Health Care Reform - almost a done deal? DONE

[Nebula815]

The Democrats just permanently destroyed the country financially. They also just brought the IRS into our lives in a new way, unless the SCOTUS can maybe overturn the mandate (I don't know). But otherwise, the debt is going to explode. IMO, the American people made a terrible mistake in their election of President Obama.

 

[MotoH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp069Y_P-9M

Sheep will always follow.

 

[mheslep]

The US system turns middle-class citizens into poor citizens with every catastrophic illness. The insurance companies dump you when you get sick, and you lose everything to bankruptcy when you can't pay for care or you die. When you are older and more experienced you will gain an appreciation for this. I hope you never develop a debilitating disease, but if you do, you will gain an appreciation for this health-care bill. My wife and I both have some chronic pre-existing conditions, and if she loses her job (and her health insurance), we will never be able to buy health insurance again, at least a rates that won't bankrupt us AND with ruinous caps. So many opponents of health-care reform wave the flag and talk about how the bill is socialism. Funny, it's only socialism if it benefits somebody else.

European countries manage to provide almost universal health-care coverage at about 1/2 the cost per capita of what we spend. If the US cannot do the same, our system deserves to fail.

Why not spend some effort to see what would happen to you with exactly those chronic conditions under a European system. Step 1: rough out your lifetime income up until you became disabled and jack up the tax rates on both you and your wife's income over that time. Add a big VAT tax on any major items - house,farm,car. Then add in some downtime for http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&v=74" That period where you were self-employed, acted as your own contractor - 50/50 chance it never happens. Step 2: Pick a country and check out exactly what happens for your illness. Wait-times, etc.

 

[MotoH]

Oh by the way, How do you PhD students plan on paying for health care once you get past 26?

 

[Office_Shredder]

mheslep, have you actually been to Europe? You're making it sound like the average lifestyle there is third world compared to the glorious bounty we have in America. That's simply false. Also, your random 10% unemployment stat is ridiculous: it's not true for many European nations with universal healthcare (UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, just to name a few from browsing that website)

MotoH, my school already provides insurance for its grad students. If you're poor enough to not be able to afford health insurance the government is supposed to help cover it under the new bill

 

[zomgwtf]

I never said the insurance system should stay they way it is. There are problems with it, and that can be fixed. But now I am paying not only for every low life piece of ****s food stamps and welfare, but their health insurance too! Where is the justice in that?

Yeah you know what, it is me first. And that is how the game of life is played. I've got enough bills to pay for already, and when I need to pay 40% more for someone who sits on their *** all day, gets a cough and goes to the doctor, it brings ME into the hole.

I live in Canada, and because I pay for health care I certainly am not in any sort of hole. In fact I don't think my life is any different from an Americans life... unless I am understanding the system wrong?

 

[MotoH]

We will be paying way more than what you are zomg.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Why do you say that?

 

[spacemanspiff]

It seems backwards that the CBO estimates the fees from people not buying coverage would raise $17 billion over 10 years. So they are expecting a bunch of money from the people they are supposed to be helping? wtf!

They are also demanding small business to provide coverage for their employees? Isn't this what got us into trouble in the first place? When people rely on companies then they feel entitled and if they get fired then they are screwed. If we get people into their own plans then they don't have to worry when they are fired. This will also free up companies with tons of extra cash.

 

[rootX]

We will be paying way more than what you are zomg.

Why do you say that?

Canada health costs are far below American (in terms of GDP %) IIRC. American Healthcare is entirely different from Canadian and cannot be addressed similarly.

 

[rootX]

Also, your random 10% unemployment stat is ridiculous: it's not true for many European nations with universal healthcare (UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, just to name a few from browsing that website)

What you mean by random? It's unemployment is always close to 10% which is worse than US. It has many regulations and unions.

