Health Care reform discussion - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Health Care reform discussion
Monday, October 26, 2009 4:44 PM on j-body.org
I thought I would start a thread purely for theoretical debate. Let's see if it's possible to keep a thread purely substantive in this forum. I have my doubts, but I figured I'd try anyway.

Here are some specific problems with our current system, and what I believe is the best way to solve them. Feel free to offer what you believe to be the best option, and why, or why you think my reasoning is wrong. I would seriously love to see this thread get filled up with peoples' different ideas, or what you like about another idea.

Problem 1:
Cost of actual care continues to increase.

Reasons:
Lawsuits have been increasing against heath care providers for decades, with awards getting far beyond reasonable, and more and more settling out of court due to the high cost of litigation, and the fact that the defendants (doctors and hospitals) have to foot the bill regardless of outcome. For this reason, the cost of malpractice insurance policies are ever increasing. This is an operating cost, and has to be covered by increasing the a mounts charged for services rendered.

Also current requirements of hospitals force them to treat absolutely anyone who walks into a hospital, regardless of their ability to pay. This has the effect of illegal aliens being treated without payment, which causes the costs to be spread out to the paying, so that hospitals can continue to operate.

My solution:
Tort reform in the form of requiring the loser to pay all court costs, and set limits on punitive awards. This would have the immediate effect of eliminating most frivolous suits being filed at all, as well as bringing down the punitive damages paid when a suit is successful.

Allow hospitals to require proof of citizenship, and/or payment up front, for any non-life threatening emergency. This would eliminate those without insurance and/or illegals from getting treated at emergency rooms, especially for things for which they should be making an appointment with their regular doctor.

Problem 2:
Insurance costs high and lack of competition.

Reasons: Currently you can not purchase insurance from a company in another state. Some states have as few as two companies offering policies to their residence, causing near-monopolies. Also, insurance companies are currently exempt from anti-trust legislation, allowing them to work together to set services and prices.

My solution:
Remove the restrictions which do not allow you to purchase insurance from any company in the US, and remove the anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry. This would set real market competition in motion, rather than getting the government involved, and taxing private policies.

Also, remove or increase annual caps on HSA (health savings account) contributions. Most of these options are currently set at $5,000 individual. Some are capped at $5,000 even for a married couple, but most are capped at $10,000. Some of these types are also use it or lose it, meaning if you have money left in your account at the end of the year, it's gone. Some types allow you to withdraw it and pay taxes, in most cases at a set rate, rather than the rate you pay on regular income taxes. Many HMO policies run $15,000/year or more for a family, yet you can only put $5,000-10,000 per year into an HSA. I personally find this ridiculous. Allow people to place more in their HSA and purchase basic catastrophic insurance or not. Allow them to roll over unused dollars. This would mean people who are in good health could actually build up their own catastrophic account, and reduce pay-in over time. Since you use your HSA essentially as a cash payment for health care, administrative costs are lower for the doctors and hospitals, so they can charge lower rates.


Problem 3:
Tens of millions of Americans currently can not afford health care (I keep an actual number out because of the differences in reports on this matter, but the range of uninsured due to actual inability to pay for it is anywhere between 12,000 and 18,000)

My solution:
Once the above two problems are addressed, these numbers will come down substantially, due to the increased affordability of insurance and health care in general. Once the number of people who truly can't afford insurance diminishes, the problem of providing coverage will become far more manageable. I would personally like to see this left up to the individual states. My state, for example, already has a pretty decent program, with very strict income requirements broken down by number of family members, with a cap. I don't know how every state works in this manner, but I'm sure there are plenty of other states with programs like this.


As I said, I really would like to see a healthy, substantive debate here. So let's hear what people have to offer here. What do you think will work, and why?







Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, October 26, 2009 7:25 PM on j-body.org
I'd say all your solutions are pretty sound. Requiring patients to show proof of citizenship for non-life threatening conditions is a good idea, although it may cause problems for children, since they don't exactly have a drivers license, and their social security card probably isn't carried around by the parents at all times. It would be a minor hassle, but would help tremendously keeping illegal immigrants from receiving care and then not paying the bill.

