View Full Version : Die Quickly
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/30/house.floor.controversy/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
I share this man's fervor.
Pengwuino
Oct1-09, 02:49 AM
How is this "bravery"?
Jasongreat
Oct1-09, 02:55 AM
IMO we're about to hear that the neo-cons are going to have him eliminated.
How is this "bravery"?
You heard the man, die quickly. Let's go.
When Republicans ask Alan Grayson to apologize:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFK9XuXCeno&feature=channel
Pengwuino
Oct2-09, 01:06 AM
Again, "bravery"?
Or is this another one of those finger in the ear "la la la la" political rants?
He's just pointing out the Republicans neglect for real health care reform, not insurance reform. Insurance reform is not health care reform, it's not a health care plan.
russ_watters
Oct2-09, 01:42 AM
He's just pointing out the Republicans neglect for real health care reform, not insurance reform. Insurance reform is not health care reform, it's not a health care plan. I thought the functionality of the health insurance system was the primary flaw in our overall health care system? That was initially the major focus of this reform effort, anyway.
I mean, what else is there? Malpractice? Malpractice hasn't entered much into this debate. Overall quality? Quality in the US is unparalleled - the complaint is that it isn't available to everyone. Again, that's an insurance complaint. Cost? Most of the cost issue is about insurance (since that's how we pay for heath care). There are sub-issues to that, though, that not even democrats are paying attention to, such as the cost of prescription drugs and patent extensions for drugs.
Anyway, for the video - I'm not a big fan of rhetoric in general and I don't think quotes/rhetoric like that are useful. I only listened to 30 seconds or so of the interview, and Wolf Blitzer did a commendable job of pointing out both the factual inaccuracy of saying that republicans have no plans and the uslessness/stupidness of the rhetoric.
Overall, though, ehh - just another idiot in a Congress full of them. Best to just ignore him and he'll go away.
Choronzon
Oct2-09, 02:46 AM
I thought the functionality of the health insurance system was the primary flaw in our overall health care system? That was initially the major focus of this reform effort, anyway.
I mean, what else is there? Malpractice? Malpractice hasn't entered much into this debate. Overall quality? Quality in the US is unparalleled - the complaint is that it isn't available to everyone. Again, that's an insurance complaint. Cost? Most of the cost issue is about insurance (since that's how we pay for heath care). There are sub-issues to that, though, that not even democrats are paying attention to, such as the cost of prescription drugs and patent extensions for drugs.
Anyway, for the video - I'm not a big fan of rhetoric in general and I don't think quotes/rhetoric like that are useful. I only listened to 30 seconds or so of the interview, and Wolf Blitzer did a commendable job of pointing out both the factual inaccuracy of saying that republicans have no plans and the uslessness/stupidness of the rhetoric.
Overall, though, ehh - just another idiot in a Congress full of them. Best to just ignore him and he'll go away.
I disagree.
What seems to be the ultimate goal of the Democrats is that every person in America have full health coverage. That's basically impossible using an insurance model. Once you start covering pre-existing conditions, it is no longer insurance.
I'm always stunned by people who think that the government should force private companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Just like you can't walk purchase fire insurance on an already burnt down home to cover the cost to rebuild, a person with say cancer shouldn't be able to walk into an insurance company, tell them that they're going to give them a few hundred dollars a month and expect the company to pay for their treatment. It seems common sense to me.
Anyways, the Republicans seem to be trying to make health insurance cheaper by disallowing states from restricting out of state health companies and by enacting Tort reform. However cheap you make it, however, eventually someone is going to get sick without insurance, and that person is then going to feel entitled to other peoples sweat and treasure to treat them. While I couldn't personally care what happened to that person, the Democrats think that everyone else in America who took steps to not be a burden to society should pay to make them better.
Pengwuino
Oct2-09, 03:00 AM
He's just pointing out the Republicans neglect for real health care reform, not insurance reform. Insurance reform is not health care reform, it's not a health care plan.
Again, "bravery"? I give up...
russ_watters
Oct2-09, 03:24 AM
I disagree.
What seems to be the ultimate goal of the Democrats is that every person in America have full health coverage. That's basically impossible using an insurance model. Once you start covering pre-existing conditions, it is no longer insurance.
I'm always stunned by people who think that the government should force private companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Just like you can't walk purchase fire insurance on an already burnt down home to cover the cost to rebuild, a person with say cancer shouldn't be able to walk into an insurance company, tell them that they're going to give them a few hundred dollars a month and expect the company to pay for their treatment. It seems common sense to me. We don't really disagree there. I'm just talking about how the debate is currently going: Whether you still call it insurance or not, forcing insurance companies to cover everyone is what is currently being pushed.
The caveat to that, though, is that if everyone gets insurance, there no longer is any such thing as a "pre-existing condition" since no one will ever be without insurance. In other words, the insurance companies will take an initial hit, but then they'll also be charging more healthy people for premiums long before they get sick. Insurance companies don't want to pay for chemo for that 60 year old lung cancer patient who has spent 59 years without insurance. But if the government forces people to get insurance, that scenario goes away eventually: all 60 year old cancer patients will have paid into their insurance system for 59 years. Anyways, the Republicans seem to be trying to make health insurance cheaper by disallowing states from restricting out of state health companies and by enacting Tort reform. However cheap you make it, however, eventually someone is going to get sick without insurance, and that person is then going to feel entitled to other peoples sweat and treasure to treat them. While I couldn't personally care what happened to that person, the Democrats think that everyone else in America who took steps to not be a burden to society should pay to make them better. Yes, that's basically how I see the debate bieng framed.
Once you start covering pre-existing conditions, it is no longer insurance.
I'm always stunned by people who think that the government should force private companies to cover pre-existing conditions.Yeah, it still blows my mind, too.
