Debate: US Health Care Reform

[Virtual Chatot]

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]

...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]

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

Then 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
British Health in Crisis

...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]

It's sad...

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]

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]

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]

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
British Health in Crisis

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.