, healthcare rationing and the "death panels" are here with us already, and not even everyone has health insurance...

Esper
August 12th, 2009, 09:09 AM
For the benefit of non-yankies I'm going to try to demystify some of the fog around how "health care" becomes "death panels."

Socialism: Americans have cultural blinders when it comes to socialism. To Americans, socialism = communism = the Soviet Union = Orwell's 1984 (not that many Americans have read this book - more on that below). We Americans, on the whole, are not as good at working together as other industrialized countries. Our government is in the winner-takes-all vein so there is no incentive to reach out and compromise (that would be "waffling").

Critical thinking and generally being informed: Americans aren't. There is a streak of anti-intellectualism that runs through America. Partly it stems from the belief that book learning runs counter to faith and religion and partly from the idea that good, baseball-playing-and-apple-pie-eating folk are simple folk. Top this off with the large portion of Americans who get their "facts" from television "news" and you have a country full of Sarah Palins.

Government: some people would rather there weren't one. They would rather do everything themselves than have police and fire fighters and people who clean the streets. This is the "cowboy" or "pioneer" ideal which glorifies individualism to a fault. It's similar to the idea of American exceptionalism. Americans don't like being told what to do. Honestly, I can only understand as some misplaced childhood anger at being told they couldn't have a cookie.

Went
August 12th, 2009, 10:14 AM
...seriously, before this, I thought most of the American population was easily gullible by the media and didn't endorse critical thinking, but holy crap death panels.

Not to mention all of this discussed here has already been done with success in other American/European developed countries @_@

Netto Azure
August 12th, 2009, 03:37 PM
...seriously, before this, I thought most of the American population was easily gullible by the media and didn't endorse critical thinking, but holy crap death panels.

Not to mention all of this discussed here has already been done with success in other American/European developed countries @_@

Well the mainstream media is having a field day blaring out all of these contortions of the truth....@_@

Sorry for the articles...there's a lot of news popping up.

Your Bank Account Is Safe: Running Down The Latest Winger Health-Care Lie (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/your_bank_account_is_safe_running_down_the_latest.php)

Another day, another metastasizing lie about health-care reform that needs debunking.

We've already seen the euthanasia lie -- in which conservatives, including Sarah Palin, have claimed that a provision in the bill that would extend Medicare coverage to end-of-life consultations is really aimed at letting Obama kill your grandmother. But that's old news by now.

The hot new conservative health-care lie is that the bill will give the government direct access to Americans' bank accounts at any time, which, in some variations of the lie, will then be raided to finance the legislation.

The bank accounts lie has been proliferating in recent days. A questioner at Sen. Arlen Specter's townhall this morning asked about it. Rush Limbaugh, of course, has talked it up several times over the last week on his show. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), speaking last week to a local right-wing radio station, called the provision "pretty Orwellian."

Where does it come from? It appears to have its roots in an email "analysis" of health-care reform that includes various lies and distortions about the bill. (Politifact, the fact-checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times, has called the email a "clearinghouse of bad information.") One charge made in the email is that "the federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer."

What's the truth? The section of the legislation on which this claim is based states that the bill will "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."

As Politifact points out, the bill's legislative summary makes clear that the intent of this section is to "adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health-care providers, and continues: "The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges." In what seems like an excess of even-handedness, Politifact calls the claim made in the email "barely true."

Sen. Grassley: Govt. Would 'Decide When To Pull The Plug On Grandma' (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/sen-grassley-govt-would-decide-when-to-pull-the-plug-on-grandma.php?ref=fpa)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) continued the thoroughly debunked right wing euthanasia/death panel meme today, telling a town hall crowd, "You have every right to fear....a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on Grandma."

He also said, "There are some people who think it is a terrible problem that Grandma is laying in a bed with tubes in her... and that the government should intervene. I think that's a family or religious thing that needs to be dealt with."

Grassley is the latest republican to jump on the euthanasia bandwagon. Today, Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele said Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment was "perfectly appropriate" given the "life-and-death decisions" the government would make under a health care reform bill

And we need to get a "bi-partisan" bill from this guy. >.>

Reconciliation is getting more and more attractive each passing day...

Less Than Two Percent Of GOP Members Of Congress Speak Out Against Protester Tactics (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/less-than-two-percent-of-gop-members-of-congress-speak-out-against-protester-tactics.php?ref=fpb)

With the specter of universal health care Nazism being raised--with the approval of members of the Republican party--by conservative activists across the country, it's worth remembering that Republicans tend to go positively bananas whenever they perceive liberals or Democrats to be even tiptoeing toward similar rhetoric.

So in that spirit it's only fair to point out that, of the 218 Republican members of the House and Senate, about four appear unwilling to silently assent to the shenanigans of the right fringe of their party.

Esper
August 12th, 2009, 08:01 PM
All of this is why Democrats should have never even considered going bi-partisan on health care and should plow through as quickly as possible. Shadegg, Steele, Grassley and their fellow elected crazies just want a chance to sink their claws and teeth in.

No foxes guarding this hen house, please.

Vallander
August 12th, 2009, 08:33 PM
Wait, I haven't been keeping up with this entirely. What is a "death panel", exactly? Is it what I'm hoping it's not, and a group of government officials who would essentially decide who would and would not have access to health care (and thusly who dies, who lives, etc.)?

And people really believe this stuff?? Seriously!? :( I think you guys have more issues than just health care to rectify atm...

yeah actually i think didnt sara palin start saying something about this? that they had death panels or something, which obviously was dismissed as a malicious rumor.

and yeah, america has waaaaaaaaaaay too many issues, aside from government.
other than government, it is the common people who are ruining this country.

EDIT: quote: lightning: Don't think of it like you're paying for poor people to piggy-back off the system... think of it like you're paying for your OWN RIGHT to access any aspects of the health care system that you need just like everyone else is.

dude that is dead on high five! lol. apparently those people who complain about the poor dont understand what equality is. theres really just no care for others in this country anymore (well at least in most places, of course my beloved south is always hospitable ^_^)

Åzurε
August 12th, 2009, 09:35 PM
I agree with Vallander for the most part, but as for the "dismissed as a rumor" part, I'd like to remind you all that the media is biased, and Obama didn't really give a conclusive answer, to my understanding. I'm not sure one way or the other, but this kind of thing has happened enough in the last half-a-year that I have my doubts on what he says.

So, they have a definite source of income, then? Just the taxpayers? And it's optional? Doesn't sound good...

Note: I probably have no idea what I'm saying, so feel free to tear my post to shreds. ^^ And the good ol' Southern States are indeed sweet.

Bianca Paragon
August 12th, 2009, 09:48 PM
*All* taxpayers will fund the system. Those who wish to benefit from it; will do so. Those will don't, will not ~ but a component of their taxes will still go toward the healthcare system. Just like the roads, schools, police and fire department. Makes sense, no?

Netto Azure
August 13th, 2009, 11:15 AM
I'm still wondering as to why I'm getting the sense that the critics think this is what's going to happen when US healthcare reform passes. =/

Breaking News: Obama Signs Historic Healthcare Legislation (http://open.salon.com/blog/km_breay/2009/08/12/breaking_news_obama_signs_historic_healthcare_legislation)

President Obama made history Wednesday afternoon when he signed into law legislation that guarantees healthcare for all Americans. “A struggle that began nearly one hundred years ago ends today,” said the president in a Rose Garden ceremony. “There is no doubt this is one of America’s finest hours.”
The bill’s co-sponsors were Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and, to the surprise of some, the actor Sean Penn. The Kennedy-Penn bill passed the Senate on a strict party line vote of 60-40.
The legislation calls for the immediate creation of a Healthcare Politburo, which will oversee the national healthcare system and meet in secret once a month inside a windowless concrete building shaped like Vladimir Lenin’s head. The legislation stipulates that members of the Healthcare Politburo must be either homosexual communists or Barbra Streisand. Members will be chosen by Mwai Obama, the president’s 23-year-old Muslim half-brother who deals drugs from the back of an abortion clinic in Nairobi.
Every year on Karl Marx’s birthday, Americans will be required to attend a fitness conference at the Healthcare Politburo’s headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela, where teams of rappers will curse white people and smoke crack while administering physical examinations. Afterwards, everyone will sit on the floor across from their government assigned doctor while atheists dressed as Nazis stand in between them issuing health decisions in Ebonics.
To reduce the financial burden on the American people, travel to and from Venezuela will be partially funded by a Cash For Fairytales program, whereby the federal government will give money in exchange for Holy Bibles, which will then be burned inside evangelical megachurches throughout the South. Afterwards, the ashes will be shipped to a factory outside of Moscow, where they will be mixed with the blood of Christians and then sent back and sold as refreshments at National Public Radio affiliates throughout the country. Several names have been floated as possible heads for the Cash For Fairytales program, including former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi and the rapper Bow Wow.
Proponents say the bill’s execution provision will dramatically reduce the rising cost of healthcare. It mandates that the federal government create hundreds of Death Squads which will travel throughout the country in Soviet made tanks and execute anyone 65 year of age or older, unless they can produce a union card or a dildo. The Death Squads will be made up entirely of illegal Mexican immigrants and, because of a last minute provision added to the bill by Senator Barbara Boxer of California, will be required to wear black power t-shirts and backless leather chaps.
Republicans strategists are privately admitting that in the weeks leading up to the vote they were not aggressive enough in publicizing the more controversial aspects of the legislation. “Sure, we had people at the town halls” said one GOP strategist. “But they played it way too nice and didn’t even mention the immigrant death squads or those rapper physicals. And now we’re all paying the price.”
Exaggerated, but not by much. XP

Went
August 13th, 2009, 12:52 PM
Every year on Karl Marx’s birthday, Americans will be required to attend a fitness conference at the Healthcare Politburo’s headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela, where teams of rappers will curse white people and smoke crack while administering physical examinations. Afterwards, everyone will sit on the floor across from their government assigned doctor while atheists dressed as Nazis stand in between them issuing health decisions in Ebonics.

That's where I cracked down and I mother started asking "What are you laughting at?" XD

Honestly, is anybody ever believing the US would approve anything absolutely slightly related to that? @_@

Yamikarasu
August 13th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I honestly don't think that the people you see screaming at town hall meetings are a very large group at all. Most people are either for health care reform (now apparently renamed "health insurance reform," which seems more accurate imo) or they have no idea what they think on the issue. Basically conservative groups just gather the far-right up, through e-mails, phone calls, mail, or Fox News, and tell them to come and scream and then they basically give them scripts to read from.

The media just needs to stop covering these people, and they will go away. But the media is just in it for the profit, so they'll make the story seem more important than it is whenever they can get away with it. The media is dangerously powerful, and it's too bad we can't trust them to do the right thing 100% of the time.

But really, doesn't every country have that group of, frankly, idiots that seem to do all they can to embarrass the rest of the population?

By the way, what is currently in the bill that's floating around is not "universal health care" in any sense, just stricter regulations on insurance companies plus a government plan that apparently will be cheap but will still come at a price (aka more taxes, but ultimately you pay less since you no longer have to pay insurances companies ridiculous amounts). It's a start, but it's not what I wanted.

All of this is why Democrats should have never even considered going bi-partisan on health care and should plow through as quickly as possible. Shadegg, Steele, Grassley and their fellow elected crazies just want a chance to sink their claws and teeth in.

The "blue-dog" Democrats aren't for the current bill though. They are pretty much Republicans in everything but name. So that would not be possible. :(

Netto Azure
August 14th, 2009, 08:27 AM
Well, well, it seems that the United Kingdom/Great Britain has also devolved into a Healthcare Debate upon it's own.