As an alternative, my view of a government insurance option would look something like this:

This care option would only cover the very basic needs, such as doctor checkups, vision care, and routine dentist appointments. The co-pay would be a bit higher than your conventional insurance options (which mine is usually 10 bucks per visit, I imagine you could up this to something like 30). Think of it as more of a discount, rather than full coverage.

You impose a small tax increase on ONLY the individuals who select this service, so as the rest of America does not have to pay for it.

Given your solutions, cost of doctor appointments and such could go down, which would make the co-pay even lower if your idea worked.

This could help younger folks who don't have as many health problems as the older generation to save some money.

Again, just an idea that I'm throwing out there. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a pissing contest.



Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, October 26, 2009 8:46 PM on j-body.org
This can't become anything BUT a pissing contest, but I'll do my part to play nice.

(sarcastic summary of problem). Big fat cat insurance companies are super rich and charge too much for thei insurance, and that isn't right.

(sarcastic solution). F- them and get me free health insurance and I better not have to pay some stupid copays.

This all started when FDR put caps on wages. So in order to attract workers to their companies, bosses started throwing in health care benefits to sweeten the deal. Became expected that e eryone should offer it, and lo...here we are. Instead of making some chicken soup, we run to the doctor every time johnny has a snotty nose. Why? Because I have insurance to pay for it.

There's also an artificial limit on the number of doctors graduating every year. Imagine if it was like lawyers and they had to compete for your business. Prices would go down.

Of course tort reform and multistage shopping are huge fixes, but that would piss off trial lawyers in a big way.

Finally, take some responsibility for our own actions. You have sex with a woman, you pay the bills relating to her pregnancy. You smoke, then pay for your own oxygen tank. Eat too much candy and drink pop all day, don't ask me to subsidize your root canal. To insist that I do is wrong. The legislate it is redistribution of wealth.


ďPoor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!Ē -Jon Stewart
Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, October 26, 2009 8:58 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

This all started when FDR put caps on wages. So in order to attract workers to their companies, bosses started throwing in health care benefits to sweeten the deal. Became expected that e eryone should offer it, and lo...here we are. Instead of making some chicken soup, we run to the doctor every time johnny has a snotty nose. Why? Because I have insurance to pay for it.


I think this is more of an issue of education.



Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, November 09, 2009 11:26 AM on j-body.org
well, it passed the house, barely, 220-215.

i really don't see it passing through the senate, though. too many moderate democrats have said they won't support a government run public option. joe lieberman, for example, said "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote."

which is good because there's no way our government could properly run health insurance.





Check out my build thread!

Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, November 09, 2009 2:18 PM on j-body.org
For me its as easy as this.

Itís not in the Constitution. Therefore, Itís is not the Federal Governments job to do it.

Simple Right?


Chris



"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Health Care reform discussion
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:06 AM on j-body.org
Think of it this way,





A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.


They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar
saved.
How good a deal was that ???

They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!

Right?

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Health Care reform discussion
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:07 AM on j-body.org
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Think of it this way,





A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.


They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar
saved.
How good a deal was that ???

They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!

Right?

Chris




while i wasnt a huge fan of the cash for clunkers, your looking at it from a money standpoint, versus the oil saved. granted its not a huge dent, nor do i think it was meant to be. but nobody said getting the U.S. dependance on oil stopped was going to save us money. reality is its going to cost us more to get off our dependance on oil. but paying more to get off oil would be better then just one day going, oops were out. lets decide to change our entire country now that we dont have any.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Health Care reform discussion
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:29 AM on j-body.org
I hear ya.

