Why we push for healthcare reform

Originally posted by AshleyD

And that is, if you stop random people on the street, I would feel confident in assuming that most would say the system is a mess and we need reform. However, the concern in many people's minds is not that we don't need reform- it's that this specific bill doesn't really address the problem in a fair manner.

And, no, I'm not talking about death panels and other rumors.

These things I beleive to be true about the HCR debate.

(1) The bill was imperfect.

(2) The GOP rhetoric of "start over" was the most disingenius load of BS I have heard a poltician say since Nixon said "I am not a crook". They would have never returned to Health Care reform had the bill failed. Even staunch GOP supporters know this. "Start over" was a rhetorical tactic, not a plan.

(3) The bill has been misconstrued to the public more than any political topic I can think of in my life time. The GOPs strrategy seems to have de-evolved into...our base doesn't care if we lie to them...they are practically asking us to...and to me THAT philosophy represents the end of America as we know it. If that strategy had proven successful, it would have become the new standard in US politics.

For these reasons I am happy the bill passed. For me it was the choice between a flawed reform bill and no reform at all.

For anyone feeling "rage" over the passage of this bill that is "vulnerable" to rational thinking..Here is a superb website by the Kaiser Foundation with online calculators/schedules/factsheets etc. allowing individuals to quickly determine precisely how HCR effects them...

healthreform.kff.org...



[edit on 29-3-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Things are only that way because of government intervention in the markets.

In a free market, no one would do business with such a company.

Insurance would be super-streamlined.

Things would move like clockwork.

As I already pointed out, things are only that way because of the massive regulation involved.

Competition would weed out the crap companies that are inefficient and provide horrible service.

You are discussing the nature of free markets and capitalism.

Free markets streamline production, weed out inefficiencies (excess costs) etc.

Yes capitalism rocks. I love capitalism. It rewards and encourages innovation and hard work.

Here is the issue with regards to healthcare and capitalism.

Cancer doesn't care if you work hard. Cystic Fibrosis does not only afflict the children of unproductive citizens.

Supply and Demand...price elasticity...higher the price, less demand etc.

Disease does not play by these rules. Nobody has ever been able to "work harder" and rid themselves of a brain tumor.

Treating healthcare like a profit and loss equation...it naturally drives insurance companies to reduce expenses. What are thier expenses? Actually paying for treatment.

How do you reduce those costs ...like any free market player would do?

Deny coverage for those that appear as if they might actually need healthcare. (expense)

Deny payments for expensive treatments.

Recind (cancel) policies for those that have been making premium payments when large claims are made. The premiums are profit...the payments are expense.

I don't think insurance companies are "evil"...they are only following the free market rules like any other product.

The problem? Cancer doesn't care...."Demand" for treatment is not a function of price or income as it would be for a car, television etc.

"Demand" for healthcare is near random at the individual level in the form of disease, accidents etc. and at the national level it is near "fixed" regardless of price...allowing for ever increasing rate hikes by insurance companies without fear of decreasing demand.

Healthcare does not respond to a capitalistic equation because at a very fundemental level...disease, accidents etc. are not tethered to any capitalistic equation.

Disease, car crashes etc kills kids and adults, rich and poor indiscriminately.

I am not sure why this concept seems so hard to understand by some.

Healthcare reform is not an assualt on free-enterprise or capitalism, HCR as it stands is the very slightest of nods to the elephant in the room....disease does not care about the free markets ..."Demand" for healthcare is not effected by price or level of service and treating healthcare as if it is an automobile makes no sense....if only little Johny was more innovative or worked harder he wouldn't have died and his family wouldn't have gone bankrupt trying to save him...

It makes no sense.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


You know some of us do not need calculators.

In 12 years I have not been in a hospital or clinic.

I will not be in one for another 20 years probably.

But who cares right?

Quit calling it the bees knees. Some of us do not need health insurance.

We already have HEALTH CARE.

Oh but the children. THERE, I got that argument out of the way for you.

Originally posted by endisnighe
In 12 years I have not been in a hospital or clinic.
I will not be in one for another 20 years probably.

Wonderful, you are free to take that risk. Other people who are unfortunately born or have developed cancer, Alzheimers an so forther have little choice but to seek treatment. Those who were refused coverage for their pre-existing conditions, whats their option?

A child born with a life threatening birth defect, insurance companies refuse to cover them, whats their option? Even if they get medical treatment that bill is going to come in the $1000's, how the hell do you think middle class parents are going to afford that? We have millions of americans uninsured for the most part because the insurance companies refuse to cover them, they are not eligible for medicare, not eligible for medicaid, whats their options endisnigh? 'tough luck' you'd say? How do we fix the economy if the healthcare industry is in part contributing to keep people in debt?