"The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS"
British Conservative Party leader David Cameron

NHS attack by MEP 'unpatriotic' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8200817.stm)

Health Secretary Andy Burnham has accused a Tory MEP who attacked the NHS on American TV of being "unpatriotic".
Labour has stepped up its criticism of Daniel Hannan, with John Prescott recording a YouTube message to the American people defending the NHS.
Tory leader David Cameron has insisted the NHS is his "number one priority" and dismissed Mr Hannan as "eccentric".
The MEP described Britain's health service a "60 year mistake" in a debate on Barack Obama's health reforms.
Labour and the Lib Dems have seized on the comments - and others made last week on Fox News - to claim that they represent the views of many in the Conservative Party.
Mr Burnham said: "What has happened within the last 48 hours is what Cameron has feared most because it lays bare the Tories' deep ambivalence towards the NHS."

'Insult'
And he hit back at criticism that the government had not done enough to defend the NHS from attacks in the US, saying: "We will stand up for the NHS and we will make sure that it is properly represented in the international media. And that is why what Mr Hannan has done disappoints me so much.
"I would almost feel... it is unpatriotic because he is talking in foreign media and not representing, in my view, the views of the vast majority of British people and actually, I think giving an unfair impression of the National Health Service himself, a British representative on foreign media."
He said Mr Hannan's words were an "insult" to the 1.4m NHS workers and "he should not be voicing those views in the foreign media in my view".
Former deputy prime minister John Prescott has recorded a video message to the American people defending the NHS, which has come under fire from critics of Barack Obama's health reforms.
In the clip, recorded on the House of Commons terrace, Mr Prescott accuses Mr Hannan of "misrepresentation of the NHS here in Britain" and says the British people are "proud of our health service".
But the Conservatives have accused Labour of "making a meal" of the row and shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley challenged the government to match "real terms increases" in health spending pledged by the Tories.
But Mr Cameron, who has sought to portray the Conservatives as the party of the NHS, and has said health spending will be protected from cuts under a Tory government, said the health service was a "great national institution".
"The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS," he told BBC News in his Oxfordshire constituency.
"We are the party of the NHS, we back it, we are going to expand it, we have ring-fenced it and said that it will get more money under a Conservative government, and it is our number one mission to improve it."

'Worst nightmare'

And he rebuked Mr Hannan, whose trenchant views on Europe and strongly-worded YouTube attack on Gordon Brown have gained him a following among grassroots Tories, saying: "He does have some quite eccentric views about some things, and political parties always include some people who don't toe the party line on one issue or another issue."

The Leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament has said he believes Mr Hannan should be disciplined for his comments about the NHS.
Timothy Kirkhope said Mr Hannan should be given a "stern talking-to" by the chief whip in Brussels, although he described the disciplinary process regarding Euro MPs as a grey area in this case, as Mr Hannan was speaking about a policy area not decided by the European Parliament.
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb claimed Mr Hannan's views, far from being "maverick", were shared by "many people within the Conservative Party".
He also hit back at criticisms of the NHS from Republican-supporting critics of Obama's health bill as a "gross distortion" of the truth about Britain's health service.
It comes after Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined a Twitter campaign to defend the NHS.

David Cameron says Hannan's views are ''eccentric''

The welovetheNHS tag has received tens of thousands of messages of support during the past few days from NHS staff and former patients after it was branded "Orwellian" and "evil" by Republican critics of Mr Obama's health reforms.
The prime minister took the unusual step of adding his voice to the campaign in a message posted from Downing Street's Twitter feed, in which he said "thanks for always being there". His wife Sarah, also sent a message of support to the campaign.
Many of the Twitter messages reacted angrily to Mr Hannan's criticism of the NHS, which he attacked on US TV, saying he "wouldn't wish it on anyone".
US critics of the NHS see it as an overly-bureaucratic "socialized" system which rations care.
But one British woman said she felt duped after becoming the unwitting star of an anti-Obama health campaign.
Kate Spall, who appeared in a US free market group's TV commercial opposing Mr Obama's health bill, said her views were misrepresented.
She told the Times: "It has been a bit of a nightmare. It was a real test of my naivety. I am a very trusting person and for me it has been a big lesson. I feel I was duped."
Ms Spall and fellow Briton Katie Brickell's descriptions of poor treatment at the hands of the NHS featured in the Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) advert.


Browns join Twitter war over NHS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8199615.stm)


Gordon and Sarah Brown have joined a Twitter campaign to defend the NHS, which is under fire in the US.
The prime minister posted a message on the welovetheNHS page after critics of Barack Obama's health reforms dubbed it "Orwellian" and "evil".
Mr Brown said the service "often makes the difference", and added "thanks for always being there".
Meanwhile, a Tory MEP who told US TV he "wouldn't wish" the NHS on anyone, has been rebuked by the party.
Conservative officials said Daniel Hannan had done the NHS a "disservice" by giving Americans "such a negative and partial view".
The Twitter campaign has attracted more than a million followers and thousands of messages of support - including tweets from Sarah Brown, who wrote welovetheNHS "more than words can say", Health Secretary Andy Burnham and former deputy prime minister John Prescott.


Bloggers debate British healthcare (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8198084.stm)

As the US healthcare debate hots up during Congress's summer recess, anti-reform campaigners have been directing criticisms across the Atlantic at the UK healthcare system.

Went
August 14th, 2009, 08:34 AM
I'm starting to get tired of the little "Obama- Socialist?" ad that keeps appearing in this page >_>

Anyways, these news are pretty amazing, Netto, thanks. It's amazing to see that the HC debate has started to affect Europe. I just hope these people get nowhere- I don't care if the American people reject a system that is immensely better for the majority of the people than the current one, but if it affects ours, I'll get angry.

Netto Azure
August 14th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I'm starting to get tired of the little "Obama- Socialist?" ad that keeps appearing in this page >_>

Anyways, these news are pretty amazing, Netto, thanks. It's amazing to see that the HC debate has started to affect Europe. I just hope these people get nowhere- I don't care if the American people reject a system that is immensely better for the majority of the people than the current one, but if it affects ours, I'll get angry.

While I do apologize that it seems we mostly have Europeans posting here, I do hope that we can have more people join us here. Well, I just do wish that people will not think of me as crazy for "reviving" this here thread and posting such partisan views and a bunch of links. XD

Anyways SURPRISE SURPRISE!

Anti-healthcare lobbyists duped us, say Katie Brickell and Kate Spall (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6795466.ece)

Two British women who have become the unwitting stars of a campaign to derail Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms yesterday said that their views on the NHS had been misrepresented.
Katie Brickell and Kate Spall said that they strongly supported state-funded healthcare, but their descriptions of poor treatment at the hands of the NHS form the centrepiece of an advertising campaign against the proposed reforms in America. Both appear in adverts for Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR), a lobby group that opposes Mr Obama’s plans for universal medical insurance, which have caused a transatlantic rift over the merits of the NHS.
Government ministers and the Prime Minister have weighed in to the row to defend the healthcare service as Republicans claimed that adopting an NHS-style system would lead to “death panels” that would preside over who received lifesaving treatment.
Ms Spall, whose mother died of kidney cancer while waiting for treatment, and Ms Brickell, who had cervical cancer diagnosed after being refused a smear test because she was too young, appear in the adverts telling how they were failed by the NHS.


The Health Minister, refering to the launch of the new health service, said there would be complaint after complaint about what they were not able to do




But they informed The Times that they were told they were being interviewed for a documentary examining healthcare reform. Neither was aware that the footage was to be used for right-wing advertisements. Ms Spall said: “It has been a bit of a nightmare. It was a real test of my naivety. I am a very trusting person and for me it has been a big lesson. I feel I was duped.”
CPR was set up by Richard Scott, a multimillionaire who founded the Columbia Hospital Corporation. Ms Spall was approached by a woman, who identified herself as Betsy Kulman, who said that she was making a documentary for the company. In an e-mail Ms Kulman wrote: “Columbia Healthcare in the US is underwriting a web documentary spanning the US, the UK, and Canada on the debate on healthcare reform. This segment will explore the difficult issues around the intersection between private and nationalised medicine.
“Who has been failed by socialised medicine and why? What can be done to change things for the better?”
Ms Spall, who runs the Pamela Northcott Fund, to fight for patients denied treatment, said that she stood by what she said but was horrified by how her words had been used. “What I said is what I believe, and I stand by it, but the context it has been used in is something I was not aware would happen,” she said. “The irony is that I campaign for exactly the people that socialised healthcare supports. I would not align myself with this group at all.”
Ms Brickell, whose cancer is in remission, said that she had had a similar experience. “I was told that they were a company in the United States who were doing a documentary on whether healthcare in the US should be nationalised,” she said.
“The NHS let me down and I just wanted to make the point that people should not rely solely on it. But what I said has been skewed out of proportion. I am slightly worried that people might think I am taking a negative position on the NHS.
“My point was not that the NHS shouldn’t exist or that it was a bad thing. I think that our health service is not perfect but to get better it needs more public money, not less. I didn’t realise it was having such a political impact. I did sign a piece of paper saying they could do what they wanted, so it’s my own fault.”
Karol Sikora, a British cancer specialist who also appears in the adverts, has said that he fell victim to the same technique. Dr Sikora, an outspoken critic of the NHS, told The Guardian: “They came and saw me in my office about a month ago and I gather I am appearing in some advert. They didn’t tell me that would happen.”
Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge scientist, has also been drawn into the row after the American newspaper Investor’s Business Daily used an editorial to claim that he “wouldn’t have a chance in the UK” because the NHS would have deemed him “worthless”, given his physical disabilities.
Mr Hawking, who has motor neuron disease, rejected criticism of the NHS yesterday as he collected America’s highest civilian honour, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. “I would not be here today if not for the NHS,” he said.


WHAT STEPHEN HAWKING DEFENDS THE NHS? XD

Aurafire
August 14th, 2009, 09:22 AM
While I do apologize that it seems we mostly have Europeans posting here, I do hope that we can have more people join us here. Well, I just do wish that people will not think of me as crazy for "reviving" this here thread and posting such partisan views and a bunch of links. XD

Well I would be posting except people seem to enjoy giving me rep comments about how my opinions are made of fail. By the way, to whoever gave me those comments, I'd have much more respect for you if you had actually posted in this thread and let me defend myself. Hiding behind anonymous rep is incredibly cowardly. >:

Anyway, people can believe what they want abut UHC, and Europeans can continue to mock us for not having government-funded care, but it's clear that most Americans simply do not like Obama's plan. Does that mean they don't want reform? Hell no. But they do want smart reform that's cost efficient and works for everyone. I happen to believe that UHC is not the best way to do that, just as many other Americans do. And just because European countries like their system doesn't mean we have to fall in line. America is America for a reason after all...

Netto Azure
August 14th, 2009, 09:30 AM
Well I would be posting except people seem to enjoy giving me rep comments about how my opinions are made of fail. By the way, to whoever gave me those comments, I'd have much more respect for you if you had actually posted in this thread and let me defend myself. Hiding behind anonymous rep is incredibly cowardly. >:

Anyway, people can believe what they want abut UHC, and Europeans can continue to mock us for not having government-funded care, but it's clear that most Americans simply do not like Obama's plan. Does that mean they don't want reform? Hell no. But they do want smart reform that's cost efficient and works for everyone. I happen to believe that UHC is not the best way to do that, just as many other Americans do. And just because European countries like their system doesn't mean we have to fall in line. America is America for a reason after all...