Many obviously have no idea what insurance is. They think they know what it "should" be, but fail to comprehend that the private contract between me and my insurance company didn't take what they think it "should" be into account. And I'd like to keep it that way.
Why should anyone who is not a party to a contract have any say in its contents?
What justification is there for government to outlaw a private agreement between private parties because it doesn't do what neither party agreed to?
If Democrats want to start selling insurance to compete with private companies, that's fine with me. They don't even need to pass any law to do that. Nobody has ever stood in their way except their own regulatory hurdles.
How is this "bravery"?
Its bravery because he's standing up for something he believes in and sticking to the real message that insurance is about getting evryone covered regardless of ones wealth. Its about protecting all life, instead of just that of the unborne. Why is it considered "brave" or "moral" to stand against abortion but the second that child is borne they can rot in hell as far as anyone else is concerned?
These huge corporations put up these fence posts to keep costs high and to reduce competition, i can't believe you think for one second they want to tear them down. What the republicans offer could have been done over the previous 8 years if they really gave a hoot.
That is what this brave man is standing up against. He's just playing their game instead of sitting by and trying to be the nice one about it.
I disagree.
What seems to be the ultimate goal of the Democrats is that every person in America have full health coverage. That's basically impossible using an insurance model. Once you start covering pre-existing conditions, it is no longer insurance.
Why is that? Insurance is a risk tool, the more you spread the risk, the lower the risk each payee has to burden him/herself.
Also, how do YOU define pre-existing conditions? Are you implying people with these so called conditions should "just die" (as this congressman said).
I'm always stunned by people who think that the government should force private companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Just like you can't walk purchase fire insurance on an already burnt down home to cover the cost to rebuild, a person with say cancer shouldn't be able to walk into an insurance company, tell them that they're going to give them a few hundred dollars a month and expect the company to pay for their treatment. It seems common sense to me.
Why not? Can you give me a good reason people with cancer shouldn't live a life with dignity?
Anyways, the Republicans seem to be trying to make health insurance cheaper by disallowing states from restricting out of state health companies and by enacting Tort reform. However cheap you make it, however, eventually someone is going to get sick without insurance, and that person is then going to feel entitled to other peoples sweat and treasure to treat them. While I couldn't personally care what happened to that person, the Democrats think that everyone else in America who took steps to not be a burden to society should pay to make them better.
They're not making insurance cheaper by anymeans, they're appeasing the situation to blind us to the realities of STILL INCREASING PREMIUMS for even HEALTHY people.
Hell, i bet 100% of america has pre-existing conditions. If you have a parent who had a heart attack, you have pre-existing conditions to have one yourself, if you have a relative with diabeties, heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, chronic disease, asthmaa.. whats to stop insurance companies from excluding you simply because they run a genetics test on you and pre-condition you as a failed human being?
I don't get what you guys are defending and you guys aren't defending anything with real meaning but completely ignoring the fact insurance isn't about MONEY its about PEOPLE.. Maybe insurance shouldn't BE FOR PROFIT, should our society make money off the sick or make MORE MONEY OFF HEALTHY PEOPLE?
CRGreathouse
Oct2-09, 09:51 AM
(since that's how we pay for heath care)
That, for me, is the problem.
russ_watters
Oct2-09, 09:58 AM
Why not? Can you give me a good reason people with cancer shouldn't live a life with dignity? People with cancer should recieve treatment for cancer. And they should pay for it via the insurance they've been paying for for their entire lives. People who never bothered to get insurance should get the treatment they can pay for, however little that is.
Perhaps you think that's insensitive. Well I think people who want health care coverage without paying for it are stealing from me!
So twisting the question like you did: Why are you in favor of stealing peoples' money to pay for other people's irresponsibility?
People with cancer should recieve treatment for cancer. And they should pay for it via the insurance they've been paying for for their entire lives. People who never bothered to get insurance should get the treatment they can pay for, however little that is.
Perhaps you think that's insensitive. Well I think people who want health care coverage without paying for it are stealing from me!
So twisting the question like you did: Why are you in favor of stealing peoples' money to pay for other people's irresponsibility?
What happens when you're insurance drops you or reduces your coverage and you have to shop around? What happens when you're out of work because of your condition?
WHat you suggest is to just die, what you suggest isn't insurance.
I'm not twisting the question but stating the real issue we should be resolving and simply and falsely reducing the costs as the republicans seek to do solves nothing as you don't need legislation to reduce costs unless you want to force new plans to the private companies so i can make a choice. right now the only choice i have is my employer plan or my own plan and if i chose my own plan i don't get my employers tax benefits.
and no, insurance isn't stealing.. not sure why that is even in this discussion. I'd rather "steal money (or have it stolen as you put it)" than steal ones dignity and wellbeing if thats what we want to disgrace this discussion into ;)
russ_watters
Oct2-09, 10:27 AM
What happens when you're insurance drops you or reduces your coverage and you have to shop around? Quality insurance shouldn't do that. Whether what you suggest is a reality or not, I don't know, but the law can easily be made to require companies to not arbitrarily drop coverage without cause. What happens when you're out of work because of your condition? Disability insurance is a component of proper health insurance.
The bigger part of the problem is people who don't have insurance. You're arguing footnotes here. WHat you suggest is to just die, what you suggest isn't insurance. What does the word "insurance" mean to you? It seems to mean, 'pay for my health care even if I never had insurance before'. As noted before, if you sign up for something after you are already sick, that's not insurance, it is just free health care.
What I want is for people to get health insurance, not for people to steal my money to pay for their free health care. I'm not twisting the question but stating the real issue we should be resolving... My suggestion resolves the issue without leaving people uncovered or stealing money from others. Why don't you advocate forcing people to buy health insurance, but do advocate forcing others to pay for the health care of people who are too irresponsible to get it themselves?
right now the only choice i have is my employer plan or my own plan and if i chose my own plan i don't get my employers tax benefits. So the choice seems obvious, eh?