Do you think people choose to have cancer? Do you think people choose to be born with asthma? 'Tough luck' you say? And you expect this economy to recover and continue on like this? The economy is nothing if peope are being drained of their financials and livelihoods.

We already have HEALTH CARE.

and healthcare is nothing if it bankrupts, if it punishes parents for having a child born under unfortunate circumstances. HEALTHCARE is not the problem, it is ACCESS to healthcare and COST.

Originally posted by endisnighe


In 12 years I have not been in a hospital or clinic.

I will not be in one for another 20 years probably.

Wow. And I thought the movie "unbreakable" was just a movie.

I tell you what...I hope with all of my heart and soul that you never have need to go to the hospital for the rest of your days and I also hope that if a bad day finds you needing care that you seek it quickly and humbly rather than suffer or perish.

Peace.

reply to post by maybereal11


reply to post by Southern Guardian


I do not fear death, I do not fear pain, I do not fear.

Yes, things that you bring up are heart wrenching and I do weep for the suffering of others. As I have mentioned to others on other threads, I suffer from severe Arthritis. I have been dealing with it for about 20 years.

I have researched that there is not much that can be done about it. I could be alleviated of the pain, somewhat by constant pharmiceuticals. But to what end.

Charity is the only way to solve our problems. Not adding the layer of insurance and government bureaucracies to an ever expanding model of management over the top of production. In any model of any type business, the end product costs more when the more management(non productive) components are added.

Think about it this way. If all the different bureaucracies (management) were eliminated, insurance, gov agencies, tort, or anything else blanketed upon the health care industries was removed, what amount of savings would that produce? I would think a lot.

BUT, here is the thing, I brought up in another thread this comparison. Right now certain cancers can be defeated by creating retroviruses that can attack the cancer cells. BUT, this technology cost vasts amount of money BUT, these retroviruses can only work for the SPECIFIC person's dna profile.

One has to ask, at what point of technological innovation do we stop? At what point do we say that the resources required to maintain life is too much. I bring to you what price it should stop. Is the ability to pay. Yes a small safety net should be erected, but than again, at what point do we say that the tax to maintain other's lives, in deference to our own, is too much.

You may think that a lot of us do not care, BUT oh you would be wrong. We care too much. That is why all of these cases are brought forward to defend the moves being made. The government knows too well the strings to pull.

I have made the CHOICE not to address my illness because "I" have decided not to waste MY resources, or others, in ATTEMPTING to alleviate the problem.

So I say to you, I feel to solve one symptom by installing something heinous, to alleviate the SYMPTOMS of a problem, only exacerbate the underlying illness.

What say you?

reply to post by endisnighe


End, this is perhaps some of the finest writing I have ever read from you. Nicely said, cohesive in its content and straight to the point. Well done.

I particularly like this statement:

Charity is the only way to solve our problems. Not adding the layer of insurance and government bureaucracies to an ever expanding model of management over the top of production. In any model of any type business, the end product costs more when the more management(non productive) components are added.

Charity is key and to something that should be encouraged at every step. Not adding to the mounds of top heavy bureaucratic management in the health care field is also key, and you would think people declaring this such a social victory would realize the bill only recognizes middlemen in this legislation and cares not if the worker owns the means of production or not.

Even so, your most poignant and deeply profound question was this:

One has to ask, at what point of technological innovation do we stop? At what point do we say that the resources required to maintain life is too much. I bring to you what price it should stop. Is the ability to pay. Yes a small safety net should be erected, but than again, at what point do we say that the tax to maintain other's lives, in deference to our own, is too much.

The O.P. in this thread has presented little Baby Houston as some sort of victim of an out of control health care system when in reality that child is alive due to the current health care system and the real problem the O.P. has with baby Houston's situation is the O.P. doesn't believe the parents should have to pay the bill for saving their child's life.

The O.P. in an earlier post indicated, or guessed, that the bill was upwards of $20,000 which is high, but conservative in its guess, and I do not know the actual figures, but even if the cost comes to 5 times that amount, is such a cost too much to pay for saving the life of your child? Would not you or anyone else do everything they could to assume that debt and pay it off however you could if it meant saving the life of your newborn child? Wouldn't you gladly assume the debt for your newborn child?

Beyond that, if the cost of technology is so prohibitive that access to that technology is extremely limited, then how could such a technology be honestly viewed as accessible? These are all very valid questions that should have, and should now be asked in regards to any health care reform, but seemingly were not asked at all with the passage of this most recent legislation.

