US healthcare reform [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

US healthcare reform

scoobs
03-20-2010, 07:52 PM
Surprised nobody is talking about this at all, but then again we're without Prima Donna aren't we?

All the signs suggest the Democrats will pass the Senate bill and the reconciliation fixes to the Senate bill on Sunday. They need to get 216 votes to pass this thing and it looks like they're going to have the numbers unless something goes horribly wrong between now and then.

At that point the reconciliation package will go to the Senate where it needs 51 votes to pass and they're hoping to have that done by the end of next week.

Republicans have promised to try and derail the process by throwing tons of amendments at the reconciliation package, but it doesn't look like there is much they can do to stop the process if the Democrats can get the numbers in both houses, which it looks like they will do.

According to the CBO the bill will insure over 30 million more Americans when it's up and running, outlaw dropping coverage based on pre-existing conditions completely by 2014, make it harder for insurers to levy massive premium increases on their customers, and will yet still save over $100 million dollars of federal money in 10 years compared to what would be spent without reform, and then over a trillion dollars in the next 10 years after that.

Public opinion polls have generally been against passage of healthcare reform for several months now at least (although it's worth noting that opposition is built up of those on the right who thinks it "socialises" healthcare or is a "government takeover", and people on the left who are against it because they think it doesn't go far enough and want an expansion of Medicare or at least a government run insurance option to compete with the private companies)

Some polls do suggest though that opinion may be starting to swing back in favour of passage - i'm sure the recent double digit premium hikes from major insurance companies that landed on the doormats of many customers in many states this past couple of months may have helped with that.

So now we're nearly at the end of this process (I say that but never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory), what do people think? Should it pass? Should it be scrapped and should they start over, as the Republicans say? What is the best way to ensure Americans have access to healthcare?

Chip_s_m
03-20-2010, 08:10 PM
What is the best way to ensure Americans have access to healthcare?

The best way is to ration care so that everyone can get at least some minimal level of it. This is what they do in Europe and Cuba and they have the best systems in the world. It'd be foolish for the US not to do so, as well. Obviously, there won't be any negative side effects to government intervention.

buddyholly
03-20-2010, 09:24 PM
The best way is to ration care so that everyone can get at least some minimal level of it. This is what they do in Europe and Cuba and they have the best systems in the world. It'd be foolish for the US not to do so, as well. Obviously, there won't be any negative side effects to government intervention.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Having lived for nine years in Cuba and seen the medical care that Cubans get, I can tell you it is appalling. The only thing Cuba is interested in is fooling the world into believing they have adequate medical care. Obviously you are a willing stooge.
I was seriously ill twice and was misdiagnosed both times. Once I went ten days without food or water and they said I had jaundice. Even the Canadian Embassy told them I had just returned from a malaria zone in the Pacific, but they said they were experts on malaria (from their imperial exploits in Africa.) When my vital organs shut down and I was declared too critical for medical evacuation, in desperation they sent me to the hospital reserved for top Party Members (the only dialysis machine in Cuba). I tested overwhelmingly positive for malaria on the first blood sample and the dialysis saved my life, after two weeks of less than 50-50 odds..

Another example. One of my best workers and a good friend was ill from his body's inability to produce sufficient red blood cells. He was put in a filthy hospital. When I wanted to take him somewhere better and pay for treatment I was turned down on the grounds that Cuba has the ''best medical system in the world'' and he would be treated properly. Since all Cubans are given the same treatment there would be no point in transferring him to another hospital. He died on Christmas Day, because the Cuban system preferred to not admit its failure to a foreigner.

So, at the risk of your feeling insulted, I feel morally obligated to tell you that when you say that Cuba has ''the best system in the world'', you are being very, very ignorant of what really goes on in Cuba. You have totally, and apparently willingly, fallen for the big Cuban propaganda machine. Obviously by paying their doctors $20/month, the Party machine has spent the saved money well by spreading the lies to the naive and ill-informed.

You may be surprised to learn that the only adequately stocked pharmacy in Havana, when I was there, had a sign on the door saying FOREIGNERS ONLY. Cuban black humour had it that when a doctor gave them a prescription they took the piece of paper home and swallowed it with a glass of water.

And please don't come back to me with quotes about wonderful Cuban longevity and infant mortality rates, etc. When you realise that these numbers are simply invented in Communist Party Headquarters, then you are beginning to understand Cuba.

Chip_s_m
03-20-2010, 09:54 PM
You have no idea what you are talking about. Having lived for nine years in Cuba and seen the medical care that Cubans get, I can tell you it is appalling. The only thing Cuba is interested in is fooling the world into believing they have adequate medical care. Obviously you are a willing stooge.
I was seriously ill twice and was misdiagnosed both times. Once I went ten days without food or water and they said I had jaundice. Even the Canadian Embassy told them I had just returned from a malaria zone in the Pacific, but they said they were experts on malaria (from their imperial exploits in Africa.) When my vital organs shut down and I was declared too critical for medical evacuation, in desperation they sent me to the hospital reserved for top Party Members (the only dialysis machine in Cuba). I tested overwhelmingly positive for malaria on the first blood sample and the dialysis saved my life, after two weeks of less than 50-50 odds..

Another example. One of my best workers and a good friend was ill from his body's inability to produce sufficient red blood cells. He was put in a filthy hospital. When I wanted to take him somewhere better and pay for treatment I was turned down on the grounds that Cuba has the ''best medical system in the world'' and he would be treated properly. Since all Cubans are given the same treatment there would be no point in transferring him to another hospital. He died on Christmas Day, because the Cuban system preferred to not admit its failure to a foreigner.

So, at the risk of your feeling insulted, I feel morally obligated to tell you that when you say that Cuba has ''the best system in the world'', you are being very, very ignorant of what really goes on in Cuba. You have totally, and apparently willingly, fallen for the big Cuban propaganda machine. Obviously by paying their doctors $20/month, the Party machine has spent the saved money well by spreading the lies to the naive and ill-informed.

You may be surprised to learn that the only adequately stocked pharmacy in Havana, when I was there, had a sign on the door saying FOREIGNERS ONLY. Cuban black humour had it that when a doctor gave them a prescription they took the piece of paper home and swallowed it with a glass of water.

And please don't come back to me with quotes about wonderful Cuban longevity and infant mortality rates, etc. When you realise that these numbers are simply invented in Communist Party Headquarters, then you are beginning to understand Cuba.

My post was completely sarcastic (I figured at least you would have picked up on that based on my previous posts on Obamacare). I'm well aware that Cuba's system is miserable, hence the reference to rationing (sorry about your friend).

tangerine_dream
03-20-2010, 10:06 PM
What is the best way to ensure Americans have access to healthcare?
Americans don't have access to healthcare? This is the biggest myth of all. Well done to the media on promoting this fallacy that Americans are "dying in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Everybody has access to above-average healthcare, whether they're covered by insurance or not.

calin
03-20-2010, 10:12 PM
I agree with you, I don't have health insurance but if I"m sick and I go to an emergency room, they will take me regardless if I can afford to pay or not.


Americans don't have access to healthcare? This is the biggest myth of all. Well done to the media on promoting this fallacy that Americans are "dying in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Everybody has access to above-average healthcare, whether they're covered by insurance or not.

scoobs
03-20-2010, 10:12 PM
Americans don't have access to healthcare? This is the biggest myth of all. Well done to the media on promoting this fallacy that Americans are "dying in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Everybody has access to above-average healthcare, whether they're covered by insurance or not.
Fine, let me paraphrase.

What is the best way for Americans to get affordable health insurance rather than relying on Medicare, Medicaid and the emergency rooms?

Chip_s_m
03-20-2010, 11:56 PM
Fine, let me paraphrase.

What is the best way for Americans to get affordable health insurance rather than relying on Medicare, Medicaid and the emergency rooms?

The best way would have been to never create Medicare and Medicaid in the first place. If you're eligible for these programs you're stupid not to participate in them (from a purely financial standpoint). They charge participants considerably less than regular insurance. They're able to do so by supporting it with payroll tax revenue and to some extent denying coverage for certain items (it is a myth that insurance companies are constantly denying care...medicare and medicaid do it way more often). Some of this might be paid for with debt, as well, although I'm not sure about that. Ok, not a big deal, even if you're one of the individuals paying the tax since it's fairly small. The problem is that Medicare and Medicaid pay care providers less than insurance companies. Some providers choose not to accept these patients, but the ones that do often charge their other patients more. That person's insurance company passes that cost onto customers via higher premiums. Apparently this makes insurance companies evil.

The reason there is a "crisis" (it's not really a crisis yet, just a problem) is because the elderly (those who are on Medicare) consist of a larger percentage of the population than ever before. This will only get worse as the baby boomers start retiring. Plus, the life expectancy has obviously been increasing since the program was started. A growing and increasingly more expensive group of people, therefore, is becoming dependent on a separate group, whose costs are rising as a result. The jockey is becoming too fat for the horse. Apparently both of these issues never occurred to the dumbasses who established Medicare back in the sixties.

That said, we can't just kill Medicare. People have planned their retirements around it and it'd be inappropriate to just take it away. That said, we can charge them more. I'm a healthy 22 year-old male with no preexisting conditions. I'm literally the cheapest type of person to insure. Medicare patients pay something like $90/month for what is great coverage despite some of the denials of care. I pay about twice that. An obese grandma with heart problems and cancer who just slipped on ice and broke her hip will pay less in premiums than me. There's your problem.

The answer is to phase Medicare out by gradually increasing the age at which people are eligible for it (bonus points since this could delay their retirement too). On top of that, increase Medicare patients' monthly premiums. This way, the people who are actually receiving services would actually be paying a greater portion of those costs. This would make health care more like, you know, every other product and service out there. You won't hear this solution offered, though. Politicians certainly don't want to anger the most powerful voting block in the country.

Other than that, the current bill needs real tort reform (not the pilot program the lefties threw in there as a bone to the right), interstate competition, greater tax-exemptions for health-savings accounts, high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions, and to allow hospitals to refuse to treat those who won't pay for the care (signing a simple bond upon arrival would do the trick). Right now it's essentially just a bill that raises taxes and pays for people who can't afford insurance to get some. Hurray, a new dependent class! There are also a bunch of new regulations enacted that just make it more expensive for insurance companies to provide coverage for us and providers to care for us. These regulations are totally gonna "protect" us, though. This bill increases demand for a product while making supplying that product more expensive. Unfortunately, the healthcare industry isn't immune to basic economic laws, so don't be fooled, premiums will continue to go up.

At the very least it will be fun to watch this bill go through the courts, in particular the individual mandate. This will take years, but reportedly there are going to be some lawsuits filed next week. Creating a better bill, of course, would've kept this from bogging down the justice system. Obviously that's too much to ask of our elected officials, many of whom hopefully won't be there this time next year.

calin
03-21-2010, 02:17 AM
I agree with you, I don't have health insurance but if I"m sick and I go to an emergency room, they will take me regardless if I can afford to pay or not.


Americans don't have access to healthcare? This is the biggest myth of all. Well done to the media on promoting this fallacy that Americans are "dying in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Everybody has access to above-average healthcare, whether they're covered by insurance or not.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 02:56 AM
The US pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy

The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).

A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance). The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." While a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance. More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Life_expectancy_vs_spending_OECD.png

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Insuring-Americas-Health-Principles-and-Recommendations.aspx

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/excess-deaths-state-by-state.pdf

Ivanatis
03-21-2010, 03:02 AM
Great table.

buddyholly
03-21-2010, 03:04 AM
My post was completely sarcastic (I figured at least you would have picked up on that based on my previous posts on Obamacare). I'm well aware that Cuba's system is miserable, hence the reference to rationing (sorry about your friend).

OK, but it looked like a post I would expect to see here. And it drew out of me all the loathing I have for the Cuban sacrificing of its citizens in its efforts to cover up its failed system. I did think it was 180 degrees different from your previous posts, but did not bother to check back.

Back to the US vote. I have no argument that the US offers the best health care in the world, but my problem is with the providers and insurers and how they limit care to the wealthy. They work in collusion to fleece the public. The hospitals charge ridiculous fees and the insurers cry about these charges and up the premiums. They both win and the public loses. I was covered privately by a US company for years, but when I reached 65, they upped my premium 200% in one year (thats 200%, not 20%) and had the nerve to tell me that annual raises were based purely on rising hospital costs. What the US needs is a law that restricts insurers from raising their fees by more than a few percent over actual cost increases. That is why I returned to Canada. When you are over 65 in Canada the government covers almost 100% of medical costs, including medicines.

I'll give you an example of their collusion. After emergency treatment at the Mayo clinic, no less, my insurer paid the Mayo $70,000 less than they billed. The Mayo then started asking me to pay up the $70,000 and worked all the way up to threatening me with civil action. Fortunately the American friends I was recuperating with told me to throw their letters in the garbage, the Mayo was just trying to play me for a fool. It's what US hospitals do, apparently. When I kept insisting to the Mayo that my insurance coverage was 100% and that if they wanted $70,000 more they could talk to the insurer, they finally backed down and the $70,000 was reduced to $240. The $240 was because I spent a night in a private room and the insurance only covered a shared room. I happily paid up.

And after the hospitalization I did rehabilitation at the gym at Scripps. They asked me if I had insurance, because if I did they would bill the insurer $74 per visit. If I was paying out of pocket they would bill me $5. Now there is definitely something wrong there, and I call it criminal collusion between the hospitals and the insurers.

I had hopes of a lawsuit against the insurer for raising my premium by a ridiculous amount, but all I could find out was that the insurer must offer renewal of a premium. The catch is there is no limit on how much the insurer can charge. Thus, as with me, at 65 they just raise the premium to an impossible amount and you are gone from their books, just when you might be a threat to their enormous profits. But the hospital and insurance lobbyists seem to have Washington in their pockets and the insurers will continue cutting off the elderly and accepting high premiums from the low-risk young andhealthy.

buddyholly
03-21-2010, 03:07 AM
Americans don't have access to healthcare? This is the biggest myth of all. Well done to the media on promoting this fallacy that Americans are "dying in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Everybody has access to above-average healthcare, whether they're covered by insurance or not.

Did you see the CCTV videos last year, where sick, elderly patients were put in taxis, taken a distance from the hospital and dumped on a street corner alone in their nightclothes? Are they included in the ''everybody'' you mention?

tangerine_dream
03-21-2010, 04:09 AM
Did you see the CCTV videos last year, where sick, elderly patients were put in taxis, taken a distance from the hospital and dumped on a street corner alone in their nightclothes? Are they included in the ''everybody'' you mention?
Illegal dumping of homeless patients is a separate issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that they received good, free medical care and medicine. Free room and food on top of that, all courtesy of Medicaid.

Canadians benefit greatly from the US's superior healthcare system. :)

http://glenmeakem.com/files/2009/07/if-we-socialize-medicine-where-will-canadians-go.jpg

JolánGagó
03-21-2010, 04:31 AM
i can't help but laughing my ass off when fellow Europeans, happy to live and die on waiting list, talk with their mouth full of "Americans don't get proper health care" :haha: ... and then again, everyone in Europe who can afford it, when seriously ill, run to the US for proper treatment :shrug:

Baghdatis72
03-21-2010, 04:50 AM
This is simply a bailout of the private health insurance companies and an easy way to exterminate the poor (depopulation). If you even read the whole plan you would have realized that it's a requirement for everyone who wants to get insured to take all the vaccines and whatever it's mandated in order to get health insurance. Otherwise they will get charged a lot more to get insured. End result: Do what we tell you or pay more. Poor people won't afford it and serve as guinea pigs for the untested vaccines for overhyped (lab made) viruses.

