News Health Care Reform - almost a done deal? DONE

[Choronzon]

Query: Why are only vets entitled to socialized medicine?

Are you kidding?

Let me give you a very simple answer to your query— because they earned it. You would like to just give away for free what your father earned. What your father and myself and people like us earned by risking our lives.

But of course we were stupid to do so, because we should have just stood in line with all of the useless people who are so vehemently opposed to making their own way through the world. Are you going to ask now why only vets are entitled to the G.I. Bill?

 

[turbo]

Are you kidding?

Let me give you a very simple answer to your query— because they earned it. You would like to just give away for free what your father earned. What your father and myself and people like us earned by risking our lives.

But of course we were stupid to do so, because we should have just stood in line with all of the useless people who are so vehemently opposed to making their own way through the world. Are you going to ask now why only vets are entitled to the G.I. Bill?

My father is a WWII vet who quit HS, lied about his age and joined Airborne. His compatriots are dying daily. He deserves VA care and he deserves Medicare assistance to help pay for prescription drugs. He left his family to live with a store-owner and his family when he was in his early teens, so he could work every night, have regular meals, a roof over his head, and money to send to his mother every week. When he joined the Airborne, he designated that all his checks be sent to his mother. Until very recently, VA care in this state was horribly deficient, and elderly veterans had to drive hours one-way to get to a VA center to get any treatment. Why should any veteran be subjected to that?

Why should any citizen be subjected to that? If you have a good answer to that, you can get the 2012 presidential nomination because that will be the GOP's hot-button.

 

[Choronzon]

My father is a WWII vet who quit HS, lied about his age and joined Airborne. His compatriots are dying daily. He deserves VA care and he deserves Medicare assistance to help pay for prescription drugs. He left his family to live with a store-owner and his family when he was in his early teens, so he could work every night, have regular meals, a roof over his head, and money to send to his mother every week. When he joined the Airborne, he designated that all his checks be sent to his mother. Until very recently, VA care in this state was horribly deficient, and elderly veterans had to drive hours one-way to get to a VA center to get any treatment. Why should any veteran be subjected to that?

Why should any citizen be subjected to that? If you have a good answer to that, you can get the 2012 presidential nomination because that will be the GOP's hot-button.

Hey, you won't find me defending the quality of VA health care. It should definitely be improved—but it should in no way be used as some model to describe what every person is entitled to. Vet's earned the money society spends on them, which is not something that can be said about everybody else clamoring for hand-outs.

 

[turbo]

Vet's earned the money society spends on them, which is not something that can be said about everybody else clamoring for hand-outs.

People in the US are not exactly clamoring for hand-outs. They would like for their coverage not to be canceled if they get sick. They would like for their children's coverage not to be dropped because the insurance company deems the kids' sickness a "pre-existing condition" and other types of abuse. Insurance is supposed to be a shared-risk/shared-cost pool, but it has been perverted into a situation in which the insurance companies can drop people on any pretense, and no individual has the financial means to prevail against them in court. How would you feel if you bought fire insurance, and your insurance company dropped your insurance as soon as they got word that your house was on fire? Health insurance companies do this every day, all day long. I spent years in the health-care industry as an IT specialist, and I have never seen a more predatory bunch than health insurance companies.

 

[Choronzon]

People in the US are not exactly clamoring for hand-outs. They would like for their coverage not to be canceled if they get sick. They would like for their children's coverage not to be dropped because the insurance company deems the kids' sickness a "pre-existing condition" and other types of abuse. Insurance is supposed to be a shared-risk/shared-cost pool, but it has been perverted into a situation in which the insurance companies can drop people on any pretense, and no individual has the financial means to prevail against them in court. How would you feel if you bought fire insurance, and your insurance company dropped your insurance as soon as they got word that your house was on fire? Health insurance companies do this every day, all day long. I spent years in the health-care industry as an IT specialist, and I have never seen a more predatory bunch than health insurance companies.

That's not what I've seen throughout this health care debate. Those are just the talking points that the left has used to get reasonable people to support the bill, and in the end they're going to get none of those. They're going to get a massive bill to provide welfare in the form of health care subsidies. Insurance company abuses can be handled with nothing more than strong consumer protection laws. This massive farce of a bill is basically legerdemain designed to create more subsidies for useless people who then become voters desperate to keep democrats in office so that their monthly portion of their neighbors labor arrives via the USPS.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This massive farce of a bill is basically legerdemain designed to create more subsidies for useless people who then become voters desperate to keep democrats in office so that their monthly portion of their neighbors labor arrives via the USPS.

What people in particular are you referring to, and what subsidies? People on the bottom end wouldn't be affected by this. People on Medicare would actually lose some benefits, such as hearing and vision benefits, IIRC.

