- #1
Nusc
- 760
- 2
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/30/house.floor.controversy/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
I share this man's fervor.
I share this man's fervor.
Last edited:
Pengwuino said:How is this "bravery"?
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.Nusc said: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 said: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.
Nusc said: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.
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.Choronzon said: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.
Yes, that's basically how I see the debate bieng framed.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.
Yeah, it still blows my mind, too.Choronzon said: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.
Pengwuino said:How is this "bravery"?
Choronzon said: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.
russ_watters said:(since that's how we pay for heath care)
People with cancer should receive 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.byronm said:Why not? Can you give me a good reason people with cancer shouldn't live a life with dignity?
russ_watters said:People with cancer should receive 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?
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.byronm said:What happens when you're insurance drops you or reduces your coverage and you have to shop around?
Disability insurance is a component of proper health insurance.What happens when you're out of work because of your condition?
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 you suggest is to just die, what you suggest isn't insurance.
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?I'm not twisting the question but stating the real issue we should be resolving...
So the choice seems obvious, eh?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.
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.and no, insurance isn't stealing.. not sure why that is even in this discussion.
CRGreathouse said:That, for me, is the problem.
russ_watters said: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.
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.
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?
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.
byronm said: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:byronm said: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?
russ_watters said: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%.
russ_watters said: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 don't 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 don't 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
Russ, you are arguing to defend some mythical "proper" insurance that does not exist.russ_watters said: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.
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.chemisttree said:Turbo, 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.
byronm said: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?
byronm said: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.
byronm said: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.
Pengwuino said:Can you point to some examples where government run *insert anything here* gives the people the best value, service, etc.?
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.Nusc said: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?
Nusc said: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.
Nusc said:What are you trying to do here?
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 studyNusc said: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.
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.byronm said: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.
You can't seriously claim to be unaware of Republican efforts to deregulate, and the Democrats screaming bloody murder in response.What the republicans offer could have been done over the previous 8 years if they really gave a hoot.
Hatespeech isn't very conducive to honest debate.WHat you suggest is to just die,
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.what you suggest isn't insurance.
Again, a consequence of government action, tax policy that punishes choosing your own 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.
No one suggested it was. The current Democratic proposal is stealing, but it's not insurance.and no, insurance isn't stealing..
Nusc said:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/30/house.floor.controversy/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
I share this man's fervor.
byronm said: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 that's what we want to disgrace this discussion into ;)