If you think this is far fetched then watch the speech Bill Gates gave 2 weeks ago.

buddyholly
03-21-2010, 05:00 AM
Canadians benefit greatly from the US's superior healthcare system. :)



I have been back here for 6 months now. Since the reason I came back is that a US insurance company virtually cancelled my global insurance on my 65th birthday (hey, the insurance companies don't need old people that might be an insurance risk on their books, do they?) I have been very interested in the Canadian system. I have yet to talk to anyone who is not completely satisfied.

I repeat. The US may have the best health care in the world for those who can afford it, but they do not have the best health care SYSTEM.

orangehat
03-21-2010, 11:23 AM
Apparently the Americans on this board are freaking rich.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a healthcare system anywhere in the world to be considered even GOOD when 10% of the population have no access to it effectively. (i.e. pay for it)

JolánGagó
03-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Apparently the Americans on this board are freaking rich.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a healthcare system anywhere in the world to be considered even GOOD when 10% of the population have no access to it effectively. (i.e. pay for it)

That's your opinion. I think there are other criteria as well, for example the ability to get treated when you're ill, not months later.

Winston's Human
03-21-2010, 12:14 PM
Apparently the Americans on this board are freaking rich.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a healthcare system anywhere in the world to be considered even GOOD when 10% of the population have no access to it effectively. (i.e. pay for it)

I don't think that it is because the Americans on this board are rich. I think that they are wary of the government having more control over health care than it already does based upon past experience.

If you have dealt with those aspects of health care already run by the U.S. government (such as the veteran's administration or medicare), it certainly raises questions whether the government is competent to run anymore of it.

orangehat
03-21-2010, 01:56 PM
That's your opinion. I think there are other criteria as well, for example the ability to get treated when you're ill, not months later.

If that were true I think most Canadians would be dead already :scratch: Besides, which part of public option doesn't allow you to get treated when you're ill?

I don't think that it is because the Americans on this board are rich. I think that they are wary of the government having more control over health care than it already does based upon past experience.

If you have dealt with those aspects of health care already run by the U.S. government (such as the veteran's administration or medicare), it certainly raises questions whether the government is competent to run anymore of it.

This is a wildly debatable point. This assumes that all Americans are knowledgeable individuals able to make their own correct choices (which I beg to differ). If you don't even believe that the government is competent enough to manage healthcare, what makes you think they are competent enough to manage education, the economy, or even defense?

buddyholly
03-21-2010, 02:12 PM
That's your opinion. I think there are other criteria as well, for example the ability to get treated when you're ill, not months later.

I can go across the street and see a doctor within minutes - or make an appointment for later the same day. When I came back to Canada I saw a doctor about ongoing mild hip pain. They discovered my legs were not quite the same length, a fairly common complaint apparently. I chose to pay for computer designed orthotics rather than take a cheap best-fit pair from the pharmacy - and the following day, after an X-ray confirmed the pain was muscular and not related to bone structure, began a 40-day therapy programme at no cost to me.
So far I have only praise for Canada's system - and can stay on the court for hours with no muscle spasms.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 03:29 PM
That's your opinion. I think there are other criteria as well, for example the ability to get treated when you're ill, not months later.

In Europe, and you know it too well, you can visit a private doctor at your own will and get treated within a short period of time. IF the condition is urgent, then you get treated immediately by the corresponding National Health System. You make it sound as if people with broken legs or a heart attack had to wait months to get treated.

JolánGagó
03-21-2010, 04:08 PM
In Europe, and you know it too well, you can visit a private doctor at your own will and get treated within a short period of time. IF the condition is urgent, then you get treated immediately by the corresponding National Health System.

Exactly the same as everywhere, or are you suggesting in the US you cannot go and pay a private doctor or emergency rooms don't treat urgent conditions inmediately? I really don't understand your point, if there is any.

You make it sound as if people with broken legs or a heart attack had to wait months to get treated.

No, I make it sound as it is in reality, non-emergency conditions are treated in accordance with the waiting list and you can wait months for a TAC or weeks for a certain X-ray, not to mention visits with scarce specialists like allergyologist (or whatever the fuck it's spelt) dermatologists and score of others. I once had to wait for more than a year before I was finally diagnosed and a treatment given for a lower back condition, all due to the different waiting lists every time. Anyone in Spain using the socialized system will tell you that, I guess you don't use it (me neither, any longuer :hug:) And Spain has reputably one the best systems in Europe :shrug:

JolánGagó
03-21-2010, 04:11 PM
I can go across the street and see a doctor within minutes - or make an appointment for later the same day. When I came back to Canada I saw a doctor about ongoing mild hip pain. They discovered my legs were not quite the same length, a fairly common complaint apparently. I chose to pay for computer designed orthotics rather than take a cheap best-fit pair from the pharmacy - and the following day, after an X-ray confirmed the pain was muscular and not related to bone structure, began a 40-day therapy programme at no cost to me.
So far I have only praise for Canada's system - and can stay on the court for hours with no muscle spasms.

I can't talk of Canada but in Europe it's far from that paradise on Earth.

AlteredEgo
03-21-2010, 04:31 PM
Ugly build-up to House health care vote
Demonstrators hurl N-word, spit at black members of Congress
Tea party demonstrators protest against health overhaul legislation outside of the House chamber on Capitol Hill on Saturday.
View related photos
Harry Hamburg / AP

updated 9:51 p.m. ET, Sat., March. 20, 2010
WASHINGTON - House Democrats heard it all Saturday — words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress.

Most of the day's important work leading up to Sunday's historic vote on health care was being done behind closed doors. Democratic leaders cajoled, bargained and did what they needed to nail down the votes they will need to finally push Obama's health care overhaul bill through the House.

But much else about the day was noisy, emotional and right out in the open. After more than a year debating the capstone of Obama's domestic agenda and just hours to go before the showdown vote, there was little holding back.


The tone was set outside the Capitol. Clogging the sidewalks and streets of Capitol Hill were at least hundreds — no official estimate was yet available — of loud, furious protesters, many of them tea party opponents of the health care overhaul.

Rallies outside the Capitol are typically orderly, with speeches and well-behaved crowds. Saturday's was different, with anger-fueled demonstrators surrounding members of Congress who walked by, yelling at them.

"Kill the bill," the largely middle-aged crowd shouted, surging toward lawmakers who crossed the street between their office buildings and the Capitol.

'N-word' 15 times
The motorcade that carried Obama to Capitol Hill to whip up support for the bill drove past crowds waving signs that read "Stop the spending" and "Get your hands out of my pocketbook and health care." Many booed and thrust their thumbs down as Obama rode by.

As police held demonstrators back to clear areas for lawmakers outside the Capitol Obama's speech, some protesters jeered and chanted at the officers, "You work for us."

Video

Obama: Pass bill 'for the American people'
March 20: President Obama tells Democratic lawmakers not to pass the health care bill for him, "don't do it for the Democratic Party, do it for the American people." Watch his entire speech.
NBC News


Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred.

"It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a large former police officer who said he wasn't frightened but worried about the 70-year-old Lewis, who is twice his age. "He said it reminded him of another time."

Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said a protester spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who is black and said police escorted the lawmakers into the Capitol. Cleaver's office said he would decline to press charges, but Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the U.S. Capitol Police said in an e-mail later: "We did not make any arrests today."

Clyburn, who led fellow black students in integrating South Carolina's public facilities a half century ago, called the behavior "absolutely shocking."

"I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus," Clyburn told reporters.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay, said protesters shouted "abusive things" to him as he walked from the Longworth building to the Rayburn building. "It's a mob mentality that doesn't work politically," he said.

Step toward communism?
Inside House office buildings, protesters made their views known by visiting lawmakers' offices and chanting at legislators walking by.

Among the demonstrators was Delane Stewart, 65, of Cookeville, Tenn., who had come with her husband, Jesse.

"You know what's coming next if this happens?" she said, referring to the health bill's passage. "They're going to come after gun control."

Retired businessman Randy Simpson, 67, of Seneca, S.C., also said the health bill was just a first step.

Understanding the health care overhaul

If enacted, the reconciliation bill combined with the Senate-passed bill would:
-Spend $794 billion on expanding insurance coverage

-Expand Medicaid coverage to 16 million additional people

-Provide coverage through an insurance exchange to 24 million people

-Reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million people



Source: The Congressional Budget Office, msnbc.com's Tom Curry • Print this


"My concerns are about the health care bill, and the direction it takes us is toward communism, quite frankly," he said.

At a daylong meeting of the House Rules Committee, members of both parties squeezed into a tiny hearing room traded accusations in a session that was often a shouting match.

"You all in the minority know what the American people think," Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said loudly and mockingly at Republicans repeatedly saying the public overwhelmingly opposes Obama's health care bill.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said a tricky voting procedure Democrats had been contemplating "corrupts and prostitutes the system" and would "unleash a cultural war in this country."


Click for related content
Obama to Dems: Overhauil 'is in your hands'
The CBO's preliminary estimate (.pdf)
Text of the reconciliation bill

Emotional peak
Obama's Capitol Hill visit was the day's emotional peak for House Democrats as he sought to energize them to finally approve the legislation.

He conceded that it could be tough for some to vote for the bill, but predicted it would end up being politically smart because once it becomes law people will realize they like its provisions like curbs on insurance companies.

"It is in your hands," the president said in what Clyburn later called the best speech he'd ever heard Obama make. "It is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow."

Some of these teabaggers and Republicans are beyond crazy. While the propose HCB may not be a perfect fix (neither is the US Constitution) at least its a brave and bold start and step in the right direction.

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 05:34 PM
While the propose HCB may not be a perfect fix (neither is the US Constitution) at least its a brave and bold start and step in the right direction.[/B]

If you don't like the Constitution then change it or leave the country.

tangerine_dream
03-21-2010, 05:45 PM
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a healthcare system anywhere in the world to be considered even GOOD when 10% of the population have no access to it effectively. (i.e. pay for it)
Stop the propaganda lies. Once again, all Americans have access to health care whether they have health insurance or not. If you are in need of urgent care, you get it, no questions asked, and it is paid for by others if you can't pay for it.

Angle Queen
03-21-2010, 05:49 PM
If you don't even believe that the government is competent enough to manage healthcare, what makes you think they are competent enough to manage education, the economy, or even defense?This.

I don't trust those *&*!#(*& in DC to do any of those things. It's all a mess...as is this version of "health care reform" and playing all these political games to get it passed makes me even more wary of what's in store for us all.

tangerine_dream
03-21-2010, 06:11 PM
This.

I don't trust those *&*!#(*& in DC to do any of those things. It's all a mess...as is this version of "health care reform" and playing all these political games to get it passed makes me even more wary of what's in store for us all.
Indeed. As an example, the recent credit card reform that passed has actually made it worse for consumers (such as, your FICO score will be lower if you don't carry enough debt/credit. WTF?). I'm afraid to think what would happen if this version of the healthcare reform is actually passed. The Democrats who are hell bent on passing this thing are more concernced with putting a checkmark in the "win" column than they are with getting healthcare reform right. Most intelligent Americans are naturally wary of this.

Fee
03-21-2010, 07:00 PM
Stop the propaganda lies. Once again, all Americans have access to health care whether they have health insurance or not. If you are in need of urgent care, you get it, no questions asked, and it is paid for by others if you can't pay for it.

This is a myth. Americans have access to urgent care for acute conditions, not health care for chronic conditions. If I go to an emergency room and say 'my shoulder hurts' they will examine it, they will diagnose it, they will explain this injury to me, they will give me a prescription for the pain (that I then have to find the money to fill), but I will not get the physical therapy to heal/improve my condition unless I can find the money to pay for it. (I have insurance now, but there were many years when my husband and I did not have it).

If I go to the emergency room and say 'my breast is sore' they will do an exam but I'm SOL if it's breast cancer and I don't have insurance (unless I live in an area with charitble treatment organizations).

If I go to an emergency room and say 'I have the flu' yeah, I'll get a bed and treatment. But preventative care, which would save more money in the long run, is not covered or encouraged by our current system.

There is a greater problem that this bill or any bill cannot fix, it is the culture that I see in America that does not value personal health overall. The belief that everything can be fixed by a pill because 'I don't have time' to do whatever (exercise, eat right, shop for proper groceries, whatever). It's a shame they couldn't find a way to put personal responsibility into this bill.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 07:03 PM
Exactly the same as everywhere, or are you suggesting in the US you cannot go and pay a private doctor or emergency rooms don't treat urgent conditions inmediately? I really don't understand your point, if there is any.



No, I make it sound as it is in reality, non-emergency conditions are treated in accordance with the waiting list and you can wait months for a TAC or weeks for a certain X-ray, not to mention visits with scarce specialists like allergyologist (or whatever the fuck it's spelt) dermatologists and score of others. I once had to wait for more than a year before I was finally diagnosed and a treatment given for a lower back condition, all due to the different waiting lists every time. Anyone in Spain using the socialized system will tell you that, I guess you don't use it (me neither, any longuer :hug:) And Spain has reputably one the best systems in Europe :shrug:

My point is that, in Europe, you're guaranteed treatment no matter what, and in the US you aren't.

I'm well aware of the long waiting lists in Spain and other European countries, but at least we're put in those waiting lists, unlike un-insured people in the US.

Stop the propaganda lies. Once again, all Americans have access to health care whether they have health insurance or not. If you are in need of urgent care, you get it, no questions asked, and it is paid for by others if you can't pay for it.

I guess you missed my links to studies and articles by reputed organisms, including American like Harvard University, about the tens of thousands of deaths in the US yearly due to lack of insurance.

Or the other studies that constantly put the US Health Care system at the tail of all industrialised nations, while being at the top when it comes to health care expenditure.

Angle Queen
03-21-2010, 07:44 PM
My point is that, in Europe, you're guaranteed treatment no matter what, and in the US you aren't.Why should anyone be guaranteed treatment? Admirable, perhaps, but not necessarily what government should be in the business of doing or ensuring.

I guess you missed my links to studies and articles by reputed organisms, including American like Harvard University, about the tens of thousands of deaths in the US yearly due to lack of insurance.And how many thousands with health insurance still die from preventable diseases...because of a lack of personal responsibility with regards to their own health? I'll bet we have more of those here in the US than anywhere else too.

Or the other studies that constantly put the US Health Care system at the tail of all industrialised nations, while being at the top when it comes to health care expenditure.While the inverse ratio of those two things is a fine talking point, it does nothing to "solve" the problem. We spend so much, in part, because we have (or had) it to spend...and there are things we have to spend it on (that perhaps other cultures/nations don't). As for being at the "tail" of the nations, I'll still match what our system is capable of providing with any in the world.

Most of the shouting is, quite frankly, over the money. There is lots wrong with that part of the equation...but I don't see the current Bill even coming close to addressing those issues.

tangerine_dream
03-21-2010, 07:57 PM
the tens of thousands of deaths in the US yearly due to lack of insurance.
How exactly did they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those people died "due to lack of health care or insurance" and not due to their own self-neglect? Statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda you want.

Americans don't live as long as other countries, you know why? It's not because of lack of health care but because our eating habits are very unhealthy compared to other countries. We eat a lot of processed "fake" food. You could have the best health care in the world but it won't save you from an early death if you have unhealthy eating habits.

Wow, this UK health system is clearly so much better.