Moving up one notch on the economic ladder: The last time I checked, one the biggest complaints is that this penalizes people who don't have insurance and who refuse to purchase insurance through the low-cost insurance pool. How does this support your premise?

 

[Galteeth]

My father is a WWII vet who quit HS, lied about his age and joined Airborne. His compatriots are dying daily. He deserves VA care and he deserves Medicare assistance to help pay for prescription drugs. He left his family to live with a store-owner and his family when he was in his early teens, so he could work every night, have regular meals, a roof over his head, and money to send to his mother every week. When he joined the Airborne, he designated that all his checks be sent to his mother. Until very recently, VA care in this state was horribly deficient, and elderly veterans had to drive hours one-way to get to a VA center to get any treatment. Why should any veteran be subjected to that?

Why should any citizen be subjected to that? If you have a good answer to that, you can get the 2012 presidential nomination because that will be the GOP's hot-button.

You realize this is an argument AGAINST socialized medicine, right?

 

[Sea Cow]

Many things having zero to do with the medical system impact life expectancy, including homicides, car wrecks, gene pools. If one corrects for those factors, the US comes out at or near the top of a longevity ranking.

Rubbish.

Diet, exercise, primary health care provision – these are the single most important factors, in fact, to raise life expectancy. The levels of obesity in the US certainly show that the first two of these factors are at a bad level for many people there, and primary health care is precisely the area that the poor and uninsured do not receive. These are linked, of course – improve primary care and diet and levels of fitness will also improve.

The factors you mention are ridiculous. Homicides will have a fairly negligible bearing. 17,000 murders in the US in 2006 – about 3–5 times the rate of most industrialised countries. So, let us call that 12,000 extra deaths due to murder. Compare that to http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/", which estimates that 45,000 deaths per year can be directly attributed to lack of health insurance.

As for car crashes, you haven't been to Cuba, have you? I have been to both the US and Cuba, and I can assure you that US roads are much safer. Cuba's life expectancy would probably jump ahead of the US 'correcting' for this factor. Road deaths in the US are high – 40,000 per year, a rate that's three times higher than the UK (which has a very good record), and about twice as high as Japan (which has one of the highest life expectancies, and is about average for road deaths). So, again, even comparing the US with countries with good records, you're talking about an extra 20,000 deaths. This also begs the question: How many of these deaths could have been prevented if the victims had all had good health insurance?! Is the UK's low death rate on the roads in part attributable to the fact that we all have equal access to all A&E departments? I would suspect that it is – you are taken to the nearest hospital, not the nearest hospital that your insurance will cover.

And your final factor, gene pools... I'd like to see some evidence, please. The US is largely a country of descendants of recent immigrants – there's a pretty wide gene pool in the US population. At the very least, you would need to provide some evidence for this assertion. I suspect that it is, to put it in the British vernacular, utter bollocks. In fact, it would be pretty easy to show that this is bollocks. Life expectancy among black Americans is significantly lower than the overall average. Is this because of their genes? No. How do we know that? Because we can compare the life expectancy of poor black Americans and rich/middle class black Americans and see that the difference can be fully explained by their relative positions in society.

ETA: Just to put these figures into perspective – 12,000 extra deaths due to murder, 20,000 due to car crashes – 2.5 million people die in the US each year. Even if you could show that none of these extra deaths could have been prevented with a more equitable health care system (there are strong reasons to doubt this), these are not the reasons for the US's relatively poor performance wrt life expectancy.

Please don't make stupid, unjustified assertions like "If one corrects for those factors, the US comes out at or near the top of a longevity ranking." It simply isn't true and it debases the discussion.

 

[hypatia]

How many of these deaths could have been prevented if the victims had all had good health insurance?! Is the UK's low death rate on the roads in part attributable to the fact that we all have equal access to all A&E departments? I would suspect that it is – you are taken to the nearest hospital, not the nearest hospital that your insurance will cover.

All general hospitals in the USA must take emergency cases, you can not be turned away. Once the person has become stable{non critical}, they can then be transferred to another hospital for recovery.

 

[Sea Cow]

All general hospitals in the USA must take emergency cases, you can not be turned away. Once the person has become stable{non critical}, they can then be transferred to another hospital for recovery.

Glad to hear it. My argument doesn't stand on this point, however. The reason for the US's relatively low life expectancy (for a rich country) is its health care system. Why flounder around searching for alternative explanations when the truth is so obvious, and easily demonstrable. If you're rich in the US, you have a very good life expectancy. If you're poor, you have the life expectancy of a poor country, not a rich one. This is due mostly to your relative access to health care, in particular primary health care. Nobody who has seriously studied the matter disagrees with this. If you do, you're probably one of those with access to the good care, and are simply in denial about the situation of others.

It's a common psychological defence strategy for the relatively rich to blame the poor for their poverty. It makes them feel less guilty about the fact that they have drawn the lucky cards in the lottery of life.