Well, sorry about the whole rep thing Aura, since it has turned into a comment system...=/

What about the Healthy American's Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act)? Would you support that? :O

According to a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office) in May 2008, the bill includes the following elements:


Administration of the program is by new state-sponsored "Health Help Agencies" (HHA). States must establish these organizations, which will approve health plans from private insurers, provide for enrollment in plans, and act as a conduit for premium payments from the federal government to individual insurance carriers.
All citizens and permanent residents would be required to pay for coverage as part of their federal tax liability. Payment would be made via tax withholding by employers. Individuals would effectively pay the federal government, which would channel the funds to the appropriate HHA and from there to the insurers. Employers would no longer provide basic coverage in most cases.
Taxpayers would have a large healthcare standard deduction, which would would increase with inflation. This would help taxpayers pay the tax liability that has now replaced insurance premiums. This essentially replaces the tax exclusion for healthcare benefits presently paid by employers. Certain low-income taxpayers would be eligible for premium assistance.
The size of the standard deduction for 2009 would range from $6,000 for individuals to $15,210 for couples with children, with incremental amounts for additional children. As a standard deduction, this reduces the income reported as subject to tax. However, this deduction would phase out for higher-income taxpayers, reducing to zero for couples earning over $250,000.
Mandates that employers provide salary and wages increases over a two year period essentially equal to the amount paid previously for basic healthcare insurance premiums, as employers no longer have to provide basic healthcare coverage.
Employers pay a new tax equal to between 3 percent and 26 percent of the national average premium for the minimum benefits package for each employee, depending on their firm size and amount of gross revenues per employee.
The basic plan would be equal to the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, with some exceptions. For example, Medicare and military healthcare recipients would be outside the scope of this bill.
Premiums can vary only to reflect geography and smoking status.
Individuals can have more expensive (i.e., non-basic) coverage plans paid directly to insurers.
Certain individuals would be phased out of the Medicaid program, via participation in their state's HHA.

Red1530
August 15th, 2009, 06:56 PM
I think that the proposed reforms will in the long run do more harm then good. I think that three reforms are needed that will help.


Tort reform
The ability to sell health insurance across state lines
Reduce mandates



If tort reform is passed doctors would no longer need to carry extreme amounts of liability insurance because the amounts awarded from lawsuits would be capped and would reduce the need for redundant testing as a way to prevent lawsuits.

By eliminating the barriers to selling health insurance across state lines, consumers will have more choice. For example if a person wanted to buy their own insurance in New York the most basic plan will cost about $12,000, due to mandates imposed by the Legislature. However in Wisconsin due to the lack of mandates, the most basic plan costs about $3,500. Under the current system a citizen from New York cannot buy a plan from Wisconsin and vice a versa. If the barriers where removed a person only wanting a very basic plan could get more cheaply by having the ability to buy it from somewhere where there are less restrictions.

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph mandates increase costs. Connecticut for example requires that health insurance providers cover hair plugs. By reducing mandates insurance companies can create low cost high deductible insurance plans for the healthy.

Netto Azure
August 17th, 2009, 10:03 AM
I was bored so here's some propaganda:

v/jHVwrCzRUX0

All this talk about Star-Trek Eugenics makes me want to believe that the Parody article I posted earlier is what critics truly believe is the future of this middle-of-the road plan that will keep your private health insurance (And actually guarantee that you'll keep it and that it won't be canceled arbitrarily) plus actually open up the state health insurance monopolies to the national market while at the same time adding additional competition through the Public option.

Plus if you want to talk about eugenics, let's talk about those who are dumped on the curb from hospitals just because they can't pay for their emergency room visit, which is disproportionally the poor and minorities.

Costs? It costs more to have an unhealthy populace than one that is treated early and has preventive care.

And what is it that you propose in order to drive down costs and expand coverage?

Tax-credits? That would mean abolishing the Employee based healthcare system by raising taxes on the insurance your employer provides, do you have the guts to raise taxes? (Because how else are we going to fund that as people don't like "Increasing the federal debt")

Tort reform? Yes, that is quite popular. Pressure congress to do it then.

Open up the state monopolies to the national market? Isn't that what's on the bill? A national marketplace for those who want it?

Reducing mandates? Now that would be disastrous as we already do not have standards in the insurance market, now you can nit-pick on certain ones, then why not criticize those and point it out rather than throwing away the whole bill.

Now that would make more sense than nit-picking on abortion and contraceptives. (Which is already provided under certain states)

BS: If there's not a robust public option, then this bill is not true reform

Obama may soften healthcare plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8204508.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46215000/jpg/_46215450_sebelius_ap226i.jpg
Ms Sebelius said the "public option" plan was "not the essential element"

HEALTHCARE IN THE US
46 million uninsured, 25 million under-insured
Healthcare costs represent 16% of GDP, almost twice OECD average
Reform plans would require all Americans to get insurance
Some propose public insurance option to compete with private insurers

President Barack Obama's administration has signalled that its healthcare reforms may be diluted, amid pressure from opponents.

Mr Obama has been pressing for a government-run scheme to extend healthcare insurance to some 46 million people in the US.

But Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that this had never been Mr Obama's top priority.

She hinted that he may accept the idea of non-profit insurance co-operatives.

In an interview with CNN, Ms Sebelius said that Mr Obama's government-run insurance plan - a so-called "public option" - was "not the essential element" of the administration reforms.

"I think what's important is choice and competition. And I'm convinced at the end of the day, the plan will have both of those," she said.

Separately, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs also refused to say that the "public option" was a make-or-break choice.

Mr Gibbs said Mr Obama's administration would consider an alternative proposal of consumer-owned, non-profit co-operatives that would sell insurance in competition with private industry.

The proposal is currently being fine-tuned in the Senate Finance Committee.

The comments of Mr Obama's senior officials come in contrast to the president's remarks at a "town-hall" speech in Colorado on Saturday that his faith in a public option was strong.

If the administration makes this concession it would probably enrage many of its liberal supporters, correspondents say.

But they say it could also deliver the president a much-needed win on his top domestic priority for 2009.

There has been some progress in the House of Representatives on agreeing a deal on the issue but negotiations in the Senate have stalled.

Both chambers need to agree on a bill before it can become law. I will certainly dislike this bill even more if we get a crappy co-op.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08142009/watch.html

DREW ALTMAN: It's part of our democracy, but I think it's actually kind of sad because the left, doesn't like this legislation a lot. They're not really enthusiastic about it. They would prefer a single-payer approach with more government. And on the conservative side, they're not crazy about it either. They would like a market approach, people getting vouches or a tax credit and just shop in the marketplace. This is down-the-middle legislation. And yet we see these fears and concerns as if this were a radical approach. It's not a radical approach. It's just a down-the-middle approach.

Netto Azure
August 19th, 2009, 09:45 AM
I cannot believe this, the poll here shows a 2 to 1 vote against US Healthcare reform. Is it one based off the other countries content with there's or actual opposition to this bill? I mean where are these people LOL. XDDD

Bianca Paragon
August 19th, 2009, 10:50 AM
It's mainly due to lack of education and brainwashing by the media :\ All we can do is hope that our American cousins see reason and decide to finally join the rest of the first world nations :)

Red1530
August 19th, 2009, 04:18 PM
It's mainly due to lack of education and brainwashing by the media :\ All we can do is hope that our American cousins see reason and decide to finally join the rest of the first world nations :)While it is true that the United States lags in overall length of life compared to other first world countries, the United States has the best survival rate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html) when it come to cancer. In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal the founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey, on how to improve the current system without increasing the national deficit (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html). The highlights of his proposal are:


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 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.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 11:00 AM
It's mainly due to lack of education and brainwashing by the media :\ All we can do is hope that our American cousins see reason and decide to finally join the rest of the first world nations :) Okay, I'm fine when people support a universal health care system, but seriously, do you need to dis another country just to support that idea? Completely not cool.

Anyway, I for one support keeping health care the way it is. This country is built on capitalism, which I definitely think has worked so far.

Trust me, I hate poverty as much as the next guy; I do my part to help starving kids get fed and all that good stuff. I like helping people. :)

But still, we needn't force other people to pay for other's problems. I know it sounds cruel, but don't think that middle-class and up don't need their money too. >:(
I thought it was all people created equal? So why are we trying to tax rich people to death? It just doesn't seem fair to hate people just for being successful. :/

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Okay, I'm fine when people support a universal health care system, but seriously, do you need to dis another country just to support that idea? Completely not cool.

Anyway, I for one support keeping health care the way it is. This country is built on capitalism, which I definitely think has worked so far.

Trust me, I hate poverty as much as the next guy; I do my part to help starving kids get fed and all that good stuff. I like helping people. :)

But still, we needn't force other people to pay for other's problems. I know it sounds cruel, but don't think that middle-class and up don't need their money too. >:(
I thought it was all people created equal? So why are we trying to tax rich people to death? It just doesn't seem fair to hate people just for being successful. :/
So you've got a single mother; that has two kids and doesn't have the *time* to fit a full time job in with raising them. But she works hard. She can't afford insurance; even making ends meet is a challenge. One day one of her children breaks an arm; or gets sick; or runs a fever in the middle of the night. They need medical care; but she has no insurance. A first world nation treats the children for free. Because health ought to be free. What kind of civilized nation turns her away or insists on thousands and thousands of dollars that will be the straw that breaks her back, financially? What kind of sick society would see someone DIE because they can't AFFORD treatment? What kind of health-care system makes a person have to CHOOSE to have surgery to re-attach a finger, or to mend a broken arm properly; because they have to weigh MONEY against their own HEALTH? Health is life. What kind of nation values the dollar over the life of it's people?

America does.

I don't think I'm dissing the US. And I love my American friends <3
But you can't deny that you've got a LOT of catching up to do.

Starom
August 20th, 2009, 12:12 PM
I just can't believe it's taken such a huge country this long to figure it out :| How can it be right to charge people for keeping themselves healthy?? Hopefully (eventually) the world will realise that areas such as healthcare cannot be costly to the sick person - it's just plain wrong...

Went
August 20th, 2009, 12:13 PM
Trust me, I hate poverty as much as the next guy; I do my part to help starving kids get fed and all that good stuff. I like helping people. :)

But still, we needn't force other people to pay for other's problems. I know it sounds cruel, but don't think that middle-class and up don't need their money too. >:(
I thought it was all people created equal? So why are we trying to tax rich people to death? It just doesn't seem fair to hate people just for being successful. :/

It's fun to see how the US (and most of the first world countries anyway) used billions of dollars to save big companies, aka people's money to help the rich, and some people get so angry to see their money is used to help the people who have no money to afford going to the doctor's :(

If you like helping the poor, save the money you use to feed starving kids and use it to pay taxes to give them... and yourself if you ever need it, free medical treatment. Look at it that way.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Okay, seriously, people. Just because someone's opinions differ doesn't mean you need to be a jerk. ¬.¬

So you've got a single mother; that has two kids and doesn't have the *time* to fit a full time job in with raising them. But she works hard. She can't afford insurance; even making ends meet is a challenge. One day one of her children breaks an arm; or gets sick; or runs a fever in the middle of the night. They need medical care; but she has no insurance. A first world nation treats the children for free. Because health ought to be free. What kind of civilized nation turns her away or insists on thousands and thousands of dollars that will be the straw that breaks her back, financially? What kind of sick society would see someone DIE because they can't AFFORD treatment? What kind of health-care system makes a person have to CHOOSE to have surgery to re-attach a finger, or to mend a broken arm properly; because they have to weigh MONEY against their own HEALTH? Health is life. What kind of nation values the dollar over the life of it's people?

America does.

I don't think I'm dissing the US. And I love my American friends <3
But you can't deny that you've got a LOT of catching up to do. Everything you've said so far about America as a country has been negative. I consider that dissing.

Anyway, I know my facts and my opinion. Just because I see things differently doesn't mean you need to attack my intelligence. That's where the line is. You're just lucky I'm not good at debating and public speaking. So I ask you to leave me alone. I stated my ideas, let's leave it at that.

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 12:34 PM
Okay, seriously, people. Just because someone's opinions differ doesn't mean you need to be a jerk. I'm especially disappointed to see that from a moderator. ¬.¬
Everything you've said so far about America as a country has been negative. I consider that dissing.