To all...Cash for Clunkers was flawed, but hey! how could any one plan please everyone across such a spectrum of needs and wants and political positions and government / private enterprise / etc. Overall, it's amazing it went off as well as it did. It was corporate welfare too, sure...but we did need to sell some cars, and I think about 700,000 sales were enhanced or created by the program. I know, it's got its ups and downs, and no one likes it in every possible way. Still...could have been worse. MUCH worse!





Re: Health Care reform discussion
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:37 AM on j-body.org
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

For me its as easy as this.

Itís not in the Constitution. Therefore, Itís is not the Federal Governments job to do it.

Simple Right?


Chris



Still goes back to this for me...


As for the oil.....

How about drilling in SD, ND ?

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Health Care reform discussion
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:47 PM on j-body.org
drilling is always an option, but i think its better to start finding alternative solutions and not have such a huge dependance on oil . if you have an alternative you can use both. if you run out of one without having an alternative lined up and ready to go your going to see the end of civilisation for the most part.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Re: Health Care reform discussion
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:33 PM on j-body.org
Im all for that.

But unless you count nuke power, crude pound for pound has the highest yeald of power.

IMO the human race will be long gone before that black gold is gone.

When I did the huracane katrena evacuation, you dont want to know how many oil rigs along I-10 that where "dry" yet this black @!#$ was spewing out.

weard that no news covered it right?

OR OR the fact that on base we had a lot for HUMMWV (hummers) that where off limients and if we where patroling them, we had to go to medical if we where in the lot for more then a half an hour at a time. all where wraped in some white tarp like thing, being sucked down in to this big box in the middle.

Guess we f-ed up our own trucks.

ya. news is good.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Health Care reform discussion
Friday, November 13, 2009 4:44 AM on j-body.org
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Im all for that.

But unless you count nuke power, crude pound for pound has the highest yeald of power.

IMO the human race will be long gone before that black gold is gone.

When I did the huracane katrena evacuation, you dont want to know how many oil rigs along I-10 that where "dry" yet this black @!#$ was spewing out.

weard that no news covered it right?

OR OR the fact that on base we had a lot for HUMMWV (hummers) that where off limients and if we where patroling them, we had to go to medical if we where in the lot for more then a half an hour at a time. all where wraped in some white tarp like thing, being sucked down in to this big box in the middle.

Guess we f-ed up our own trucks.

ya. news is good.

Chris





dry probalby doesnt neccisarly mean every single drop of oil was gone. it just likely means there was no longer enough oil worth getting, that the supply had grown to small so they moved on. and personally i'd rather not take the bet on when the oil will run out. id prefer to have alternatives in place and runnning long before that ever happened. as for the hummers, i dont have any idea what that is about.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Health Care reform discussion
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:44 PM on j-body.org
Agreed, mostly. As someone pointed out, proof of citizenship would be catchy. And for every person sent away based on someone's definition of "life-threatening" you have another chance for a huge settlement when they end up dead.

I had to sit on a jury for a malpractice suit, it was the biggest waste of resources ever. I believe completely that if that woman had been facing large fees for filing such a frivolous suit, she never would have gone through with it. And if the prosecuting lawyers has been facing fees themselves, they never would have accepted the case.

Oh, I say make smoking in public 100%, completely, shot-on-sight illegal. Just felt like throwing that in there.

And Bill, love the sig. Not totally down with the donkey, but the elephant represents my crazy aunt perfectly. If the right didn't have the Palin-types, they'd never have any significant competition.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Health Care reform discussion
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:55 PM on j-body.org
Heh, glad you like it. I also found it to be pretty appropos in the current political climate.

Next one will paint the donkeys in an ill light, as I am all about equal time!

Oh, and yes...agree totally with you on MP suits, as well as most of the excessive tort cases today. Why oh why did we decide the Lawyers should also be the Politicians? Jeeze...







Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, December 07, 2009 2:56 PM on j-body.org
heh, pretty hilarious. the dems have to resort to name-calling to get @!#$ passed. i swear, congress acts more like school children every year.