 

[Office_Shredder]

But the entire idea behind the bill is to lower the average cost of healthcare. The system is inefficient (compared to other countries in % GDP) so the whole point is the change the system to drop the costs

root, that was for France. There are countries other than France. Go back to the website that you posted, and look up the countries that I mentioned. Their unemployment rate is no worse than the US, and in some cases far better over the period they graph

 

[calculusrocks]

But the entire idea behind the bill is to lower the average cost of healthcare. The system is inefficient (compared to other countries in % GDP) so the whole point is the change the system to drop the costs

root, that was for France. There are countries other than France. Go back to the website that you posted, and look up the countries that I mentioned. Their unemployment rate is no worse than the US, and in some cases far better over the period they graph

And the whole idea of social security was to take care of a just few years of retirement for the elderly. And the whole idea of the DMV is to process motor related forms efficiently. And the whole idea of the Post Office is... well you get the point.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Does social security NOT help pay for retirees anymore? Has the post office stopped delivering mail?

DMVs are run by state governments (which is what currently regulate health insurance), so you're hurting your point by criticizing them.

 

[calculusrocks]

The point was that government doesn't run anything efficiently by the standards of a free market. Social Security started out as a modest government program and has balooned well beyond its stated charted, and now is facing bankruptcy within a decade or two.

The post office is so badly run that it simply encourages us to use email.

The DMV is so badly run that I had to wait 4 hours in line to get license plates.

After all of the government failures, what makes people think that government control of health care is remotely a good idea?

 

[Nebula815]

I do not understand those who say to those of us who oppose this bill, "Why are you against helping people? Why are you against health reform?"

That, IMO, would be like saying to an Iraq War protestor, back when the invasion was occurring, "Why are you against helping those people? Why are you against keeping America safe?"

Obviously, their answer would be, "We are NOT against helping the people or against keeping America safe, but there are huge COSTS involved in invading a country like this, the administration we do not think has thought through properly what they are doing, and we think there are far more effective ways to keep America safe."

Well it is the same regarding this healthcare bill.

People opposed to it are not against healthcare reform. And we are not against helping people. But again, there's that bit about costs, and also much better alternatives to fix the system

Those of you who like to point out the foreign systems, well a couple of things:

It is of course debatable whether or not the foreign systems actually provide better-quality healthcare or not than you can get in America, but let's pretend they do.

Okay fine. But there's one big problem: Everytime we in America then try to copy these Euro-systems, we have an EPIC fail as the youth like to term it. Seriously.

Medicaid - bankrupt
Medicare - bankrupt
Social Security - headed to bankruptcy as this recession blew a hole into the projections (and when it had a surplus, the government robbed it)

Even non-healthcare government programs, like Postal Service - bankrupt

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - bankrupt (and almost brought down the global financial system in the process)

Massachussettes universal healthcare system - bankrupting the state and premiums there higher than in any other state.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/a...health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

Tennessee also had to kick a good deal of people off its experiment with expanded government healthcare because the costs ballooned out of control and almost bankrupted the state:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046457087135327.html

And of course, within California they wanted to enact a universal care program, except it was determined it would flat-out destroy the state financially, so it was voted down.

So what the above show is that for whatever reason, assuming (and there is a big assumption there as some of the Euro states are heading towards bankruptcy it seems) the Euro "universal" healthcare systems work out financially, we Americans seem to have an inability to design a functioning, cost-effective universal healthcare system. So even if we want such a system, we don't try creating one nationally until we are sure we can do it.

Now in this great United States, we have a major benefit over other, smaller nations, in that we have fifty policy laboratories in our states. Each state is a microcosm of the nation, with its own legislative, executive, judicial, economy, tax systems, laws, Constitution, etc...so we have the benefit of being able to try stuff on the state level and if it works out, great. We can then try it on the national level.

If it fails on the state level, then we know not to try it out on the national level. Massachusettes's program was meant to be a model for other states to copy, and possibly for a national program. It is obviously an "epic fail" financially.

The UTTER INSANITY of this current bill is it flies in the face of all the above evidence (Massachusettes, Tennessee, Medicare, Medicaid, California, etc...) with the idea that, "Oh, don't worry, those are states, we can pull this off on the national level, because we're the Federal Government and we know best."

The other big thing is that, while the Democrats want to copy the British single-payer heathcare system, they ignore that the British system has heavy regulations regarding junk lawsuits. That would mean some heavy tort reform in America, which the Democrats will NEVER do because it would mean going against one of their primary constituents, the trial lawyers.

So in other words, they want to implement the British system without the British cost controls.

And then of course is the aircraft analogy I used before. This is a 2,000+ page bill. History shows government programs, and in particular government healthcare programs, do not work out the way they are intended.

