Questioning Liberal and Conservative views on healthcare....

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


The issue that affects the costs associated with insurance coverage has nothing to do with the insurance firm. It has to do with the costs passed on to the insurance company by the medical industry. Those costs are high because Medicaid and Medicare pay below market rates for procedures. That requires the hospitals and doctors to charge private insurance firms more for the same procedures to generate a profit.

The "you have to do it all or it won't get done" argument is folly. It took Obama 6 months to pick his kids a dog and he wants to ram a proposal to alter 16% of the US economy down our throats in less time? Come on now.

The notion about Kennedy is due to the simple economics of the matter. Care will need to be rationed. It is simple supply and demand. Just on the matter of doctors, if 47 million folks are immediately insured, how will we have enough doctors to care for them? We won't, hence rationing.

How about this. If you want to or need to be on a government plan, go to a government employed doctor and a government run hospital. Leave the rest of us alone. Oh, but that won't work. We all need the "same" care. That is why it is socialist and that is why socialism does not work - but you are correct, that is a topic for another thread. By the way, I don't get employer provided health care. I pay for my own insurance for my family of 6.

Here is another suggestion. Give folks a tax break to create an account that will pay for insurance with a high deductable. If you have a $5K deductable, insurance is not expensive as you are insuring for a significant condition. That would go a long way to solve this problem, as would opening up national pools, rather than state-wide pools.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


The vagueness is due to you implying the plan Obama is pushing will introduce real competition, which can only mean you haven't read the bill.

He plans to eliminate all the competition, making government the only provider for health care, not a public option.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
First off, let me thank you for being intelligent in your posts. I really appreciate a spirited, factual debate.


Originally posted by dolphinfan
The issue that affects the costs associated with insurance coverage has nothing to do with the insurance firm. It has to do with the costs passed on to the insurance company by the medical industry. Those costs are high because Medicaid and Medicare pay below market rates for procedures. That requires the hospitals and doctors to charge private insurance firms more for the same procedures to generate a profit.

This is an excellent point, and one I've not considered. I'll do my homework and respond, but I would suspect that i'll find that the insurers do just fine in terms of profits even after factoring out the affects of those programs.



Originally posted by dolphinfan
The "you have to do it all or it won't get done" argument is folly. It took Obama 6 months to pick his kids a dog and he wants to ram a proposal to alter 16% of the US economy down our throats in less time? Come on now.

haha! Props for the point. I found it funny
but really, some things take longer not because they're hard, but because they're not a priority.



Originally posted by dolphinfan
The notion about Kennedy is due to the simple economics of the matter. Care will need to be rationed. It is simple supply and demand. Just on the matter of doctors, if 47 million folks are immediately insured, how will we have enough doctors to care for them? We won't, hence rationing.

Dolphin, we already ration. See here.
It's disingenuous by many to proclaim that rationing would be a new factor of healthcare reform. It may be painful at first, but it will, over time, grow the demand for more doctors and nurses, which would create jobs (not just jobs, but careers).



Originally posted by dolphinfan
How about this. If you want to or need to be on a government plan, go to a government employed doctor and a government run hospital. Leave the rest of us alone. Oh, but that won't work. We all need the "same" care. That is why it is socialist and that is why socialism does not work - but you are correct, that is a topic for another thread. By the way, I don't get employer provided health care. I pay for my own insurance for my family of 6.

If you can afford to pay the coverage you say you have for a family that size, AND you like or love your coverage, then you my friend are very well off and are in the minority. You're also apparently financially capable of keeping up with the premium hikes that you're undoubtedly experiencing year over year. Most can't keep up with that.

And what's wrong with quality care for everyone? Let's not be elitist. If you or I can get good, great, or better care, why shouldn't everyone else? We're not talking about the purchase of a car. We're talking about someone's life.


Originally posted by dolphinfan
Here is another suggestion. Give folks a tax break to create an account that will pay for insurance with a high deductable. If you have a $5K deductable, insurance is not expensive as you are insuring for a significant condition. That would go a long way to solve this problem, as would opening up national pools, rather than state-wide pools.

Then your just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's still tax revenue that's deferred towards healthcare, and it's still lining the pockets of the corrupt insurance industry. It's the solution of choice by Senators and congresspeople that get campaign contributions by these companies because it sounds like a real constructive solution. But in reality, it's just another way to filter tax money to insurers. This is intended to pacify people back into ignorance.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Just about nobody who is not a lawyer has read the entire bill.