Anyway, I know my facts and my opinion. Just because I see things differently doesn't mean you need to attack my intelligence. That's where the line is. You're just lucky I'm not good at debating and public speaking. So I ask you to leave me alone. I stated my ideas, let's leave it at that.
For those who aren't able to translate; I'll do my best. Ahem:

"I'm actually brainwashed by the media to fear anything slightly socialist in nature (despite the fact I would never refuse to utilize roads, the Fire Brigade or the Police Department); and while what you've said makes perfect sense I just can't accept that there might be something wrong with America. America is perfect, because we say it is."

Look; I love America. I've been there a number of times and I think it's a beautiful country and it has some wonderful people. I have so many unbelievable American friends and I'll be traveling there again next year to meet quite a few of them. But your country isn't perfect. And upon all the blemishes you have; the biggest, nastiest zit on the face of America? Health. For. Profit.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 12:37 PM
For those who aren't able to translate; I'll do my best. Ahem:

"I'm actually brainwashed by the media to fear anything slightly socialist in nature (despite the fact I would never refuse to utilize roads, the Fire Brigade or the Police Department); and while what you've said makes perfect sense I just can't accept that there might be something wrong with America. America is perfect, because we say it is." Seriously, what the hell's your problem?! I have not taken a single shot at you, not sad a single bad word to you. Why don't you just leave me alone? You're not cool.

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 12:42 PM
By defending a system that would see someone die for the sake of a dollar, you *have* taken a shot at me. Your health-care system; in which you believe and defend? It's an affront to anybody from a civilized and modern nation :( It means you value wealth over health; and *I* find that personally offensive.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 12:51 PM
Valuing wealth over health is not the same thing as believing people should just keep the money that belongs to them. I'm glad if people want to help others but they should not be forced to, that is not the government's job.

As a clumsy and borderline-overweight middle-class minor with a college-going sister, I am one of the people that may benefit from this universal health care. But I don't want the government to control other people's money so much.

Gerald Ford said "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases".

Oh wait, he's a Republican, so you hate him. Sorry about that.

Let's just say that quote is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson because he was against big government. So there's your other source. Big government is not good.

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 12:54 PM
So what you're saying is that you would rather pay for the police on a case by case basis; when you need them? And for fire-fighters? And that you think ALL roads and streets should be tolled at a nominal rate so that only the people who use them should pay for them? And of course, you want to pay for public education; too. Because ALL these things are socialist. WHY should health be ANY different?

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 12:57 PM
I like how you totally dodged my statement on big government...

.little monster
August 20th, 2009, 01:01 PM
I like how you totally dodged my statement on big government...
She really didn't when you think about it. She was stating things that people used to say was a bad idea because it would create a bigger government, while now we see that it is better to have it than what we had before.

I like how you totally dodged her statement on how health care is really no more 'socialist' (Which I don't think it should be called so in any way) than what we already do.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Actually I was planning on replying to that once she replied to the thing I said. But really, I think you are a prime example for Apple on how to debate without trolling. :D

.little monster
August 20th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Actually I was planning on replying to that once she replied to the thing I said. But really, I think you are a prime example for Apple on how to debate without trolling. :D
I don't see how in any way she is trolling. Actually, you're being more of one yourself by calling her one and screaming "What the hell is your problem?" Just because someone disagrees with you and actually debates instead of calling you a troll, that doesn't make them one. Anyway, I will stop posting because I don't want to get more offtopic.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 02:54 PM
I don't see how in any way she is trolling. Actually, you're being more of one yourself by calling her one and screaming "What the hell is your problem?" Just because someone disagrees with you and actually debates instead of calling you a troll, that doesn't make them one. Anyway, I will stop posting because I don't want to get more offtopic.
Well, I was saying that only because she started arguing with me even after I told her to stop, and she clearly insulted my intelligence... I didn't ask for a debate, I just posted my opinion.

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 03:14 PM
This thread IS a debate. Can you not read the title? I'll reiterate:
Debate: US Health Care Reform.
Bigger font? Centered?
Debate: US Health Care Reform.
Obviously if a thread title says debate; don't post here if you don't want your opinion to be torn to shreds.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 05:03 PM
But seriously, if you're going to be mean about it, can't you just debate without trying to insult me? You obviously aren't responsible or mature enough. >.>

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 09:27 PM
I don't think I'm "being mean" about it at all. When people defend a system that supports the violation and annulment of basic human rights (like say..the German Nazi Party or the current US Health Care System) it basically says that the person in question shares those views. It's not my fault if you think that an attack on the system is an attack on you; but I'll always look down upon supporters of a flawed system because they obviously share the same flaw that got the system into action in the first place anyway.

You keep trying to provoke some kind of reaction from me with comments implying that obviously because I don't share *your* viewpoint that I *must* be trolling; and that I'm "obviously not responsible of mature enough". Well; honeybunch? I don't even need to bite to your silly attempts to bait and troll; because common sense and the right for all citizens of a first world country to have an equal chance at good health? That's all on my side. What's on your side? Fear of the government? Nice try.

Netto Azure
August 20th, 2009, 10:03 PM
*Head-desk* The day I decided to watch Code Geass all day and forgo foruming you guys decide to throw stuff at each other?

But seriously, if you're going to be mean about it, can't you just debate without trying to insult me? You obviously aren't responsible or mature enough. >.>

While I do not support your philosophy on healthcare, I do agree and implore you apple XD that we should be civil in this thread.

I am trying to revive any political discussion in a PC thread, and scaring people does not help that particular cause. D:

While it is true that the United States lags in overall length of life compared to other first world countries, the United States has the best survival rate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html) when it come to cancer. In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal the founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey, on how to improve the current system without increasing the national deficit (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html).

Ok, now this is the one right way to go debate, propose a plan and we talk about the pro's and con's. Anyways while it's nice to know that fact...not all ailments are cancerous. @~@


The highlights of his proposal are:
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).


I do disagree with this point as High-deductables are already causing people to have problems paying for their policies, as this means they have to carry more of the burden on paying for their healthcare while the private insurance pays less. And HSA's are good until they run out due to high cost and long term care...like cancer. @___@
What about then?

Plus it does not address our high Healthcare inflation costs.

Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
I can agree with this to be incorporated under the current bill, but I still support taxing high-end policies.

But, as David Frum says... (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08142009/transcript4.html)

DAVID FRUM: Health exchange. We need to begin to sever the link between employment and insurance. It is just-- it's a holdover irrationality that you get your insurance through the place where you work, that discourages people from leaving. People who get ill, when they're at a job are then indentured because they can't-- so long as they can work at the old company, they are covered under the old plan. If they move, they can't get a new one. And there-- and that is an artifact of the tax code. And we need to correct the elements for the tax code that do that.


Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.


I can agree with opening up each state in the union to a national marketplace, and this is already being incorporated in the bills through the Health Insurance Exchange.


Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.


I disagree with this. I would rather repeal state mandates and have a Federal mandate listing minimum benefits through the Public option.

As we do have a US Democratic Congressional Majority and Administration. I will have to draw the line with compromises by having a Medicare-based Public Insurance Option and having any State in the Union keep the right to opt-out of the Federal program in order to institute their own plans.

Seems the bruhaha over this worked. :3

Pelosi: Health Care Reform Can't Pass Without Public Option (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/pelosi-health-care-reform_n_214303.html)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."
At a press conference earlier in the morning, Pelosi had been asked if including a public plan that would compete with private insurance was "essential" to health care reform.
"Can you have effective health care reform without a public option?" a reporter asked.
The goal, she responded, was affordability and accessibility. "If you have another way to do that, put it on the table. And that's where we are. Everything should be on the table," she said.
The open-ended answer led some reporters after the press conference to wonder if she was backing off her statement to MSNBC Wednesday that a bill without a public option wouldn't get out of the House.
Not at all, she said. Asked by HuffPost if she would allow a reform package without a public option out of the House, she responded: "It's not a question of allow. It wouldn't have the votes."
The bill would lack the votes because the GOP generally opposes Democratic reform proposals, and the 77 member Congressional Progressive Caucus -- rarely heard from on the Hill -- has been particularly vocal in its commitment to oppose any reform that doesn't include a public option. The public plan's popularity extends beyond progressives and is broadly popular with the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and even two-fifths of Blue Dogs, the conservative Democratic coalition.
Pelosi, during the press conference, also rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) to create private, nonprofit, regional health care cooperatives instead of a national public option.
Pelosi wasn't having it: "Not instead of a public option, no," she said.


Nice Comparison: Healthcare around the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46217000/gif/_46217836_healthcare_stats_466_2.gif



United States - Private system
Private sector funded, with more than half from private sources. Private health insurance available through employer, government or private schemes.

15.3% of population (45.7 million people) do not have health insurance.
Federal government is largest healthcare insurer - involved in two main schemes, Medicaid and Medicare, each covering about 13% of population.
Medicaid - joint funded federal-state programme for certain low income and needy groups - eg children, disabled.
Medicare - for people 65 years old and above and some younger disabled people and those with permanent kidney failure undergoing dialysis or transplant.
Most doctors are in private practice and paid through combination of charges, discounted fees paid by private health plans, public programmes, and direct patient fees.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals. Hospitals are paid through a combination of charges, per admission, and capitation.
UK - Universal, tax-funded system
Public sector funded by taxation and some national insurance contributions.


About 11% have private health insurance. Private GP services very small.
Healthcare free at point of delivery but charges for prescription drugs (except in Wales), ophthalmic services and dental services unless exempt.
Exemptions include children, elderly, and unemployed. About 85% of prescriptions are exempt.
Most walk-in care provided by GP practices but also some walk-in clinics and 24-hour NHS telephone helpline. Free ambulance service and access to accident and emergency. In patient care through GP referral and follow contractual arrangements between health authorities, Primary Care Trusts and the hospital.
Hospitals are semi-autonomous self-governing public trusts.
France - Social insurance system
All legal residents covered by public health insurance funded by compulsory social health insurance contributions from employers and employees with no option to opt out.
Most people have extra private insurance to cover areas that are not eligible for reimbursement by the public health insurance system and many make out of pocket payments to see a doctor.
Patients pay doctor's bills and are reimbursed by sickness insurance funds.
Government regulates contribution rates paid to sickness funds, sets global budgets and salaries for public hospitals.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals (not-for-profit and for-profit). Doctors in public hospitals are salaried whilst those in private hospitals are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Some public hospital doctors are allowed to treat private patients in the hospital. A percentage of the private fee is payable to the hospital.
Most out-patient care is delivered by doctors, dentists and medical auxiliaries working in their own practices.
Singapore - Dual system
Dual system funded by private and public sectors. Public sector provides 80% of hospital care 20% primary care.
Financed by combination of taxes, employee medical benefits, compulsory savings in the form of Medisave, insurance and out-of-pocket payments.
Patients expected to pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more for higher level of service. Government subsidises basic healthcare.
Public sector health services cater for lower income groups who cannot afford private sector charges. In private hospitals and outpatient clinics, patients pay the amount charged by the hospitals and doctors on a fee-for-service basis.

Ineffable~
August 20th, 2009, 11:37 PM
It's not my fault if you think that an attack on the system is an attack on you You've got to be kidding me.

By defending a system that would see someone die for the sake of a dollar, you *have* taken a shot at me. ^ What you are describing is yourself.

Can you not read the title? I'll reiterate:
Debate: US Health Care Reform.
Bigger font? Centered?
Debate: US Health Care Reform.
And here is where you very clearly insulted me. How stupid do you think I am that I can't see you are insulting my intelligence here? Also, you insulted me by insulting America on the post I quoted on my first post here. Don't even try to deny that.

lack of education and brainwashing by the media Last time I checked, saying an entire country has a lack of education can be considered an insult...

lx_theo
August 20th, 2009, 11:44 PM
You've got to be kidding me.

^ What you are describing is yourself.

And here is where you very clearly insulted me. How stupid do you think I am that I can't see you are insulting my intelligence here? Also, you insulted me by insulting America on the post I quoted on my first post here. Don't even try to deny that.