Quote:

The pressure is heating up on Capitol Hill as the health care debate is in its 8th day. This from my colleague on the hill, Z. Byron Wolf:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid equated Republican attempts to slow down and scuttle Democrats' health care reform legislation with historic opposition to the end of slavery or the women's suffrage.

The comments are drawing anger from Republicans, who said the comments were inappropriate and unfair.
Publish
Here's what Reid said on the Senate floor Monday morning:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this slow down, stop everything, let's start over," said Reid. "You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today. More recently, when chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, one of the people who will go down as a chief champion of the bill before us today, said that Americans should be able to take care of their families without fear of losing their jobs, you heard the same old excuses. seven years of fighting and more than one presidential veto, it was slow down, stop everything, start over. History is repeating itself before our eyes. There are now those who don't think it is the right time to reform health care. If not now, when, madam president? But the reality for many that feel that way, it will never, never be a good time to reform health care."

Democrats have consistently tried to paint their efforts to extend health insurance to all Americans as historic. Senators said that was also the thrust of President Obama's pep talk to Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill Sunday. But comparing opposition to health reform with opposition to the end of slavery is a new riff on the argument.

Republicans, when asked about the comments, said Reid was inappropriate today. At a press conference, Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Thune of South Dakota and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said Reid was infusing the issue of race into the health reform debate. Thune called the remarks "inflammatory."

Inflammatory or not, Reid's comments do have the benefit pointing out how both parties have found themselves on the wrong side of history.

It was a Republican President that freed the slaves. And former Republican Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party (not the Democrats or the Republicans) was the first major national party to support women's suffrage.

The fight against the Civil rights movement in the last century had more to do with regionalism than political party. It was Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, who is now the longest serving Senator, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours in 1964. 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted to end that filibuster. 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted to sustain it. The Democrat's Majority Leader, Richard Russell, opposed the bill. The Republican Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, was one of the Republicans who joined with Democrats to end the filibuster after the Civil Rights Act had been on the Senate floor for 57 days. Both men now have Senate office buildings names after them.

Democrats' health reform bill has got a ways to go before it can come close to competing with that long a floor debate. Monday marks the eight day it has been on the Senate floor.


from ABC News



Check out my build thread!

Re: Health Care reform discussion
Monday, December 07, 2009 2:57 PM on j-body.org
heh, pretty hilarious. the dems have to resort to name-calling to get @!#$ passed. i swear, congress acts more like school children every year.

Quote:

The pressure is heating up on Capitol Hill as the health care debate is in its 8th day. This from my colleague on the hill, Z. Byron Wolf:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid equated Republican attempts to slow down and scuttle Democrats' health care reform legislation with historic opposition to the end of slavery or the women's suffrage.

The comments are drawing anger from Republicans, who said the comments were inappropriate and unfair.
Publish
Here's what Reid said on the Senate floor Monday morning:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this slow down, stop everything, let's start over," said Reid. "You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today. More recently, when chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, one of the people who will go down as a chief champion of the bill before us today, said that Americans should be able to take care of their families without fear of losing their jobs, you heard the same old excuses. seven years of fighting and more than one presidential veto, it was slow down, stop everything, start over. History is repeating itself before our eyes. There are now those who don't think it is the right time to reform health care. If not now, when, madam president? But the reality for many that feel that way, it will never, never be a good time to reform health care."

Democrats have consistently tried to paint their efforts to extend health insurance to all Americans as historic. Senators said that was also the thrust of President Obama's pep talk to Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill Sunday. But comparing opposition to health reform with opposition to the end of slavery is a new riff on the argument.

Republicans, when asked about the comments, said Reid was inappropriate today. At a press conference, Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Thune of South Dakota and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said Reid was infusing the issue of race into the health reform debate. Thune called the remarks "inflammatory."

Inflammatory or not, Reid's comments do have the benefit pointing out how both parties have found themselves on the wrong side of history.

It was a Republican President that freed the slaves. And former Republican Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party (not the Democrats or the Republicans) was the first major national party to support women's suffrage.

