Debate: US Health Care Reform

[TRIFORCE89]

I lean right. I'm conservative. I'm for universal health care. There's a bunch of scary people in the GOP.

 

[Netto Azure]

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
​

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" -- 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, 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 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]

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.

 

[Ivysaur]

...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]

...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

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'​

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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

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
​

 

[Ivysaur]

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]

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]

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'

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
​

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

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.

​

 

[Ivysaur]

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]

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

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]

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]

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? Would you support that? :O

According to a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in May 2008, the bill includes the following elements:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act#cite_note-5

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Premiums can vary only to reflect geography and smoking status.
9. Individuals can have more expensive (i.e., non-basic) coverage plans paid directly to insurers.
10. Certain individuals would be phased out of the Medicaid program, via participation in their state's HHA.

 

[Red1530]

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]

I was bored so here's some propaganda:

​

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

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.

https://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]

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