Can you both of you two stop? Neither of you are debating to the point of maturity to the slightest. Look at Netto Azure, he's debating maturely.

You're overprotective of America and can't seem to see its flaws at all and apple.SHAMPOO exaggerates a bit.

Bianca Paragon
August 20th, 2009, 11:48 PM
You've got to be kidding me.

^ What you are describing is yourself.

And here is where you very clearly insulted me. How stupid do you think I am that I can't see you are insulting my intelligence here? Also, you insulted me by insulting America on the post I quoted on my first post here. Don't even try to deny that.

Last time I checked, saying an entire country has a lack of education can be considered an insult...
Haha you posted in a thread clearly marked "Debate" and then got angry when your opinion was shot down in flames? Further to that; you actually tried ordering people NOT to tell you how wrong you are. All I did was inform you as to what a "Debate" thread title meant. If you took that as insulting; it's unfortunate. The US people *are* grossly uneducated with regards to state provided health-care. Fact. It's not an insult to say so. But you'll just take something else out of context and provide your flawed view over and over again like you seem to think it's some sort of religion. Your strawman arguments have no place here; however.

Anyway! Fact of the matter is US Healthcare Reform is happening. You're getting socialist health-care, and finally you won't have to be embarrassed when telling people about the state of your "Health Care System".

It's not time to argue; it's time to celebrate! <3

Netto Azure
August 21st, 2009, 12:01 AM
Can you both of you two stop? Neither of you are debating to the point of maturity to the slightest. Look at Netto Azure, he's debating maturely.

You're overprotective of America and can't seem to see its flaws at all and apple.SHAMPOO exaggerates a bit.

I do agree with you on both of those. XD


Haha you posted in a thread clearly marked "Debate" and then got angry when your opinion was shot down in flames? Further to that; you actually tried ordering people NOT to tell you how wrong you are. All I did was inform you as to what a "Debate" thread title meant. If you took that as insulting; it's unfortunate. The US people *are* grossly uneducated with regards to state provided health-care. Fact. It's not an insult to say so. But you'll just take something else out of context and provide your flawed view over and over again like you seem to think it's some sort of religion. Your strawman arguments have no place here; however.

Anyway! Fact of the matter is US Healthcare Reform is happening. You're getting socialist health-care, and finally you won't have to be embarrassed when telling people about the state of your "Health Care System".

It's not time to argue; it's time to celebrate! <3

While I do FULLY support your view on the whole healthcare debate, (Goodness I would rather support and debate HR 676/"Medicare for all", but you take what you can as we are already in the middle of the legislative process.)

I do implore you to please tone it down a bit. We won't get anyone to debate with if they are either scared or would label this thread as controlled by a particular side. Plus the Bills in consideration in Congress IS NOT the systems that are implemented under other advanced industrialized countries. It is a compromise between those on both sides of the partisan divide. I have listed them at the first post as summaries of the bills.

Anti
August 21st, 2009, 12:35 AM
Well I would be posting except people seem to enjoy giving me rep comments about how my opinions are made of fail. By the way, to whoever gave me those comments, I'd have much more respect for you if you had actually posted in this thread and let me defend myself. Hiding behind anonymous rep is incredibly cowardly. >:

Anyway, people can believe what they want abut UHC, and Europeans can continue to mock us for not having government-funded care, but it's clear that most Americans simply do not like Obama's plan. Does that mean they don't want reform? Hell no. But they do want smart reform that's cost efficient and works for everyone. I happen to believe that UHC is not the best way to do that, just as many other Americans do. And just because European countries like their system doesn't mean we have to fall in line. America is America for a reason after all...

Late reply, sorry (haven't been paying attention to this thread lol)

Anyway, your counterargument for Obama's plan is that a lot of Americans don't support it. To be honest, that is a pretty faulty argument (and I pointed this out when I responded to you last time). You can make all kinds of arguments simply because "there is a lack of support" or "there is a ton of support!" Extreme example I know, but Hitler and Mussolini had a lot of support at home and even abroad (in the early years at least, AKA before the invasion of Ethiopia, the annexation of Austria, etc.), but they were obviously bad for Europe and ultimately the world. You can't just say "well we shouldn't do this because a lot of people don't want us to." Granted, there is a big difference between health care and taking down brutal dictators, but you get what I'm saying hopefully. You can't justify a position based on popular support or a lack of it.

Similarly, the whole "just because some countries in Europe are using a very successful system doesn't mean we have to because we're different!" is a pretty bad attitude to take. Being different for the sake of being different is counterproductive. What do you think would work better than Universal Health Care? I don't see why we don't use a system that has proven its worth. I can tell you don't seem to like how Europeans think we're nuts for not adopting their system, but can you really blame them? We're still stuck with an insanely costly system that is fundamentally broken, and we're supposed to be leading the world. I just want to hear your solution.

Though I do agree about the rep thing if that makes you feel better lol

Ineffable~
August 21st, 2009, 12:49 AM
Can you both of you two stop? Neither of you are debating to the point of maturity to the slightest. Look at Netto Azure, he's debating maturely.

You're overprotective of America and can't seem to see its flaws at all and apple.SHAMPOO exaggerates a bit. If you would like to look back, Apple just picked a fight with me; it wasn't my fault.

lx_theo
August 21st, 2009, 01:04 AM
If you would like to look back, Apple just picked a fight with me; it wasn't my fault.


I couldn't care less. End it. Don't have to have the last word. Realize what your debate has turned into is bickering, not debating. There's no point in figuring out who's fault it is if both of you are just as perfectly willing to keep it going. It is as simple as that.


Now on topic, I'm no expert on how all of health care systems in the world work or whats purposed, I'll admit that. But couldn't there be a basic plan, with emergency needs, vaccination, other types of things they would require for school, and other common things in a basic plan, be run by the government while health insurance companies sell add one to create much more advance packages. The government having the basic plan only could minimize costs for them while still having it, the health insurance companies would not be destroyed by the public option being the obvious choice, and health insurance prices should be much less since they're add ons, not full plans.

Cherrim
August 21st, 2009, 04:17 AM
Yeah, come on guys. :( There's debating and there's arguing and I'm seeing a lot more of the latter rather than the former.

Lilbittygoat, posting in a debate thread does open your opinions to the floor to be commented on, agreed with, or disagreed with. Sawah is better at vehemently disagreeing than most but you still have to be prepared to accept that your opinion is going to be different. If you simply want to comment on the situation, while not exactly encouraged in a debate thread, it's fully possible by simply not commenting anymore. Anyway, if you continue to find posts insulting in here or something, just report and if a post is out of line, the staff will deal with it. So stop posting "she started it!"-esque posts because that has nothing to do with health care reform and is off-topic.

Sawah, be nice. :( This is something lots of people feel strongly about but remember that this is also a touchy subject. Not saying you have to stop posting altogether, but drop some of the attitude in your posts. I want there to be more debates on PC since these threads are much nicer than a lot of the crap in OC lately but we aren't going to have them if a lot of the posts are provocative and intimidating. Just take a less condescending tone and we won't have to worry about this thread derailing or needing to be closed.

Bianca Paragon
August 21st, 2009, 05:31 AM
Yeah, come on guys. :( There's debating and there's arguing and I'm seeing a lot more of the latter rather than the former.

Lilbittygoat, posting in a debate thread does open your opinions to the floor to be commented on, agreed with, or disagreed with. Sawah is better at vehemently disagreeing than most but you still have to be prepared to accept that your opinion is going to be different. If you simply want to comment on the situation, while not exactly encouraged in a debate thread, it's fully possible by simply not commenting anymore. Anyway, if you continue to find posts insulting in here or something, just report and if a post is out of line, the staff will deal with it. So stop posting "she started it!"-esque posts because that has nothing to do with health care reform and is off-topic.

Sawah, be nice. :( This is something lots of people feel strongly about but remember that this is also a touchy subject. Not saying you have to stop posting altogether, but drop some of the attitude in your posts. I want there to be more debates on PC since these threads are much nicer than a lot of the crap in OC lately but we aren't going to have them if a lot of the posts are provocative and intimidating. Just take a less condescending tone and we won't have to worry about this thread derailing or needing to be closed.
Sorry Erica :( Also sorry for any condescending or rude tone that was intoned without intention.
I'll try to be more mindful~

Allstories
August 23rd, 2009, 12:28 PM
When it comes to most political arguments, I can usually at least empathize with the opposing views. I can understand why abortion or gay marriage might not sit well with you, and even though I may disagree with your opinion on it, I can usually at least see where you're coming from.

That said, I hold that our current health care system in the US is literally indefensible. We pay more money and get less for it than every other country in the world. Anyone in favor of denying health care to citizens in the US for any reason other than being grossly misinformed deserves to lose theirs. There is literally no one who benefits from the current system other than the insurance companies. Anyone who complains about having to pay more taxes is wrong, because not only would you pay less in taxes than you already do in insurance premiums, you're taxes fund health care for other people already.

Red1530
August 23rd, 2009, 07:32 PM
From what I heard from the CBO is that the proposed plans will increase costs. In its preliminary report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-KennedyLetter.shtml) of the Affordable Health Choices Act, it is estimated that the bill will add about one trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next decade. Also it appears that in Canada and Europe there are attempts to introduce free market reforms (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html) to improve their systems.

Netto Azure
August 24th, 2009, 09:20 AM
From what I heard from the CBO is that the proposed plans will increase costs. In its preliminary report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-KennedyLetter.shtml) of the Affordable Health Choices Act, it is estimated that the bill will add about one trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next decade. Also it appears that in Canada and Europe there are attempts to introduce free market reforms (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html) to improve their systems.

Well, that Trillion Dollars is essentially the cost of compromises with the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. We're keeping Most of the private insurance industry intact, they give sacrifices through more regulation and the opening up of state monopolies. While the other side forgoes the chance of instituting single-payer by rallying behind the public option (or opening up some sort of Medicare consumer plan)

The CBO itself talked about fundamental reforms. What those "fundamental reforms" mean should be clarified by them. Is it single-payer insurance or the free-market reforms of the other side?

As for other countries systems...You can buy supplamentary insurance under them and go to a private hospital if you want. @~@

Red1530
August 24th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Well, that Trillion Dollars is essentially the cost of compromises with the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. We're keeping Most of the private insurance industry intact, they give sacrifices through more regulation and the opening up of state monopolies. While the other side forgoes the chance of instituting single-payer by rallying behind the public option (or opening up some sort of Medicare consumer plan)

The CBO itself talked about fundamental reforms. What those "fundamental reforms" mean should be clarified by them. Is it single-payer insurance or the free-market reforms of the other side?

As for other countries systems...You can buy supplamentary insurance under them and go to a private hospital if you want. @~@While it may be true that you can buy supplemental insurance it would be heavily regulated. For example in six out of ten provinces in Canada (the article is dated from 2001 (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/6/825/T135)) if a service is covered by the Government, it can't be covered by the private sector.

Recently I heard of HR 3400, a Republican alternative to the Democratic plan. In the bill it has a smaller public option (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:335) that is run by the states, funded by grants from the Federal Government, and only covers high risk persons. It also will allow insurance companies to sell across states (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:755) lines with some federal regulations.

Netto Azure
August 24th, 2009, 10:44 PM
While it may be true that you can buy supplemental insurance it would be heavily regulated. For example in six out of ten provinces in Canada (the article is dated from 2001 (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/6/825/T135)) if a service is covered by the Government, it can't be covered by the private sector.

Yet it's the insurance that is regulated, you can still go to Private clinics if you want. =/


Recently I heard of HR 3400, a Republican alternative to the Democratic plan. In the bill it has a smaller public option (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:335) that is run by the states, funded by grants from the Federal Government, and only covers high risk persons. It also will allow insurance companies to sell across states (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3400/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:755) lines with some federal regulations.

Still, it does have to be funded by the govenment and is not revenue neutral.