The fight against the Civil rights movement in the last century had more to do with regionalism than political party. It was Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, who is now the longest serving Senator, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours in 1964. 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted to end that filibuster. 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted to sustain it. The Democrat's Majority Leader, Richard Russell, opposed the bill. The Republican Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, was one of the Republicans who joined with Democrats to end the filibuster after the Civil Rights Act had been on the Senate floor for 57 days. Both men now have Senate office buildings names after them.

Democrats' health reform bill has got a ways to go before it can come close to competing with that long a floor debate. Monday marks the eight day it has been on the Senate floor.


from ABC News





Check out my build thread!

Re: Health Care reform discussion
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:55 PM on j-body.org
I see no problems with a government run basic health care option. It works in many many many countries (just about every 1st world country but ours). It could easily be implemented and set up similar to England where they have a basic option for everyone paid for by the state, and if you want better coverage you can get it from a private insurer for a price, and it would provide better coverage and benefits. It has been working there for quite awhile, and there isn't any BS waiting lists and lines at hospitals like so many people here claim there are in countries that run these options. Fact of the matter is, the health care industry in this country is so crooked and backwards, it does not focus on what it should, helping people, as opposed to what should come last, the bottom line. Is covering costs important? it sure is. Is making a ridiculous profit for treating as few people as possible important? i dont think so. Do the right thing, and in the end, you will be taken care of.



Re: Health Care reform discussion
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:07 PM on j-body.org
except for the fact that members of the EU warned us not to get involved with socialized health care...





Check out my build thread!

Re: Health Care reform discussion
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:17 PM on j-body.org
I'm unsure as to your assertion about satisfaction in Britain's health care system...when I search for information, the broad majority of it is negative. A particularly troubling policy is that should you want better care, you must pay for 100% of it yourself; you may not just "pay the difference" while still accepting the free care, for this collides with their National Health System principles.

Germany, another example, has been working to repair its system to address inefficiency issues brought on by a lack of competition. Reform efforts in 2004 have been unpopular.

Japan's issues include driving the cost of care down too far...most hospitals there now operate in the red, and funding shortfalls beset the system going forward.

This article offers some interesting facts.







Re: Health Care reform discussion
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:45 AM on j-body.org
themarin8r wrote:

I see no problems with a government run basic health care option. It works in many many many countries (just about every 1st world country but ours). It could easily be implemented and set up similar to England where they have a basic option for everyone paid for by the state, and if you want better coverage you can get it from a private insurer for a price, and it would provide better coverage and benefits. It has been working there for quite awhile, and there isn't any BS waiting lists and lines at hospitals like so many people here claim there are in countries that run these options. Fact of the matter is, the health care industry in this country is so crooked and backwards, it does not focus on what it should, helping people, as opposed to what should come last, the bottom line. Is covering costs important? it sure is. Is making a ridiculous profit for treating as few people as possible important? i dont think so. Do the right thing, and in the end, you will be taken care of.
You're operating on some false assumptions here, which I would venture to guess stem from hearing to much rhetoric repeated by too many people.

The health care industry does not make "ridiculous profit for treating as few people as possible". In case you're unaware of this, you can walk into a hospital, and get treatment without having any way to pay for it. They'll accept $10 a month from you for the rest of your life, even if they will never recoup their costs. Worse, they have to spend large amounts of money to manage these type payments, usually in the form of a legal office or collection agency. The people who make the big money are the lawyers and the people they represent in outrageously large law suits, and of course, the pharmaceutical industry. The latter is on board, for the most part, with the plan the Democrats are trying to push through Congress right now. That in itself should speak volumes about the fact that it will not fix any of the problems we currently face.

Bill hit on another important point, which has been well-discussed in this forum: the countries that have the system you believe would work for us are having serious problems with it, and many have warned the US against adopting such a system. The bottom line about offering "free" health care to everyone is that the supply drops, and quality of care drops.