And this bill is like the policy equivalent of engineering a brand-new jetliner, and without building a prototype and testing it extensively, they just decide to go by the skill of the engineers and let's say an engineering CBO equivalent that says it will ("should") fly, and then put it into production.

Obviously such a way of building an aircraft would be insane. It has a million different parts. You can have the most brilliant engineers in the world and the best equipment, but you still won't know exactly how the plane will work until you actually build a version of the thing and put it into the air.

YET, we are doing the policy equivalent of exactly this. We are like a company with a history of engineering smaller planes that just cannot fly well, and eventually even crash, so now we have just gone and engineered a full-on jetliner, and without bothering to test it at all, just put it right into production.

The Democrats tout the CBO numbers, saying it will "reduce the deficit," yeah right, I'll believe that when I see it. History, both of healthcare programs from the government, and of government programs overall, says otherwise. Plus the CBO had to rely on a number of tricks and assumptions in its calculations.

 

[Nebula815]

After all of the government failures, what makes people think that government control of health care is remotely a good idea?

It is a religion to the Left. When you are dealing with religious zealots, logic does not come into play. IMO, these Democrats are like the hardcore Marxist who sees the Soviet Union, then walks through an American mall and a supermarket, then comes out and proclaims the gloriousness of the Soviet Empire.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The point was that government doesn't run anything efficiently by the standards of a free market. Social Security started out as a modest government program and has balooned well beyond its stated charted, and now is facing bankruptcy within a decade or two.

The post office is so badly run that it simply encourages us to use email.

The DMV is so badly run that I had to wait 4 hours in line to get license plates.

After all of the government failures, what makes people think that government control of health care is remotely a good idea?

Government programs growing larger than they originally intended? How is that a sign of failure?

Your information on social security is wrong. It's actually taking in more money than it spends as we speak. Current predictions on the aging trend of the US predict it starts hitting a negative cash flow around 2020 and then runs out of its 2 trillion dollar reserve sometime around 2040 or 2050. And that's assuming that nothing is changed, for example the cap on social security taxes.

I don't understand where the hate on the post office is coming from. My letters get where they need to go for a pretty good price

And again, the car stuff is run state by state. Considering health care is currently regulated by state governments, saying the states can't run something efficiently is a reason to hand it over to the national government. And your argument for the DMV is lame and anecdotal

To summarize: You're listing government programs and saying they're failures. Please discuss how much better off we would be without the post office.

 

[calculusrocks]

Don't get me started on incompetant regulators. The crook Bernie Madoff was investigated by the SEC 8 times! Bernie Madoff then showed the results of these investigations to his investors as proof of his legitimacy! Of course, the left will never look at that. Nothing to see here. Just move along, sir.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/madoff-chasers-dug-for-years/story-e6frg90x-1111118484476

In my opinion as well this is Marxism. They want us to adopt socialism by selling it to us as medicine.

 

[Nebula815]

Government programs growing larger than they originally intended? How is that a sign of failure?

When the costs to them balloon way out of control.

Your information on social security is wrong. It's actually taking in more money than it spends as we speak.

Right now, but that won't last.

Current predictions on the aging trend of the US predict it starts hitting a negative cash flow around 2020 and then runs out of its 2 trillion dollar reserve sometime around 2040 or 2050. And that's assuming that nothing is changed, for example the cap on social security taxes.

That projection just had a huge hole blown into it because of the recession; as for the SS cap, if that is raised, it gets turned into a de-facto welfare program.

I don't understand where the hate on the post office is coming from. My letters get where they need to go for a pretty good price

The point is simply about the inefficiency with which government does things. No one is saying a service like the post office is bad.

SS and Medicare are good programs as well, but the way they are designed is unsustainable and very bad.

And again, the car stuff is run state by state. Considering health care is currently regulated by state governments, saying the states can't run something efficiently is a reason to hand it over to the national government. And your argument for the DMV is lame and anecdotal

If the states cannot run something efficiently, that's a primary reason NOT to hand it over to the national government.

To summarize: You're listing government programs and saying they're failures. Please discuss how much better off we would be without the post office.

You need to realize that this argument is moot if you can't pay for the service in the first place. If you can't pay for it, you'll end up without a Postal Service anyway.

