Questioning Liberal and Conservative views on healthcare....

reply to post by David9176


You're right David. Many have said this, but it's worth repeating here.
The government couldn't even come up with a decent estimate for how much money was needed for "Cash for Clunkers". How do you think they'd do with a program like Health Care that will take up 1/3rd of the entire economy?
No need to answer this rhetorical question.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

The government couldn't even come up with a decent estimate for how much money was needed for "Cash for Clunkers". How do you think they'd do with a program like Health Care that will take up 1/3rd of the entire economy?

True. But there is a reason why there is such a huge fight over this in the first place....the money that's at stake. To you and me it's about getting good health care...but for the insurance companies...it's about the loss of TRILLIONS of dollars in the long run.

It's a lose/lose situation....do we even have any real options? i would like to make the insurance co. nonprofit and break them up...but that's not possible right now.

Conservatives....do you put more trust in a corporate health insurance company that has the bottom line of making a profit than an entity that is non profit..with the lives of human beings at stake?

Yes, I trust my health insurance company far more than I trust the government. They adhere to the policy, they pay for what I need, and they cover me at a reasonable rate. Honest question, honest answer, and congrats on the baby.


TA

In reference to the abortion issue on universal health care....check this out...won't say anymore about it as I don't want to derail the thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by David9176

To you and me it's about getting good health care...but for the insurance companies...it's about the loss of TRILLIONS of dollars in the long run.

David, you have just described the REASON that THIS attempt at health reform will fail. The best Obama can hope for, is some watered down program that, in name, provides health care for everyone, but doesn't really do much. Mark my words.

reply to post by TheAssociate

They adhere to the policy, they pay for what I need, and they cover me at a reasonable rate. Honest question, honest answer, and congrats on the baby.

Well I'm glad that you have good insurance...unfortunately many do not...and I could definitely use better insurance myself but I'm stuck with what I have unless I can find another job...and you know how that is right now.

Prices are too high....and too many people are uninsured...which will get worse as unemployment continues to rise.

We are in dire need of fixing things....but I cannot put faith in an entity that profits from death.

And btw....thanks!!!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

The best Obama can hope for, is some watered down program that, in name, provides health care for everyone, but doesn't really do much. Mark my words.

That's exactly what I stated in my first post! In the end it will be a mess that no one will want and everyone is going to be ticked off. I agree with 100 percent!

reply to post by David9176

That's exactly what I stated in my first post! In the end it will be a mess that no one will want and everyone is going to be ticked off.

You sure did. Sorry I missed that. I guess I've been on ATS too long tonight. Starting to get punchy. I guess it's time to hit the sack.
Great talking to you again. Give your new daughter a great big hug from all of us!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


You too! And I'll definitely give her a big hug!

I often miss things like that too...and often times i find myself repeating prior posts in the same thread...no prob!

reply to post by David9176

but I cannot put faith in an entity that profits from death.

Not to be argumentative, but the 'single payer' option is just as bad as far as that's concerned. The government will cut corners as much, if not more so than private insurance companies do.

reply to post by TheAssociate

Not to be argumentative, but the 'single payer' option is just as bad as far as that's concerned. The government will cut corners as much, if not more so than private insurance companies do.

I understand that....and i never said that I supported it either....but something has to be done. Problem is...anything that is done will most likely be a disaster because we cannot even trust those who are in office to represent us....the same people who are corrupted by corporate lobbyist and special interests.

Few if any represent the little guy anymore which is why things always get worse.

reply to post by David9176

Problem is...anything that is done will most likely be a disaster because we cannot even trust those who are in office to represent us....the same people who are corrupted by corporate lobbyist and special interests.

Agreed. I don't trust any government official as far as I can pick him and up and throw him, which is why I say the less government involvement, the better. None of them are out to help us, and this so-called "reform" is just going to be a train wreck.


TA

Originally posted by David9176

Conservatives....do you put more trust in a corporate health insurance company that has the bottom line of making a profit than an entity that is non profit..with the lives of human beings at stake?
[edit on 5-8-2009 by David9176]

For me its more that I want to decide for myself, instead of paying the government to decide for me. That said, profits drive R&D and motivate smarter individuals to choose being doctors, surgeons etc., which increases quality. If it was so bad people from all over the world wouldn't come here for medical care.