Why not compare this to car insurance? Everyone in my state is required to get car insurance or their car gets confiscated. They are all required a minimum amount of insurance. and no, insurance isn't stealing.. not sure why that is even in this discussion. It is in the discussion because what you are arguing is for some people to get free health care by forcing others to pay for it. That's stealing.
Jasongreat
Oct2-09, 10:34 AM
That, for me, is the problem.
I agree completely, why do we have to have insurance? It seems to me that the reason health costs are so high is that the insurance companies(and lawyers) have been running up the price of procedures for years, they really dont care what they pay since it is not their money. It is my understanding that not even a hundred years ago insurance companies were thought of as shysters, now they are supposedly our saviors, what a change in less than a century. It seems the argument is that the insurance corporations have been taking advantage of us for years and it is now time to use the government to punish them and make things right(reparations), but who was it that has given the insurance companies all their power? So we need to grow the government even though that is who gave them their power in order to control their power?
The insurance companies would never have the power they have without the backing of government. Who else could sell a product(security) to protect against unforeseen difficulties, then as soon as the difficulties happen the government declares an emergency and the taxpayers pay for what the insurance companies were supposed to? What other industry does the government force people to support? What other industry gets bailed out almost every year by the federal government? The way it is now, I would just as soon have the government be the insurer, atleast that way we would only have one bill, instead of paying premiums then having our taxes pay for what the insurance companies where supposed to. Either we need to get rid of insurance or we need to get the government to stop propping them up IMO, without that we will not even begin to solve the problem.
Quality insurance shouldn't do that. Whether what you suggest is a reality or not, I don't know, but the law can easily be made to require companies to not arbitrarily drop coverage without cause. Disability insurance is a component of proper health insurance.
Doesn't this assume that insurance is already affordable and reliable? Bad assmption to make at it completely ignores the statements that this congressman stated.
The bigger part of the problem is people who don't have insurance. You're arguing footnotes here. What does the word "insurance" mean to you? It seems to mean, 'pay for my health care even if I never had insurance before'. As noted before, if you sign up for something after you are already sick, that's not insurance, it is just free health care.
You're fighting the egg or the chicken or the cart or the horse. Neither of which is relevent to the discussion of non insurred vs insured and expensive premiums.
What I want is for people to get health insurance, not for people to steal my money to pay for their free health care. My suggestion resolves the issue without leaving people uncovered or stealing money from others. Why don't you advocate forcing people to buy health insurance, but do advocate forcing others to pay for the health care of people who are too irresponsible to get it themselves?
So the choice seems obvious, eh?
huh? I advocate a national single payer plan, but i'm all for a trojan horse plan if it can disrupt the crappy system we have today. Neither of which is robbing anyone but giving a little bit of decency, respect and humanity back to living people.
Why not compare this to car insurance? Everyone in my state is required to get car insurance or their car gets confiscated. They are all required a minimum amount of insurance. It is in the discussion because what you are arguing is for some people to get free health care by forcing others to pay for it. That's stealing.
wait wait wait.. you just compared HEALTH to care insurance? *sigh* Car insurance is property insurance, value based insurance. Are you implying for health insurance to work its correct to place monetary value on human life?
It seems to me you're ignoring economy of scale, ignoring the benefits of healthy people, the benefits of healthy society and looking at it from "how will this hurt me" vs "how will this help me"
just think of the personal freedom you could have if you didn't have to work for insurance but could work because you enjoy your job? just think of how small businesses could grow better because insurance risk & liability wouldn't be a factor of their bottom line and they could compete with the big boys because it wouldn't be a choice of working somewhere else just because they offer insurance?
Health insurance as a national plan is the democratization of basic human rights if you ask me. keep it commercial, keep drs, hospitals and health providers in there competing for the best service, the best value so on and so forth.
if you ask me, the more people in the system, the more people paying the system the lower the risk. The sooner you can diagnose, the lower the risk, the sooner you can prevent, the lower the risk, the better the health of our society the better we are as a nation. seems common sense to me.
Jasongreat
Oct2-09, 11:12 AM
Car insurance is property insurance, value based insurance. Are you implying for health insurance to work its correct to place monetary value on human life?
I dont know about where you live, but my car insurance also covers the occupents not just the car. It seems we already have put a value on human life, and it seems that neither politicians nor the insurance companies think its worth much more than profit(votes for the politician, money for the insurance companies).
russ_watters
Oct2-09, 11:25 AM
wait wait wait.. you just compared HEALTH to care insurance? *sigh* Car insurance is property insurance, value based insurance. Are you implying for health insurance to work its correct to place monetary value on human life? Car insurance has three components:
1. Property insurance. This is the smallest component for most people.
2. Heath insurance.
3. Liability insurance.
So much more complicated than just health insurance, yet it somehow works great. Why can't just plain health insurance be made to work as well?
But to answer your question, yes, of course insurance places a monetary value on human life! We live in a world where money is finite so it is essential to properly predict/assign monetary values to human life. My insurance, for example, has a $1 million lifetime coverage limit.
To me, the idea that everyone should get the same amount of health care regardless of how much they pay for it is the same as the idea that people should get to drive the same car regardless of how much they pay for it. A Mercedes sedan is much safer than a Yugo, but you wouldn't require the government to provide everyone with a Mercedes regardless of if they can pay for it, would you? Or would you? It is, after all, a matter of life and death, as your lifetime odds of getting killed in a car accident are somewhere on the order of 25%.
To me, the idea that everyone should get the same amount of health care regardless of how much they pay for it is the same as the idea that people should get to drive the same car regardless of how much they pay for it. A Mercedes sedan is much safer than a Yugo, but you wouldn't require the government to provide everyone with a Mercedes regardless of if they can pay for it, would you? Or would you? It is, after all, a matter of life and death, as your lifetime odds of getting killed in a car accident are somewhere on the order of 25%.