Personally, I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than read a thousand pages of legalistic mumbo-jumbo


However, I would like to know where in the bill it says private insurance will be eliminated, because hat's not an interpretation I have heard outside specific ideological circles.

The rest of the industrialized world has had universal health coverage for decades, wheras here, if you're broke, you either go to the ER, or drop dead...

Despite this, we spend more on health than any country in the world, and yet tens of millions have no health coverage.

If a public option is going to bankrupt us, why is it that the rest of the world has pulled it off for decades now?

Are we uniquely incompetent somehow?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


The vagueness is due to you implying the plan Obama is pushing will introduce real competition, which can only mean you haven't read the bill.

He plans to eliminate all the competition, making government the only provider for health care, not a public option.

It most certainly will introduce competition: Public Plan versus Private Insurers. That equals competition. Having a hard time understanding why you don't get this point.

BTW, have you read the bill? Which bill in particular are you referring to?


Also nothing being seriously proposed now speaks of Single Payer (although I think that would be great to have that). As the matter of fact, the government run option is in trouble last I heard.

Do you attend tea parties also? how about democratic townhalls?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kords21


One of the things they are trying to pass is that an insurance company can't turn you down for a pre-existing condition. That is one of the major stipulations.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


The vagueness is due to you implying the plan Obama is pushing will introduce real competition, which can only mean you haven't read the bill.

He plans to eliminate all the competition, making government the only provider for health care, not a public option.

It most certainly will introduce competition: Public Plan versus Private Insurers. That equals competition. Having a hard time understanding why you don't get this point.

BTW, have you read the bill? Which bill in particular are you referring to?


Also nothing being seriously proposed now speaks of Single Payer (although I think that would be great to have that). As the matter of fact, the government run option is in trouble last I heard.

Do you attend tea parties also? how about democratic townhalls?




Maybe you should make sure you know what your talking about before you accuse others of spreading disinformation.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I think what they need to do is take the medicaid system, and loosen it up so that people and companies who can't afford insurance have an option. If your company has insurance. Great. Is it too expensive? Then you can opt for medicaid.
And you don't have to make nickels a year to be able to get it.

Put stipulations in that companies can't keep inflating way past national inflation. They can't reject you for pre-existing conditions. If you get sick they have to treat you.

I am not convinced a government option will destory private companies. Just look at shipping services. UPS and Fedex do quite well competing against USPS.


But people going broke, like myself over medicine should not be an option in the US.

18 cents of every dollar Americans spend goes to medical costs. We pay more then any other nation yet rank 37th for health.

50% of all bankruptcies are over medical costs.

What gets me is that we have spent 3 trillion on war, for the loss of 2900 people on 9/11. And people don't freak out about that. We have spent so much money on war that it is hurting our economy. 5,000 soldiers have lost their lives.
That is 8,000 lives lost on terrorism with a 3 trillion dollar bill. That doesn't include medical costs for the wounded.

or the human travesty no one thinks about in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But people cringe at a 1 trillion dollar medical bill over a ten year period.

Yet 18,000 people die each year from lack of medical insurance.

Talk about screwed up priorties.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


This plan is similar to what you are proposing...




demint.senate.gov... ar=2009&Type=PressRelease


June 23, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, introduced the Health Care Freedom Plan, a plan that reduces the government’s grip on the health care market and provides every American with the ability to access and own a health plan that best meets his or her needs. According to a Heritage Foundation estimate, Senator DeMint’s bill will reduce the uninsured by 22.4 million people in just 5 years. The legislation is completely paid for by terminating the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and forcing companies to repay their bailout funds within 5 years.

“All Americans should have access to health insurance that they can afford, own, and keep – and that the government can never take over or take away,” said Senator DeMint. “No American should be forced into a government-run system that limits their choices and rations their care. Democrats’ answer to every crisis is more and more government, but there is a better way that puts patients first, not bureaucrats. By giving all Americans choice and access to the same tax benefits we give to people through their employers, we can cover more uninsured Americans than the Democrat plan, in half the time, and at no additional cost to taxpayers.”

“Under the Health Care Freedom Plan, Americans would be able to keep the care they have now, but if they are uninsured or unhappy with their current plan, they could access a voucher to purchase health insurance anywhere in the country. This will create a true, competitive market for health care that will lower costs and increase quality. And it levels the playing field so all Americans – regardless of their employment benefits or employment status -- have the same access to quality health care.”

“The Democrat bill will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars when we can solve this problem without adding a single dime to the deficit. By repealing the failed financial bailouts, we can give every American a tax benefit that provides them with access to quality, affordable health care coverage.”

