News Health Care Reform - almost a done deal? DONE

[hamster143]

I agree that that's what the dems hope, but I think they underestimate the populace: many people support "a good part" of it, but they also oppose "a good part of it", and they know what provisions they support and don't support. But in order to believe they can be re-elected in November, the dems up for re-election have to hope that the populace will forget why they opposed it.

Of all people who oppose it, most oppose the part of it that involves giving government subsidies to the poor. Problem is, as it's been explained repeatedly by the left (e.g. by Krugman), it is a crucial part of any overhaul, in that it's impossible to provide universal healthcare without it. That is the reason no bipartisan agreement with Republicans was reached or could've been reached.

People who oppose it generally have one of three positions.

1) radical conservatives, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, etc: "I don't care that poor people don't have health insurance. All that matters to me is that I have mine. They could die for all I care."

2) moderate conservatives: "Sure, it's sad that poor people don't have health insurance, but I refuse to spend my money to support them. Let the Congress debate (for the next 10 years, if necessary) till they find a way to lower the costs of healthcare so that everyone can afford to buy health insurance on their own. "

3) radical liberals: "This bill does not solve all problems because it does not go far enough: it is not single payer and it does not have public option."

 

[calculusrocks]

This might be an opportune time to wiki what a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman" argument is.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why can't dems (both in office and not) understand that if a bill has significant flaws that require it to be amended later, it should just be done better now?

Because they are out of time.

Putting a new bill together takes 6 months, and anyone with a ruler and a pencil looking at the polls knows that there is no way a health care bill will pass in October with elections in November.

At this point, the logic goes, they are going to get slaughtered at the polls no matter what. The majority of the American people hate the bill, and they hate the imperious attitude of the democratic leadership in ramming it down their throats. (Remember, when Senator Obama was campaigning, he said that 50% plus one vote was not the way he wanted to pass healthcare. This has turned out to be exactly the strategy President Obama is adopting.) At this stage, again, as the logic goes, even a "no" vote will be used against Democrats in the election: everyone knows how well "I was for it before I was against it" plays at the voting booth.

So the Democrats are faced with two options: a serious loss in November with a health care bill, or a serious loss in November without a health care bill. Which do you think they will choose?

 

[calculusrocks]

So the Democrats are faced with two options: a serious loss in November with a health care bill, or a serious loss in November without a health care bill. Which do you think they will choose?

I ***deem*** this analysis spot on.

 

[russ_watters]

You can't be serious, can you? The republicans have shown thus far that they are not willing to vote on anything, much less vote for anything.

*I* a republican and *I* would support it if it were a better bill. If it were a better bill and republican citizens supported it, then it would be republican congressmen on the hot-seat for not supporting it, not democratic congressmen on the hot-seat for supporting it.

Heck, if the democratic congressmen believed that it was a bad bill and republicans wouldn't support a good bill, they should still make it a good bill so they would have real ammo to use at election time! It is pretty weak to accuse the other side of being obstructionist for blocking bad legislation.

 

[turbo]

Russ, apart from Olympia Snowe, not a single Republican participated in crafting the legislation. It is painfully evident that the GOP does not want any health-care reform bill at all. If they did, they would have contributed and helped to shape it into something that they could support. They did not, and McConnell and Boehner take every second of camera-time to tell us repeatedly that the American people do NOT want health-care reform.

Why is it so important to stop meaningful reform that will lower costs, reduce the deficit, and extend basic preventive health care to tens millions of people? Could it be to deny Obama any achievement? Could it be the opportunity to line their pockets with health-insurance lobbyists' money? Maybe it's just a really patriotic resistance to the "socialism" that has gripped every other industrialized society. In any case, it is time that we stopped sacrificing our citizens' health and welfare to the corporate bottom-line.

 

[russ_watters]

Because they are out of time.

Putting a new bill together takes 6 months, and anyone with a ruler and a pencil looking at the polls knows that there is no way a health care bill will pass in October with elections in November.

Agreed, but they put themselves in this situation, so they get no sympathy from me (not implying they would get it from you). They've known for a year what it would take to convince Republicans to suppot such a bill and have chosen not to do it.

To Ivan's point again, since they've known for a year what the flaws are and haven't fixed them, why would one believe they would be willing to fix them later?