Stafford Hospital caused ‘unimaginable suffering’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.ece)

Investigation reveals appalling neglect by NHS of people with learning disabilities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/24/learning-disability-neglect-nhs)

Newborn baby died because of ‘scandalous’ shortage of midwives, coroner rules (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6954034.ece)

Americans! Don't copy the British healthcare system! (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9407633/Americans_Dont_copy_the_British_healthcare_system/)

Heart patient died after being left waiting for TWO HOURS outside hospital A&E department (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1143182/Heart-patient-died-left-waiting-TWO-HOURS-outside-hospital-A-E-department.html)

UK: State of healthcare for children appalling ( http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Retail-industry/UK-STATE-OF-HEALTHCARE-FOR-CHILDREN-APPALLING-UK-GOVERNMENT-TO-REVEAL-IFV-PLAN.html)

buddyholly
03-21-2010, 08:41 PM
Demonstrators hurl N-word, spit at black members of Congress

Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times."

Are there any blacks out there that are distressed and sickened by seeing the N-word appear in print?

Winston's Human
03-21-2010, 08:42 PM
This is a wildly debatable point. This assumes that all Americans are knowledgeable individuals able to make their own correct choices (which I beg to differ). If you don't even believe that the government is competent enough to manage healthcare, what makes you think they are competent enough to manage education, the economy, or even defense?

I actually do not think that the US federal government is all that competent in managing the economy or education.

I have experienced government health care through the Veteran's Administration where getting an appointment for my Dad was near-impossible and, when you did have an appointment, it was nowhere near timely. I have lost count of the number of 9:00 a.m. appointments where my Dad did not even see a nurse (let alone a doctor) until midafternoon. I remain unconvinced that government-run healthcare works better than the current U.S. system.

buddyholly
03-21-2010, 08:55 PM
Stop the propaganda lies. Once again, all Americans have access to health care whether they have health insurance or not. If you are in need of urgent care, you get it, no questions asked, and it is paid for by others if you can't pay for it.

You never discuss the gouging of the public by the insurers. My own personal experience has demonstrated that the American insurance companies are devoted to finding loopholes for not paying out, and to dumping their clients once they develop a profile that suggests they may soon need medical treatment (such as getting older). And as you know, once the insurance company dumps you, any other insurer will be able to assign practically any other illness you get to a ''pre-existing'' condition. Or are you happy with the insurance companies and their long history of denying payments and of dumping their clients?

I can't speak for how they treat US citizens, but I can attest how non-citizens are accepted by the insurance company, but after some years are squeezed mercilessly for money until they are forced out.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 09:56 PM
Why should anyone be guaranteed treatment? Admirable, perhaps, but not necessarily what government should be in the business of doing or ensuring.

Because the right to health care should be a universal basic human right.

And how many thousands with health insurance still die from preventable diseases...because of a lack of personal responsibility with regards to their own health? I'll bet we have more of those here in the US than anywhere else too.

That I don't know, but it's another story.

While the inverse ratio of those two things is a fine talking point, it does nothing to "solve" the problem. We spend so much, in part, because we have (or had) it to spend...and there are things we have to spend it on (that perhaps other cultures/nations don't). As for being at the "tail" of the nations, I'll still match what our system is capable of providing with any in the world.

"Capable" doesn't mean much. Nalbandian is capable.

How exactly did they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those people died "due to lack of health care or insurance" and not due to their own self-neglect? Statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda you want.

Americans don't live as long as other countries, you know why? It's not because of lack of health care but because our eating habits are very unhealthy compared to other countries. We eat a lot of processed "fake" food. You could have the best health care in the world but it won't save you from an early death if you have unhealthy eating habits.

Well I backed my point with three studies by three internationally reputed organisms including one of the leading world's universities, an American one. You haven't backed up yours. ;)

Wow, this UK health system is clearly so much better.

Stafford Hospital caused ‘unimaginable suffering’ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.ece)

Investigation reveals appalling neglect by NHS of people with learning disabilities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/24/learning-disability-neglect-nhs)

Newborn baby died because of ‘scandalous’ shortage of midwives, coroner rules (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6954034.ece)

Americans! Don't copy the British healthcare system! (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/9407633/Americans_Dont_copy_the_British_healthcare_system/)

Heart patient died after being left waiting for TWO HOURS outside hospital A&E department (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1143182/Heart-patient-died-left-waiting-TWO-HOURS-outside-hospital-A-E-department.html)

UK: State of healthcare for children appalling ( http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Retail-industry/UK-STATE-OF-HEALTHCARE-FOR-CHILDREN-APPALLING-UK-GOVERNMENT-TO-REVEAL-IFV-PLAN.html)

Oh come on, you know as well as me you can find these cases anywhere in the world. If your point is that no health system is perfect, you're right.

scoobs
03-21-2010, 10:02 PM
In terms of process there are three key votes here that will take place.

One is a rules vote to agree on the terms of the subsequent final debate on healthcare reform on the floor of the house. That is due in about 5 or 10 minutes.

Later this evening once the debate is done, two more votes will take place, one to pass the Senate's version of the healthcare reform bill, which can then go to President Obama to sign. The second is to pass the reconciliation fixes part of the bill, and if that passes, this will go to the Senate to be voted for under reconciliation rules (51 votes to pass) in the next week.

They need 216 votes in the House on all three for this thing to get done.

Pirata.
03-21-2010, 10:08 PM
I can't take people seriously when they call it Obamacare.

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 10:13 PM
You never discuss the gouging of the public by the insurers. My own personal experience has demonstrated that the American insurance companies are devoted to finding loopholes for not paying out, and to dumping their clients once they develop a profile that suggests they may soon need medical treatment (such as getting older). And as you know, once the insurance company dumps you, any other insurer will be able to assign practically any other illness you get to a ''pre-existing'' condition. Or are you happy with the insurance companies and their long history of denying payments and of dumping their clients?

I can't speak for how they treat US citizens, but I can attest how non-citizens are accepted by the insurance company, but after some years are squeezed mercilessly for money until they are forced out.

Medicare and Medicaid deny care more frequently than insurance companies.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/06/30/medicare-more-likely-to-deny-claims-than-commerical-health-insurers/

So no, I'm not happy with insurance companies and their long history of denying payments, but I'd be less happy and less secure if I was on a government program instead.

As for the price increases, well they have to do that to survive. If they actually operated in a free market there would be competition to drive down prices, but the regulatory burden gives them a ton of overhead costs. The same is true of actual care providers who just pass that cost onto the insurance companies. When was the last time you heard of someone starting an insurance company? There's only room for a few major players. Decreasing the regulatory burden will increase competition and decrease the price, but it has to be done at every level in the chain.

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 10:20 PM
Because the right to health care should be a universal basic human right.

Every American already has the right to health care. What you're referring to is an entitlement. The right to keep and bear arms is a well-defined right in the US (certainly much more defined than the right to health care). If a right is something that the government must provide then how come I haven't been given a gun yet?

scoobs
03-21-2010, 10:21 PM
On the first vote to commence general debate they got over 216 votes already, so that's one hurdle effectively cleared.

The vote is still open for a few more minutes.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 10:21 PM
Every American already has the right to health care. What you're referring to is an entitlement. The right to keep and bear arms is a well-defined right in the US (certainly much more defined than the right to health care). If a right is something that the government must provide then how come I haven't been given a gun yet?

You know what I mean...

scoobs
03-21-2010, 10:29 PM
The vote to commence the general debate passed

224-206

28 Democrats voted in opposition.
0 Republicans voted in favour.

That's a useful indicator of where the other two votes are likely to end up.

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 10:31 PM
You know what I mean...

So how far does this new entitlement extend? Is every American entitled to health care even if it causes the availability or quality of care received by others to decrease?

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 10:36 PM
So how far does this new entitlement extend? Is every American entitled to health care even if it causes the availability or quality of care received by others to decrease?

The system should be regulated in a way that every citizen has access to health care of a decent, humane level. The US has luckily the tools to do that. Does it know how/want to do it? I'm sceptical.

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 10:47 PM
The system should be regulated in a way that every citizen has access to health care of a decent, humane level. The US has luckily the tools to do that. Does it know how/want to do it? I'm sceptical.

So in granting every citizen access to health care of a "decent, humane level", which I take it would be defined by the government, what happens if other citizens who previously had access to top-notch care, like the majority of Americans currently do, suddenly find that that high level of care is no longer accessible? Is that ok?

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 10:50 PM
So in granting every citizen access to health care of a "decent, humane level", which I take it would be defined by the government, what happens if other citizens who previously had access to top-notch care, like the majority of Americans currently do, suddenly find that that high level of care is no longer accessible? Is that ok?

Why shouldn't it be? They could still go private if so they wanted.

Action Jackson
03-21-2010, 10:53 PM
So in granting every citizen access to health care of a "decent, humane level", which I take it would be defined by the government, what happens if other citizens who previously had access to top-notch care, like the majority of Americans currently do, suddenly find that that high level of care is no longer accessible? Is that ok?

Those other Americans aren't going to stop going to private health care facilities are they? Because they will still have the earning capacity to be able to afford it.

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 10:59 PM
Why shouldn't it be? They could still go private if so they wanted.

But then they would essentially be paying for two separate policies, which likely wouldn't be an option for many people, so top-notch care would no longer be accessible to them. The wealthy will always be able to get the best treatment, but many of us in the middle-class will be dependent on the government to provide us with what it decides is a decent level of care.

I'm sure the Cubans receive what their government calls a decent, humane level of care. I bet Castro gets the best stuff available, though.

Angle Queen
03-21-2010, 11:06 PM
Because the right to health care should be a universal basic human right.

On your base statement, I still disagree. The “right” to anything to receive...that costs money...isn’t a “right.” It’s a privilege.

But from a more practical standpoint...and a humanitarian one, this is where the definition of “health care” is paramount. Should we, as a society, be obligated...obliged...to replace the kidney you ruined by drinking yourself silly? Or, should we similarly be on the hook to pay for your extended end-of-life care because you’ve got lung cancer from smoking pack after pack? No, I say, to both of those. But should we, could we pay for basic preventative things such as vaccines or diagnostic elements as x-rays to detect broken bones....sure...if the budget allows. And right now, our (US) budget is a disaster. So that makes everything...an iffy proposition.

As my (admittedly right-wing) husband postulates, if free (or minimal cost) health care is a right, why aren’t guns...as (supposedly) guaranteed by our Second Amendment...free or at minimal cost?

Be careful of what you demand is a “right.”

Now about that “capable” part of our “system.” If it weren’t for the heavy financial incentives (in its favor), most of what our “system” has produced wouldn’t exist...anywhere at any price. Again, be careful of what you propose. Innovation doesn’t happen without incentive. And money, BIG money...is the best motivator around.

All these things aside, Har-Tru, I would love to see massive changes in the way things work over here. Everyone shares some of the blame: the doctors, lawyers, patients and insurance companies. The amount of graft and waste is unbelieveable. chip_s_m earlier gave some really good suggestions about what needs to happen...but sadly, the politicians don’t have the balls to do any of those.

Fensler
03-21-2010, 11:10 PM
Some polls do suggest though that opinion may be starting to swing back in favour of passage - i'm sure the recent double digit premium hikes from major insurance companies that landed on the doormats of many customers in many states this past couple of months may have helped with that.

Insurance to guard against an array of exaggerated (or often fabricated) malpractice claims is one of the primary causes of the exorbitant insurance rates and overall healthcare costs in the US. (And even worse, the threat of malpractice claims can give insurance companies an ostensible excuse to the price-gauge people even more extensively.) The paperwork and other red tape associated with this insurance burdens and slows the system, and many doctors have become increasingly frustrated with their profession because of this. Some have even left it behind.

And yet, like Chip_s_m says here (quoted below), there is essentially no tort reform in this bill. Congress is doing little to strengthen our ability to diminish fraud. False trial claims and the extortionist tactics of insurance companies will continue to become more prevalent after this bill.

Who knows. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that claims lawyers are among the biggest donors to the Democratic Party, while insurance companies are major contributors to both parties. But that's just a guess.

{Note on malpractice comments. I'm not saying that neglectful healthcare providers shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Willfully negligent doctors, nurses, technicians, etc. should definitely be held responsible. I'm just commenting on the crippling effects (both direct and indirect) of fraud.}


Other than that, the current bill needs real tort reform (not the pilot program the lefties threw in there as a bone to the right), interstate competition, greater tax-exemptions for health-savings accounts, high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions, and to allow hospitals to refuse to treat those who won't pay for the care (signing a simple bond upon arrival would do the trick). Right now it's essentially just a bill that raises taxes and pays for people who can't afford insurance to get some. Hurray, a new dependent class! There are also a bunch of new regulations enacted that just make it more expensive for insurance companies to provide coverage for us and providers to care for us. These regulations are totally gonna "protect" us, though. This bill increases demand for a product while making supplying that product more expensive. Unfortunately, the healthcare industry isn't immune to basic economic laws, so don't be fooled, premiums will continue to go up.

At the very least it will be fun to watch this bill go through the courts, in particular the individual mandate. This will take years, but reportedly there are going to be some lawsuits filed next week. Creating a better bill, of course, would've kept this from bogging down the justice system. Obviously that's too much to ask of our elected officials, many of whom hopefully won't be there this time next year.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 11:16 PM
On your base statement, I still disagree. The “right” to anything to receive...that costs money...isn’t a “right.” It’s a privilege.

But from a more practical standpoint...and a humanitarian one, this is where the definition of “health care” is paramount. Should we, as a society, be obligated...obliged...to replace the kidney you ruined by drinking yourself silly? Or, should we similarly be on the hook to pay for your extended end-of-life care because you’ve got lung cancer from smoking pack after pack? No, I say, to both of those.

Oh but those are special cases, I tend to agree with you in those cases.

As my (admittedly right-wing) husband postulates, if free (or minimal cost) health care is a right, why aren’t guns...as (supposedly) guaranteed by our Second Amendment...free or at minimal cost?

Comparing the right to health to the right to bear guns is, from a moral standpoint, ridiculous.

Now about that “capable” part of our “system.” If it weren’t for the heavy financial incentives (in its favor), most of what our “system” has produced wouldn’t exist...anywhere at any price. Again, be careful of what you propose. Innovation doesn’t happen without incentive. And money, BIG money...is the best motivator around.

That is basically what I meant. Iraq and Afghanistan are on paper able to be fully modern democratic countries, but in reality things are a bit more complicated. Same with the US and universal health care.

Angle Queen
03-21-2010, 11:22 PM
Comparing the right to health to the right to bear guns is, from a moral standpoint, ridiculous.Wait! You've changed from "health care" to "health." One...the Second Amendment, is the written and long-establish law of our land. Is what it is. What you're suggesting is, at best, a modern concept.

Fensler
03-21-2010, 11:27 PM
This is a myth. Americans have access to urgent care for acute conditions, not health care for chronic conditions. If I go to an emergency room and say 'my shoulder hurts' they will examine it, they will diagnose it, they will explain this injury to me, they will give me a prescription for the pain (that I then have to find the money to fill), but I will not get the physical therapy to heal/improve my condition unless I can find the money to pay for it. (I have insurance now, but there were many years when my husband and I did not have it).

If I go to the emergency room and say 'my breast is sore' they will do an exam but I'm SOL if it's breast cancer and I don't have insurance (unless I live in an area with charitble treatment organizations).

If I go to an emergency room and say 'I have the flu' yeah, I'll get a bed and treatment. But preventative care, which would save more money in the long run, is not covered or encouraged by our current system.