 

[Nebula815]

In my opinion as well this is Marxism. They want us to adopt socialism by selling it to us as medicine.

I'm not saying the Democrats are Marxists, I'm just saying that their fervent belief in government-run healthcare in the face of all the evidence showing it's a bad idea at the moment, is like the fervent belief in socialism a Marxist will have, and the utter denial they will show upon seeing a free-market in action.

 

[calculusrocks]

Your information on social security is wrong. It's actually taking in more money than it spends as we speak. Current predictions on the aging trend of the US predict it starts hitting a negative cash flow around 2020 and then runs out of its 2 trillion dollar reserve sometime around 2040 or 2050. And that's assuming that nothing is changed, for example the cap on social security taxes.

Huh? So you're saying its fiscally sound and at the same time it's going to run out of its reserves by 2040, and 2050, and you're saying that's not a path to insolvency?

 

[calculusrocks]

If the economy is under performing, then not as much is paid into social security in terms of wages and employment thus skewing the numbers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/why_social_security_will_go_ba.html

 

[calculusrocks]

I'm not saying the Democrats are Marxists, I'm just saying that their fervent belief in government-run healthcare in the face of all the evidence showing it's a bad idea at the moment, is like the fervent belief in socialism a Marxist will have, and the utter denial they will show upon seeing a free-market in action.

Glad you clarified, I'm not saying democrats are Marxist either. In fact, some I've met are disenchanted conservatives.

 

[Char. Limit]

I think the best thing about health care would be for people to quit using buzzwords...

"death panels", "Marxism", "government takeover"...

Oddly enough, most of the buzzwords are utilized by conservatives.

Where are the liberal buzzwords?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where are the liberal buzzwords?

"Ram it through".

 

[calculusrocks]

I think the best thing about health care would be for people to quit using buzzwords...

"death panels", "Marxism", "government takeover"...

Oddly enough, most of the buzzwords are utilized by conservatives.

Where are the liberal buzzwords?

This just illustrates the superficial understanding you have of the entire situation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not saying the Democrats are Marxists, I'm just saying that their fervent belief in government-run healthcare in the face of all the evidence showing it's a bad idea at the moment, is like the fervent belief in socialism a Marxist will have, and the utter denial they will show upon seeing a free-market in action.

The first thing to understand is that this is not "government-run healthcare". It doesn't even include a single-payer system, much less government-run hospitals. Using such language only shows that you don't understand the bill or the healthcare system.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This just illustrates the superficial understanding you have of the entire situation.

Not true. It is precisely the sort of language used to terrorize the public.

 

[Char. Limit]

This just illustrates the superficial understanding you have of the entire situation.

Excellent work. A vague insult with no explanation!

Keep it up.

 

[calculusrocks]

terrorize

sounds like a "buzzword". I can name many, but why? Isn't it sad that all you choose levy are petty linguistic critics?

 

[Office_Shredder]

For all our bickering, I don't think anyone bothered to mention that health care reform is now a done deal. In unrelated news, Moody's has dropped the US federal government's credit rating to "junk"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For all our bickering, I don't think anyone bothered to mention that health care reform is now a done deal

YES! I couldn't wait to get to a TV and check the news.

 

[calculusrocks]

For all our bickering, I don't think anyone bothered to mention that health care reform is now a done deal

Well, there are some hurdles left concerning the Constitution... and the Senate isn't a done deal yet. That being said the major hurdle is cleared and looks like its going through, although it doesn't start for 4 years because that was the only way the democrats could make it look near budget neutral over a 10 year period.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

sounds like a "buzzword".

Consider the "Pull the plug on Grandma" claim. That came from Senator Grassley and is absolute drivel. In fact, the end-of-life counsiling that he objected to is already in place and was a bill written by a Republican!

Yes, telling people that Democrats want to kill your grandmother [or you if you are a grandmother] does terrorize them.

Terrorize

To coerce by intimidation or fear.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/terrorize

It is a form of terrorism. The difference is that this claim is true, while Senator Grassley's claim was false and was intended to induce fear. I would add that to the best of my knowledge, I am the only one to properly name the technique used by Republicans. IT is not a Democratic buzzword; it is my observation. Also, I'm an Independent, not a Democrat.