At this point, the logic goes, they are going to get slaughtered at the polls no matter what.

Yeah, seems to be: you're screwed either way, so you might as well go out with a bang! It just boggles my mind that that logic has so much traction.

It is truly breathtaking how quickly they proved to be everything the public hated about the Republican controlled government and how quickly the public turned on them for it:

Corrupt back-room deals? Check.
Not listening to the people, but stuffing the bill with pork, special interest deals and lobbyist's wants? Check.
Ignoring the nations immediate problems to go after your pet crusade? Check.

What I don't understand is how some die-hard democrats seem genuinely confused about how we got here!

So the Democrats are faced with two options: a serious loss in November with a health care bill, or a serious loss in November without a health care bill. Which do you think they will choose?

Well I would have expected a politician to be tenacious when it comes to their re-election bid, so it is surprising to me that they are buying into the defeatism that Obama is selling them. Are these dems even plannign to run in November or are they just going to quit?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, apart from Olympia Snowe, not a single Republican participated in crafting the legislation.

Right, and why is that? It's because the Democrats realized that with a 60 seat supermajority in the Senate, they could do whatever they wanted without letting the republicans have a say.

It is painfully evident that the GOP does not want any health-care reform bill at all. If they did, they would have contributed and helped to shape it into something that they could support.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it any less wrong than it was the first time. You can't participate in a process you aren't allowed to participate in.

They did not, and McConnell and Boehner take every second of camera-time to tell us repeatedly that the American people do NOT want health-care reform.

The American peopled do not want this healthcare reform bill.

Why is it so important to stop meaningful reform that will lower costs, reduce the deficit, and extend basic preventive health care to tens millions of people?

Well you seemed to acknowledge that you know it has flaws so why don't you tell me? Have you been listening to what Republicans are saying about what the flaws are?

That last paragraph is just blathering rhetoric, turbo-1. They aren't meangingful/useful statements you are making. A small example and I won't address the rest:

line their pockets with health-insurance lobbyists' money

One of the primary "changes" Obama promised was to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington, but this bill is a lobbyist's bonanza. Why doesn't it have tort reform in it? Because of the lawyer lobby. Why does it have freebies for unions? Because of the union lobby. Speaking in blathering generalities about lofty principles that this bill supposedly upholds is just not useful for a debate.

 

[Brian_C]

"Poor" people don't need subsidies for health insurance. They can already walk into the emergency room and get all the care they want.

 

[turbo]

The American peopled do not want this healthcare reform bill.

That's pretty silly. Very few people know what's inside the bill, apart from the few talking points that politicians on either side give them. The people who demand NO reform are people who accept the GOP's fear-mongering as truth. Have you seen the tea-baggers decrying health-care reform as "socialism", yet demanding that no changes be made to their Medicare? What kind of logic is that?

At least the CBO has had time to analyze it and come out with their assessment.

As for Republicans being shut out of the legislation, they were not. They refused to participate and tried to pressure all Republicans to do the same. Snowe took all kinds of heat from her party because she participated. She wanted no public option, or failing that, performance measures that would trigger a public option years down the road if the insurance companies didn't clean up their act. The bill might have looked very different if she had not gotten concessions she demanded. What would the bill look like if other Republicans made a good-faith effort at contributing? We'll never know, because the party of "NO" held firm.

 

[Choronzon]

I really can not summon any emotion but contempt for this bill, for its crafters, and those who support it. They actually think the can legislate the insurance industry to do nothing less but provide unlimited health care. I'm not allowed to retroactively purchase collision insurance for my already wrecked car, so you shouldn't be able to purchase insurance to pay for your already wrecked body.

It really, truly baffles me how Americans can seriously believed that they are entitled to their fellow citizens effectively carrying them through life. People on this very board think that for a negligible monthly payment, a corporation should pay your health care in perpetuity with no annual or lifetime caps—not to mention that they have to accept you, regardless of your condition.

Seriously, people? You think you should be able to go up to someone and say "Hi! I'm going to give you say $500 a month, and in exchange you're going pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in my medical costs. Why? Because it's my right!"

If you do think you're entitled to this, I don't know how you can live with the shame.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Agreed, but they put themselves in this situation

Well, they aren't going to change the past.