There is a greater problem that this bill or any bill cannot fix, it is the culture that I see in America that does not value personal health overall. The belief that everything can be fixed by a pill because 'I don't have time' to do whatever (exercise, eat right, shop for proper groceries, whatever). It's a shame they couldn't find a way to put personal responsibility into this bill.

....

How exactly did they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those people died "due to lack of health care or insurance" and not due to their own self-neglect? Statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda you want.

Americans don't live as long as other countries, you know why? It's not because of lack of health care but because our eating habits are very unhealthy compared to other countries. We eat a lot of processed "fake" food. You could have the best health care in the world but it won't save you from an early death if you have unhealthy eating habits.

Excellent posts from both of you.

You've each highlighted an important point in this debate. That is, a variety of America's problems are related to poor eating habits, inadequate exercise, insufficient preventative care, and a general lack of personal accountability. This current bill isn't going to impact these problems significantly, no matter how well-intentioned its creators and supporters may be. We need more of a cultural revolution...but it won't be happening any time soon.

Har-Tru
03-21-2010, 11:33 PM
Wait! You've changed from "health care" to "health." One...the Second Amendment, is the written and long-establish law of our land. Is what it is. What you're suggesting is, at best, a modern concept.

I meant health care, sorry. Though they're both intertwined the way I see it.

I am suggesting a modern concept, because we live in a modern world. The Second Amendment is an archaic law passed for a country that had little to do with the one today.

cobalt60
03-21-2010, 11:45 PM
Previous discussion and have nothing more to add:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=8923117&postcount=696

Chip_s_m
03-21-2010, 11:50 PM
Oh but those are special cases, I tend to agree with you in those cases.

But who would decide when it's a special case like that? It's not always so clear. If the government's coffers are running low those special case might become more frequent...

Comparing the right to health to the right to bear guns is, from a moral standpoint, ridiculous.

Don't be so quick to disparage the 2nd Amendment. It's quite important. It was designed to allow us to protect ourselves, not just from petty crime, but also from a potentially overreaching government (not just our own) that threatens our freedoms. That obviously seems frivolous considering the stability of the US, but you never know. It's a last resort type of thing. The American colonists never would have been able to rebel had they not owned guns. Receiving good health care may be more important to me today than the right to own a gun, but if tomorrow a dictator sprung up in the US I would probably think otherwise. Sounds silly, I know, but better safe than sorry. All that said, I don't own a gun :lol:. But I would if I thought the above scenario might happen anytime soon.

Angle Queen
03-22-2010, 12:04 AM
I meant health care, sorry. Though they're both intertwined the way I see it.Yes...and no. That's a really long discussion. As Americans, I think we've taken advantage of the way things are. We act stupidly (with our collective health)...then demand that the health care system "fix" us...regardless of cost. Both are bad behaviors.

I am suggesting a modern concept, because we live in a modern world. The Second Amendment is an archaic law passed for a country that had little to do with the one today.As to that Second Amendment, that too is a long discussion...one I've had on several occasions with those who are adamant that it's inalienable. Like you, I believe the times have changed...and that the words themselves have been twisted to suit whatever the "case" may be.

I do think we're, as a nation, wealthy and compassionate enough to provide "basic" health care to all our citizens. But debating what that "basic" care is...is another of those long discussions.

I've got to sign off for the night (didn't want you to think I'm ignoring any future comments). I have enjoyed reading everyone viewpoint.

Winston's Human
03-22-2010, 12:16 AM
The Second Amendment is hardly archaic. Gun rights are one of the cornerstones of our freedom along with speech rights and property rights.

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 02:20 AM
I always thought the US Constitution provided for the right of citizens to form a well-armed militia. How that got interpreted as the right for an individual to be packing at the post office beats me.

Chip_s_m
03-22-2010, 02:26 AM
I always thought the US Constitution provided for the right of citizens to form a well-armed militia. How that got interpreted as the right for an individual to be packing at the post office beats me.

It's been interpreted this way since it was written (and has been recently reaffirmed). Even if it only applied to militias things wouldn't change. The NRA could just call itself a militia and everyone who wants a gun could just join, and then poof, nothing is different from the way things are now.

The gun control lobby has got to be one of the least successful lobbying groups ever.

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 02:30 AM
As for the price increases, well they have to do that to survive. If they actually operated in a free market there would be competition to drive down prices, but the regulatory burden gives them a ton of overhead costs.

When you get a letter from your insurance company (IMG of Indianapolis) saying that while they do not take into account your age or medical condition, it is necessary to raise premiums due to increasing costs of health care. Therefore your premium for the coming year will rise from $10,000 to $30,000. You can almost see them laughing at you as you are culled from their books for being too old and no longer a cash cow.

Or would you shrug and pay up, concluding that they are just trying to survive in a tough business?

scoobs
03-22-2010, 02:35 AM
The final series of votes is underway in the House.

Listening to John Boehner and then Nancy Pelosi speak, you would think they were talking about two different bills in two different legislatures in two different countries.

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 02:36 AM
It's been interpreted this way since it was written (and has been recently reaffirmed). Even if it only applied to militias things wouldn't change. The NRA could just call itself a militia and everyone who wants a gun could just join, and then poof, nothing is different from the way things are now.

The gun control lobby has got to be one of the least successful lobbying groups ever.

And I guess that is why so many Europeans wonder why anyone would want to live in a country where any idiot can buy a gun, load it and take to the streets.

scoobs
03-22-2010, 02:46 AM
The Senate bill has now passed the House and will move to the President to be signed into law.

The final vote will be on the reconciliation package, which comes after a procedural vote.

scoobs
03-22-2010, 02:47 AM
Final tally on that vote looks like 219-212 with 34 Democrats opposing.

scoobs
03-22-2010, 03:08 AM
The Democrats have rapidly defeated a Republican procedural attempt to force the bill back into committee.

2nd vote down, 1 to go.

Chip_s_m
03-22-2010, 03:11 AM
And I guess that is why so many Europeans wonder why anyone would want to live in a country where any idiot can buy a gun, load it and take to the streets.

If someone's afraid to live in the US because guns are legal then so be it. People have been moving to the US for centuries now, much of that time from Europe in droves, so I don't think it's much of an issue. Guns are quite common in many countries, including Canada and many in Europe, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. We have background checks anyways. If we sought to ban everything that could be used to hurt someone else no society would be able to function.

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 03:20 AM
If someone's afraid to live in the US because guns are legal then so be it. People have been moving to the US for centuries now, much of that time from Europe in droves, so I don't think it's much of an issue. Guns are quite common in many countries, including Canada and many in Europe, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. We have background checks anyways. If we sought to ban everything that could be used to hurt someone else no society would be able to function.

I'm getting at the fact that the US seems to lead the developed world in civilian massacres. Going postal is becoming an American tradition.

scoobs
03-22-2010, 03:21 AM
The vote to pass the Reconciliation package is underway, this is the final vote that the House needs to pass to complete their piece of the puzzle, at least for now.

scoobs
03-22-2010, 03:30 AM
The reconciliation bill passes the house.

Johnny Groove
03-22-2010, 03:31 AM
So scoobs, when will I be allowed to see the doctor for free?

scoobs
03-22-2010, 03:31 AM
So scoobs, when will I be allowed to see the doctor for free?
My crystal ball is on the blink.

scoobs
03-22-2010, 03:39 AM
Passage of the reconciliation package passed by

220-211 with 34 Democrats opposed.

Focus will soon switch to the Senate where the reconciliation packages must be voted on by 51 Senators to pass the Senate and go to President Obama to be signed into law.

At this point the Republicans will have the opportunity to try to swamp the reconciliation package with lots of amendments, and if they succeed in getting any amendments introduced into the final version that the Senate package, that package will have to return to the House to be voted on again before it can be signed into law. So while a major hurdle has been cleared now, there's still some way to go on the reconciliation package.

The Senate version of the bill has passed though and if nothing else, that much has been done.

Chip_s_m
03-22-2010, 03:43 AM
When you get a letter from your insurance company (IMG of Indianapolis) saying that while they do not take into account your age or medical condition, it is necessary to raise premiums due to increasing costs of health care. Therefore your premium for the coming year will rise from $10,000 to $30,000. You can almost see them laughing at you as you are culled from their books for being too old and no longer a cash cow.

Or would you shrug and pay up, concluding that they are just trying to survive in a tough business?

Your insurance company obviously lied to you, which they were able to do because they knew they essentially held you hostage. If they operated in a free market then they would have been incentivized to treat you better, knowing that you could easily take your business elsewhere. There's just too much red tape making both the insurance company's job difficult along with that of medical providers. Reducing that regulatory burden would decrease insurance companies' overhead costs, which would free up competition. Think you're getting a bad deal at one? Just go to another, like with any other product or service out there. It's nearly impossible to do that now since there's so little competition. Allowing interstate competition would help significantly with this, as well.

They're not saints, but there's a reason that out of all the industries out there the health insurance is one of the few that's able to just casually dick around their customers, and it's because the environment in which they operate allows for that to happen without any significant risk of losing business. That environment was created by a swamp of governmental policies. Creating more won't solve the problem.

Incidentally, the same type of thing is happening with the financial industry. Don't you think it's strange that the CEO's of Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are calling for more reform, when presumably that reform would make it harder for them to do business? It would, but it would also increase the overhead costs of smaller regional and local banks, and they might not be able to handle it. Competition will decrease, so the big banks won't have to worry about a host of potential new rivals. This is especially attractive to them since many regional banks are quite healthy and have been doing well despite the financial crisis and didn't need any bailouts (not to mention they're not hated). If that happens and an oligopoly is created then they'll be able to jack up fees and interest rates. They won't care if it screws consumers because the other options won't be any better. This has been happening to the health insurance industry for decades.

orangehat
03-22-2010, 04:48 AM
I don't like the right-wing arguments of "the free market ..." "the free market ...."

If the free-market were so all-powerful we wouldn't have had to bear the costs of the financial crisis the US just got embroiled into.

Take that laissez-faire attitude and shove it down those Wall street toilets.

Edit: By "we" i mean the world, I'm not American.

GugaF1
03-22-2010, 05:04 AM
On your base statement, I still disagree. The “right” to anything to receive...that costs money...isn’t a “right.” It’s a privilege.

But from a more practical standpoint...and a humanitarian one, this is where the definition of “health care” is paramount. Should we, as a society, be obligated...obliged...to replace the kidney you ruined by drinking yourself silly? Or, should we similarly be on the hook to pay for your extended end-of-life care because you’ve got lung cancer from smoking pack after pack? No, I say, to both of those. But should we, could we pay for basic preventative things such as vaccines or diagnostic elements as x-rays to detect broken bones....sure...if the budget allows. And right now, our (US) budget is a disaster. So that makes everything...an iffy proposition.

As my (admittedly right-wing) husband postulates, if free (or minimal cost) health care is a right, why aren’t guns...as (supposedly) guaranteed by our Second Amendment...free or at minimal cost?

Be careful of what you demand is a “right.”

Now about that “capable” part of our “system.” If it weren’t for the heavy financial incentives (in its favor), most of what our “system” has produced wouldn’t exist...anywhere at any price. Again, be careful of what you propose. Innovation doesn’t happen without incentive. And money, BIG money...is the best motivator around.

All these things aside, Har-Tru, I would love to see massive changes in the way things work over here. Everyone shares some of the blame: the doctors, lawyers, patients and insurance companies. The amount of graft and waste is unbelieveable. chip_s_m earlier gave some really good suggestions about what needs to happen...but sadly, the politicians don’t have the balls to do any of those.


Yeah? everything that costs money is a privilage eh? So Let's leave out the Fireman, the Police, Education, Infrastrucutre... Let`s leave the "Angle Queen" pay for all that out of your pocket, for her privilage.

You know that the basic argument for me, is that some things on this world. Not many, but some things that are in no need to make revenue. That what some Americans don`t seem to grasp and haven`t yet grasp even with the Wall St. warning bell.

There are some activities in life where Profits should not be of main concern. And that Private companies are not able to see that, no matter what, their main concern is with profits, that is what private companies are design to achieve. And when you have that runing your Healthcare, and other basics services, running for greed and profit only you will have issues.

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 06:05 AM
I don't like the right-wing arguments of "the free market ..." "the free market ...."

If the free-market were so all-powerful we wouldn't have had to bear the costs of the financial crisis the US just got embroiled into.

Take that laissez-faire attitude and shove it down those Wall street toilets.

Edit: By "we" i mean the world, I'm not American.

Who the fu*k are you to talk in the name of the world? take your ignorant pretentious attitude and shove it up whatever dark hole you've got available at the moment, thank you.

orangehat
03-22-2010, 07:58 AM
Who the fu*k are you to talk in the name of the world? take your ignorant pretentious attitude and shove it up whatever dark hole you've got available at the moment, thank you.

Right, because the whole world will disagree with me.

Unless you were one of those arrogant bankers on Wall Street,you'd likely to agree :rolleyes:

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 08:05 AM
and then again, everyone in Europe who can afford it, when seriously ill, run to the US for proper treatment :shrug:

O'rly?

:lol:

Lopez
03-22-2010, 10:20 AM
O'rly?

:lol:

Yeah I mean look at Beckham, he went to the US for proper treatment...

Oh, wait... was it Finland?

:lol:

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 10:51 AM
Don't be so quick to disparage the 2nd Amendment. It's quite important. It was designed to allow us to protect ourselves, not just from petty crime, but also from a potentially overreaching government (not just our own) that threatens our freedoms. That obviously seems frivolous considering the stability of the US, but you never know. It's a last resort type of thing. The American colonists never would have been able to rebel had they not owned guns. Receiving good health care may be more important to me today than the right to own a gun, but if tomorrow a dictator sprung up in the US I would probably think otherwise. Sounds silly, I know, but better safe than sorry. All that said, I don't own a gun :lol:. But I would if I thought the above scenario might happen anytime soon.

That's what I was referring to.

The Second Amendment was passed for a country that had just been created, lacked a proper army, was threatened by imminent war coming from their old rulers, the greedy Frenchies and the Spaniards to the East and South. It was a fragile, vast and sparsely populated country that needed to be armed and prepared if it wanted to survive. These days, that country is the most powerful of the globe with a ridiculously huge army. Unless the US feels proud of topping the list of deaths due to firearm, I fail to see the point of keeping that law in force.

And I'd like to think you're joking about a dictator springing up in the US...

Yes...and no. That's a really long discussion. As Americans, I think we've taken advantage of the way things are. We act stupidly (with our collective health)...then demand that the health care system "fix" us...regardless of cost. Both are bad behaviors.

As to that Second Amendment, that too is a long discussion...one I've had on several occasions with those who are adamant that it's inalienable. Like you, I believe the times have changed...and that the words themselves have been twisted to suit whatever the "case" may be.

I do think we're, as a nation, wealthy and compassionate enough to provide "basic" health care to all our citizens. But debating what that "basic" care is...is another of those long discussions.

I've got to sign off for the night (didn't want you to think I'm ignoring any future comments). I have enjoyed reading everyone viewpoint.

It is a very lengthy discussion, indeed. :)

The Second Amendment is hardly archaic. Gun rights are one of the cornerstones of our freedom along with speech rights and property rights.

Yes Sir! :hatoff:

Care to explain WHY it isn't archaic?

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 11:08 AM
Yeah I mean look at Beckham, he went to the US for proper treatment...

Oh, wait... was it Finland?