You're comparing consumerism to the value of human life? Thats nonsense. We're no longer talking about coverage but talking about chosing between a human life and a car as if thats the ultimate deciding factor in human wellbeing and health? wow
Jasongreat
Oct2-09, 12:11 PM
[QUOTE]So much more complicated than just health insurance, yet it somehow works great. Why can't just plain health insurance be made to work as well?
I disagree that car insurance works great, it still forces those that drive responsibly to pay for those that dont. Why dont we insure ourselves, instead of insuring everyone else on the road? I believe it was because that was the only way it could have been justfied to make it mandatory,the insurance company lobbyists are not dumb. Why dont we have the choice if we want to insure ourselves? I believe it would be far easier to just keep the costs down and allow everyone a chance to save money in order to pay for accidents when the time comes, if the time never comes you have a big chunk of money. IMO the only thing you can count on with insurance is that it makes things more expensive. The shipping insurers made piracy more expensive when they started paying million dollar ransoms to the algerians, health insurance has increased the price of medical care by propping up the value inorder to show how much we need them, and auto insurance has increased prices by doing the same imo.
A few years ago I was in an accident(hit some ice on the freeway), my insurance company estimated the damage at 4500 dollars, after my deductable I received a check for 3500 dollars. I bought a headlight assembly for 150$, I found a fender that was the same color and year as my truck for 100$ in a local scrap yard, spent a couple hours replacing those parts and bending my front bumper back to straight enough(for me) and paid the remaining 3250$ towards my truck. So instead of just being able to pull a few hundred out of my pocket, I paid 1,000s in insurance over the years, so that they could give it back to me, and get the credit for "helping" me out.
Since it seems to me a lot of the argument for universal health care is about providing "security" it reminded me of a quote:
As soon as you feel secure, you are no longer safe, Benjiman Franklin
Quality insurance shouldn't do that. Whether what you suggest is a reality or not, I don't know, but the law can easily be made to require companies to not arbitrarily drop coverage without cause. Disability insurance is a component of proper health insurance. Russ, you are arguing to defend some mythical "proper" insurance that does not exist.
Wellpoint (Blue Cross CA) paid a fine a while back because they had a policy of dumping people who became pregnant or got sick. It happens all the time. The insurance regulators in CA picked 90 dropped people at random and examined their cases, and found wrong-doing on the part of the insurance company in each and every case. The link is in WhoWee's thread, though you have probably seen it already.
Please tell us what health-insurance plan provides on-going care in the event that you become disabled. Maybe members of Congress get that kind of care, but ordinary citizens don't.
Also, you keep framing lack of insurance coverage as a matter of choice. If you get pregnant or sick and get dropped, that's not choice. If you lose your job or your employer decides not to help provide group insurance anymore, that's not choice. Even if you desperately want health insurance and are willing to pay you may not be able to get it at any price if you have high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.
When I was a shop steward in the paper mill I spent a lot of time fighting with the management and the insurance company because we had some members whose family members had mental health issues and Blue Cross refused to cover their treatment and medication. As long as you are in great health, and are happy with your insurance coverage, that's good, but don't deny millions of others the right to affordable cap-free, drop-free coverage just because you don't think that you need it right now.
My wife is over 55, post menopausal, and has had a complete hysterectomy - all elevating risk-factors for osteoporosis. Her doctor ordered a bone-density test to see if she had experienced any bone-loss, and Anthem Blue Cross-Blue Shield refused to pay for the test unless she was already experiencing symptoms of bone-loss. That's insane. The condition is one that you want to detect and treat early - not wait until external symptoms are strong enough to give a clear diagnosis. We're fighting that, but will probably end up paying the radiology dept out-of-pocket. Another couple of hundred dollars free for Blue Cross.
chemisttree
Oct2-09, 12:43 PM
Turbo, this test (http://www.altmednetwork.net/boneloss_women.html) might be a cheaper test and give you more accurate results. The radiological test only detects damaged bone after all.
Turbo, this test (http://www.altmednetwork.net/boneloss_women.html) might be a cheaper test and give you more accurate results. The radiological test only detects damaged bone after all.Thank you VERY much! Got it bookmarked, now. We'll probably spring for that test, since it can detect the process of losing bone, which is better than detecting the damage after the fact.
Thanks again!
Pengwuino
Oct2-09, 02:26 PM
just think of the personal freedom you could have if you didn't have to work for insurance but could work because you enjoy your job? just think of how small businesses could grow better because insurance risk & liability wouldn't be a factor of their bottom line and they could compete with the big boys because it wouldn't be a choice of working somewhere else just because they offer insurance?
Health care isn't free from the government. You pay for it through taxes, small businesses would pay more taxes instead of paying for health insurance. The part about enjoying your job is meaningless rhetoric.
Health insurance as a national plan is the democratization of basic human rights if you ask me. keep it commercial, keep drs, hospitals and health providers in there competing for the best service, the best value so on and so forth.
Can you point to some examples where government run *insert anything here* gives the people the best value, service, etc.?
if you ask me, the more people in the system, the more people paying the system the lower the risk. The sooner you can diagnose, the lower the risk, the sooner you can prevent, the lower the risk, the better the health of our society the better we are as a nation. seems common sense to me.
Can you point to systems of nationalization that result in quicker service?
Can you point to some examples where government run *insert anything here* gives the people the best value, service, etc.?
Government run health care in Europe has the highest ranking health care according that one study (someone else find it). US was ranked very low in health care for an industrialized country - it has no government run option.
What are you trying to do here?
Government run health care in Europe has the highest ranking health care according that one study (someone else find it). US was ranked very low in health care for an industrialized country - it has no government run option.