First off LOL, I've been going to Serebii and that place is even crazier. XD

Anyways, just a heads up to people here, the US Republicans will most likely rally behind this bill introduced right before the August Recess, come September:

Empowering Patients First Act (H.R. 3400) (http://http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3400:)

Summary based off the Table of Contents:


TITLE I--TAX INCENTIVES FOR MAINTAINING HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE

Refundable tax credit for health insurance costs of low-income individuals.

Advance payment of credit as premium payment for qualified health insurance.

Election of tax credit instead of alternative government or group plan benefits.

Deduction for qualified health insurance costs of individuals.
Limitation on abortion funding.

Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience.

Equal employer contribution rule to promote choice.

Limitations on State restrictions on employer auto-enrollment.

Credit for small employers adopting auto-enrollment and defined contribution options.

Require employers to disclose amounts paid for employer-provided health plan coverage.

HSA modifications and clarifications.

TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS

Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition for availability of tax credit.

Federal block grants for State insurance expenditures.

Expansion of access and choice through individual membership associations (IMAs).

TITLE III--INTERSTATE MARKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE

Cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage.

TITLE IV--SAFETY NET REFORMS

Easing administrative barriers to State cooperation with employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

Liability protections for health center volunteer practitioners.

Liability protections for health center practitioners providing services in emergency areas

TITLE V--MEDICAL LIABILITY AND UNCOMPENSATED CARE REFORMS

State grants to create administrative health care tribunals.

Bad debt deduction for doctors to partially offset the cost of providing uncompensated care required to be provided under amendments made by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

TITLE VI--WELLNESS AND PREVENTION

Providing financial incentives for treatment compliance.

TITLE VII--TRANSPARENCY AND INSURANCE REFORM MEASURES

Receipt and response to requests for claim information.

TITLE VIII--QUALITY

Prohibition on certain uses of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research; accounting for personalized medicine and differences in patient treatment response.

Establishment of performance-based quality measures.

TITLE IX--STATE TRANSPARENCY PLAN PORTAL

Providing information on health coverage options and health care providers.

TITLE X--PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REFORM

Sustainable growth rate reform.

TITLE XI--INCENTIVES TO REDUCE PHYSICIAN SHORTAGES

[U]Subtitle A--Federally Supported Student Loan Funds for Medical Students

Federally Supported Student Loan Funds for Medical Students.

Loan Forgiveness for Primary Care Providers

Loan forgiveness for primary care providers.

TITLE XII--OFFSETS

Subtitle A--Enforcing Discretionary Spending Limits

Subtitle B--Repeal of Unused Stimulus Funds

Rescission and repeal in ARRA.

Subtitle C--Savings From Health Care Efficiencies

Medicare DSH report and payment adjustments in response to coverage expansion.

Reduction in Medicaid DSH.

Subtitle D--Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Provide adequate funding to HHS OIG and HCFAC.

Improved enforcement of the Medicare secondary payor provisions.

Strengthen Medicare provider enrollment standards and safeguards.

Tracking banned providers across State lines.

Reinstate the Medicare trigger.


Heck I can support some of the provisions on this bill such as the one addressing Tort Reform and increasing Physician training support. XP

Netto Azure
August 27th, 2009, 12:55 AM
v/KxgLXDupHaI

Tell it like it is. At the very least look up the bill and point out where it says euthanasia for the elderly will be carried out before accusing a Jewish Homosexual US Representative of supporting Nazi "Master Race" policies. Heck these town-hells are like Godwin's Law in real life. @~@

Well since it seems that things here have become restive, and some people have dropped off...Here's a hypothetical if the Healthcare Bills go the "Democrat's Only" route.

All 5 bills currently competing in the US Congress will be voted upon in their respective houses.

The US House of Representatives will pass a Healthcare bill that contains some version of the "Public Option" while the US Senate will pass a bill that contains the "Non-Profit Cooperatives" aka "co-op's" option. Both bills will be similar in other parts such as new insurance regulation and subsidies to buying Private Health Insurance.

Then these 2 bills will be reconciled through a joint US House-Senate conference in which the resulting bill will come to the compromise using US Olimpia Snowe's proposal of a "Trigger." The bill will include a "Co-Op" which will be immediately implemented. If it does not achieve the desired results in a certain amount of years, then the "trigger" will occur in which the Public Option will be started.

Now I'm not entirely sure as to how the US Republican alternative proposals will affect the bill. But based off current prospects this is a possibility.

Netto Azure
September 2nd, 2009, 04:25 PM
According to a White House report, US President Obama has called for a speech to a Joint Session of the United States Congress on Wednesday, September 9th 2009 on the topic of Healthcare. He is expected to drop the controversial "Public Option" provision. Some White House officials have told NPR that the President has given up on the possibility of a Bi-partisan bill and will go through with the Democratic Majorities in the US Congress and hopes to get the support of the Senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

US President Obama to give major health speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8234990.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46310000/jpg/_46310442_obama_getty226b.jpg

Mr Obama will be "more prescriptive" in his speech, an aide said

US President Barack Obama is to give a major address on healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress on 9 September, US media have reported.


Correspondents say Mr Obama will use the speech to regain the initiative on healthcare, after a summer dominated by opponents.
Passing a healthcare reform bill is Mr Obama's top policy priority for 2009.
The House of Representatives looks set to pass a bill, but US senators have yet to agree on the details of reform.

Town hall meetings


Although Mr Obama has given a number of speeches on healthcare reform at town hall meetings throughout the US, his address to Congress will be his most high-profile intervention in the healthcare debate since he entered the White House.
Mr Obama made a strategic decision to let lawmakers take the lead on drafting a healthcare bill, and urged each house of congress to pass a bill before the beginning of August.
But negotiations in the Senate stalled, and although Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives struck a deal with moderate Democrats, paving the way for passage of a bill, neither chamber managed to come up with a bill before the beginning of the August recess.
During the recess, the airwaves were dominated by angry scenes at healthcare town hall meetings, as opponents of the bill expressed their discontent with some of the proposals for reform.
Lawmakers are set to return to work on 8 September.
Some 46 million people in America currently do not have health insurance, and rising healthcare costs are a major contributing factor to America's spiralling budget deficit.
But there is disagreement about how to go about reforming the system.
The deal the Democrats in the House of Representatives reportedly reached would mandate all Americans to take out health insurance, with subsidies for the less well-off paid for by a tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year.
The House bill would also offer Americans who do not get coverage through their employer the chance to join a publicly-run scheme.
But in the Senate negotiations have stalled, with moderate senators expressing opposition to both the tax and the public plan proposed by the House.
Both chambers need to agree on a bill before it can become law.
Tsk, even I criticize the President for not being aggressive enough on this. >.>

Another reason I support government regulation of private industry. <.<

Pfizer agrees record fraud fine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8234533.stm)

US drugmaker Pfizer has agreed to pay $2.3bn (£1.4bn) in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.

It follows the firm being found to have illegally promoted four drugs as treatments for conditions different to those which regulators had approved.

A subsidiary of the firm pleaded guilty to misbranding drugs "with the intent to defraud or mislead".

US officials said Pfizer would have to enter a corporate integrity agreement.

It will be subject to additional public scrutiny by requiring it to make "detailed disclosures" on its website.

Pfizer's general counsel said: "We regret certain actions taken in the past, but are proud of the action we've taken to strengthen our internal controls."

Acting US attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Mike Loucks said that "the size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer's crimes".

Associate attorney-general Thomas Perelli outlines ''the largest criminal fine in history''

The company faces a criminal fine of $1.195bn and a subsidiary company of Pfizer - Pharmacia & Upjohn - will forfeit $105m.

The remaining $1bn fine was levied to resolve the allegations under the civil False Claims Act.

Four drugs

The civil settlement also relates to allegations that Pfizer paid bribes and offered lavish hospitality to healthcare providers to encourage them them to prescribe four of the company's drugs. These were Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug, Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug, Zyvox, an antibiotic and Lyrica, an epilepsy treatment.

The investigation was trigged by allegations made by six whistleblowers. They will receive $102m of the civil fines paid by Pfizer.

"Although these types of investigations are often long and complicated and require many resources to achieve positive results, the FBI will not be deterred from continuing to ensure that pharmaceutical companies conduct business in a lawful manner," said Kevin Perkins, FBI assistant director, Criminal Investigative Division.

The pharmaceutical firm said earlier this year that it would pay the fine "to put issues that diminish trust behind us".

Pfizer reported a 90% drop in profit to $268m in the fourth quarter of 2008, because of the $2.3bn legal settlement, indicating that the company was aware they would be paying this sum before the terms of the deal with the Department of Justice were announced.

twocows
September 2nd, 2009, 05:09 PM
Yeah, both my parents are dying due to problems with the current health care system. My dad received a treatment for his cancer that destroyed his heart, and my mom has MS but can't get a certain medication she needs because of some gap in health care coverage that she falls into. Thanks, US health care system. You better believe I hope this passes.

Virtual Chatot
September 4th, 2009, 12:09 PM
Capitalism isn't designed for Socialist principles like this, it's economic suicide.

I'd prefer to have the Universal Health Care be run individually by the states, instead of being run by the bureaucracy found in the Federal government. Of course, the state of the National Economy right now would make any socialist principle doomed to failure. For the current situation that the United States is in right now, I'd suggest Switzerland's reforms they went through in the 90's. First, you are FORCED to buy Health Care if you pay taxes, and Health Care companies are FORCED to provide service for you regardless of any preexisting condition. People who are below the poverty line will be provided with government provided health care ( the number is actually around 15% of the population ). People get healthcare service, and the Corporations will make more money.

There's my two cents

Yeah, both my parents are dying due to problems with the current health care system. My dad received a treatment for his cancer that destroyed his heart, and my mom has MS but can't get a certain medication she needs because of some gap in health care coverage that she falls into. Thanks, US health care system. You better believe I hope this passes.There are better ways of providing care, there's to much pork in the current proposed bill.

lx_theo
September 4th, 2009, 12:32 PM
Capitalism isn't designed for Socialist principles like this, it's economic suicide.

I'd prefer to have the Universal Health Care be run individually by the states, instead of being run by the bureaucracy found in the Federal government. Of course, the state of the National Economy right now would make any socialist principle doomed to failure.

There's my two cents


From what I've seen, state governments tends to not be as smart. They are much more likely to make flaws when making it.

Virtual Chatot
September 4th, 2009, 12:39 PM
From what I've seen, state governments tends to not be as smart. They are much more likely to make flaws when making it....the only difference is, when one state fails it's only that state. When the federal government fails, the entire damn country fails :|

Social Security? Bankrupt
Medicare? Bankrupt
Prohibition? Sparked a criminal black market
Cash for Clunkers? They didn't tell anyone people were being taxed on the money they got back
USPS? Bankrupt
Amtrak? Bankrupt
Universal Health Care?...

All Federal programs, need I go on?

lx_theo
September 4th, 2009, 12:45 PM
...the only difference is, when one state fails it's only that state. When the federal government fails, the entire damn country fails :|

Social Security? Bankrupt
Medicare? Bankrupt
Prohibition? Sparked a criminal black market
Cash for Clunkers? They didn't tell anyone people were being taxed on the money they got back
USPS? Bankrupt
Amtrak? Bankrupt
Universal Health Care?...

All Federal programs, need I go on?


This is just some thing we thought of out of the blue. There is a large percentage of industrialized nations with Universal Healhcare System set up and are doing fine

Virtual Chatot
September 4th, 2009, 12:51 PM
This is just some thing we thought of out of the blue. There is a large percentage of industrialized nations with Universal Healhcare System set up and are doing fineThen why do people come to the United States to get care then? If there system is so great?

Canadian Medical Association pushing for a overhaul of the system (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw)
British Health in Crisis (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html)

...and as far as France goes, the bureaucracy is world famous.