I do agree there needs to be health insurance reform, torte reform and what others have said regarding lobbyist among other things. But IMO thats not a reason to scrap the whole system in favor of a system run by bureaucrats who have proven time and time and again they can't stay within budget, instead choose to increase taxes to throw more money at the problem.

There are also some red flags with Obamas plan.

1. Democratic President, fillibuster proof congress and the lure of a "free" lunch socialized healthcare program, the left has managed to screw it up so bad their health care message has been reduced to "don't listen to republicans, they are crazy".

2. Reporting anybody who opposes?

3. Classic signs of a rip-off: (A) The con man tells you that you have to sign the contract right now if you want this good deal. You can’t wait until tomorrow -- now or never. (B) The con man wants immediate decisions. If victims think about it, they will soon realize it is a rip-off.

4. Completely eliminating private health insurance; because, IMO, the government knows it can't compete, in other words, it will cost you more.

5. Saying that he will push this down our throat, bi-partisan support be damned, even though the majority of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance plan and the medical care they recieve.

6. Why is Obama so against sitting down and reading the bill line by line, remember the campaign debate when he invited senators and congress to the white house to do just that if he was elected?

Edit to add: So many things he said in his campaign he has reneged on, why should I believe him now?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by mhc_70]

reply to post by David9176


Oh, you mean the lobbyists that our current president said he was going to do away with?

I know I don't trust some huge corporation dictating my options as far as what I can have done or not done, but I trust the government doing so even less.

The cost of health care needs to be addressed first and foremost. There should be caps on what can be charged for certain procedures. That is why some hospitals and doctors and dentists don't like insurance because they will only allow so much for a certain procedure.

Several years ago I had a doctor who cared more about treating patients than making money. At the time I had no insurance and had to go in. Well, she told the office to apply a 50% discount to my office charge. She explained to me that they made more charging me 50% than they would get paid by insurance or medicaid.

I am completely aware that so many hospitals and doctors lose money by treating those that can not pay for it and pass those losses onto us and bill our insurance companies (those of us who have insurance) or us personally. It is my opinion that alot of the bad rap insurance companies get is handed down the line from providers.

Also, the drug companies should not be allowed to charge such outrageous prices for drugs. I realize they spend alot of money in R&D, but come on...I think the CEO's and other higher ups are making banker like salaries, but for what? The majority most likely spent on lobbying members of the government to get products approved and passed. Again, bonus and salary caps and a bit of control on what can be charged for certain products and do away with the outrageous profits they make and the lobbyists.

If the costs of the above could be controlled, paying for healthcare would be more affordable and available to everyone.

As far as the government running things, it should be controlling what is being charged by the drug companies, hospitals and providers, not telling us what they'll pay for or provide us under their coverage. They are trying to rule the wrong group.

It is so very wrong for a congressman or senator not to have read a bill. They should be ashamed. I suppose that is why they get so mad and lash out at anyone that questions the content. Can't answer a question with another and don't have an answer, so just get pi$$ed at the people asking the questions.

Also, the drug companies should not be allowed to charge such outrageous prices for drugs.

Alot of you that oppose the current proposals for health care reform don't get it. And some are just lying about their coverage.

First off, it's real pretty to say that we need to get control of prices on services and prescription drugs, but you need to ask yourself how that's going to happen. Capitalism is not a religion, nor a fix-all to everything. It is a "system," and as with all systems, it can be rigged.

Yes, competition is the best way to have prices fall. But not when there are gentlemen's agreements across all of the players. Folks, wake up. There is NO competition in the healthcare sector. It's rigged to make it look like there is, but under the covers, it's a monopoly. And when you begin realizing this, and become vocal about it and try to reform (e.g. threaten the profits of the healthcare corporations), then your patriotism is questioned as a defector of capitalism which is an embedded "American" quality.

Don't become loyal to an idea. Think for yourself, and become loyal to PROGRESS, regardless of which side you land on. So long as you land there on solid information and not on emotional manipulation or mindless party affiliation.