:lol:

People that bracket all Europeans are those being clueless... As if you could compare healthcare systems in Spain/Portugal/Greece with say Finland/Luxemburg/Switzerland...

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 11:41 AM
People that bracket all Europeans are those being clueless... As if you could compare healthcare systems in Spain/Portugal/Greece with say Finland/Luxemburg/Switzerland...

Talk about being clueless:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Source: WHO.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 11:50 AM
Talk about being clueless:




Source: WHO.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf

:lol: check your sources first mate :hug:

"The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task."

And I guess Beckham went to Finland because he wanted to have a sauna too, and most "petro-billionaires" are having medical treatments in Switzerland because they like their chocolate while getting some surgery... :yeah:

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 11:53 AM
:lol: check your sources first mate :hug:

"The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task."

And I guess Beckham went to Finland because he wanted to have a sauna too, and most "petro-billionaires" are having medical treatments in Switzerland because they like their chocolate while getting some surgery... :yeah:

Well I gave you a study by the World Health Organisation, made ten years ago, not 300, while all you gave me are your xenophobic stereotypes, once again. :shrug:

And I guess you're telling me Beckham is the epitome of the average-class individual that makes up the vast majority of the population, right?

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 12:02 PM
And I guess you're telling me Beckham is the epitome of the average-class individual that makes up the vast majority of the population, right?

I was responding to gago who stated that any European that can afford it (Becks is one of them, right?) run to the US for proper treatments... Rich people surely don't run there to get treated, that is all :)


Well I gave you a study by the World Health Organisation, made ten years ago, not 300, while all you gave me are your xenophobic stereotypes, once again. :shrug:


My god, such paranoia is concerning, really :awww: I bet that if I failed to mention Spain you wouldn't have even replied to this... :awww: :hug:

Angle Queen
03-22-2010, 12:06 PM
Yeah? everything that costs money is a privilage eh? So Let's leave out the Fireman, the Police, Education, Infrastrucutre... Let`s leave the "Angle Queen" pay for all that out of your pocket, for her privilage.I...do pay for those things...and dearly so. But none of the things you mentioned are "rights"; they are the result of a civil and prosperous society. The rights our Constitution guarantees...speech, religion and assembly are indeed "free."

Fire and police protection...are two of the things I truly feel government is best suited for but even there is some caution; there are "police" states around the world I wouldn't want to live in.

As for infrastructure, we all pay for those things...whether they're roads, sanitary sewers or whatnot. I pay en masse via gasoline taxes or directly through individual car taxes, tolls or user fees. As a Civil Engineer, I'm very familiar with what it takes to finance, design, build and maintain those things whether for public or private use. Roads and infrastructure are not a right and they are not free.

Now Education...is a whole other ball of wax. Our "free" "public" education isn't all that great. Talk about another item where we way overspend and don't get a very good return on our money. That's why we have many private options...for which we pay and pay and pay. And while our courts have all but dictated that an education must be provided to everyone, we all pay. In fact, for most local governments (that we, as their taxpayers fund), it is their single largest expense. Even though we send our children to private schools, we still have to pay for the "public" education in our locality (as does everyone, regardless of if they have children that attend or not).

Try again, Guga.

There are some activities in life where Profits should not be of main concern.Here I agree with you. Some things are more important than money. But it does take money to make some things happen. It's a conundrum that can be difficult to resolve.

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 12:17 PM
Your insurance company obviously lied to you, which they were able to do because they knew they essentially held you hostage. If they operated in a free market then they would have been incentivized to treat you better, knowing that you could easily take your business elsewhere.

You seem to be missing the whole point. They wanted me to take my business elsewhere. (OK, they knew I couldn't take my business elsewhere because of the prior condition clause in all policies. Do you seriously think that after being thrown out by one American insurance company that the other companies are out there looking for my business?).
Stastistically I was becoming a risk to their profits, that is all. There are numerous cases of whistle blowers at insurance companies who have stated that their annual bonuses went up the more they were able to get the riskier clients off their books.

Manon
03-22-2010, 12:28 PM
I agree with JM on this (I know, nobody ask me) but just an observation > USA's final goal is French health care system as (proven) the best in the world. That's what I've heard yesterday on Euronews and that is what we have received from USA press clipping service.

As far as I know (my sister's best friend who lives in Zug -Swiss- or whatever and many others) JM's country is really one of the best in Europe on that issue. I could give you dozen examples (comparing to other countries, especially Mediteranian excluded Italy) why the Swiss has got one of the best health care system. I just state my opinon and gave you some facts from USA press clipping service.

I was responding to **** who stated that any European that can afford it (Becks is one of them, right?) run to the US for proper treatments... Rich people surely don't run there to get treated, that is all.


:yeah: For now *avoiding ugly words* very few people 'run' to USA for proper treatments (talking about health:)).

Going to Oman instead to Helvetia for example?

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Fire and police protection...are two of the things I truly feel government is best suited for but even there is some caution; there are "police" states around the world I wouldn't want to live in.

Try again, Guga.



Then why not advocate a fire system where you choose what you pay for? When you call the fire station they ask for your policy number and if you do not have coverage then too bad. After all, if you smoke in bed and set your house on fire, why should the public pay for your misfortune?
Same goes for the police.

orangehat
03-22-2010, 01:26 PM
Then why not advocate a fire system where you choose what you pay for? When you call the fire station they ask for your policy number and if you do not have coverage then too bad. After all, if you smoke in bed and set your house on fire, why should the public pay for your misfortune?
Same goes for the police.

:lol: I didn't think of that. Good one.

I think what Angle Queen is trying to say that she believes firemen and police to be classified under taxpayer money, while not that of insurance. But why should there be any difference between them? Many countries use taxpayers money for universal coverage.

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 01:29 PM
I was responding to gago who stated that any European that can afford it (Becks is one of them, right?) run to the US for proper treatments... Rich people surely don't run there to get treated, that is all :)



My god, such paranoia is concerning, really :awww: I bet that if I failed to mention Spain you wouldn't have even replied to this... :awww: :hug:

No, you were responding to me, don't make me stupid.

And there is no paranoia. You ARE xenophobic, that's crystal clear.

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 01:32 PM
Some things are more important than money.

Health, for instance.

Then why not advocate a fire system where you choose what you pay for? When you call the fire station they ask for your policy number and if you do not have coverage then too bad. After all, if you smoke in bed and set your house on fire, why should the public pay for your misfortune?
Same goes for the police.

:lol: I didn't think of that. Good one.

I think what Angle Queen is trying to say that she believes firemen and police to be classified under taxpayer money, while not that of insurance. But why should there be any difference between them? Many countries use taxpayers money for universal coverage.

Exactly.

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 01:34 PM
No, you were responding to me, don't make me stupid.

And there is no paranoia. You ARE xenophobic, that's crystal clear.

I was responding to gago in the first place and you come up with some 10 year old ranking from a non reliable web site, to "defend" your beloved Spain...

Again, why am I a xenophobe, because unlike you I happen not to spot Spain as the ultimate heaven on earth? Shoot me for this.

Angle Queen
03-22-2010, 01:41 PM
Then why not advocate a fire system where you choose what you pay for? When you call the fire station they ask for your policy number and if you do not have coverage then too bad. After all, if you smoke in bed and set your house on fire, why should the public pay for your misfortune?
Same goes for the police.I did say I thought police and fire protection was something government was suited for. And I'm not unopposed to fee-for-service...especially on the fire side...and for just the example you cite.

Many people, depending on which locality they live in (even here in the fairly urban area I live in), rely on volunteer fire (and rescue) squads. Those squads are staffed and funded by individuals...like me...so what you're suggesting...actually exists...and probably in more places than not.

The police side is a bit more complicated...but even there I am unopposed to the police sending me a bill for their direct services, especially if I'm the one who's caused the need for them to respond. And in our locality, the police do send invoices for certain services (like funeral procession escorts). I gladly and willingly pay for having the top-notch police force we have here through my local, state and federal taxes. Like I said, it's one of the things I think government is good for. But if I lived in a place without such a priority and felt the need for "extra" protection , I'd be additionally on the hook for it just as some high-end execs or celebrities are.

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 01:46 PM
I was responding to gago in the first place and you come up with some 10 year old ranking from a non reliable web site, to "defend" your beloved Spain...

Again, why am I a xenophobe, because unlike you I happen not to spot Spain as the ultimate heaven on earth? Shoot me for this.

Non-reliable web site uh? So that study never took place?

So I think Spain is heaven on earth. Right. That's why I voluntarily moved to another country, I suppose.

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 01:52 PM
So I think Spain is heaven on earth. Right. That's why I voluntarily moved to another country, I suppose.

Why being so defensive then? :confused: :shrug: I mean, you're the one bashing anything related to France, and yet you call others xenophobes... :yeah:

orangehat
03-22-2010, 01:52 PM
I did say I thought police and fire protection was something government was suited for. And I'm not unopposed to fee-for-service...especially on the fire side...and for just the example you cite.

Many people, depending on which locality they live in (even here in the fairly urban area I live in), rely on volunteer fire (and rescue) squads. Those squads are staffed and funded by individuals...like me...so what you're suggesting...actually exists...and probably in more places than not.

The police side is a bit more complicated...but even there I am unopposed to the police sending me a bill for their direct services, especially if I'm the one who's caused the need for them to respond. And in our locality, the police do send invoices for certain services (like funeral procession escorts). I gladly and willingly pay for having the top-notch police force we have here through my local, state and federal taxes. Like I said, it's one of the things I think government is good for. But if I lived in a place without such a priority and felt the need for "extra" protection , I'd be additionally on the hook for it just as some high-end execs or celebrities are.

This post just makes me go :bolt:.

What on earth is the use of the government then? The US should probably sink into a state of anarchy (the no-government sense, not a state of chaos) where individuals just live for themselves operated by the free market (since there exists a demand and a supply for everything like even for policeman and firemen).

The US should probably start a referendum in 2012 to see if the people want to dissolve the government altogether.

Angle Queen
03-22-2010, 01:53 PM
:lol: I didn't think of that. Good one.

I think what Angle Queen is trying to say that she believes firemen and police to be classified under taxpayer money, while not that of insurance. But why should there be any difference between them? Many countries use taxpayers money for universal coverage.Thanks, orangehat. I had to step away for a moment but have responded to BH above.

And true enough, those public safety items can be and are often funded in many (but not all) places by taxpayer money.

The issue at hand, rather, seems to be whether health insurance/coverage/care should be in the same category. As you can see by how divided our congress (and public) is about it, at least for now, a universal health system doesn't enjoy the same popularity as does police and fire protection. (As an aside and on that front, every local bond issue dealing with upgrading our police and fire departments pass with over 90% approval ratings.)

So where do we go from here? I'm not sure. The lead story in our local paper is that our State Attorney General is set to sue (see here (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/)) over the constitutionality of the bill passed just yesterday. Great. More legal wrangling to drive up the cost...of everything.

Angle Queen
03-22-2010, 01:58 PM
This post just makes me go :bolt:.Sorry to go to the extreme...but sometimes, in these kinds of discussions, it's necessary to either make a point or make someone think about theirs.

What on earth is the use of the government then? The US should probably sink into a state of anarchy (the no-government sense, not a state of chaos) where individuals just live for themselves operated by the free market (since there exists a demand and a supply for everything like even for policeman and firemen).Precisely. For one last time, I think government should handle police items.

The US should probably start a referendum in 2012 to see if the people want to dissolve the government altogether.Again, be careful of what you suggest. I know more than a few folks (normal, common, average folks) who wouldn't mind a serious overhaul of the whole mess.

Not me, though, I think there are many more good things about the US...than bad.

Har-Tru
03-22-2010, 01:59 PM
Why being so defensive then? :confused: :shrug: I mean, you're the one bashing anything related to France, and yet you call others xenophobes... :yeah:

I don't spread lies about France nor do I bring up France trying to downgrade them in every possible discussion.

We're getting off topic.

bokehlicious
03-22-2010, 02:01 PM
I don't spread lies about France nor do I bring up France trying to downgrade them in every possible discussion.


I don't do it either :shrug: that's your "extreme sensitiveness" that makes think so...

Anyways, you were at least right by saying we were going off-topic :) :wavey:

orangehat
03-22-2010, 02:04 PM
Sorry to go to the extreme...but sometimes, in these kinds of discussions, it's necessary to either make a point or make someone think about theirs.

Precisely. For one last time, I think government should handle police items.

Again, be careful of what you suggest. I know more than a few folks (normal, common, average folks) who wouldn't mind a serious overhaul of the whole mess.

Not me, though, I think there are many more good things about the US...than bad.

thanks for clearing stuff up! :yeah:

GugaF1
03-22-2010, 02:37 PM
I...do pay for those things...and dearly so. But none of the things you mentioned are "rights"; they are the result of a civil and prosperous society. The rights our Constitution guarantees...speech, religion and assembly are indeed "free."

Fire and police protection...are two of the things I truly feel government is best suited for but even there is some caution; there are "police" states around the world I wouldn't want to live in.

As for infrastructure, we all pay for those things...whether they're roads, sanitary sewers or whatnot. I pay en masse via gasoline taxes or directly through individual car taxes, tolls or user fees. As a Civil Engineer, I'm very familiar with what it takes to finance, design, build and maintain those things whether for public or private use. Roads and infrastructure are not a right and they are not free.

Now Education...is a whole other ball of wax. Our "free" "public" education isn't all that great. Talk about another item where we way overspend and don't get a very good return on our money. That's why we have many private options...for which we pay and pay and pay. And while our courts have all but dictated that an education must be provided to everyone, we all pay. In fact, for most local governments (that we, as their taxpayers fund), it is their single largest expense. Even though we send our children to private schools, we still have to pay for the "public" education in our locality (as does everyone, regardless of if they have children that attend or not).

Try again, Guga.

Here I agree with you. Some things are more important than money. But it does take money to make some things happen. It's a conundrum that can be difficult to resolve.

Angle the point for me is that I am trying to express, having an insurance company governing the whole country's healthcare in a unregulatory form, can lead to several issues as it does clearly in America. Because as private companies, they will be concern with profits, they will be concern with minimizing service and maximizing revenue, like nearly all companies.

It would be the same if you had the Fire dept. run by private companies. Your house would be on fire and they would get there and say, hey you didn't pay for this extra water equipment, sorry. Or in Education, they would be like, your package doesn't include Math and Physical education classes.

That is the root issue of having private company run it. They will seek to get the most while giving the less. And to have that regarding something as Healthcare is not approriate.

ad-out
03-22-2010, 03:10 PM
Stop the propaganda lies. Once again, all Americans have access to health care whether they have health insurance or not. If you are in need of urgent care, you get it, no questions asked, and it is paid for by others if you can't pay for it.


And true enough, those public safety items can be and are often funded in many (but not all) places by taxpayer money.

The issue at hand, rather, seems to be whether health insurance/coverage/care should be in the same category. As you can see by how divided our congress (and public) is about it, at least for now, a universal health system doesn't enjoy the same popularity as does police and fire protection. (As an aside and on that front, every local bond issue dealing with upgrading our police and fire departments pass with over 90% approval ratings.)