Also, one of the few reasons that countries in Europe can afford their social programs is because they don't spend nearly as much as the United States does on defense and other programs. They also don't have to deal with the amount of people that we have.

Netto Azure
September 4th, 2009, 12:57 PM
Capitalism isn't designed for Socialist principles like this, it's economic suicide.

You are criticizing the current bill no?

I'd prefer to have the Universal Health Care be run individually by the states, instead of being run by the bureaucracy found in the Federal government. Of course, the state of the National Economy right now would make any socialist principle doomed to failure.

The Kucinich Amendment, allows a state to opt-out of the government's plan implement Universal Healthcare on it's own.


SEC. 208. OPTIONAL OPERATION OF STATE-BASED HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES.



(a) In General- If--




(1) a State (or group of States, subject to the approval of the Commissioner) applies to the Commissioner for approval of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange to operate in the State (or group of States); and





(2) the Commissioner approves such State-based Health Insurance Exchange,



then, subject to subsections (c) and (d), the State-based Health Insurance Exchange shall operate, instead of the Health Insurance Exchange, with respect to such State (or group of States). The Commissioner shall approve a State-based Health Insurance Exchange if it meets the requirements for approval under subsection (b).



For the current situation that the United States is in right now, I'd suggest Switzerland's reforms they went through in the 90's. First, you are FORCED to buy Health Care if you pay taxes, and Health Care companies are FORCED to provide service for you regardless of any preexisting condition. People who are below the poverty line will be provided with government provided health care ( the number is actually around 15% of the population ). People get healthcare service, and the Corporations will make more money.


See that's what I am trying to point out, there are many ways that other countries have gone about doing this, heck people keep on pointing to Canada (Which has the Provincial/State UHC system you are advocating, the Federal government just provides baseline standards.) and Britain, while France and Germany have different social insurance systems. I already have that BBC article a whiles back.

There's my two cents

There are better ways of providing care, there's to much pork in the current proposed bill.

I fully agree with you, but I've pretty much given up on any chances of getting a better bill than this. The opposition has had the upper hand all throughout August. The Administration has pretty much declared that the system will stay mostly the same and has invested a lot of political capital on getting this passed. We are already in the middle of the process and this is what we got.

Virtual Chatot
September 4th, 2009, 01:12 PM
The Kucinich Amendment, allows a state to opt-out of the government's plan implement Universal Healthcare on it's own.But when the entire country hits an economic depression thanks to these trillions of dollars spent, it won't matter if you're in it or not.

I fully agree with you, but I've pretty much given up on any chances of getting a better bill than this. Which is a tragedy, isn't it?

Netto Azure
September 4th, 2009, 01:21 PM
But when the entire country hits an economic depression thanks to these trillions of dollars spent, it won't matter if you're in it or not.

Well that's why I would have preferred the more cost effective route. But as we have seen Private industry is very powerful in bending our government.

Which is a tragedy, isn't it?

Well I know, but as we've seen with the Clinton Reform efforts, trying to truly reform our healthcare system will bring about those scare tactics of "Socialized Medicine/Government Takeovers" (Heck even this modest proposals get branded as such.) and will kill you politically. ;~;

So expensive, modest, incremental reforms with giveaways to private industry is what we get. TT^TT

Yamikarasu
September 4th, 2009, 02:31 PM
Then why do people come to the United States to get care then? If there system is so great?

The quality of the health care does not equal the quality of the health care system. This is such an annoying strawman argument. Only those that can afford it come to America for treatment. *rolls eyes*


Canadian Medical Association pushing for a overhaul of the system (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw)
British Health in Crisis (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html)


The Canadian article sounds like they want to do something like the public option plan that is floating around in the US now: Maintain universal health care but have input from the private insurance as well.

Britain seems to be in a similar problem, they're also running out of money. But it isn't like those are the only countries in the world with universal health care. Germany is doing fine, they've maintained their health care system since the late 1800s. They use a mixture of government and private health insurance. Nearly every other country in Europe has some form of government run health care, and I think we can learn from every one of them.

And obviously, the US health care system is not doing very well either, with 18% of the population uninsured in 2007. The health care itself is fine--the best in the world--but that doesn't matter if you can't afford it.

Universal Health Care is the goal, however we can do it. If it's through the government alone, then fine. If it's through a combination of gov and private insurance companies, then let's go for it. It can not be done by the private sector alone, because there will always be those who can not afford it, and companies are not motivated by human needs but rather profits. They are not charities.

And you know what? We already spend a few trillion dollars a year on health care now. Why isn't anyone outraged at that? If it takes a trillion dollars more this year, but ultimately we will be spending significantly less per year on health care, then isn't that a good investment? We can spend less and still have a gov. option. Right now we spend the most on health care without getting the life expectancy to show for it. So we know other countries can do it. And we can do it to. And if your taxes get raised a couple dollars a year so another family who can't afford health insurance can get it, then why would you be so opposed to that? You have to pay for health insurance anyway. Give a little it to the government (for the people, by the people) rather than giving a lot more to the insurance companies.

That's my opinion. Everyone needs health insurance. Corporations do not need more money. I'm disappointed that Obama doesn't seem as adamant about this as I am.

Virtual Chatot
September 5th, 2009, 11:05 AM
Trillions of the dollars in this current bill are going to the corporations you seem to so venomously detest, instead of funding other government programs. Understand Yami, the current bill has way to much money going to all the wrong places. Give me a bare bones public option and I will wholeheartedly accept it, and I'll be damn well happy paying taxes for my neighbors next door who aren't as fortunate as I am.

lx_theo
September 5th, 2009, 12:27 PM
I personally trust the people whose actual job is to serve the people and stabilizing that job would require them to do so over the people whose goal is to get a profit and your health really doesn't matter in the long run.

Virtual Chatot
September 5th, 2009, 02:18 PM
I personally trust the people whose actual job is to serve the people and stabilizing that job would require them to do so over the people whose goal is to get a profit and your health really doesn't matter in the long run.You trust them even though they've failed so many times in the past? That's a serious case of denial...

lx_theo
September 5th, 2009, 04:04 PM
You trust them even though they've failed so many times in the past? That's a serious case of denial...

You do realize different people run the government at different times in history, do you? I personally hate people who go and prioritize money and profit over the well being of the people. Although I agree from what was posted earlier about the timing of this, given economic circumstances, is not the best. And some of the stuff listed earlier I know is not bankrupt yet, and parts of the bill would reform those to try to make them not go bankrupt.

Virtual Chatot
September 5th, 2009, 04:33 PM
and some of the stuff listed earlier I know is not bankrupt yet, and parts of the bill would reform those to try to make them not go bankrupt.Throwing money at a failing system a reform is not.

I personally hate people who go and prioritize money and profit over the well being of the people.First, how dare you accuse me of not caring for the well being of the common man, you have no right, I am a damn proud Socialist who will never compromise the common man's wellbeing for the benefit of the bourgeois.

Second, a barebones public option health care program would cut down on the current proposed bill's price by a few trillion dollars. It would provide all the services needed for a taxer payer run health care, without reforming the entire health care system and adding alot of unncessary deficit. Combined with a few regulations making it so that employers couldn't force people from their employee health care to the public option, and a few small health care price regulations, would make the current bill acceptable by both ends of the political spectrum.

Now tell me, what exactly is wrong with the statement above?

lx_theo
September 5th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Throwing money at a failing system a reform is not.

You sure thats what they're actually doing to do it? Like sure enough to provide proof? I'm under the impression they would make modifications as well to make it better.

Throwing money at a failing system a reform is not.

First, how dare you accuse me of not caring for the well being of the common man, you have no right, I am a damn proud Socialist who will never compromise the common man's wellbeing for the benefit of the bourgeois.

I also hate when people take everything to its highest extremity. I never said you don't care for common man, I said I hate when people prioritize it. You can care all you want, but if you'd prefer a stronger, richer America over one that goes out of its way to help the less fortunate, then you fall into that category. I'll also clear this up, I'm not saying that you are necessarily like that. Your approach to this reminds me of my brother, who is like that.




Second, a barebones public option health care program would cut down on the current proposed bill's price by a few trillion dollars. It would provide all the services needed for a taxer payer run health care, without reforming the entire health care system and adding alot of unncessary deficit. Combined with a few regulations making it so that employers couldn't force people from their employee health care to the public option, and a few small health care price regulations, would make the current bill acceptable by both ends of the political spectrum.

Personally whats purposed isn't the type of system I'd prefer. I stated a while back that this is my idea, undeveloped as it might be, create a basic public option everyone gets (like the most basic plan you could buy today) and then have the insurance companies sell add-ons to create more covered coverages. The government could have a smaller price on it, the insurance companies don't have to compete with a free option, and the add-ons should be cheaper since they're not whole plans.

Virtual Chatot
September 6th, 2009, 05:17 AM
You can care all you want, but if you'd prefer a stronger, richer America over one that goes out of its way to help the less fortunate, then you fall into that category.Can't you get it through your head that a richer America in a capitalistic sense means more for the less fortunate? We are not a socialist state, so implementing pure socialist programs are going to hurt the economy, then by extension, the amount of money people have, and then again by extension, their way of life.

Personally whats purposed isn't the type of system I'd prefer. I stated a while back that this is my idea, undeveloped as it might be, create a basic public option everyone gets (like the most basic plan you could buy today) and then have the insurance companies sell add-ons to create more covered coverages. The government could have a smaller price on it, the insurance companies don't have to compete with a free option, and the add-ons should be cheaper since they're not whole plans.Why should everyone get a public option when there is less than 15% of the population who actually can't afford it? Not even including the people who have the means to get healthcare but simply don't go through the process? and no, the Health Care companies HAVE to compete with a free option, because employers could force their employees to the free option. Your plan is very similar to mine except you want the coverage to cover everyone ( regardless of economic situation ) which would create a demand for alot more taxes, and insurance company add-ons, which I don't actually have a problem with.

Yamikarasu
September 6th, 2009, 07:57 AM
Trillions of the dollars in this current bill are going to the corporations you seem to so venomously detest, instead of funding other government programs. Understand Yami, the current bill has way to much money going to all the wrong places. Give me a bare bones public option and I will wholeheartedly accept it, and I'll be damn well happy paying taxes for my neighbors next door who aren't as fortunate as I am.

Well, then I guess I pretty much agree with you on that part then. Not much else to say. :/

lx_theo
September 6th, 2009, 08:07 AM
Can't you get it through your head that a richer America in a capitalistic sense means more for the less fortunate? We are not a socialist state, so implementing pure socialist programs are going to hurt the economy, then by extension, the amount of money people have, and then again by extension, their way of life.

Well that's not usually the case, usually the richer America gets, the richer the upper-class is. Charity is too dependent on what people are willing to do and the trickle down effect isn't anywhere near enough for.

As for the other thing you said, that's more of an opinion on how it should be handled. As for paying a lot more in taxes, depending on how its done, it could be cheaper than having to pay for health insurance now, with the extra money you have to pay for people who get treatment, but don't have insurance so the insurance company charges you more to pay for it. Thats why I'm saying only basic plan to keep the tax increase to a minimum while making sure everyone is covered.

Metatron
September 6th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Why should everyone get a public option when there is less than 15% of the population who actually can't afford it?

It's actually not less than 15%, it's roughly 16% of the US population who cannot afford to pay for health insurance, or about 47 million.

And a recent report by the commonwealth fund (a private foundation that supports independent research on health care policy reform) showed that nearly three out of four people who tired to buy a policy from the individual health insurance market in the past 3 years couldn't get one. The main reason cited for this had been the premium cost of such a plan, which they simply couldn't afford, while others were denied coverage all together because of a pre-existing condition.

Furthermore, what is with this misconception that if a public option were to be introduced to US citizens, this option would be mandatory? President Obama has repeatedly stated that those who are happy with their private insurance plan would be able to keep that plan without hassle.