Finally, your final remark of creating a program that in the end only handles the symptoms and not the underlying cause, is endemic not just in Congress but the health care field as well, and any health care reform should and could address the very real problem that much of modern medical treatments in Western society to too much of handling the symptoms and not near enough of handling the source.

An excellent post, End. Keep it up!

reply to post by Southern Guardian

it is ACCESS to healthcare and COST

Does the bill do anything to cap cost? For those having to purchase insurance on their own dime, does this bill give a limit to how much insurance companies can charge for premiums and deductibles?

Even if they get medical treatment that bill is going to come in the $1000's, how the hell do you think middle class parents are going to afford that?

What if the deductible is in the $5,000 range? That is a pretty standard/average amount. So people will be forced to have insurance now but do you know what is in the bill that makes sure they get the benefits of their insurance instead of being turned away when they can't afford the deductibles and co-pays?

What if doctors didnt have to pay excessive amounts for insurance against every slimeball out to make an easy buck by suing the doc's for doing their job? If people weren't so lazy and actually worked instead of looking for a handout directly from the doctor (since we know they've got such great liability insurance), the prices would go down. That, and if the average american's diet didn't consist of a Big mac a day with a bag of chips and a few dozen ho-hos.

IMHO.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Mykahel]

Originally posted by endisnighe
Charity is the only way to solve our problems.

Charity will not solve this problem. I'd like you to try and strip medicare and medicaid off of folks and tell them to 'seek charity' and I assure you the reply will not be nice.

Charity groups are already to their knees in this contry, in fact charity groups have always struggled to keep up because we live in a society of whats mostly 'meme's'. In a perfect world charity is the solution, but we do not live in the perfect world. In a perfect world, charity could replace taxes, but that is unrealistic as well.

what amount of savings would that produce?

It did not matter even if you cut the government in half and saved billions, the end result will be that there will still be millions of people uninsured, millions of people in debt as a result of healthcare and continued rises in healthcare. Over time the costs to the economy itself as the result of these costs and the effect on consumer confidence will be great. Something needs to be done to assist in the scenario that people are not forced into these financial crippling situations. This is not just for the sake of welfare but for the sake of the economic outlook of this nation. If costs of healthcare are contributing greatly to why this economy isnt recovering, to why businesses are suffering, why families are struggling, cutting government and saving money will not solve that issue. Do you know howmuch its costing this nation with the rise of ER visits? It isnt often as simple as just dumping the cost after these people are recovering, alot of the time the cost comes right back to the tax payer, but you'd insist we cut a programme totally unrelated to solve this problem.

You don't really have an answer to this healthcare crises, you'd just let it balloon and insist its the way it outta be!

One has to ask, at what point of technological innovation do we stop?

Even if there was cure for cancer, for all birth defects and so forth and there were solutions to those who find themselves in the situation, the costs of these healthcare services will still continue to cost and cripple people financially. You forget also that healthcare has become a financial venture in this nation. Those who benefit are not caring for health anymore, they care for cutting corners and benefitting at the expense of society, at the expense of the economy, at the expense in the end to the tax payer. We cannot have a healthcare system where 30 million or so people are left out because the consequences of them needed to pay up on the cost will drag down the rest of the country, the rest of the economy and that has actually been significantly connected to the financial crises at hand.

This isnt just about the healthcare of those who are in unfortunate circumstances, its also got to do with the fact the costs and consequences of these people without coverage greatly influences the rest of us. We cannot have afew million americans dragging the rest of us down in financial debt and cost.

Yes a small safety net should be erected,

And what exactly will that small safety net require might I ask? Are you admitting that government involvement is inevitable?

You may think that a lot of us do not care,

You do not care to know. If you were put infront of these parents and people in similar situations to explain you'd get an ear full. You would not help but care regardless of how you reason and justify.

I have made the CHOICE

And by that this baby has to make a choice you say? What choice do the parents have if they could not afford the bill? You want this economy to be set straight, you complain day and day out of how this government is making it worse, what about the parents of this baby? Business owners, consumers? And you expect this economy to heal with the healthcare system in this state? With costs like this?

Really now.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Does the bill do anything to cap cost? For those having to purchase insurance on their own dime, does this bill give a limit to how much insurance companies can charge for premiums and deductibles?

No it doesnt, which in part goes back to the OP. This reform bill will not be the solution long term. It is not strong enough and there were many aspects of the bill that was cut down to pander to big business and that I will readily agree with. Obama's plan did in part include what you listed there in February:
english.aljazeera.net...