What are you trying to do here?France has a private heath-care system with publicly-funded insurance coverage. They spend less than half of what the US does per-capita, and they are #1 in the world for health-care outcomes. We are #37. Anybody that tells you that the US can't possibly save money and improve outcomes with a publicly-financed insurance program interfacing with our private care-delivery system is either unaware of reality or is lying to you (follow the money). Other countries can do it, and it is ridiculous to assert that somehow we cannot. Defeatism in the face of opportunity is self-destructive, and those that indulge in it in the name of their ideology do our country no service. I don't mean just the GOP, but the Blue-Dogs, and the "moderates" like Baucus who let the former VP of Public Affairs of Wellpoint write the legislation being presented by his committee.
Private insurance companies are well-established already with great market penetration. If they are forced to compete with a public option that will accept all people with pre-existing conditions, etc, and they can't compete, then too bad for them. That tail has been wagging the dog for far too long.
Pengwuino
Oct2-09, 05:05 PM
Government run health care in Europe has the highest ranking health care according that one study (someone else find it). US was ranked very low in health care for an industrialized country - it has no government run option.
"That one study". Ok. Good argument.
What are you trying to do here?
Is this suppose to be a personal attack? I'm confused.
Government run health care in Europe has the highest ranking health care according that one study (someone else find it). US was ranked very low in health care for an industrialized country - it has no government run option.
Well, duh. The US is going to rank very low in a study in that deems the presence/absence of a government run option to be one of the key factors in the ranking. That is exactly happened in that WHO study
These huge corporations put up these fence posts to keep costs high and to reduce competition, i can't believe you think for one second they want to tear them down.Those fence posts were put up by government. It's no coincidence that the most regulated industry in the U.S. is the one everyone is complaining about.What the republicans offer could have been done over the previous 8 years if they really gave a hoot.You can't seriously claim to be unaware of Republican efforts to deregulate, and the Democrats screaming bloody murder in response.WHat you suggest is to just die,Hatespeech isn't very conducive to honest debate. what you suggest isn't insurance.insurance is "coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract". It is what Democrats are suggesting that has no resemblance to insurance. right now the only choice i have is my employer plan or my own plan and if i chose my own plan i don't get my employers tax benefits.Again, a consequence of government action, tax policy that punishes choosing your own insurance.and no, insurance isn't stealing..No one suggested it was. The current Democratic proposal is stealing, but it's not insurance.
My insurance policy is a private contract between me and my insurance company, whether you think it should be "about that" or not. That's what the word "insurance" means. Government and you are simply not parties to that private contract, and have no right to tell me what it should or shouldn't contain.
And accusing the people who are taking the libertarian position of being "for the rich", "on the side of insurance companies" and other such hateful nonsense are just trying to manipulate stupid people into agreeing with them. Gee, you don't want to take the side of rich corporations against the rest of us, do you?
Gimme a break. How retarded do you think the people on this forum are? Even the ones that claim that know better, I hope.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/30/house.floor.controversy/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
I share this man's fervor.
Alan Grayson is clearly the new face of the Democratic Party - maybe Obama will put him on the next ticket. The Republicans should encourage Grayson to speak as often as possible.
What happens when you're insurance drops you or reduces your coverage and you have to shop around? What happens when you're out of work because of your condition?
WHat you suggest is to just die, what you suggest isn't insurance.
I'm not twisting the question but stating the real issue we should be resolving and simply and falsely reducing the costs as the republicans seek to do solves nothing as you don't need legislation to reduce costs unless you want to force new plans to the private companies so i can make a choice. right now the only choice i have is my employer plan or my own plan and if i chose my own plan i don't get my employers tax benefits.
and no, insurance isn't stealing.. not sure why that is even in this discussion. I'd rather "steal money (or have it stolen as you put it)" than steal ones dignity and wellbeing if thats what we want to disgrace this discussion into ;)
byronm, I see you're making your first post on PF. I'd like to be the first to welcome you. Care to tell us a little about your background and experience?
US [...] - it has no government run option.
Medicaid? Medicare? Veteran's?
What are you trying to do here?Indeed?
France has a private heath-care system with publicly-funded insurance coverage. They spend less than half of what the US does per-capita, and they are #1 in the world for health-care outcomes. We are #37. You keep posting that, and I'll keep posting FALSE.
How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model? Unlike the US model, when French people get sicker and require more care, their coverage actually improves, further reducing co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. What a concept. Seems like those "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" aren't all that stupid, after all. Of course, the average French citizen lives about 3 years longer than the average US citizen. But that's OK, because the US is so great that having fewer years to live here all evens out.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687
Republican bills:
HR 3217 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3217)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in interstate commerce.
H.R. 2520 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2520)
To provide comprehensive solutions for the health care system of the United States, and for other purposes.
McCain plan in 08 campaign (http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2198.cfm)
Choronzon
Oct3-09, 09:44 PM
How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model? Unlike the US model, when French people get sicker and require more care, their coverage actually improves, further reducing co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. What a concept. Seems like those "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" aren't all that stupid, after all. Of course, the average French citizen lives about 3 years longer than the average US citizen. But that's OK, because the US is so great that having fewer years to live here all evens out.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687
Just more of the same—it points out all sorts of problems with French health care, including the fact that the median wages for doctors in France is $55,000 a year, which is pretty pathetic.
The study once again takes into account the fact that France has universal coverage, which is something that opponents of the Democrats plan for health care reform find undesirable. You see, we want health care in the United States to be like a Lincoln—that is, awesome. Being dignified and useful human beings, we don't ask our government to buy it for us, and I'm quite content going through life worrying about myself and my family and providing what they need. Let France keep their Ford Focus, even if it's cheap enough for everyone. The fact that everyone has something in no way increases it's quality.
And for the whole "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" thing, the French generally have a sense of entitlement that dwarfs any American's ego. Those in the know are privy to the fact that France didn't help us invade Iraq not because they didn't improve of the war, but because every french male from 16-45 years of age was on strike at the time.
How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? How about it?
Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model? ...