“The Health Care Freedom Plan will also help bring down overall medical costs by reducing expensive malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals and by adding transparency to the industry. This plan also ensures that Americans with pre-existing health conditions have access to affordable coverage through Federal block grants for state high-risk insurance programs.”

The Health Care Freedom Plan:
• Protects the right of Americans to keep their employer-based plan without having to pay additional taxes on those benefits.
• Provides Americans without employer-based coverage with vouchers of $2000 for individuals and $5000 for families to purchase health insurance. The premium for the average private policy sold in the individual market in 2007 was $1,896 for an individual and $4,392 for a family (Source: eHealthInsurance)
• Allows Americans with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to use their HSA funds to pay for insurance premiums, encouraging employers to contribute to their employees’ HSAs.
• Creates a nationwide market for health insurance by allowing individuals to purchase health insurance plans in any state.
• Provides block grants to states to develop innovative models that ensure affordable health insurance coverage for Americans with pre-existing health conditions.
• Reduces predatory and frivolous malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals.
• Assures that every health care consumer has access to price information prior to treatment so they can make informed decisions about their care.
• Repeals financial bailouts (TARP) to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Here's some interesting points on the Obama Healthcare plan from Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ron Paul and Daniel Hannon

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Kords21]

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Kords21]

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Kords21]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


If you really think the WHO ranking the US 37th in the world on health care is objective, you should do a little research to determine how the study came to that conclusion. There are plenty of studies out there that shed light on the bias used to come to that conclusion. For instance, if you remove the fatalities due to automobile accidents, the US has the highest life expectancy in the world. The US also ranks the highest in the world for life expectancy of those with cancer. The study is not objective and due to the way it was conducted puts nations with socialized medicine at a distinct advantage.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by mhc_70]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Two questions for you...one for Conservatives...and one for Liberals....


I'm answering both, because I'm a bit of a political chameleon.


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?


Not just no. Hell no.


Liberals....do you put faith in our government..who by most peoples admission...is completely tainted by corporate lobbyists and special interests groups...and believe that THEY will actually have your best interests at heart?


Again, NO.

Now what I want to know, for people who have been following this debate, is this:

During campaign season I read the health care proposals of both Obama and McCain and I thought that both would be a fairly substantial improvement over the current system (which is the worst in the world, per dollar spent, by any quantitative measure). Most other people seemed to feel the same way. In fact, it was the one thing that nearly everybody seemed to agree on: these guys would improve health care, regardless of who won (or at least, everybody who objectively read the proposals, rather screaming "OMFG! Communists/Fascists! Run for the hills!"). This isn't surprising, since they both found legitimate experts to craft their programs.

So what happened? Are partisan politics obscuring the fact that our system blows and either of these plans would have been capable of making improvements. Or has Congress really managed to distort the Obama plan so much that it's unrecognizable (as they would have surely done with the McCain plan)?

Or in short: are people blinded by ideology and partisanship; or is Congress just filled with blundering idiots?


[edit on 6-8-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 





So what happened? Are partisan politics obscuring the fact that our system blows and either of these plans would have been capable of making improvements. Or has Congress really managed to distort the Obama plan so much that it's unrecognizable (as they would have surely done with the McCain plan)?


One problem I keep seeing with people is that they think this will stop competition....when the reality is THEIR IS NO COMPETITION NOW.

You are stuck with the insurance an employer gives you and the only "choice" you get is if your spouse also has insurance through their company. That's it. There is no choice...other than being uninsured.

Essentially what we have now is a monopolistic system that we really have no control over. I am one of those people that believe that we shouldn't just leave people to rot. I think society needs a type of "rebound" system to help get people back into the game. If someone loses their job..they lose their insurance as cobra is UNAFFORDABLE....and that creates more debt if they need medical assistance.

I remember...after I lost my last job a few years ago...I got a NASTY ear infection. The entire side of my head was in massive pain. I couldn't sleep..eat...nor think. I didn't go to the doctor because I wasn't insured and didn't have the money.

I have some ideas on what should be done....making insurance companies non-profit is one.....or making employer healthcare insurance have more options...and that is to actually have choices on what healthcare you can have.

There is no competition now...there hasn't been for along time...people say it should be up to them and should stay that way...but in reality it's not that way.

Yes...you can choose doctors...but you cannot choose what kind of insurance coverage you want under an employer.

The thing is...we don't need government to run all healthcare to make this happen. Should we provide for the unemployed and help with their insurance?

Yes....but those people should be actively trying to find work as it's far too easy to abuse the system.





top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join