These are the issues here. Comparing free health care to services like firemen/police is absurd. Everyone in the US benefits from these services. Everyone benefits from roads, infrastructure, etc. Everyone can choose to use public education if he/she wishes. But this health care bill only serves a fraction of the public. Why should I be required to pay more (than my already way too high) federal tax to insure someone who doesn't work? Not only is my tax bill likely to go up but also my insurance premiums. Obama is also going to do away with some of the middle class tax cuts that Bush put in place. His plans only benefit the very "poorest" people in this country. Many of which have a much better life living off the government than they would have if they got a job - hell with benefits like this why would they bother actually working like the rest of us?? Food stamps, free housing, free schools, now free health insurance - jackpot! And guess what the rest of us will pay for it all. The middle class is the one who suffers from this - along with older people who have worked their whole life paying into medicare and now who will face an increase in their monthly health care costs to fund those who pay nothing. My own parents, who recently dropped their private health insurance because they are old enough to qualify for the medicare coverage that they paid for through the years, are now going to be paying almost as much for crappy medicare coverage as they were for private health insurance - just to help fund this plan. It's ridiculous! I can't believe any rational intelligent person could think this was a good thing. And to those above who pointed out that any person can receive acute health care, I would also like to add that any person who is willing to flip hamburgers at McDonalds can also receive health insurance.

buddyholly
03-22-2010, 03:15 PM
That is the root issue of having private company run it. They will seek to get the most while giving the less. And to have that regarding something as Healthcare is not approriate.

That is the bottom line. I do not blame anyone for getting sick and would be content to have everyone chip in, just as the police force is paid for by the public, because everyone should have equal protection from being attacked.

But that being said, given the reported cost of the US plan, and knowing that government projects have a potential to soar beyond budgeted costs, I fear that that Great Depression is now looming on the horizon.

Mane
03-22-2010, 03:33 PM
Health insurance for all people!! visit my signature

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 03:46 PM
People that bracket all Europeans are those being clueless... As if you could compare healthcare systems in Spain/Portugal/Greece with say Finland/Luxemburg/Switzerland...

You're indeed very clueless, one of the burden of our system is the huge amount of "medical tourists" from other European countries, notably Germany and UK, taking advantage of it. You might not know Spain is the world leader in transplants for a huge margin, those ppl come here, register as residents, go to the hospital and enter the country waiting list depriving Spaniards of most needed organs they cannot get in their(your) own countries.

ad-out
03-22-2010, 03:48 PM
That is the bottom line. I do not blame anyone for getting sick and would be content to have everyone chip in, just as the police force is paid for by the public, because everyone should have equal protection from being attacked.

But that being said, given the reported cost of the US plan, and knowing that government projects have a potential to soar beyond budgeted costs, I fear that that Great Depression is now looming on the horizon.


So who should have to pay for it?? The problem is that the US government is sooo huge - spending is completely out of control. Programs for everything under the sun - and benefiting only a few while the rest of us foot the bill. If the government could stifle it's spending and maybe cut out some of the programs (and get out of Iraq!) then maybe such a program could be funded using existing funds. Or better yet - the average person might even get a little tax break. Imagine how much our economy could be boosted if we weren't paying a hefty percentage of our earnings to the government.

cobalt60
03-22-2010, 04:15 PM
Excellent points Amanda :yeah:
Having worked in hospitals for the last 27 years from public New York institutions serving the poor, to private hospitals, to military ones and now a community hospital in a rural poor state I can tell you the government has forgotten about the middle class totally!. The poor get free care and at least where I am they get free care. It is the middle class who get squeezed out because their insurance does not cover enough and they make just enough so that they don't qualify for free care.

tangerine_dream
03-22-2010, 04:44 PM
You never discuss the gouging of the public by the insurers.
Exactly. This bill does absolutely NOTHING to contain or reel-in insurance costs. It's basically a hand-out to the insurance companies. Do you think the fact that Blue Cross suddenly raised its rates 39% a week before the healthcare vote is completely unrelated? It's not. They would LOVE to have healthcare reform because it helps them more than it does the average uninsured American citizen.

Obama estimates the reform will cost about $90 billion. You can guarantee that it will cost five times more than that. These estimates are always very conservative and they will always lowball you. And who the hell's going to pay for all of this? Get ready for your income tax to skyrocket. Hope all your credit card debt, student loans, car payments, and mortgages are paid off. Still have a job?

Instead of focusing on preventative health reform bill focuses on curing the disease. It's ass backwards. Hence, my earlier comment that the Democrats were more concerned with getting a Win than they were with getting the bill right.

The US better get ready for the next Great Depression, and we're taking the rest of the world down with us. Hope the Euros will be happy! After all, they know exactly what's best for the US, riiight?

But at least we'll all have health insurance... otherwise we'll be fined for not carrying it, and the government will garnish your unemployment checks to pay for it.

Here's one Frenchman who knew what he was talking about 150 years ago:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." --Alexis de Tocqueville

Maggie was no dummy either: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

http://i33.tinypic.com/w8nsko.jpg

Lopez
03-22-2010, 04:50 PM
Excellent points Amanda :yeah:
Having worked in hospitals for the last 27 years from public New York institutions serving the poor, to private hospitals, to military ones and now a community hospital in a rural poor state I can tell you the government has forgotten about the middle class totally!. The poor get free care and at least where I am they get free care. It is the middle class who get squeezed out because their insurance does not cover enough and they make just enough so that they don't qualify for free care.

I don't know the details of the new system but I know how it's organized here. Anyone can have free healthcare, so no "qualification" needed but if you want you can go to a private hospital and pay for it (or if your insurance covers it you don't have to pay for it).

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 04:52 PM
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." --Alexis de Tocqueville

Maggie was no dummy either: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."


too true :worship:

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 04:53 PM
I don't know the details of the new system but I know how it's organized here. Anyone can have free healthcare.

there are no free lunches, honey.

Lopez
03-22-2010, 05:00 PM
there are no free lunches, honey.

Sure, it costs. I don't have a problem with it though, even though I'm from a well-off family and have a quite good salary considering that I'm still in Uni. Depends on how you view healthcare.

While I'm all for reducing tax rates in Finland, comparing universal healthcare to socialism is stupid.

tangerine_dream
03-22-2010, 05:08 PM
Obama based his healthcare reform on the Massachusetts version ("RomneyCare"). Let's see how well that's working out for them.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp112/bp112index.html
Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable: What the Failure of the "Massachusetts Model" Tells Us about Health Care Reform
With the "Massachusetts model" frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2327272/posts
Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times
"If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts. In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.

Those reforms reveal that the Obama plan would mean higher health insurance premiums for millions, would reduce choice by eliminating both low-cost and comprehensive health plans, would encourage insurers to avoid the sick and would reduce the quality of care.

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds — yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms — and the legislation before Congress — is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan — a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance."

ad-out
03-22-2010, 05:14 PM
Again, the solution here is not another "free lunch" program. It's getting our economy in better shape, offering more jobs and forcing people to actually *work* for their livings thus getting health insurance with their jobs or paying for it themselves. There are always special cases - like becoming uninsured due to a loss of job - and these can be addressed. But just giving everyone free health insurance at the expense of taxpayers is a sure way to further ruin our economy and our faith in the US government.

Lopez
03-22-2010, 05:20 PM
Again, the solution here is not another "free lunch" program. It's getting our economy in better shape, offering more jobs and forcing people to actually *work* for their livings thus getting health insurance with their jobs or paying for it themselves. There are always special cases - like becoming uninsured due to a loss of job - and these can be addressed. But just giving everyone free health insurance at the expense of taxpayers is a sure way to further ruin our economy and our faith in the US government.

If it's that great being unemployed, why don't you go ahead and become poor and unemployed then :p ?

While I agree that working should always be more attractive than not working, the correct solution isn't to toss the people not working under a bridge and not take care of them. That just isn't humane. For most Europeans at least, health care is the same as police or fire dept., something that the government should provide all its citizens.

Naturally if you feel that healthcare isn't a basic human right, you won't agree with this sentiment.

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 05:25 PM
healthcare a basic human right :haha:

Collective
03-22-2010, 05:26 PM
Again, the solution here is not another "free lunch" program. It's getting our economy in better shape, offering more jobs and forcing people to actually *work* for their livings thus getting health insurance with their jobs or paying for it themselves. There are always special cases - like becoming uninsured due to a loss of job - and these can be addressed. But just giving everyone free health insurance at the expense of taxpayers is a sure way to further ruin our economy and our faith in the US government.

Good news. It won't be free. Most will actually get it from their works or pay it by themselves if not, if they are poor they'll get some help to pay it, OR they'll pay the penalty if they ultimately don't get it, so when they end up on the ER, at least you'd have charged some of that in advance.

For sure not the best bill, but it gets many things right, the pre-existing conditions part, the cap, getting the healthy back to the risk pool. Those 3 alone are worth all the hassle.

Lopez
03-22-2010, 05:27 PM
healthcare a basic human right :haha:

By all means, elaborate. I'm holding my breath.

ad-out
03-22-2010, 05:30 PM
Naturally if you feel that healthcare isn't a basic human right, you won't agree with this sentiment.

What I feel is that if the government wants to provide free health insurance to people without it they should find a way to pay for it without further burdening tax paying citizens. The vast majority of people who will receive this will not pay a dime into the system that is funding it. On the other hand many people who pay taxes out the ass receive almost nothing from the government except basic things like roads, police/fire protection, etc. How is this a just system?

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 05:36 PM
By all means, elaborate. I'm holding my breath.

Excuse me but no, sorry. Please exhale.

Lopez
03-22-2010, 05:40 PM
What I feel is that if the government wants to provide free health insurance to people without it they should find a way to pay for it without further burdening tax paying citizens. The vast majority of people who will receive this will not pay a dime into the system that is funding it. On the other hand many people who pay taxes out the ass receive almost nothing from the government except basic things like roads, police/fire protection, etc. How is this a just system?

Consider John Rawls and "the veil of ignorance": a society should be built upon the principles that all would accept without knowing their place in society. I.e. that you wouldn't know what your social status in a system would be but would be willing to accept its principles nonetheless. If you didn't know whether you would be a poor person with an illness, surely you would prefer a system that guarantees your health, just to be on the safe side?

I don't have a problem with the wealthier ones paying a bit more of their income to guarantee healthcare and other services like the police for all. My biggest beef with these systems are that usually the middle class pays too much (like in Finland), this should be addressed.

JolánGagó
03-22-2010, 05:51 PM
Consider John Rawls and "the veil of ignorance": a society should be built upon the principles that all would accept without knowing their place in society.

With all due respect but that principle is essentially flawed or, in two short words: utter crap. Very fitting to organize a herd, not a society of people. How can you exercize your freedoms if you're ignorant? how could you decide on how organize the society you live in if you ignore the basic, you ignore who you are? Rubbish.

ad-out
03-22-2010, 05:57 PM
Consider John Rawls and "the veil of ignorance": a society should be built upon the principles that all would accept without knowing their place in society. I.e. that you wouldn't know what your social status in a system would be but would be willing to accept its principles nonetheless. If you didn't know whether you would be a poor person with an illness, surely you would prefer a system that guarantees your health, just to be on the safe side?

I don't have a problem with the wealthier ones paying a bit more of their income to guarantee healthcare and other services like the police for all. My biggest beef with these systems are that usually the middle class pays too much (like in Finland), this should be addressed.

Exactly. This is the main problem here. The wealthiest people will be unaffected by this because they either 1)have enough money that paying a little more won't matter to them or 2)have enough tax shelters, exemptions, etc that they won't see the effects. The truly "middle class" which IMO includes a lot more people that the government sees as such has no way to avoid the effects of additional taxes. Thus people who truly cannot afford it without sacrificing their lifestyle end up with the most to lose.

GugaF1
03-22-2010, 06:56 PM
People talk as if providing basic humane Healthcare, would be like distribuiting free Beer to all.

Is it that hard of a concept to understand, really? If only people had got this outrage about the trillions spend into the stupid wars.

ad-out
03-22-2010, 07:18 PM
People talk as if providing basic humane Healthcare, would be like distribuiting free Beer to all.

Is it that hard of a concept to understand, really? If only people had got this outrage about the trillions spend into the stupid wars.

that's a travesty, too. ;)

BigJohn
03-22-2010, 11:39 PM
I think there are other criteria as well, for example the ability to get treated when you're ill, not months later.

Only works for the very rich. The very poor can't afford treatment at all. Sure the system is fast when you ignore the needs the poor.

Why should anyone be guaranteed treatment? Admirable, perhaps, but not necessarily what government should be in the business of doing or ensuring.


One thing governments must do is provide services for the population. Health care falls in that category. Germany led the way starting it in the freaking 1880s. All developed countries have it but the US.

Until now that is. Just one year after reinstating the Habeas corpus!

Good job by Obama. I was sceptic.

buddyholly
03-23-2010, 02:21 AM
Why should anyone be guaranteed treatment? Admirable, perhaps, but not necessarily what government should be in the business of doing or ensuring.



Easy:

1) A political party in a democratic country says that, if elected, the party will do its best to ensure that everyone in the country is guaranteed treatment.

2) The people elect that party.

2) The elected representatives do their best to keep the campaign promise.

As you, yourself, say, an admirable goal.

Chip_s_m
03-23-2010, 02:39 AM
I don't like the right-wing arguments of "the free market ..." "the free market ...."

If the free-market were so all-powerful we wouldn't have had to bear the costs of the financial crisis the US just got embroiled into.

Take that laissez-faire attitude and shove it down those Wall street toilets.

Edit: By "we" i mean the world, I'm not American.

The financial system doesn't operate in a free market. Let me introduce you to central bank (called the Federal Reserve in the US).

Chip_s_m
03-23-2010, 02:54 AM
I'm getting at the fact that the US seems to lead the developed world in civilian massacres. Going postal is becoming an American tradition.

So completely law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns because some crazy people might use them inappropriately? Let's outlaw cars, alcohol, knives, fire, and any other item that could be used to cause harm. And how do you confiscate all those guns? Criminals would still be able to smuggle them in, anyways. In a free society people should be able to do whatever they want so long as that action doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. The very act of owning a gun doesn't infringe upon another person's rights.

Chip_s_m
03-23-2010, 03:09 AM
And I'd like to think you're joking about a dictator springing up in the US...

It would be pretty stupid of me to suggest that a dictator would spring up anytime soon. Obviously that'd be a big stretch. But let's face it, every government ever in the history of the world has collapsed at some point, with the exception of those currently in existence. Fears of a dictator were actually fairly commonplace in the US during the Great Depression (and I'm not just referring to FDR, although I guess some people were worried of his continual amassing of power). It wasn't all that crazy considering the instability in Europe. That fear was present during the hysteria over a secret communist takeover during the 1950's. Obviously, the US is quite stable and secure right now and it'll probably stay that way (I sure hope so). But I'm sure people said the same thing during the 1920's.

Chip_s_m
03-23-2010, 03:54 AM
You seem to be missing the whole point. They wanted me to take my business elsewhere. (OK, they knew I couldn't take my business elsewhere because of the prior condition clause in all policies. Do you seriously think that after being thrown out by one American insurance company that the other companies are out there looking for my business?).
Stastistically I was becoming a risk to their profits, that is all. There are numerous cases of whistle blowers at insurance companies who have stated that their annual bonuses went up the more they were able to get the riskier clients off their books.

And in a competitive free market people would find out about that kind of stuff and avoid that company because they don't want the same thing to happen to them. Sure, a company might have to charge slightly higher premiums to include higher risk individuals in their pools, but for the extra security consumers would certainly be willing to pay a little bit more (why wouldn't they? What's the point of paying for insurance if it's not going to be available when you need it?). There'd be an incentive to provide customers with a quality product (i.e. a policy that won't be dropped if you become riskier to insure). Insurance companies don't have much reason to do that since in this heavily regulated oligopoly consumers have very few options. They can treat their customers like shit because it's not going to hurt their business.