Superiority of what? Soccer players? Yes the US men need reform in soccer, but US women are strong. What does this article have to do with your post #11 on outcomes? The article doesn't even use the word 'outcome', other than one time than to make a point about unequal outcomes by class in France.
But that's OK, because the US is so great that having fewer years to live here all evens out.
Ride the bus if you want to live longer.
Just more of the same—it points out all sorts of problems with French health care, including the fact that the median wages for doctors in France is $55,000 a year, which is pretty pathetic. Yes, though the French mostly don't have the high medical education bills, don't have the malpractice penalties. I'd say US docs are overpaid, or at least are not paid based on free competition. They basically collude on pricing and somehow escape anti-trust action. Same with US med-schools. There have been some proposals to break up the behavior.
The study once again takes into account the fact that France has universal coverage, which is something that opponents of the Democrats plan for health care reform find undesirable.I don't think that's right - opponents also want care for everybody, they just don't want it run by the government (public option). As that NIH article says about France, it's possible to get universal health coverage w/out single payer or government run medical facilities - the French don't have single payer. I think however it is important to focus on medical care though, not coverage, as guaranteeing universal coverage alone just will get us a guaranteed place in a queue.
You see, we want health care in the United States to be like a Lincoln—that is, awesome. Being dignified and useful human beings, we don't ask our government to buy it for us, and I'm quite content going through life worrying about myself and my family and providing what they need. Let France keep their Ford Focus, even if it's cheap enough for everyone. The fact that everyone has something in no way increases it's quality.To tighten up the analogy, that Lincoln would be costing not you directly, but costs you indirectly through your employer maybe $120k - yes its nice but the cost is insane, and the buyer is oblivious to the cost because he only makes the $20 copay.
France's medical outcomes are pretty good - not quite as good as the US but French medicine is no Ford Focus, they're at or near the top in Europe.
And for the whole "freedom-hating cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" thing, the French generally have a sense of entitlement that dwarfs any American's ego. Those in the know are privy to the fact that France didn't help us invade Iraq not because they didn't improve of the war, but because every french male from 16-45 years of age was on strike at the time.This gets a big :biggrin:, as I got stuck in France once due to a transpo strike.
Choronzon
Oct3-09, 11:41 PM
Yes, though the French mostly don't have the high medical education bills, don't have the malpractice penalties. I'd say US docs are overpaid, or at least are not paid based on free competition. They basically collude on pricing and somehow escape anti-trust action. Same with US med-schools. There have been some proposals to break up the behavior.
So doctors should make less than a mediocre used car salesman? Any American who can read, write, and do simple math can make $55,000 a year with a little ambition and hard work.
I don't think that's right - opponents also want care for everybody, they just don't want it run by the government (public option). As that NIH article says about France, it's possible to get universal health coverage w/out single payer or government run medical facilities - the French don't have single payer. I think however it is important to focus on medical care though, not coverage, as guaranteeing universal coverage alone just will get us a guaranteed place in a queue.
I disagree. While in principle it would be nice if everyone made enough money to afford their own health care, I accept the fact that some people will never do more in life than just scrape by, and I know the only way to actually cover them is to pay out of Government coffers. As that's a big no-no for me, I actually don't want universal coverage.
To tighten up the analogy, that Lincoln would be costing not you directly, but costs you indirectly through your employer maybe $120k - yes its nice but the cost is insane, and the buyer is oblivious to the cost because he only makes the $20 copay.[QUOTE]
Actually, I'm self-employed, so I quite realize the cost of my health-care.
[QUOTE]France's medical outcomes are pretty good - not quite as good as the US but French medicine is no Ford Focus, they're at or near the top in Europe.
It may not have been the best analogy, but the point I was trying to make is that these studies have all taken into account the availability of health care when ranking the nations. However heartless it sounds, I want to know how good the health care is for me, not for some hypothetical average American. What's my chances of recovering from a major illness and living a long life? What about my brother and parents? My daughter? Statistics that include people who can't afford health care won't tell me that.
This gets a big :biggrin:, as I got stuck in France once due to a transpo strike.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/29/france-general-strike-global-recession?TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850
Read the second to last sentence. Ever since I read that, I've had a very hard time taking France seriously.
So doctors should make less than a mediocre used car salesman? ...I think you misread, I agree $55k is too low.
I disagree. While in principle it would be nice if everyone made enough money to afford their own health care, I accept the fact that some people will never do more in life than just scrape by, and I know the only way to actually cover them is to pay out of Government coffers. As that's a big no-no for me, I actually don't want universal coverage.You're redirecting this to being about your opinion which is fine, but in the prior post you were asserting what generic 'opponents' are doing, which I took to be lawmakers. Generally the Republican plans are attempting to cover everybody through the private insurance system and the existing entitlement programs.
Actually, I'm self-employed, so I quite realize the cost of my health-care.
I've also have been self employed and priced individual insurance. You probably know full well to the dime what the insurance premiums cost, but I doubt very much if you know what your health care actually costs: the cost of prescription drugs, even the primary doctor's visit beyond the $20 copay - few people on plans pay attention to that.
...the point I was trying to make is that these studies have all taken into account the availability of health care when ranking the nations. However heartless it sounds, I want to know how good the health care is for me, not for some hypothetical average American. What's my chances of recovering from a major illness and living a long life? What about my brother and parents? My daughter? Statistics that include people who can't afford health care won't tell me that.It's not heartless at all to want to know the competence and quality of the medical system. I make the point all the time that the US has unsurpassed medical quality. But it is not twice as good as all other countries, its only marginally better than many, though US care costs twice as much.
Choronzon
Oct4-09, 12:19 AM
I think you misread, I agree $55k is too low.
You're redirecting this to being about your opinion which is fine, but in the prior post you were asserting what generic 'opponents' are doing, which I took to be lawmakers. Generally the Republican plans are attempting to cover everybody through the private insurance system and the existing entitlement programs.