If the original House bill was just enough more centrist to gain the votes of the 39 democrats who defected, there would be health care today. There would also most likely be a jobs bill passed instead of the spectacle of the President holding the jobs bill hostage until a health care bill passes. People would be comparing Obama favorably to FDR rather than unfavorably to Carter.

The Democrats are doing their best to blame this on the Republicans, but the fact of the matter is that had the original bill been acceptable to every Democrat, it would be the law of the land today.

But that's not what happened, and that's why there is such a mess. As I argued in my last message, given where they are today, "ram it through" is not an irrational strategy.

If I were a Democratic Congressman about to lose an election, I wouldn't worry too much. Both parties have traditionally taken care of members who have lost elections because they voted with the party and not with their constituents. Embassies around the world are full of such people. What I would be worried about is running roughshod over the structures that exist to preserve the influence of the minority party right before the election that might very well place my party in the minority. Perhaps the recent rejection of "deem and pass" is a sign they are thinking this way.

 

[Brian_C]

I really can not summon any emotion but contempt for this bill, for its crafters, and those who support it. They actually think the can legislate the insurance industry to do nothing less but provide unlimited health care. I'm not allowed to retroactively purchase collision insurance for my already wrecked car, so you shouldn't be able to purchase insurance to pay for your already wrecked body.

It really, truly baffles me how Americans can seriously believed that they are entitled to their fellow citizens effectively carrying them through life. People on this very board think that for a negligible monthly payment, a corporation should pay your health care in perpetuity with no annual or lifetime caps—not to mention that they have to accept you, regardless of your condition.

Seriously, people? You think you should be able to go up to someone and say "Hi! I'm going to give you say $500 a month, and in exchange you're going pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in my medical costs. Why? Because it's my right!"

If you do think you're entitled to this, I don't know how you can live with the shame.

Exactly. The people who think health care is a "civil right" should sail back to Europe. This country wasn't founded on Marxist ideals.

 

[calculusrocks]

I really can not summon any emotion but contempt for this bill, for its crafters, and those who support it. They actually think the can legislate the insurance industry to do nothing less but provide unlimited health care. I'm not allowed to retroactively purchase collision insurance for my already wrecked car, so you shouldn't be able to purchase insurance to pay for your already wrecked body.

It really, truly baffles me how Americans can seriously believed that they are entitled to their fellow citizens effectively carrying them through life. People on this very board think that for a negligible monthly payment, a corporation should pay your health care in perpetuity with no annual or lifetime caps—not to mention that they have to accept you, regardless of your condition.

Seriously, people? You think you should be able to go up to someone and say "Hi! I'm going to give you say $500 a month, and in exchange you're going pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in my medical costs. Why? Because it's my right!"

If you do think you're entitled to this, I don't know how you can live with the shame.

Yup.

 

[Brian_C]

I am sick and tired of hearing Obama whine about the problems his mother had with the insurance companies. This woman didn't even live in the United States for much of her adult life and probably contributed little to the American economy. People like that don't "deserve" health coverage with no strings attached.

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone know what a "health insurance exchange" looks like? Take a look at Medicare.gov and open up a few of the plans. When you are finished, please recall THESE plans cost YOU about $850 per month per person.

http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Include/DataSection/Questions/ListPlanByState.asp

Just for fun, look at a few $0 premium plans and a couple "Special Needs" (SNP-Dual Eligible) plans.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What? I went on the website and asked it to show me some plans. The most expensive premium was like 125 dollars a month. Am I missing something?

 

[mheslep]

[...]Competition between who? Insurance companies? I take it from your across-state-lines comment that this is what you're getting at. But the reality is that this isn't necessarily true. In fact, in some circumstances greater fragmentation among payers leads to higher reimbursement rates (i.e. costs) because no payer has the bargaining power to negotiate down rates with providers. There was a paper in Heath Affairs recently detailing how unchecked provider clout in California is driving up costs in the state. The Massachusetts AG's office also released a report recently indicating that the same thing is happening in Massachusetts. The same force at work in very different states, one small and one with a population larger than that of Canada. And in neither would further fragmentation of the payer side of the equation address the influence of providers on reimbursement rates.

It appears to me your changing the subject in these references. The issue at hand is interstate insurance, i.e. giving payers the ability to shop out of state to get away from provincial monopolies. These references, at quick glance, talk about the concentrated power of insurance companies in states where the payers are prevented from going elsewhere.