Here's my opinion:

What a government option would do, whether you agree with the quality or efficiency of its outcome, is introduce real competition to the healthcare providers. That WILL force prices down.

Tort reform, price caps, blah blah blah. That's all good stuff, but that's not healthcare reform. The goal is affordable, accessible healthcare for EVERYONE. All of the other reform items like tort and caps are the insurance companies saying "OK OK!! I see your serious about it this time. So.... how about we concede to all of the stuff you've been complaining about for decades, and you leave us alone on the public option idea." That's all this is.

This one I love....

"You don't want a Washington bureaucrat making medical decisions for you. Those should be made by you and your doctor."

This is how stupid some convervatives think you are. But without fail, people fall for it. The reality is that TODAY, most decisions on major medical issues are not solely made by you and your doctor (and frankly, your doctor often makes decisions with their bottom line in mind rather than your well-being). There's some under-qualified healthcare employee that you've never met making decisions on whether you NEED some service or life-saving procedure. How's that better?

I have what would be thought of as "decent" medical insurance, and I gotta tellya, it's a pain in the ass to get things paid for, let alone understand from the get-go exactly what's covered. not only that, but when I total how much I pay in premiums each year PLUS the mandatory deductibles BEFORE the company pays a dime, I start wondering exactly what it is I'm paying insurance for. It's almost like I'm paying a small fortune each month for the "privilege" to carry some flimsy medical card and pay for MY OWN medical bills.

We all deserve appropriate healthcare. It ABSOLUTELY should be a government entitlement no matter how we pay for it. I'd rather have paid for that than the billions and billions we foot the bill for on the 2 BS wars we're in. which, BTW, you repubs seem to not be screaming about when you claim we're "mortgaging our kid's future." What a buncha hypocrites.

Originally posted by opal13
reply to post by David9176

 

If the costs of the above could be controlled, paying for healthcare would be more affordable and available to everyone.

No it wouldn't. Without REAL competition, prices will not go down, even with those controls. You'd see new fees, charges, surcharges, etc to make up the difference. Understand that only through real competition will there be price stabilization. The only way to accomplish this is with the Federal Government. Everyone else is in bed with one another.

This is why the healthcare companies are also pitching for consumers to shop their policies across state lines, because it's a big fat scam. You're going to take your Blue Cross California plan, and look for a Blue Cross plan in AZ. Yeah, that's gonna bring down cost.

Originally posted by tommy_boy

What a government option would do, whether you agree with the quality or efficiency of its outcome, is introduce real competition to the healthcare providers. That WILL force prices down.

This statement tells me you are the one that doesn't get it.

Either you don't understand the definition of competition or you haven't read the plan proposed by Obama.

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by tommy_boy

What a government option would do, whether you agree with the quality or efficiency of its outcome, is introduce real competition to the healthcare providers. That WILL force prices down.

This statement tells me you are the one that doesn't get it.

Either you don't understand the definition of competition or you haven't read the plan proposed by Obama.

Pretty vague statement... Was hoping for more substance.

How exactly don't I understand the concept of "competition?" Can I assume, then, that you believe there is currently active, price/quality controlling competition in the healthcare arena? Can I assume, also, that you do not believe that, by injecting a government system into the mix, it will go some way towards keeping the healthcare insurers somewhat more honest than they are now? Am I also, then, to assume that you think the system is fine just the way it is? With millions uninsured, and many more that are STILL sent to bankruptcy over costs their plans don't cover?

I ask these because I'm left only to "assume", as none of these were addressed in your post. Just a hollow statement about a definition, and a bill that is proposed actually by Congress and not the President.

I do, however, agree with the President's basic strategy for healthcare, if that's what you were attempting to infer. I see no major downside to a public option that outweighs all of the potential benefits it would produce. Conservative sensibilities to socialism is not high on my concerns list, and neither is cost (when it comes to healthcare).

You're probably one of these people that people we have the BEST medical insurance in the world; a notion that strikes more at people's patriotic side than one that abides by reason and statistics.

Balls in your court. Why is healthcare reform and a public option actually worse than what we have now?