 

[Sea Cow]

More stats, this time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate" .

Try explaining the ranking of the US (33rd or 46th, depending on which table you use) without reference to the health care system.

 

[Choronzon]

What people in particular are you referring to, and what subsidies? People on the bottom end wouldn't be affected by this. People on Medicare would actually lose some benefits, such as hearing and vision benefits, IIRC.

Here's from Whitehouse.gov Link:http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/affordability"

Health reform also improves the cost sharing assistance for individuals and families relative to the Senate bill. Families with income below $55,000 will get extra assistance; the additional funding to insurers will cover between 73 and 94% of their health care costs. It provides the same cost-sharing assistance as the Senate bill for higher-income families and the same assistance as the House bill for families with income from $77,000 to $88,000.

That sounds an awful lot to me like the government has been feeling like it doesn't send our enough checks in the mail to voters. I'm so glad that people with income under $55,000 feel that 73-94% of their health care is other people's problem.

Moving up one notch on the economic ladder: The last time I checked, one the biggest complaints is that this penalizes people who don't have insurance and who refuse to purchase insurance through the low-cost insurance pool. How does this support your premise?

That complaint, at least in my own opinion, falls squarely on constitutional grounds. The government is telling me that I have to give another private entity some of my labor, whether I desire their product or not—that's basically the definition of enslavement. It's part of the legerdemain I was talking about earlier—mere slight of hand to take money from people who want nothing to do with this stupidity and give it to potential voters for the Democrats.

What people like you fail to grasp is you have effectively delivered the provision of health care into the hands of the government. You think that's okay now, because all the talk about Quality Life Years and all that jazz doesn't bother you, but you have a big surprise coming. Wait until religious conservatives are back in power, and all of a sudden there is a clamor to save money by denying care to homosexuals and infected with AIDS, or perhaps people who have harmed themselves through the use of recreational drugs. You'll see the monstrosity of this bill quite clearly then, and you'll finally reap what you've sown.

 

[Galteeth]

Why flounder around searching for alternative explanations when the truth is so obvious, and easily demonstrable.

By this logic, comparative placebo studies are just a big waste of time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's from Whitehouse.gov Link:http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/whatsnew/affordability"



That sounds an awful lot to me like the government has been feeling like it doesn't send our enough checks in the mail to voters. I'm so glad that people with income under $55,000 feel that 73-94% of their health care is other people's problem.

I believe the purpose of that is to ensure that the cost of health care premiums do not exceed the insured's ability to pay; which was one of the main goals of reform. What you would need to demonstrate is that this exceeds what would be considered reasonable. It is a limit based on a percentage of one's income, which is how one would deteremine the limit on costs that can be managed. What is not clear at all is how many people would be entitled to assistance under this section.

That the CBO projects deficit reductions means that cost alone is not a sufficient objection. There is give and take throughout the system. Obama argued that the strings must all be pulled at once in order to make this work. Note also that the assistance is for the premiums. The cost of health care itself is still paid by insurance companies.

That complaint, at least in my own opinion, falls squarely on constitutional grounds.

This thread addresses your concern.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=389899

What people like you fail to grasp is you have effectively delivered the provision of health care into the hands of the government. You think that's okay now, because all the talk about Quality Life Years and all that jazz doesn't bother you, but you have a big surprise coming. Wait until religious conservatives are back in power, and all of a sudden there is a clamor to save money by denying care to homosexuals and infected with AIDS, or perhaps people who have harmed themselves through the use of recreational drugs. You'll see the monstrosity of this bill quite clearly then, and you'll finally reap what you've sown.

Imo, that is just silly Fox-like fearmongering. Also, first and foremost, it was the current cost of health care that drove this issue. To assume that doing nothing was an option, is fallcious. The cost of health care was going to bankrupt the country if not addressed soon, and aggressively. That you failed to recognize this shows that you lack even a basic understanding of the need for reform.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, if I understand this correctly - after thinking about it for a bit - the assistance for premiums based on income is already in the tax code. The new plan apparently sets lower ceilings in order to be eligible, and for tax credits, not just a deduction. But the cost of medical expenses has long been deductible once it exceeds a certain percentage of one's income.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It's interesting that the Amish (250k pop) will be exempt, but Muslims will have to buy.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137221

 

[turbo]

It's interesting that the Amish (250k pop) will be exempt, but Muslims will have to buy.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137221

Interesting distinctions in that argument. Thanks. I didn't know about this.

 

[mheslep]

Rubbish.
...
Please don't make stupid, unjustified assertions like "If one corrects for those factors, the US comes out at or near the top of a longevity ranking." It simply isn't true and it debases the discussion.

Run the numbers yourself instead talking about what you suspect. If one assumes the average age of the homicides and car wrecks is 25, by itself that moves the longevity of the entire US population down by nearly year, and we only talking about a couple years of difference.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf , table 1-5

 

[CRGreathouse]

I would be interested in seeing more numbers on this, if either side would care to contribute.