We've discussed this theme before, and I completely disagree as before. The list below contains goals. While there may be small areas of common ground, the Republican bill differs completely from the current Senate bill in the means to achieve these goals. The bills (e.g. Ryan's and the Senate bill) are completely different in character. I address the ones the jump out at me:

• Elimination of pre-existing conditions as a pre-text for denying coverage (mentioned in Bobby Jindal's op-ed)

• 
  Differs in means. Dems intend to simply force insurance companies to cover everyone, i.e. the chronically ill, something an insurance company is ill designed to do. Ryan's bill and others would create high risk pools for them.
  
  

  [*]The individual mandate (Republican leaders have since reversed themselves on this). For example, the lead Republican negotiator on the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020072.php: "As recently as a month ago, Chuck Grassley, the same senator bashing the idea of a mandate yesterday, announced that the way to get universal coverage is 'through an individual mandate.' He told Nightly Business report, 'That's individual responsibility, and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.' Earlier this year, Grassley told Fox News that there wasn't 'anything wrong' with mandates even if some may view them 'as an infringement upon individual freedom.'"

  Yes and Romney did mandates in Massachussets. So? Many people say lots of things. Some Democrats considered canning the employer - health benefits tax exemption in the Senate - a very good idea - but it's not in this bill in except in extremis. Of the dozen or so Republican drafted bills, I've seen none with a mandate to buy insurance at the federal level.
  
  

  [*]The creation of health insurance exchanges (these figured heavily into the Republican Patient's Choice Act of 2009).

  For the STATES! And people won't be forced on to them. C'mon.
  

  Creates State Health Insurance Exchanges to give Americans a one‐stop marketplace to compare different health insurance policies and select the one that meets their unique needs

  [*]Continuing the stimulus bill's support of health information exchange

  They might support the info exchange, but one can not reasonably claim via the stimulus bill, since no Republicans voted for the stimulus bill in the House and only 1-2 Senators.
  

  Indeed, we can look just at the Republican substitute (http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf ) offered this time around and find that most of the ideas Republicans want in a bill appear in some form in the Democratic legislation.
  
  Republicans participated in all of the markups (all three in the House, both in the Senate) and had numerous amendments accepted. But they generally preferred to play games than to craft policy: watch this gem from the Senate HELP committee markup.
  
  The reality is that this is a moderate bill that's bipartisan in content, if not support.

  This is misinformation. We know how bipartisan federal legislation is crafted in this country. For centuries the manner has been to have members of both parties sponsor the legislation. McCain-Feingold. Wyden-Bennet. Webb-Alexander. That is bipartisan legislation. Such has not happened here, and that is the responsibility solely of the Democratic party.

 

[WhoWee]

(Take a look at the plans in Louisiana and Florida (Miami-Dade) if you want a dose of reality)Consider this - "health care reform" is going to insure 30 million (?) additional people and cut costs - right?

According to Obama, there will be NO pre-existing conditions, and no limit to coverage.

The specifics of that coverage mandate is VERY similar to these Medicare Advantage plans that cost YOU the taxpayer $850 per person per month to fund.

Let's see, 30,000,000 X $850.00 = $25,500,000,000 per month = $306,000,000,000 per year. Hmmm an extra $306 billion per year in Government expenditures.?

Next, let's also recall that Medicaid (State programs partially funded by Fed) will be called upon to fund the insured persons monthly share of the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Then, if the program mirrors Medicare, perhaps Social Security can pay for their prescriptions. Gee, I wonder how much each person's premiums, co-pays and deductibles will cost each year - especially if they are encouraged to use their benefits.

How can this plan POSSIBLY reduce the deficit? How will this strategy cut costs? Does ANYONE believe cutting payments to Doctors is a realistic option to paying for the plan?

Best of all, NOBODY making less than $250,000 per year will have their taxes raised?

 

[Angry Citizen]

That is bipartisan legislation. Such has not happened here, and that is the responsibility solely of the Democratic party.

The Republican party has made its platform into the "Party of No". If a Republican were attached to any major piece of Obama legislation, he would bear the stigma associated with it. The level of partisanship in this country is such that a bipartisan effort on the bill was impossible.