True, I didn't mean to speak for Republican lawmakers, but more as a citizen who is part of the opposition, i.e. what many would call libertarians, or tea-partiers, or whatever.
I've also have been self employed and priced individual insurance. You probably know full well to the dime what the insurance premiums cost, but I doubt very much if you know what your health care actually costs: the cost of prescription drugs, even the primary doctor's visit beyond the $20 copay - few people on plans pay attention to that.
You're right again, I don't think I know for sure what my care costs at hospitals or anything, but since I have a high-deductible and generally pay my doctors visits out of pocket, I think I do know up to that point.
It's not heartless at all to want to know the competence and quality of the medical system. I make the point all the time that the US has unsurpassed medical quality. But it is not twice as good as all other countries, its only marginally better than many, though US care costs twice as much.
Are you sure? Is a 25% higher chance at survival for a specific procedure worth twice the cost? 15%? 10%? How about 2%?
If I had to answer that as honestly as a person can who isn't actually staring such a procedure in the face, I'd have to answer 5% higher survival rate is worth twice as much to me. Maybe if I was frightened I might even go down to 2%. Who knows?
but since I have a high-deductible and generally pay my doctors visits out of pocket, I think I do know up to that point.Oh I missed this - I speculate that these high deductible plans are by far the most important innovation keeping costs from exploding more than they are. I could fill pages of personal anecdotes for myself and friends where the 'price' somehow dropped by half or the like when I/they were paying out of pocket.
....Are you sure? Is a 25% higher chance at survival for a specific procedure worth twice the cost? 15%? 10%? How about 2%?
If I had to answer that as honestly as a person can who isn't actually staring such a procedure in the face, I'd have to answer 5% higher survival rate is worth twice as much to me. Maybe if I was frightened I might even go down to 2%. Who knows?Hard to put a price on that. I'd look at it a differently: the price of US health care has been going up at 8-9% per year for some time. 1. That's unsustainable, regardless of how much we'd pay a premium for 'a little better'. 2. The quality of the care has not been getting 8-9% better every year, my take. 3. In many ways the US has not had a free market in health care since WWII. In some states there is only one insurance company, and individual plans can't compete well without the employer health benefits tax break. So without a good market nobody can say what a fair price is.
Alan Grayson is clearly the new face of the Democratic Party - maybe Obama will put him on the next ticket. The Republicans should encourage Grayson to speak as often as possible.
It gets even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFK9XuXCeno&feature=channel
"we should care about people even after their born"
making reference to those who are against abortion but do not support health care.
The man deserves more credit.
Choronzon
Oct4-09, 04:53 AM
It gets even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFK9XuXCeno&feature=channel
"we should care about people even after their born"
making reference to those who are against abortion but do not support health care.
The man deserves more credit.
There is quite a difference between a person who thinks a fetus is a human life and deserves protection and believing that it is societies duty to support it's unproductive members.
It just gets even better:
Highlight: 4:25-5:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL5Hjn6xMmU&feature=channel_page
How about an article from the American Journal of Public Health? Are they spreading falsehoods about the superiority of the French model?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687Are you joking? You reference a propaganda piece by an obviously delusional idiot with an obviously socialist mentality, published by a special interest group?
Dude, the first few paragraphs were such obvious socialist propaganda and nonsense (that would only convince a retarded 12 year old), that I had to stop reading. The "French ideal" is a "lesson" for the U.S.? I take it back, I think most retarded 12 year olds could see right through it.
I don't think Alan Grayson could support all of his comments if they were posted on PF. Would anyone like to give it a try?
It just doesn't stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPAtYGlgiqI&feature=channel
russ_watters
Oct4-09, 10:41 PM
Russ, you are arguing to defend some mythical "proper" insurance that does not exist.
No, I'm not defending anything, I'm arguing for my personal preference about how insurance should work as opposed to the current democratic plan about how it should work. Neither exists right now, but I believe my ideas are significantly better than what is proposed. I think everyone agrees that there are problems with what exists now. I'm just arguing that my "mythical" ideas about how to fix things are better than Obama's "mythical" ideas.
Some stats from the CDC - a breakdown of who is most likely to be uninsured. Any attempt to "fix" health care should include a specific study of who is currently insured, how they are insured, and how the legislation will address the problem.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200909.htm
"Public and private coverage
From January to March 2009, 21.1% of persons under age 65 years were covered by public health plans at the time of interview, and 63.7% were covered by private health insurance plans (Table 3). Almost two-thirds (66.8%) of adults aged 18-64 were covered by a private plan, compared with 55.8% of children under age 18 (Figure 1).
More than one-third of children (38.7%) were covered by a public plan, compared with 14.1% of adults aged 18-64 (Figure 1). The percentage of children covered by a public health plan increased from 34.2% in 2008 to 38.7% in the first 3 months of 2009.
Insurance coverage, by poverty status
From January to March 2009, 12.7% of poor children and 10.5% of near poor children (see Technical Notes for definition of poverty) did not have health insurance coverage at the time of interview (Table 4). The percentage of near poor children who lacked coverage at the time of interview decreased from 15.6% in 2008 to 10.5% in the first 3 months of 2009.
Based on January to March 2009 data, 80.3% of poor children and 59.8% of near poor children were covered by a public health plan at the time of interview (Table 5). The observed increase in public coverage for near poor children from 53.4% in 2008 to 59.8% in the first 3 months of 2009 was not significant. Based on January to March 2009 data, 39.4% of poor adults aged 18-64 were covered by a public plan (Table 5).
From January to March 2009, 8.6% of poor children and 36.7% of near poor children were covered by private health insurance at the time of interview (Table 6). There was no significant change in private coverage for poor, near poor, and not poor children between 2008 and the first 3 months of 2009. Among poor adults aged 18-64, 19.1% were covered by private health insurance in the first 3 months of 2009.