In your case they were willing to drop you because they know most people aren't going to even want to be on private insurance when they hit 65 (that's when you become eligible for Medicare). It's no accident that they did that to you when you hit that age.

orangehat
03-23-2010, 11:27 AM
The financial system doesn't operate in a free market. Let me introduce you to central bank (called the Federal Reserve in the US).

You must be kidding yourself. I hope you aren't under the illusion that the big money corporations don't bully the Fed Reserves to implement what policies they themselves like :lol:

buddyholly
03-23-2010, 12:55 PM
In your case they were willing to drop you because they know most people aren't going to even want to be on private insurance when they hit 65 (that's when you become eligible for Medicare). It's no accident that they did that to you when you hit that age.

Your answer does not make sense. Why would they get rid of someone who wouldn't have to pay out of his own pocket for treatment?

But maybe you do not realise that I am not American, so Medicare is not an option. I had global medical coverage, it just happened to be purchased through an American insurer. Having seen how they gouged me, I assume they try to screw Americans as well.

Most of your posts say that the insurers are bad, but it is not the insurers fault. I don't understand. What part of ''thanks for being a loyal client for 20 years. This year your premium goes from $10,000 to $30,000, but don't worry, this calculation is based solely on rising health costs." do you not understand?

buddyholly
03-23-2010, 01:02 PM
So completely law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns because some crazy people might use them inappropriately? Let's outlaw cars, alcohol, knives, fire, and any other item that could be used to cause harm. And how do you confiscate all those guns? Criminals would still be able to smuggle them in, anyways. In a free society people should be able to do whatever they want so long as that action doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. The very act of owning a gun doesn't infringe upon another person's rights.

I more or less agree with all that. Unfortunately the propensity for Americans to grab a gun and go on a killing spree when they are having a bad hair day is a mental aberration rather than a legal one.

And cars, alcohol, knives and fire all have other primary purposes than killing. I don't buy the protection bit, in Europe nobody carries a gun in public, so McDonald's customers don't have to worry if someone is going to throw a hissy fit and open fire on the next table.

Angle Queen
03-23-2010, 03:49 PM
Easy:

1) A political party in a democratic country says that, if elected, the party will do its best to ensure that everyone in the country is guaranteed treatment.

2) The people elect that party.

2) The elected representatives do their best to keep the campaign promise.

As you, yourself, say, an admirable goal.Those are realities, not reasons.

buddyholly
03-23-2010, 04:12 PM
Those are realities, not reasons.

Well, at least you are still in touch with reality.

OK, the reason that everyone should be guaranteed medical treatment is that the people actually voted for a government that promised to guarantee it.
Philosophical reasons are irrelevant. But if you insist, the American public reasoned that because illness can strike anyone at any time, it would be in the best interests of society to share the burden of health care for those that are afflicted.

Har-Tru
03-23-2010, 04:22 PM
The reason everyone should be guaranteed medical treatment is that it is immoral not to give medical treatment to someone who needs it as long as it is possible to do it.

ad-out
03-23-2010, 05:07 PM
The reason everyone should be guaranteed medical treatment is that it is immoral not to give medical treatment to someone who needs it as long as it is possible to do it.

OK but the question remains how to pay for it. :shrug: The problem I have is that our government cannot find ways to cut out costs from the current budget in order to fund this and therefore the taxpayers will again be ones burdened. There are plenty of middle class working Americans who simply cannot afford another increase in their taxes in order to fund free health care for people who do not contribute.

Har-Tru
03-23-2010, 05:13 PM
OK but the question remains how to pay for it. :shrug: The problem I have is that our government cannot find ways to cut out costs from the current budget in order to fund this and therefore the taxpayers will again be ones burdened. There are plenty of middle class working Americans who simply cannot afford another increase in their taxes in order to fund free health care for people who do not contribute.

The US is the industrialised country that spends the highest amount of money in health care. If it is done properly, and blimey, the US government should be able to do that, not only will all Americans have access to basic health care, but the cost for the citizens should be even lower than it is now.

My point is that as long as it is doable, providing access to health care to all citizens should be the first priority.

Having said that, I must admit I get lost amidst the tangled fabric of this law.

ad-out
03-23-2010, 05:32 PM
The US is the industrialised country that spends the highest amount of money in health care. If it is done properly, and blimey, the US government should be able to do that, not only will all Americans have access to basic health care, but the cost for the citizens should be even lower than it is now.


They won't though and we will be stuck footing the bill. Also those of us who pay for private insurance will probably face a rates hike there as well. When Obama finishes pushing this though along with all his other tax hikes for the so called "wealthy" there will be no disposable income left for the middle class to put back into the economy - further hurting his cause.

Chip_s_m
03-24-2010, 02:30 AM
Your answer does not make sense. Why would they get rid of someone who wouldn't have to pay out of his own pocket for treatment?

But maybe you do not realise that I am not American, so Medicare is not an option. I had global medical coverage, it just happened to be purchased through an American insurer. Having seen how they gouged me, I assume they try to screw Americans as well.

Most of your posts say that the insurers are bad, but it is not the insurers fault. I don't understand. What part of ''thanks for being a loyal client for 20 years. This year your premium goes from $10,000 to $30,000, but don't worry, this calculation is based solely on rising health costs." do you not understand?

Insurers are bad, and it is their fault. However, they operate in a market that doesn't naturally punish them for being bad, and that is because of a high regulatory burden that has severely reduced competition.

I've explained the reasons behind why they can jack up the rates like in your bolded quote, but I'll do it again:

If you go to a restaurant and pay a lot of money for a shitty meal and shitty service, you probably won't go there again. You can do that because you have many options for restaurants or could eat at home. The fact that you don't return (and potentially tell other people how bad it is) punishes the restaurant for it's poor product and service. They would lose business. It therefore has an incentive to produce a good meal at a cheap price. This is how the market for any product/service works (including other types of insurance). If there were only a few restaurants in town and you couldn't eat at home, then those restaurants wouldn't have much of an incentive to produce a good meal at a cheap price since they know that regardless of the meal's quality and price you don't have a choice of where you eat. They won't lose business despite the poor performance.

Right now, a health insurance company isn't punished by the market when it jacks up rates or kicks off risky policyholders. They know they can treat people like shit because there aren't many options. If there was competition and they did that then people likely wouldn't choose that insurance company and it would lose business. It would be punished for the shitty service. Even healthy people would avoid it for fear that they would be kicked off if they became riskier to insure. The incident that happened to you likely wouldn't occur, and if it did then the company would lose business (and you'd be able to just go to a different company that would be happy to have you).

Do you regularly shop at businesses that treat you like crap? Probably not. If you were treated like crap you would probably go to one of it's competitors. The same could be true of health insurance companies if we freed up the market to allow for more competition.

Chip_s_m
03-24-2010, 02:51 AM
I more or less agree with all that. Unfortunately the propensity for Americans to grab a gun and go on a killing spree when they are having a bad hair day is a mental aberration rather than a legal one.

And cars, alcohol, knives and fire all have other primary purposes than killing. I don't buy the protection bit, in Europe nobody carries a gun in public, so McDonald's customers don't have to worry if someone is going to throw a hissy fit and open fire on the next table.

Well I guess that's where we disagree. I believe people have a right to protect themselves, and a gun is a very effective way to do so. Unfortunately, no matter how strong the police force is, it isn't going to be able to protect you all the time. Even if they're not there people need to be able to defend themselves. Why be dependent on someone else to protect me when I can do it myself? There's no need to punish so many law-abiding people because of the actions of a few.

And those types of mass shootings are exceedingly rare. I don't even know anyone who's ever been shot or shot at, let alone in a mass shooting.

Chip_s_m
03-24-2010, 03:09 AM
You must be kidding yourself. I hope you aren't under the illusion that the big money corporations don't bully the Fed Reserves to implement what policies they themselves like :lol:

I actually do disagree somewhat (although you're right that the Federal Reserve was designed to prop up the financial sector). It's no secret that the government encouraged or even forced banks to lend to borrowers who weren't creditworthy. Long story short, we ended up with a housing bubble, which the Federal Reserve played a significant role in starting (and the banks either went along for the ride or encouraged it).

That's irrelevant, though, because even in your example that's not the free market. If the big banks are bullying the government, in this case the Federal Reserve, to implement policies friendly towards those very same big banks, then it's still an intervention into the financial industry. The banks that receive the money printed by the Fed have an advantage over smaller banks that don't have access to it. Any time the Fed manipulates the money supply it's an intervention into the market. Bailouts, yup, those hurt the smaller banks too. If I was the CEO of a regional bank that maintained it's health during the crisis (and there are a bunch of them) I would've been pretty peeved to see the big ones get bailouts. Those smaller banks would've seen their market shares increase had those bailouts not occurred. They ran a better business but it was the losers who were rewarded. You can thank the Fed for that.

orangehat
03-24-2010, 03:35 AM
I actually do disagree somewhat (although you're right that the Federal Reserve was designed to prop up the financial sector). It's no secret that the government encouraged or even forced banks to lend to borrowers who weren't creditworthy. Long story short, we ended up with a housing bubble, which the Federal Reserve played a significant role in starting (and the banks either went along for the ride or encouraged it).

That's irrelevant, though, because even in your example that's not the free market. If the big banks are bullying the government, in this case the Federal Reserve, to implement policies friendly towards those very same big banks, then it's still an intervention into the financial industry. The banks that receive the money printed by the Fed have an advantage over smaller banks that don't have access to it. Any time the Fed manipulates the money supply it's an intervention into the market. Bailouts, yup, those hurt the smaller banks too. If I was the CEO of a regional bank that maintained it's health during the crisis (and there are a bunch of them) I would've been pretty peeved to see the big ones get bailouts. Those smaller banks would've seen their market shares increase had those bailouts not occurred. They ran a better business but it was the losers who were rewarded. You can thank the Fed for that.

Well if you keep thinking that then you won't see past the problem. The problem now is that there is insufficient intervention by the government over the financial sector, not too much. The economies that got out of the financial mire the quickest were those that had efficient governmental policies and replies to solve it (China, Singapore etc.) In these cases the government had unlimited power so they could react faster but that's not the point. The point is that government actions are more often than not more effective than "free market principles" (obviously it doesn't apply if the big banks are bullying the government by threatening to remove funding for this and that however).

Another issue I have is the taxes Americans feel they should pay. When George Bush announces tax cuts, everyone cheers. The fact remains that tax cuts are killing the budget. If you are paying less now, you will have to pay more in the future to recover this budget deficit to begin with. I don't understand how the extreme conservative Americans support tax cuts, but when it comes to a budget deficit, refuse to pay more taxes. It doesn't make any logical sense. Furthermore, these conservatives are often the ones who supported wars, which are another huge chunk of the US deficit.

Let us remind ourselves that from Reagan onwards, Reagan, George Bush x2 rolled up a deficit of over 800 billion USD for Americans. In that period of time, the lone liberal, Bill Clinton, using TAX AND SPEND strategies, gave US a 200 billion surplus.

Furthermore, past decisions by presidents deemed to be extremely unpopular at that point of time (Johnson - Civil rights act, Reagan - Economic reforms in 1980s, both saw popularity decline drastically after policies in question) were later on vindicated.

So let's just look at this topic 10 years later and see what happens. I personally believe that from both an individual aspect and from the budget aspect, it will be seen to have benefited Americans tremendously.

ibreak4coffee
03-24-2010, 04:08 AM
Insurers are bad, and it is their fault. However, they operate in a market that doesn't naturally punish them for being bad, and that is because of a high regulatory burden that has severely reduced competition.


The US insurance industry is so backward I'm shocked it still exists. The regulatory structure is frankly a joke, and at the end of the day so are the companies themselves. Up until last year, AIG was the exception, and well look how that went.

We can argue for years here about taxes, coverage options, and other fun insurance stuff related to health care reform. The fact remains that at the end of the day, insurers are in business to take your money, invest it, make huge profits that way, then do everything in their power to ensure they never pay one claim, bringing profits up even higher. All these people arguing that the government is evil and out to get them - I really don't get it because these same people put their faith in a sector with ZERO incentive to look out for them because they think they are the private sector and despite centuries of evidence to the contrary all there to serve consumers.

And to go back to your first point - insurers face more "fault" than banks. The banking sector is really a huge scam. They will continue to take unnecessary risks and commit fraud because the biggest ones always know that at the end of the day, the government will bail them out.

ad-out
03-24-2010, 03:08 PM
Another issue I have is the taxes Americans feel they should pay. When George Bush announces tax cuts, everyone cheers. The fact remains that tax cuts are killing the budget.

What's killing the budget is the outrageous spending on government programs. And now we are going to add another one with this health care bill. What ever happened to the notion of taking care of yourself? I personally think that the government should stay out of things that people should be providing for themselves.

However, they operate in a market that doesn't naturally punish them for being bad, and that is because of a high regulatory burden that has severely reduced competition.
.....
The same could be true of health insurance companies if we freed up the market to allow for more competition.
100% true. Free markets only work when the governing bodies allow them to compete. :D

buddyholly
03-24-2010, 03:13 PM
Well I guess that's where we disagree. I believe people have a right to protect themselves, and a gun is a very effective way to do so. Unfortunately, no matter how strong the police force is, it isn't going to be able to protect you all the time. Even if they're not there people need to be able to defend themselves. Why be dependent on someone else to protect me when I can do it myself? There's no need to punish so many law-abiding people because of the actions of a few.

And those types of mass shootings are exceedingly rare. I don't even know anyone who's ever been shot or shot at, let alone in a mass shooting.

So you have to carry a gun because other people carry guns???????? And those other people are carrying guns because you are carrying a gun.
That is a vicious circle that will be difficult to get out of.

You may think mass shootings exceedingly rare. My point was that compared to the rest of the world they are exceedingly common.

buddyholly
03-24-2010, 03:21 PM
Do you regularly shop at businesses that treat you like crap? Probably not. If you were treated like crap you would probably go to one of it's competitors. The same could be true of health insurance companies if we freed up the market to allow for more competition.

I think your analogy still misses the point. After you have had a bad meal at a restaurant and decide it would be better to go somewhere else, what do you do when every other restaurant in town refuses you admittance?

Your argument is that insurance companies would be good if they were allowed to operate freely. My argument is that they haver operated freely and have devoted themselves to making as much money as possible by lying and cheating to their clients.

buddyholly
03-24-2010, 03:23 PM
But surely now everyone must be in favour of Obamacare. After all, Joe Biden says ''It is a good fucking thing.''

~*BGT*~
03-24-2010, 03:35 PM
What's killing the budget is the outrageous spending on government programs. And now we are going to add another one with this health care bill. What ever happened to the notion of taking care of yourself? I personally think that the government should stay out of things that people should be providing for themselves.


100% true. Free markets only work when the governing bodies allow them to compete. :D

You mean like the police and firemen and schools and streets?

ad-out
03-24-2010, 03:55 PM
You mean like the police and firemen and schools and streets?
No, I mean personal things like health care, retirement plans, feeding your children, higher education, etc.

Things like fire/police/streets etc are the same for every person and every person benefits from them. The same cannot be said for the others.

Junkyard Racket
03-25-2010, 12:57 AM
What's killing the budget is the outrageous spending on government programs. And now we are going to add another one with this health care bill. What ever happened to the notion of taking care of yourself? I personally think that the government should stay out of things that people should be providing for themselves.