As was shown in the bipartisan meeting (which I watched start to finish), the Republicans repeatedly made references toward "starting over". It's a stall tactic designed to ensure that Democrats have an extraordinarily large political defeat, wasting political capital and making them look like ineffectual fools.

I'm a libertarian (no, not like Beck), so I really don't like either party very much, but an interesting trend emerges when we consider socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine tend to be healthier, and the expenses paid per capita are drastically lower. The Obama bill is nowhere close to socialized medicine (even the vaunted public option is removed), but it is a trend towards something that has a noticeable track record of working. I may be a libertarian, but I'm not so married to my ideology that I cannot make an exception. Perhaps you should too.

 

[calculusrocks]

I'm a libertarian (no, not like Beck), so I really don't like either party very much, but an interesting trend emerges when we consider socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine tend to be healthier, and the expenses paid per capita are drastically lower. The Obama bill is nowhere close to socialized medicine (even the vaunted public option is removed), but it is a trend towards something that has a noticeable track record of working. I may be a libertarian, but I'm not so married to my ideology that I cannot make an exception. Perhaps you should too.

No you are not a libertarian. You are a closet liberal, who supports big liberal gov't.

 

[mheslep]

As was shown in the bipartisan meeting (which I watched start to finish), the Republicans repeatedly made references toward "starting over". It's a stall tactic designed to ensure that Democrats have an extraordinarily large political defeat, wasting political capital and making them look like ineffectual fools.

That's the Dem's fault. If they had started on with, e.g., a Ryan+Some Dem bill we'd have a good health care bill now. They chose to go it alone.

I'm a libertarian (no, not like Beck), so I really don't like either party very much, but an interesting trend emerges when we consider socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine tend to be healthier, and the expenses paid per capita are drastically lower. The Obama bill is nowhere close to socialized medicine (even the vaunted public option is removed), but it is a trend towards something that has a noticeable track record of working. I may be a libertarian, but I'm not so married to my ideology that I cannot make an exception. Perhaps you should too.

So what's the logic here? What makes you think the pending legislation promising vast increases in federal involvement in the heath system will improve anything, especially when the government controls so much of it already? US health is indeed far too expensive, but why don't you take a real look at medical outcomes in other countries before casually talking about how good they are. I have, in great detail, with real personal health consequences on the line.

 

[WhoWee]

I can't believe CBO hasn't snatched you right up.

Just having fun.

 

[Angry Citizen]

No you are not a libertarian. You are a closet liberal, who supports big liberal gov't.

Argh! Here I lie, skewered by your rebuttal, the likes of which has not been seen since Voltaire himself!

I support one policy, and I'm suddenly a 'closet liberal'. Classy. Now, if I were as classy as you, I'd rebut that you are a closet conservative, who supports big conservative government. Oh, what's that? Conservatives don't support big government? Well, it sure wasn't my party that supported the Department of Homeland Security, the War On Drugs and the PATRIOT Act.

 

[Angry Citizen]

So what's the logic here? What makes you think the pending legislation promising vast increases in federal involvement in the heath system will improve anything, especially when the government controls so much of it already? US health is indeed far too expensive, but why don't you take a real look at medical outcomes in other countries before casually talking about how good they are. I have, in great detail, with real personal health consequences on the line.

Because a trend towards federal control historically tends to increase health standards and decrease costs. You recall, of course, that the legislation which started the major rise in health costs occurred under Ronald Reagan, yes? I am referring, of course, to the bill stipulating that a person cannot be refused emergency treatment. We the taxpayer already pay for this 'liberal' bill. If you were serious about ending government health care, you would've been against the Reagan bill from the outset.

 

[calculusrocks]

Argh! Here I lie, skewered by your rebuttal, the likes of which has not been seen since Voltaire himself!

I support one policy, and I'm suddenly a 'closet liberal'. Classy. Now, if I were as classy as you, I'd rebut that you are a closet conservative, who supports big conservative government. Oh, what's that? Conservatives don't support big government? Well, it sure wasn't my party that supported the Department of Homeland Security, the War On Drugs, the institution of the Federal Reserve and the PATRIOT Act.