Re: Health Care reform discussion
Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:27 PM on j-body.org
nothing is free. someone eventually has to pay. how can the goverment pay. they are allready borrowing billions and billions every year. so that means im paying for a plan. i allready have a plan. why do i want to spend more money on healthcare that will most likely be worse then what i have now. does the system need fixed sure. adress the problem areas and fix them instead of just doling out free healthcare. and dont devise a plan stating i can keep my healthcare but the system as it looks will cause allot fo companies to just dump their healthcare plans and let everyone go on the goverment system.

and personally i like being able to call my doctor and get my kid in usually the same day. most people i know and have talked to in canada say they make theyr appointments 6 months in advance. talk to some people. there are long ass waiting lists.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Health Care reform discussion
Friday, March 19, 2010 2:37 PM on j-body.org
cost: billions
saves billions...in 10 years
then saves a trillion...in 20 years
what are you going to do with those savings?.....
spend it of course!
.



Re: Health Care reform discussion
Friday, March 19, 2010 3:00 PM on j-body.org
ok... so i havent followed the details of this health care reform much at all.... but lately had the opportunity to work for Aflac as an Insurance Rep and am wondering how do you think this job will/can be affected by the reform?

thanks all



Re: Health Care reform discussion
Friday, March 19, 2010 5:49 PM on j-body.org
t2 wrote:

cost: billions
saves billions...in 10 years
then saves a trillion...in 20 years
what are you going to do with those savings?.....
spend it of course!
.
Just to clarify something: it costs trillions, and saves billions. Only Washington can sell that math with a straight face. Also, there are 4 years of tax increases before the benefits kick in. If you compare the actual years of effect, it has a massive increase in costs. Think of how much of a savings you could show in your personal budget if you could compare 10 years of income with 6 years of bills. That's the essence of the deception of these numbers.

If you've heard the rhetoric surrounding the release of the CBO preliminary findings, it sounds like it will be OK. However, the CBO report even explains that these are not only incomplete, but are based on what amounts to promises to correct certain things in the future.

Over and above any discussion of the substance of this bill, it is what they are trying to pull this weekend that needs to be watched.

For anyone who has not paid attention to exactly what's being tried, here is the summary:

Just before the end of the year, the Senate and the House of Representatives each passed a bill. The normal procedure after this is for members of each house to negotiate a compromise bill and then it goes back and gets voted on again. Since they lost a seat in the House, they realized that such a compromise bill would never come to a vote in the Senate, so they proceeded to try and get the Democrats in the House to pass the Senate bill as it is, so that the President could sign it.

However, there are enough Democrats in the House that want nothing to do with the Senate bill, as well as enough of them that are in a losing position currently in the coming elections, and have heard from their constituents that they do not want them to vote for it.

The latest tactic is that an amandment to the Senate bill is being drawn up, and they are going to bring that bill to the floor for a vote. If/when it passes, they are going to then deem the original Senate bill as passed. However, if they do this, the original Senate bill is going to be signed into law by the President, but the amendment, as it is a separate piece of legislation, must go through the Senate first. It will not pass the Senate as-is, and may not even come to a vote. The end result here is that they are hoping to get away with many of the Democrats in a shaky re-election position being able to claim that they never actually voted for the Senate bill. It is also a slap in the face directly from Pelosi, Reid, and Obama to the American people, as well as the members of the House that are allowing themselves to be fooled into thinking they are doing anything short of voting for a bill they said they don't support.

The implications of this move are almost imeasurable, since it would be enacting a massive bill that drastically changes a huge part of this country without half of the Congress actually voting on it. If they do it once, they will do it again. When the Patriot Act was passed, everyone screamed about it shredding the Constitution. There should be 10 fold the outcry over this. Without debating the content, the bottom line is that the leaders of this country are shredding the Constitution in ways that should scare the living sh!t out of everyone: they are essentially subverting the process of passing law and doing whatever the f&%k they feel like.







Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search