 

[Al68]

The last time I checked, one the biggest complaints is that this penalizes people who don't have insurance and who refuse to purchase insurance through the low-cost insurance pool.

Just pointing out that it penalizes people who decide not to participate in the new system, regardless of the fact they it is this law that will prevent them from keeping/obtaining the insurance (private non-system) that they want to buy.

This includes many, like me, who have good insurance now, and want to keep it, but will be prohibited from doing so.

 

[Al68]

It's interesting that the Amish (250k pop) will be exempt, but Muslims will have to buy.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137221

The Amish are exempt from many things due to their religious beliefs. This law exempts anyone who is a member of a recognized group with religious beliefs that prohibit their participation. Muslims are not a recognized group for this purpose.

One more constitutional strike against this law, it discriminates based on religious beliefs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

One more constitutional strike against this law, it discriminates based on religious beliefs.

How is that unconstitutional? It's not a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Unless of course you meant that the right to so discriminate is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How is that unconstitutional? It's not a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Unless of course you meant that the right to so discriminate is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?

Amendment 14 Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Commonly the "Equal Protection Clause". Its arguable but the supreme court is unlikely to accept it as a violation.

Edit: and the "Establishment Clause" is commonly interpreted as prohibiting any law which gives preference to any religious group or institution.

 

[mheslep]

This isn't a feature unique to the Massachusetts system. Roughly 30 states require premium increases to be approved by state insurance regulators. Recent (i.e. in the last few years) raises have been rejected or challenged in a number of states--Maine, Connecticut, and Washington come to mind immediately and I'm sure some of you have heard about the recent challenge (and subsequent delay) to premium increases in the individual market in California.

Well the insurance regulators denied the initial rate incrrease requests but they were eventually http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073013721784050.html" to some degree:

After initial rejections from local insurance regulators, Mr. Fluegel said WellPoint wound up with a 17.5% increase in Connecticut and a 10.5% increase in Maine.

As far as I know the refusal of health insurers to offer any new policies is indeed unique to Massachusetts, as the highest in the nation premiums brought on by the state rules are causing people to game the system and jump in and out insurance policies, or put another way Mass. rules have blown apart the risk pool and taken all the slack out of the system.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Amendment 14 Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Commonly the "Equal Protection Clause". Its arguable but the supreme court is unlikely to accept it as a violation.

I agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to consider that a violation.

Edit: and the "Establishment Clause" is commonly interpreted as prohibiting any law which gives preference to any religious group or institution.

That's a clear misreading of the Constitution. It seems to be quite common, though; I'm not sure why. Aside from the elastic clause, it seems to be the most heavily reinterpreted clause of the whole document. (I shouldn't complain too loudly, though; I consider the dormant commerce clause an important facet of law, but it's really just another stretch/interpretation/misreading...)

 

[mheslep]

I would be interested in seeing more numbers on this, if either side would care to contribute.

Here are some more relevant figures.

Percentages of the male population with a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_ind" :

• Japan 2.8 (Japan is at the top of the life expectancy rankings)
• France 9.8
• Germany 14.4
• Canada 17.0
• U.K. 22.7
• U.S. 31.1

My larger point is that it is very difficult to cleanly separate out all of the non-medical care related life expectancy causes, and given we can directly to medical care numbers why try? We have readily available numbers for the treatment of various diseases - cancer, heart disease - which are directly and almost solely dependent on medical care quality, it becomes a waste of time to try and make something of a 5% difference in life expectancy. A similar argument (unrelated causes) applies to a difference of two or three deaths per thousand in infant mortality.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's percentage overweight, not the BMI itself, of course.

Becker and Posner have discussed this several times; some links for those interested:
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/02/on-consumer-competence-becker.html
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2009/05/a_tax_on_sodas.html
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/08/social_obesityp.html

 

[mheslep]

That's percentage overweight, not the BMI itself, of course.

Oops, yes, corrected.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

... In Obama's Deal, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk (Bush's War, Dreams of Obama) takes viewers behind the headlines to reveal the political maneuvering behind Barack Obama's effort to remake the American health system and transform the way Washington works. Through interviews with administration officials, senators and Washington lobbyists, Obama's Deal reveals the dramatic details of how an idealistic president pursued the health care fight -- despite the warnings of many of his closest advisers -- and how he ended up making deals with many of the powerful special interests he had campaigned against...

Watch online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...iewpage&utm_medium=toparea&utm_source=toparea

 

[Al68]

How is that unconstitutional? It's not a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Unless of course you meant that the right to so discriminate is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?

I think the tax penalty qualifies as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", since there will be a federal penalty imposed on some but not others based on their religious beliefs.

Does the penalty have to be death or prison to qualify?