Look, there are some libertarian who support a small government with functions for police, fire, military. They are the pragmatists. But, there are no libertarians who support health care as one of those functions. None. Libertarians are opposed to statism in all forms. You have no libertarian rationale for your support of universal health care. Instead, you drop the same talking points as the liberals. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then guess what. It is a duck.

"The republicans are the party of no..."
"I'm not blinded by ideology..."

 

[mheslep]

Really? Wyden-Bennett has a federal mandate (Republican co-sponsors: Robert Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Mike Crapo, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg). The http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:s.01770: (in 1993) had both an individual and an employer mandate (as I already indicated above, the Republican sponsors still in the Senate are: Kit Bond, Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley).

I missed the W-B mandate, thanks for pointing that out.

Ryan's bill (and H.R. 3400 in a slightly different fashion) has auto-enrollment in place of a mandate.

In place of? What's with the specious word play? The former is nothing like the latter.

The exchanges in H.R. 3590 are state-administered. States that can achieve superior results in another way can get a waiver to do so.

State administered Federal rules that people are going to be forced on by the millions. Saying the 3590 Federal exchanges are a Republican idea is akin to painting strips on a horse and calling it a zebra.

Shocking. The HITECH Act is one of the true keys to value-based delivery system reform in this country and we have almost no Republicans to thank for it.

I'll take that as a snarky self-correction of your earlier claim this was also a Republican supported idea.

 

[mheslep]

Because a trend towards federal control historically tends to increase health standards and decrease costs.

You mistake cause and effect. One might as well say the increase in the Stork population tends to increase health standards.

You recall, of course, that the legislation which started the major rise in health costs occurred under Ronald Reagan, yes?

I would say that EMTALA occurred under Tip O'neil, and I know the major rise in US health costs began with WWII wage controls, creating employer provided tax exempt insurance.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Look, there are some libertarian who support a small government with functions for police, fire, military. They are the pragmatists. But, there are no libertarians who support health care as one of those functions. None. Libertarians are opposed to statism in all forms. You have no libertarian rationale for your support of universal health care. Instead, you drop the same talking points as the liberals. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then guess what. It is a duck.

"The republicans are the party of no..."
"I'm not blinded by ideology..."

What a terrible justification for your labelling crusade. In your mind, there are no libertarians who support universal health care, because anyone who supports universal health care is not a libertarian. Like I said, there is no libertarian rationale for my support of universal health care. My beliefs coincide with libertarian philosophy in a great many cases. They do not coincide with libertarian philosophy in all cases. I think for myself based on the situation in question. Like I said, I am not blinded by my ideology. I give due credence to historical trends in all forms. If this were a debate on socialism itself, I would be attacking the leftist view based on the same historical trends, which overwhelmingly show that socialism is a very poor economic model for long term sustainability.

When you're so blinded by your party label that you become immune to the lessons of history, of logic and of compromise, you doom yourself to hateful rhetoric, relentless opposition, and staggeringly illogical standpoints -- such as your crass and brutish blanket label of anyone on the other side of the fence on one bloody issue.

Hilariously, you point to the one justification behind it: pragmatism. What the hell is so different about socialized law enforcement, socialized fire and emergency medical services, and socialized military? Maybe they should be privatized too -- just to fall in lock-step with our ideology.

 

[Angry Citizen]

You mistake cause and effect. One might as well say the increase in the Stork population tends to increase health standards.

Are you saying that health care and health are unrelated? Maybe cancer has nothing to do with the mortality rate of individuals 65 years and older.

 

[mheslep]

Well, it sure wasn't my party that supported the Department of Homeland Security, the War On Drugs and the PATRIOT Act.

Yes the libertarian position would be to oppose those creations, but both parties have supported them to varying degrees and continue to do so.

 

[mheslep]

Are you saying that health care and health are unrelated? Maybe cancer has nothing to do with the mortality rate of individuals 65 years and older.

Lets not throw strawmen around. Your statement was

Because a trend towards federal control historically tends to increase health standards and decrease costs

It is fallacy to conclude from that statement that federal control increases health standards.

 

[Angry Citizen]

It is fallacy to conclude from that statement that federal control increases health standards.

That is hardly fallacious. Countries with higher levels of centralized, governmental control of health care tend to have longer average lifespans and lower rates of infant mortality. I am eager to see how this correlation does not imply causation.