But even that was cut out to pander to both Republicans and some Democrats. In my opinion that would have strengthened the bills effect alittle more but when it comes to capping businesses on costs, its a touchy subject Ashley.

What if the deductible is in the $5,000 range? That is a pretty standard/average amount. So people will be forced to have insurance now but do you know what is in the bill that makes sure they get the benefits of their insurance instead of being turned away when they can't afford the deductibles and co-pays?

As far as I can see the bill clearly makes exceptions to the mandate and one of those is the exception to those under financial burden to keep up with costs of their insurers. Now the detail of that and how the government will assist is not clear, which leads me right back to the point of how ineffective this bill is long term. I actually agree with you over your point here.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Wow, I tried to debate you. You just sidestep like a master. I give up on this thread. Laying some example is a red herring.

By the way, have you offered the parents to help out?

No, probably not.

You know, charity starts at home. Not in your neighbors pocket.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Wow, I tried to debate you. You just sidestep like a master. I give up on this thread. Laying some example is a red herring.

By the way, have you offered the parents to help out?

No, probably not.

You know, charity starts at home. Not in your neighbors pocket.

The O.P. has no interest in considering any options outside of an insurance scheme to reform health care, and as such it is a waste of time to debate this member, unless you want to debate which insurance scheme is best to reform health care.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Wow, I tried to debate you.

So what exactly did you and the others come with to the table to debate with endisnighe?

'The baby can make a choice.'

'Exercise and eating right makes you healthy.'

'They got healthcare anyway so who cares if the costs are a burden to the individual and in turn the economy.'

'We have excellent doctors, nurses and medical technology in this country so whats the problem?'

'I didnt go to the clinic for years and I came out just fine.'

'Just leave it to charity groups to sort out those millions of uninsured americans and their healthcare costs.'

Wonderful. This is what you fellas really expect me and others here to debate with you on.

Yes I did help the parents out, so dead wrong on that assumption. And since you insist I should not expect a dime out of my neighbours, it throws away your theory of 'charity' to the solution of the other millions of americans. Because that is what will be expected if charity is going to do any effect. Looking at how well charity is doing now, that theory doesnt look bright.

Really now, I expected better.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The O.P. has no interest in considering any options outside of an insurance scheme to reform health care,

What options outside of reform?

Charity? How good it that doing now for folks?

Medicare or medicaid? You mean I ignoring socialist options? And what if people dont fit that criteria?

Come on now, what options am I not considering? Tax cuts? Are you joking? How effect is tax cuts going to be if premiums keep rising? What the hell is a $80 tax cut going to do to pay for a $5,000 medical bill to an uninsured individual?

Come on, what options? Not go to the doctors at all? That turned well for another good friend of yours so why not apply that to everybody else?

waste of time

If its a waste of time then dont spend your time posting here.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


How about the opinions from a liberal business owner? One that was bastardized because he did not tow the party line that has been pushed for the past year? One that was called to a boycott because of the policies he presented?

There was a time where Americans didn't purchase 'insurance' to insure they were able to pay for medical care when needed. I, along with my brother and sister were born under such circumstances. Yet, my parents are not in massive debt.

The doctors and the patients were the ones in control of such care; it is a far cry from what we see today.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

How about the opinions from a liberal business owner? One that was bastardized because he did not tow the party line that has been pushed for the past year? One that was called to a boycott because of the policies he presented?

I dont quiet understand what your saying? Your refering to a liberal business owner that does not agree with the Democrats and this reform bill a presume? If thats the case then join the club amigo! you and me both! Iv said this time and time again if you cared to read, I do not think this bill is effective enough to pull off reform and there are plenty of examples of liberals unhappy with the Democratic party.

Most Democratic politicians have proven themselves to be in the same agreement and workings of the Republicans and big business. For the most part they are one in the same and the fact the Democrats could not pass a reform bill to their constituents demands even while having a filibuster majority, it says alot doesnt it?

Tell me what does this liberal business owner look for in real reform? I'd assume his also for a strong public option or a single payer system? I tell ya I would not need to argue much if this is the case.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Actually a strong progressive business owner did come out against the type of reform that was presented.

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

Then...the left's response because of the free market principles displayed and expressed....

Here





Here

and...

Here

These are just a few examples.

Can you show me any of his ideas that would have been bad to try and implement? Which of the ideas he presented would have cost any additional tax-payer money on the Federal level?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I don't think we (along with other Conservative types and Liberal types) are actually that much different in regards to understanding and thought comprehension), I do feel that in general, it is best for Government to keep the populace enthralled in pointless debate.