øbliteration
September 6th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Furthermore, what is with this misconception that if a public option were to be introduced to US citizens, this option would be mandatory? President Obama has repeatedly stated that those who are happy with their private insurance plan would be able to keep that plan without hassle.

erm... after he stated that he supports a universal single-payer health care format (more than once) I don't believe that.

Also, didn't they scrap the Public Option now?

lx_theo
September 6th, 2009, 01:28 PM
erm... after he stated that he supports a universal single-payer health care format (more than once) I don't believe that.

Why do you think they call it a public option?

Netto Azure
September 6th, 2009, 11:37 PM
erm... after he stated that he supports a universal single-payer health care format (more than once) I don't believe that.

Also, didn't they scrap the Public Option now?

No they have not. As I said earlier, we'll find out most of the info on Wednesday's speech.

But the Democratic Progressive Congressional Caucus (which has 65+ members) has already stated that they will not vote for a plan without a public option. So it won't pass the House w/o their support.

Virtual Chatot
September 7th, 2009, 04:52 AM
Why are people so eager to pass such a terrible bill? The majority of it isn't even about providing care for people, it all goes to medical research programs which should be paid for by the Health Care companies themselves!

Netto Azure
September 7th, 2009, 10:31 PM
Why are people so eager to pass such a terrible bill? The majority of it isn't even about providing care for people, it all goes to medical research programs which should be paid for by the Health Care companies themselves!

Because it will certainly weaken the President and handicap him for the next compromised agenda.

Plus if this goes down we'll have to wait another 16 or so years to hear another mutter of healthcare reform. Plus we'll still have the pre-existing conditions crap and private coverage recission (arbitary cancellation of policy)

But that's how life goes~

Just a heads up. :3



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46349000/gif/_46349193_us_healtcare_466.gif

US President Obama urges action on healthcare (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8247207.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46353000/jpg/_46353087_obamagetty.jpg

Obama wants final say over healthcare reform


US President Barack Obama has made one of the most critical speeches of his presidency, as he faced Congress over his plans for healthcare reform.

Mr Obama said that failure to introduce reform had led the country to breaking point and it was now time to act.
He said he planned to improve health insurance for those who have it and to create an insurance exchange to extend cover to those who do not.
Members of Congress are preparing to fight over details of the reforms.

Mr Obama told Congress that the US was the only rich country that allowed millions of its people to endure the hardship of going without healthcare.
"Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy," he said.
"These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans."
But Mr Obama said the current system did not serve those Americans who do have health insurance well either.
"Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.
"More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too."
He said the US spent one-and-half times more on health insurance than any other country but Americans were no healthier than other people.

Insurance exchange


Mr Obama set out details of his plan to reform the system.
He said that nothing in his proposal would require Americans who already have health insurance to change their coverage or doctor.
But he said he would make the insurance work better for individuals by prohibiting insurers from dropping coverage for sick patients or by capping it.
He would also require insurers to cover the cost of routine check-ups and preventative care.
For the millions of uninsured Americans, he said he would create an insurance exchange - a market place where individuals and small business will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

Public insurance option


Mr Obama said a public insurance option could help keep the private health insurance companies honest and competitive.
But he said it would not be subsidised by the government, so would not form unfair competition for them.
He added that the public option was only a means to an end, and he remained open to other ideas if they had the same effect.
Healthcare reform has been the central issue of his change agenda but has divided both the US public and the country's political establishment.
President Obama said that Congress agreed on about 80% of the reforms that are needed.
But he said months of partisan bickering had only hardened the disdain many Americans have towards their own government.
He is facing almost unanimous opposition from Republicans, who are uneasy about the idea of government-run healthcare and who have accused Mr Obama of attempting to introduce a "socialist" policy.
There are, in theory, enough Democrats in Congress to approve the changes.
But in practice, the party is deeply divided between those that want a publicly-run insurance scheme and those alarmed by the borrowing necessary to fund it.



Big grin from the president and a long period of clapping when he adopts the Republicans' idea for reforming medical malpractice laws
Mark Mardell
BBC North America editor

Dang, I was like shocked and LOL'ed a bit when the Republicans Boo'ed and said "THAT'S A LIE!" on the whole Undocumented Immigrants not being covered issue. XD





Who wants what?
A look at the various players in the debate on healthcare reform
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8206349.stm)
Passing a healthcare reform bill is proving tricky for US President Barack Obama, as different groups mobilise to remove the parts of the plan that they dislike.

The various players in the healthcare debate - from the White House to the insurance companies - all want different things from the reform process.

THE WHITE HOUSE

President Obama is due to lay out more detailed proposals in an address to both chambers of Congress on Wednesday but he has established three overriding principles for healthcare reform.

See how healthcare spending is divided up

Any reform bill, the White House says, will need to reduce the overall costs of the system, extend healthcare to every American and ensure that healthcare is affordable for all.

Alongside these broad principles, Mr Obama has also set out a number of specific reforms to the industry that he wants to see implemented.

He wants to:

* Prevent insurers rejecting customers with pre-existing conditions

* Cap the amount of out-of-pocket fees that insurers can charge their members
* Stop insurers dropping coverage for members who become seriously ill, or refusing to renew coverage for seriously-ill customers
* Force insurers to cover preventive care in full
* Ban annual or lifetime caps on the amount members can claim
* Stop insurers charging more on the basis of gender.

At the beginning of the legislative process, Mr Obama deliberately chose to leave the specifics of reform for Congress to work out, but - with reform stalling in the Senate - he has decided to adopt a "more prescriptive" approach, according to aides.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Many American liberals would like Mr Obama's healthcare reform proposals to go much further, but are prepared to support his plans as long as they are not watered down too much in Congress.

They favour the increased regulation of the insurance industry that Mr Obama has proposed and support efforts to extend coverage to all Americans by offering generous subsidies to the less well-off.

For many liberals, both in Congress and in trade unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the most cherished feature of healthcare reform is the "public option" - the government-run insurance plan that will be available to Americans who do not have access to employer-provided coverage.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats are threatening to remove the "public option" from the Senate's version of the bill, setting up a clash with liberal Democrats.

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS

Moderate and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives belong to a grouping called the Blue Dog Caucus.

During the healthcare reform bill's passage through the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Blue Dogs threatened to block the bill unless its price-tag was cut by $100bn.

They also demanded that more small businesses be exempted from the requirement to provide healthcare for their employees and insisted that any public scheme would be barred from paying the same (low) rates to doctors and drug companies as the government-run Medicare programme.

Democratic leaders agreed to the Blue Dogs' requests, and the deal appeared to smooth the way for a healthcare reform bill - including a public option - to pass in the House.

In the Senate, however, conservative Democrats like Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska have expressed opposition to the public option.

Mr Conrad has suggested that a network of healthcare co-ops could be established instead of a publicly-run scheme.

REPUBLICANS

Republicans in the House and the Senate have been staunchly opposed to the Democrats' healthcare proposals. If Mr Obama's reform bid fails, the Republicans will benefit politically, so they may be calculating that outright opposition is their best strategic option.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican candidate John McCain outlined a healthcare reform plan: end the tax-free status of employee health benefits, and give all Americans tax credits for the purchase of health insurance.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley
Moderate Republican Chuck Grassley may support a compromise bill

This would remove the incentives for Americans to keep their employer-provided health coverage, so more Americans would shop around for private insurance. The power of the free market would then force costs down, Mr McCain argued.

Some Republicans have described similar proposals when asked to outline their plans for healthcare reform, but the party's strategy appears to be geared more towards defeating the Democrats' policies than coming up with alternatives.

Many of the feature of reform that Republicans have been attacking - like the so-called "death-panels" or coverage for illegal immigrants - are not actually being proposed in any of the plans put forward by Democrats.

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Although they have been vilified by many liberals as the enemy of reform, health insurers have - in public - actually been fairly supportive of the Democrats' efforts.

In part, this is because the reforms could benefit insurers.

In particular, the "individual mandate" (the rule forcing all Americans to take out health insurance or face a fine) will create a lot of new customers for insurance companies, and many of the newly-enrolled members will be young, healthy people who have previously opted not to get insurance.

The insurance companies - represented by the industry body AHIP - are less sanguine about the prospect of a government-run public insurance option. They fear that a strong public option will drive them out of business.

DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS

US doctors (represented by the American Medical Association or AMA), and hospitals (represented by various organisations, including the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals) broadly back the Democrats' reform proposals.

Their biggest fear is that the government will create a powerful publicly-run insurance scheme that will - like the government programme for the elderly, Medicare - use its bargaining power to cut the amount of money it pays to doctors.

The three biggest hospital groups in the US have offered to reduce their costs by $155bn over 10 years in an attempt to make health reform more affordable.

The reductions will be achieved by cutting the amount of subsidies that hospitals receive from the government to cover uninsured people in emergency rooms. As more and more people get insurance, the hospitals reason, the need for the subsidies will be reduced.

But the hospitals have warned that they will only make the full $155bn reduction if the government meets its target of extending coverage.

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

Manufacturers of drugs and medical equipment are not very supportive of the Democrats' reform plans.

The industry - represented by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) - is concerned that the Democrats' proposed publicly option could use its negotiating power to start bargaining down drug prices.

It is also opposed to the reformers' proposal to establish a government body to conduct research into the relative effectiveness of different treatments.

Drug companies argue that this could eventually lead to a situation in which government bureaucrats dictate to doctors which drugs they are allowed to prescribe.

Supporters of the proposal insist that "comparative effectiveness research" is simply a useful tool to help doctors avoid prescribing expensive drugs that work no better than cheaper treatments.

Netto Azure
September 10th, 2009, 07:25 AM
In Lawmaker’s Outburst, a Rare Breach of Protocol (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10wilson.html)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/09/10/us/10wilson2-600.jpg

Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina received criticism for yelling, “You lie!” at the president.
WASHINGTON — It was a rare breach of the protocol that governs ritualistic events in the Capitol.

In an angry and very audible outburst, Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, interrupted President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s speech Wednesday night with a shout of “You lie!” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aE_nEoE5kE)
His eruption — in response to Mr. Obama’s statement that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants — stunned members of both parties in the House chamber.
Democrats said it showed lack of respect for the office of the presidency and was reminiscent of Republican disruptions at recent public forums on health care.
“It is outrageous,” said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who said it reminded him of the “antics that are being used to disrupt and fog what is going on.”
After the speech, Rahm Emanuel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/rahm_emanuel/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the White House chief of staff who sat a few rows in front of Mr. Wilson, said he immediately approached senior Republican lawmakers to encourage them to identify the heckler and urge him to issue an apology quickly.
“No president has ever been treated like that. Ever,” Mr. Emanuel said.
Other Democrats said they did not want to dwell on the outburst or allow it to overshadow what they saw as an effective address by the president. But they also said it bolstered their contention that some Republicans were not interested in constructive dialogue, and they noted that Democratic plans specifically barred coverage for illegal immigrants.
Republicans also said the heckling was out of line. “I think we ought to treat the president with respect,” said Senator Mitch McConnell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mitch_mcconnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Kentucky, the Republican leader, “and anything other than that is not appropriate.”
Mr. Wilson seemed rattled in the wake of his comment, and quickly left the chamber at the end of the speech.
His office later issued an apology, saying: “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”
Mr. Wilson also phoned the White House and reached Mr. Emanuel, who accepted an apology on behalf of the president.
Critical body language and murmurs of disapproval are typical at presidential addresses and part of the political theater. But members of both parties were trying to recollect such a pointed attack from an individual lawmaker at a presidential address and noted that a similar remark could draw a formal reprimand if delivered at a routine session of the House.
Well, the speech IMO still contained the stuff we already knew if you paid attention to this issue. Still, the outburst over the Undocumented Immigrants coverage issue does raise a point on the Republican side. How will it be enforced. :P

At least he apologized. >.>