 

[WhoWee]

Thank you Angry Citizen - for once again - taking the focus off of the specifics of the debate.

If health care "reform" were a scientific problem, would ANY OF YOU look at it this way?

 

[calculusrocks]

...

 

[calculusrocks]

What a terrible justification for your labelling crusade.

You're the one that labels yourself as a libertarian in the first place. Nonsense.

In your mind, there are no libertarians who support universal health care, because anyone who supports universal health care is not a libertarian.

Yup. It advocates the use of force and coercion.

Like I said, there is no libertarian rationale for my support of universal health care. My beliefs coincide with libertarian philosophy in a great many cases. They do not coincide with libertarian philosophy in all cases. I think for myself based on the situation in question. Like I said, I am not blinded by my ideology.

Libertarianism is rooted in ideology. Here's a YouTube for those curious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

I give due credence to historical trends in all forms. If this were a debate on socialism itself, I would be attacking the leftist view based on the same historical trends, which overwhelmingly show that socialism is a very poor economic model for long term sustainability.

So in this paragraph you attack the socialists on economy, but yet you support the annexation of 1/6 of the US Economy. Really! I know a duck when I see a duck.

 

[mheslep]

What the hell is so different about socialized law enforcement, socialized fire and emergency medical services, and socialized military?

These are all things that are to be avoided as much as possible as they have great carrying costs, are inefficient, and lead to abuses. However, most of them have no alternative and they are necessary. Or, per Washington,

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

Societal life requires we use the fearful master, but it should be as little as possible.

 

[calculusrocks]

It's time to refocus - AGAIN.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/14/AR2009101403953.html

"In a health-care debate defined by big numbers and confusing details, the prospect of losing benefits such as a free gym membership through the Silver Sneakers program is tangible, and it has spooked some seniors, who are the nation's most reliable voters and have been most skeptical about reform.

Medicare Advantage was established in the 1970s (under a different name) when private insurers convinced Congress that they could deliver care at lower costs than Medicare. The program blossomed in the late 1990s when Congress bolstered it with millions in additional federal subsidies to for-profit HMOs. It has proven popular among younger, active seniors who had managed-care plans as workers, and about a quarter of Medicare's 45 million beneficiaries are enrolled.

Many private plans require no additional monthly premiums, yet the government pays an average of $849.90 in monthly subsidies to insurance companies for a person on Medicare Advantage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is about 14 percent more than the government spends on people with standard Medicare, according to the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

"The promise of Medicare Advantage and Medicare HMOs was to save the government money, to save consumers money, all the while providing additional benefits and coordinating care," said Joseph Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center. "That promise has been unfulfilled overall because the plans are overpaid by the federal government at this point." "

You can blame this mess on insurance companies until your head explodes. However, the TRUTH is that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) runs this program. This is the Government run insurance program. Please note the cost PER PERSON to the Government is $849.90 per month. Then the individual pays co-pays, deductibles, some pay premiums - then we have the Part D prescription costs ($4,550 out of pocket cost to escape the Standard Coverage Gap).

The Government is the problem - not the solution.

I thought this was an excellent post.

 

[Angry Citizen]

So in this paragraph you attack the socialists on economy, but yet you support the annexation of 1/6 of the US Economy. Really! I know a duck when I see a duck.

Of course. Socialist policies are not socialism. Socialism and social democracies are two very different things. 1/6 of the US economy has already been annexed. If legislation to pay for it and ensure it is universal are such terrifying concepts, then so be it. I'd rather have good health care than ascribe to an inflexible ideology. If you're against universal health care just because it's the evil guvmnt, then you're against it for all the wrong reasons. If there were an historical trend towards lower health standards and greater costs inherent in socialized medicine, naturally I would be against it. Unfortunately, the trend is against you here. You are, essentially, supporting the same thing the socialists support: a system that is proven to be ineffective and inefficient.

 

[mheslep]

That is hardly fallacious.

Yes it is unless one shows the connection between the two, as you are now attempting to do here:

Countries with higher levels of centralized, governmental control of health care tend to have longer average lifespans and lower rates of infant mortality. I am eager to see how this correlation does not imply causation.