[edit on 6-8-2009 by tommy_boy]

There are a number of problems with the current debate regarding health care reform, beginning with the notion that you have a "right" to health care.

Why does a drug addict have a right for the rest of us to subsidize his medical treatment? Why does the gang member have a right to have his gunshot wound treatment subsidized by the rest of us? Why does the Whopper eating gent who is 100lbs overweight have the right to have the rest of us subsidize his treatment for heart disease? They don't and nor do a host of other groups who knowingly choose a lifestyle which is almost certain incur high medical costs.

I trust my insurance company far more than the government. The private insurance firm has an incentive to hold costs down. The government has the opposite motivation. Government has an incentive to increase costs. They will always spend the amount they have been allocated as that ensures that the will receive more money the next fiscal year. Be clear on the fact that those in government are primarily motivated by power and those in private sector by money. I trust the latter FAR more than the former. Name a single time when a government entity has actually reduced costs over the long-term. When you get into the actual accounting what you find is that what actually occurs is that budget items are simply delivered by a different government entity. The Department of Energy and the DOD have playing this shell game for years. They will tout new measures of efficiency, yet the overall cost of the government "services" delivered have not been reduced.

As far as the non-profit game goes, there is a vast difference between the motivating factors of the public and non for profit world. The for profit world has a need to actually quantify their financial results in the form of stock value, firm valuation and other measures. Not for Profits have no where the rigor required of them. I've worked for private enterprises for 25 years and have served on a number of not for profit boards. I'm sorry but the urgency, motivation and frankly, quality and professionalism of the staffs are night and day. I have no doubt of the dedication of the folks in the not for profit world, but it just is not the same. In addition, by definition, the folks in the non-private world are paid less and the simple fact of the matter is that drives the most talented folks (a generalization for sure, but the generalization is true) out of that sector of the economy.

The system is a mess, I grant that. There are hard-working folks who are paying too much for health care, I grant that. How about we move to incremental reform and evolve the system over time to achieve one that works better. Not perfect, but better.

The reason we are not going to do that is because the administration is pursuing a blatantly socialist agenda and they well know that the all or nothing game is the way to advance the government agenda.

Finally, were the current House bill be passed, Ted Kennedy, at 77, would not be even treated for his brain cancer, just as he would not receive treatment in either Canada or most of Europe. Do you think that Chris Dodd is going to another country to receive treatment for his prostate cancer? Doubt it. The death rate for prostate cancer is 30% higher in Canada than it is in the US.

Look at the motivations behind this "reform".

Originally posted by dolphinfan
I trust my insurance company far more than the government. The private insurance firm has an incentive to hold costs down.

What are you saying?!?!? No they don't! They have every motivation to keep prices HIGH! And they do! all of them. Together. In unison!

Originally posted by dolphinfan
How about we move to incremental reform and evolve the system over time to achieve one that works better. Not perfect, but better.

Because it won't happen, that's why. There's no such thing as "incremental" in government. Presidencies are temporary. Poll numbers vary given turning tides on different and unrelated issues. Political capital is "at the moment" and not sustained. To do something in government, you have to DO IT. All at once.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The reason we are not going to do that is because the administration is pursuing a blatantly socialist agenda and they well know that the all or nothing game is the way to advance the government agenda.

I love having this conversation on different threads on ATS; people that throw the "socialist" word around like its a big scary thing. News flash! We're already quite a socialist country. If it wasn't so off topic, I'd ask you to define what's so wrong with socialism as a general concept, leaving out all of the ScAry terms like "communist" or "redistribution" or "Castro." Let the brainwashing begin!

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Finally, were the current House bill be passed, Ted Kennedy, at 77, would not be even treated for his brain cancer, just as he would not receive treatment in either Canada or most of Europe.

Where in any bill, government website, or other place (other than Rush, Hannity, or Michelle Malkin's websites) does it say that the administration's plan will deny procedures to older people? TELL ME you didn't read that on some blog and are now regurgitating it as a fact? And then prove to me that you're not actually describing CURRENT tactics of the healthcare industry? I'll be happy to say I was wrong is you point me to the official document.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by tommy_boy]

[edit on 6-8-2009 by tommy_boy]