Lack of coverage, by selected demographic characteristics
Race/ethnicity
Based on data from the January to March 2009 NHIS, Hispanic persons were considerably more likely than non-Hispanic white persons, non-Hispanic black persons, and non-Hispanic Asian persons to be uninsured at the time of interview, to have been uninsured for at least part of the past 12 months, and to have been uninsured for more than a year (Table 7).
Approximately one-third of Hispanic persons were uninsured at the time of interview or had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and more than one-fourth of Hispanic persons had been without health insurance coverage for more than a year.
Age and sex
For all persons under age 65 years, the percentage who were uninsured at the time of interview was highest among those aged 18-24 (29.6%) and lowest among those under age 18 (8.2%) (Figure 2). Starting at age 18, younger adults were more likely than older adults to lack health insurance coverage. Among adults in age groups 18-24, 25-34, and 35-44 years, men were more likely than women to lack health insurance coverage at the time of interview.
Other demographic characteristics
Lack of health insurance coverage was greatest in the South and West regions of the United States (Table 7). Among adults who lacked a high school diploma, 35.5% were uninsured at the time of interview, 39.1% had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 29.5% had been uninsured for more than a year at the time of interview. These rates are two to more than three times as high as those for persons with more than a high school education. Among currently unemployed adults aged 18-64, 63.5% had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 34.8% had been uninsured for more than a year. Among employed adults aged 18-64, 21.5% had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and 13.2% had been uninsured for more than a year. Married or widowed adults were more likely to have coverage than those who were divorced, separated, living with a partner, or never married."
Coverage has actually INCREASED for poor children during the 1997 to 2009 period.
"Public and private coverage
Public coverage rates among both children and adults aged 18-64 are higher now than in 1997 (Table 3). Conversely, private health care coverage rates among both children and adults aged 18-64 are lower now than in 1997.
Insurance coverage, by poverty status
The percentage of poor children who were uninsured at the time of interview decreased from 1997 through March 2009 (Figure 8). During the same period, the percentage of poor adults who were uninsured remained relatively stable (Figure 9).
Among children, all poverty status groups experienced an increase in public coverage between 1997 and March 2009 (Table 5). However, the largest increase was seen among near poor children, for whom coverage by a public plan more than doubled during the same period.
The rate of private coverage among near poor children was 18.3 percentage points lower in the first 3 months of 2009 than in 1997 (Table 6). As shown in Figure 10, among near poor children the percentage without health insurance and the percentage with private health insurance coverage have declined since 1997, while public coverage increased. Private coverage decreased among near poor adults aged 18-64 from 52.6% in 1997 to 39.1% in the first 3 months of 2009 (Figure 11). Private coverage among not poor adults decreased from 87.1% in 1997 to 82.3% in the first 3 months of 2009."
byronm, I see you're making your first post on PF. I'd like to be the first to welcome you. Care to tell us a little about your background and experience?
Not my first post, we've debated many times, not sure why its not increasing :)
My insurance dealings? When my sister died, when my brother got hit my a car, when my 2 children were borne and when i go in to get lypomas removed and checked in case they have any risk of cancer. Wife's father died to lukemia and bankrupted her family..
Not my first post, we've debated many times, not sure why its not increasing :)
My insurance dealings? When my sister died, when my brother got hit my a car, when my 2 children were borne and when i go in to get lypomas removed and checked in case they have any risk of cancer. Wife's father died to lukemia and bankrupted her family..Byronm, posts in General Discussion (including sub-forums like Politics) do not add to your post count.
Pattonias
Oct8-09, 10:00 AM
The problem is we are trying to force moral obligations into an argument about a purely financial situation. The only reason we have health insurance is a group of people found a way to make money by offering health insurance to the healthy. They did not intend (and were not expected) to provide health care out of the goodness of their hearts. The insurance companies started as a way of making money the same way that all companies did. Is this evil. Should we punish them for this fact. I think it is wrong for insurance companies to drop coverage when someone gets "too sick", but they do this because their goal was to make money. They should not be able to drop someone who has been paying into their insurance according to the intent behind their contract.
What needs to be addressed is the insurance companies risk avoidance principles that they are using when they attempt to drop people who become sick that payed for their insurance. If they attempt to drop someone who is covered they should be stopped. This repair of the system would be health care reform.
Free health care would be spreading the expense around so that everyone is able to pay for whatever treatment they require. They should not pretend that this is "insurance" if it covers people with existing conditions. In order for this system to work the government should find a way to make treatments cheaper in general, if the amount that we pay to cover the treatment of the poor is higher than the cost of treatment then the program would work. Right now all this is going to do is make the cost of treatment rise. The medical industry will see that they can charge more for treatment because people will be able to pay for whatever outrageous expense they encounter when they become sick.
We are mixing points when we argue that it is sad that some people may die because they can not afford to receive medical treatment, but until you find a solution that can pay for itself all we will be doing is paying for peoples health care because we decide that it has become a national responsibility, not a repair of a corrupt system. We should just call this what it is. It is a socialist reform to a currently private system.
The "Die Quickly" statement was this guys attempt at standing out by making a outrageous remark at the expense of his peers in order to get national attention. He just wanted his particular agenda to stand out and this is how he chose to do it. It was wrong in that he stood out at the expense of his peers. It was right in that the opinion of the people that voted for him got their opinion heard. Obviously republicans are not proposing that people "Die Quickly". I am sick of people acting like if this bill doesn't pass we are all going to die. They need to take the time to get this right and not try and rush through something that will not work. The Democrats need to stop being so darn dramatic and the republicans need to stop acting like a bunch of whiny kids. I am tired of these proposals going through without any bi-partisan support. The only reason they can not come to a conclusive agreement is purely political posturing. The Republicans are hoping this fails simply because they want to come out on top in the next election. The Democrats are not trying to incorporate moderate Republican input because they do not have to. They have to much pull right now.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.