:worship::worship::worship:

orangehat
03-25-2010, 04:13 AM
What's killing the budget is the outrageous spending on government programs.

Like nuclear missiles and the war?

a.k.a. i'll give you tax cuts and i'll use the already limited money not on you but on some shit place that doesn't even have WMDs.

scoobs
03-26-2010, 04:33 AM
Well, legislatively, this one is done.

The Senate passed the reconciliation package on Thursday 56-43. Two minor provisions were ruled out of order and removed from the package, which meant that there was a requirement for the House to re-pass the reconciliation package as amended. They duly did so on Thursday evening 220-207, having been on standby for just such an eventuality.

Now the fight goes out to the country and will inevitably be the big story of the midterms.

Jimnik
03-26-2010, 04:50 AM
Like nuclear missiles and the war?

a.k.a. i'll give you tax cuts and i'll use the already limited money not on you but on some shit place that doesn't even have WMDs.
Only 4% of America's GDP is spent on defence. They have a 12% budget deficit.

You'd be surprised how cheap nuclear missiles are.

Jimnik
03-26-2010, 04:57 AM
You only have to look at the UK to see how difficult it is to sustain government-run health care. The NHS is the 3rd biggest employer IN THE WORLD and costs keep spiraling out of control. People take advantage of the system at the cost of others who seriously need it.

Will be interesting to see how this develops in America. Obama couldn't have chosen a worse time to launch this from a fiscal point of view. Uncle Sam is having enough trouble bailing out banks and stimulating the economy. Wonder how much longer they can keep borrowing before the bond market (mostly China) stops buying.

ibreak4coffee
03-28-2010, 05:05 AM
What's killing the budget is the outrageous spending on government programs. And now we are going to add another one with this health care bill. What ever happened to the notion of taking care of yourself? I personally think that the government should stay out of things that people should be providing for themselves.

Ah... the wonderful difference between free market theory as sold in textbooks and universities and the realities of the real world. You realize that the last two presidents who completely decimated the budget were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush right? The idols of the fiscally responsible, "government is the problem" party...

I have no idea where you're from or what your exact politics might be, but its extremely funny to see people in the South primarily as well as those out West talk about how government is the problem and people need to take care of themselves when a vast amount of government subsidies and programs are both propping up their state economies as well as the incomes of those citizens who are most likely to be spouting gibberish for the Tea Party right now. The cognitive dissonance is simply astounding.

The fact remains that either Obamacare goes through, or else the US continues to spend between 10-15% of its budget on health care because private insurance companies and the patchwork system in place is so bad and duplicative that administrative costs eat up a disgusting amount of the money in the system. Sure the Obama plan will make costs rise and the budget deficit will get worse - but the alternatives were even worse.

Fact is no one on the right was complaining about the appalling - check that, unprecedented - rise in the deficit during the Bush years, but now all of a sudden that the Democrats are enacting their agenda its a serious problem again and government should do nothing.

Sorry if this doesnt apply to you, but simply saying people need to take care of themselves as a stock argument for every issue to me is way too simplistic and wrong.

ibreak4coffee
03-28-2010, 05:07 AM
Only 4% of America's GDP is spent on defence. .

What's in the actual budget and what gets spent on defense are two different numbers. The Pentagon has a blank check virtually at all times to print money on its own behalf to fund a various amount of covert programs, military purchases and other stuff. I dont think the word "no" has been uttered to a Pentagon official in the last 10 years.

ad-out
03-29-2010, 07:01 PM
Ah... the wonderful difference between free market theory as sold in textbooks and universities and the realities of the real world. You realize that the last two presidents who completely decimated the budget were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush right? The idols of the fiscally responsible, "government is the problem" party...

I have no idea where you're from or what your exact politics might be, but its extremely funny to see people in the South primarily as well as those out West talk about how government is the problem and people need to take care of themselves when a vast amount of government subsidies and programs are both propping up their state economies as well as the incomes of those citizens who are most likely to be spouting gibberish for the Tea Party right now. The cognitive dissonance is simply astounding.

The fact remains that either Obamacare goes through, or else the US continues to spend between 10-15% of its budget on health care because private insurance companies and the patchwork system in place is so bad and duplicative that administrative costs eat up a disgusting amount of the money in the system. Sure the Obama plan will make costs rise and the budget deficit will get worse - but the alternatives were even worse.

Fact is no one on the right was complaining about the appalling - check that, unprecedented - rise in the deficit during the Bush years, but now all of a sudden that the Democrats are enacting their agenda its a serious problem again and government should do nothing.

Sorry if this doesnt apply to you, but simply saying people need to take care of themselves as a stock argument for every issue to me is way too simplistic and wrong.

Maybe you misunderstand me. I was against unprecedented government spending in the Bush years, too, and while the deficit is a problem the biggest thing to me is that Obama plans to just push the cost of his plan on to the taxpayers and the insurance companies. This directly affects me. I will likely be paying more income tax next year and people (including me) who receive health insurance through their place of business will likely see an increase in their monthly payments. Many companies are already contemplating how they will handle the rates hike - will they eat the difference through reduced profits thus devaluing their stock or will they pass along the costs to their employees - further hurting our economy and morale among workers. Either way this health care bill ends up hurting more people (financially) than it will benefit. Millions of households and companies all over the world learn to manage expenses given a set amount of revenue. They either stop spending or change the way the money is allocated. I simply think that our government needs to do the same. If health care is a top priority, then the government needs to cut out spending on other lower priority programs so that it is funded with the current set amount of revenue. I don't want to lose any more of my income to fund this.

And by the way, I am from the south. There is no need to stereotype anyone by the place they live though. I don't know if "a vast amount of government subsidies and programs are propping up my state economy" but we do have a free health care program for poor people here and it has nearly bankrupted the state. Also I don't believe I am benefiting from a "propping up of the incomes of those citizens who are most likely to be spouting gibberish for the Tea Party right now". Other than the roads/police/fire/other infrastructure type benefits I don't get anything from the government. My children don't even use the free public provided schools for which I also pay. And as far as the "the wonderful difference between free market theory as sold in textbooks and universities and the realities of the real world" I have experience in both. My Master's in Finance and MBA in International Business taught me the theories and my real life work experience as a financial advisor in a fortune 500 company taught me the other.

And IMO there is nothing wrong with a person being accountable for his/her own life. I don't know if you are from the US or Canada (as some people have a different flag from where they actually live) but if you do live here than you must be aware of the abuse in this "free handouts" system.

oz_boz
03-29-2010, 08:50 PM
No, I mean personal things like health care, retirement plans, feeding your children, higher education, etc.

Things like fire/police/streets etc are the same for every person and every person benefits from them. The same cannot be said for the others.

I don't care about firemen, I am not so stupid that I light candles or smoke in bed. I can do without police too since I have my private guards, it's up to everyone to get protection. If you say my home can be put on fire by someone else, I say we will also need public healthcare for all cases where people have become ill because of others' actions - and what to do then with cases like respiratory problems due to air pollution?

What should be public and not is not as easy as many think.

Jimnik
03-30-2010, 12:48 AM
What should be public and not is not as easy as many think.
Everything can be run privately except for the following:

Police Force (Local, FBI etc..)
Justice System (Courts of Law, Prisons etc..)
National Security (Military, Intelligence Agencies etc..)

But of course it's a very subjective matter and I respect that everyone has different opinions.

BigJohn
03-30-2010, 02:00 AM
Only 4% of America's GDP is spent on defence. They have a 12% budget deficit.

You'd be surprised how cheap nuclear missiles are.

1464 billions. In 2008 alone

41% of what every freaking countries in the world are spending on the military.

Hardly small change.

BigJohn
03-30-2010, 02:06 AM
Everything can be run privately except for the following:

Police Force (Local, FBI etc..)
Justice System (Courts of Law, Prisons etc..)
National Security (Military, Intelligence Agencies etc..)

But of course it's a very subjective matter and I respect that everyone has different opinions.

Isn't there a whole lot of private companies making lots of money in Iraq in these fields?

As far as prisons are concerned, the US also has private ones...

Jimnik
03-30-2010, 02:45 AM
1464 billions. In 2008 alone

41% of what every freaking countries in the world are spending on the military.

Hardly small change.
1464 billion was the global total, America spent 607 billion (or 41% as you say), and yes of course it's a lot of money. But fact remains it's only 4% of Uncle Sam's expenditure. Even if they reduced it to 2.5% (global average) they still have a budget deficit over 10%.

I would be in favor of a cut in military spending but no way will it pay for this new healthcare bill.


Isn't there a whole lot of private companies making lots of money in Iraq in these fields?

As far as prisons are concerned, the US also has private ones...
Of course they'll all be supplied by private companies but it doesn't make them private. The police force doesn't manufacture its own guns, uniforms and cars just like the military doesn't design its own tanks, airplanes and satellites. Private security companies and investigators can exist too but they'll always be overruled by state police.

As for prisons I suppose they could be private but, bottom line, they get their orders from the courts. They don't decide which inmates to detain and release. Details of day-to-day routines and activities are another matter.

BigJohn
03-30-2010, 03:34 AM
1464 billion was the global total, America spent 607 billion (or 41% as you say), and yes of course it's a lot of money. But fact remains it's only 4% of Uncle Sam's expenditure. Even if they reduced it to 2.5% (global average) they still have a budget deficit over 10%.

I would be in favor of a cut in military spending but no way will it pay for this new healthcare bill.



Of course they'll all be supplied by private companies but it doesn't make them private. The police force doesn't manufacture its own guns, uniforms and cars just like the military doesn't design its own tanks, airplanes and satellites. Private security companies and investigators can exist too but they'll always be overruled by state police.

As for prisons I suppose they could be private but, bottom line, they get their orders from the courts. They don't decide which inmates to detain and release. Details of day-to-day routines and activities are another matter.

I believe it would be invested more wisely in universal health care, but then again, I am Canadian.

As far as private companies in Iraq, Halliburton, Blackwater, CACI seem to be a lot more than suppliers.

orangehat
03-30-2010, 10:40 AM
@ the budget : The bill REDUCES fiscal deficit. (in black and white: this bill HELPS the budget)

@being forced to buy insurance : Where were you when Bush implemented stop loss? Don't use the civil liberties excuse as you like. Selective usage by the conservatives again (as in the situation with the budget when it's about the war)

Stensland
03-30-2010, 11:48 AM
i've been hearing confusing reports about thhe whole "heathcare tourism" thing related to canada and the states. can someone sort it out for me?

who's going where and why? americans go to canada in order to get cheap medicine, yet canadians cross the border for actual treatment? sounds pretty weird, if true.

Stensland
03-30-2010, 12:04 PM
Of course they'll all be supplied by private companies but it doesn't make them private. The police force doesn't manufacture its own guns, uniforms and cars just like the military doesn't design its own tanks, airplanes and satellites. Private security companies and investigators can exist too but they'll always be overruled by state police.

hasn't blackwater been hired precisely for the reason that they wouldn't be that dependent on those very government-run military trials for loose cannon cases etc.? i think the most important advantage of these private militia companies is the complete lack of oversight; they don't need to answer for nothing.

oh, unless you mean iraqi state police. everybody knows they're a joke though. sorry for ot.

Collective
03-30-2010, 01:29 PM
i've been hearing confusing reports about thhe whole "heathcare tourism" thing related to canada and the states. can someone sort it out for me?

who's going where and why? americans go to canada in order to get cheap medicine, yet canadians cross the border for actual treatment? sounds pretty weird, if true.

If you are a rich Canadian and have cancer, you won't wait for the government-provided scheduled chemotherapy to take place. Instead you'll fly first class to Houston and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket for immediate top level treatment.

If you are a middle-class American, and have had cancer for more than a year, odds are that you already reached the lifetime cap set by your insurance provider (which renders you uninsurable). You'll probably go to Canada or Europe to get treatment there, since a) you are not rich to go to Houston and pay out of pocket and b) There is no universal healthcare in the US of A.

Har-Tru
03-30-2010, 01:36 PM
If you are a rich Canadian and have cancer, you won't wait for the government-provided scheduled chemotherapy to take place. Instead you'll fly first class to Houston and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket for immediate top level treatment.

If you are a middle-class American, and have had cancer for more than a year, odds are that you already reached the lifetime cap set by your insurance provider (which renders you uninsurable). You'll probably go to Canada or Europe to get treatment there, since a) you are not rich to go to Houston and pay out of pocket and b) There is no universal healthcare in the US of A.

Pretty much.

BigJohn
03-30-2010, 11:45 PM
i've been hearing confusing reports about thhe whole "heathcare tourism" thing related to canada and the states. can someone sort it out for me?

who's going where and why? americans go to canada in order to get cheap medicine, yet canadians cross the border for actual treatment? sounds pretty weird, if true.

Well, I know that some Americans have been buying their drugs in Canada because I believe that it can be made available as a generic brand sooner, so it is a lot cheaper. Used to be a real bargain when the US$ was worth more, now CAN$ and US$ are pretty much on par. Still cheaper to buy generic. Not sure if this is still going on.

Now wealthy Canadians can go to the US to get treatment, but it also happens when waiting lists are too long in some provinces for specific treatment. Patients are then treated in the US but it is still covered by the government.

Where we get screwed big time is when people from other countries come to Canada do get treatment and then leave without paying their bills. I know there is a well known practice of women coming to get their babies delivered in Canada for free... to them, not to our system.

cobalt60
03-31-2010, 12:20 AM
i've been hearing confusing reports about thhe whole "heathcare tourism" thing related to canada and the states. can someone sort it out for me?

who's going where and why? americans go to canada in order to get cheap medicine, yet canadians cross the border for actual treatment? sounds pretty weird, if true.

It is true in some parts; I treated cancer patients a couple of years back in my practice in Maine.

cobalt60
03-31-2010, 12:21 AM
Well, I know that some Americans have been buying their drugs in Canada because I believe that it can be made available as a generic brand sooner, so it is a lot cheaper. Used to be a real bargain when the US$ was worth more, now CAN$ and US$ are pretty much on par. Still cheaper to buy generic. Not sure if this is still going on.

Now wealthy Canadians can go to the US to get treatment, but it also happens when waiting lists are too long in some provinces for specific treatment. Patients are then treated in the US but it is still covered by the government.

Where we get screwed big time is when people from other countries come to Canada do get treatment and then leave without paying their bills. I know there is a well known practice of women coming to get their babies delivered in Canada for free... to them, not to our system.

This is what I was involved in.

nevenez
10-16-2010, 01:16 PM
I think health care can be sustained as a continuing issue of importance -- while it steadily increases in popularity as the actualities of it become known -- until November, so can be a plus for the Democrats.

What's next on the agenda of major legislation? Financial reform? A majority is for that. Renewable energy? A majority is for that. Jobs? A majority is for that.

All that need be done in terms of perception at least is to be open to bipartisanship, and making that known, but not letting lack of it slow progress.

Lee
10-16-2010, 02:24 PM
Where we get screwed big time is when people from other countries come to Canada do get treatment and then leave without paying their bills. I know there is a well known practice of women coming to get their babies delivered in Canada for free... to them, not to our system.

I can't claim this is not happening across Canada but I know it's not in Alberta. I used to work in a hospital in Calgary with trauma center. Most of the unpaid bills by foreigners were not for non-emergency medical services. They either had an accident or needed emergency treatment. Hospitals will not deny people whose life is in danger.

I also knew women who came to Canada to have their babies. Most of them could pay and had to pay up front. They wanted the citizenship, not free medical service.