That's a Wikipedia level look at the topic. For instance, lifespans are obviously impacted by many things other than health care. If you want to know about quality health care, take a detailed look as I suggested above, at survival rates for cancer, heart disease, i.e. what happens to you if you actually get sick and see a doctor. You'll find most often the best place to be is in the US. If you want to know about lifespan causes start with McDonalds and car wrecks.

 

[Angry Citizen]

If you want to know about quality health care, take a detailed look as I suggested above, at survival rates for cancer, heart disease, i.e. what happens to you if you actually get sick and see a doctor. You'll find most often the best place to be is in the US.

These statistics ignore the fact that the United States is known to have more specialists in these kinds of fields. If the United States' health care was so good, its average life span would be at or near the top spot, right? It's not.

Sure, other things could be affecting the statistic. But what? Average life span is a pretty huge indicator of public health, because it is a broad view of health that ignores focused studies on certain diseases. If the summary of American health care is, "We can treat your really bad diseases pretty darn well, but you're still not likely to outlive a Japanese or Norwegian", then American health care needs to change regardless.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, in place of. Auto-enrollment is in Ryan's bill for the same reason the mandate is in other bills: to achieve near-universal coverage and avoid adverse selection issues. They are two mechanisms with the same goal--getting as many people into the system as possible.

So? It is nonsensical to cite Ryan's auto-enrolment as an example of a Republican idea in the current Democratic bill. One might as well say the Republicans and Democrats both want 'good' things and that therefore all their particular methods for getting there are pretty much the same.

 

[calculusrocks]

Apparently this Canadian socialist was not so rooted in http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA" as to get his heart surgery in the Canadian socialist system. If the US switches from mixed economy (gov't built HMOs in the 1970s) to total socialization the health care, where are Canadian politicians going to go for their health care?

 

[mheslep]

These statistics ignore the fact that the United States is known to have more specialists in these kinds of fields. If the United States' health care was so good, its average life span would be at or near the top spot, right? It's not.

Sure, other things could be affecting the statistic. But what?

Diet. Crime. Average driving distance. Gene pool. If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top. For infant mortality, the US difference is about 0.6 deaths out of a 1000 from the top, if you believe the infant death rates are measured the same way everywhere.

If the summary of American health care is, "We can treat your really bad diseases pretty darn well, but you're still not likely to outlive a Japanese or Norwegian", then American health care needs to change regardless.

The US health care system does need to change, but I advocate that along the way we not screw up the fact that we do indeed treat 'diseases pretty darn well'

 

[mheslep]

Oh, HIE has strong bipartisan support (even the red states are gobbling up HIE Cooperative grants to build functioning HIEs in their states). But with these Republicans, that rarely translates into votes.

I find this line so tiresome. Some $850 billion (the stimulus bill) of our money is taken by force and spent. But since we may have vociferously opposed its authorization, it is somehow not appropriate to get in line and take our own money back. Or if we do, that demonstrates we really supported the idea all along and were just acting out of politics. Please.

 

[hamster143]

Diet. Crime. Average driving distance. Gene pool. If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top. For infant mortality, the US is about 0.6 deaths out of a 1000 from the top, if you believe the death rates are measured the same.

Yes, there was that famous article that claimed that crime and accidents accounted for most of the difference in life expectancies between the US and OECD ... unfortunately, it turned out to be fake. As you can easily calculate by yourself, crime effectively reduces the US life expectancy by something like 0.4 years compared to virtually crime-less countries like Japan. If you also account for traffic accidents, you can probably explain away some more. The US is 1 year behind UK/Germany, 2 years behind New Zealand & Italy, 4 years behind Iceland and Japan.

I find it doubtful that the US has the worst dietary habits of all major countries. New Zealand has worse gene pool than the US (as recently as 100 years ago, it was basically populated by cannibal natives and convicts). Iceland has a horrible climate, but people manage to live quite long over there.

Smoking is an important contributor to premature death, but it turns out that Americans smoke substantially less than, say, Japanese or Greeks.

The US infant mortality is twice that of Iceland or Japan, 25% higher than in New Zealand or Italy.

 

[calculusrocks]

hamster, do you have any sources at all? If so, what is your point?

 

[hamster143]

hamster, do you have any sources at all? If so, what is your point?

My source is Wikipedia. My point is that the claim that "If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top" is inaccurate. In fact, the US does have one of the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortalities in the developed world. So, we do NOT treat 'diseases pretty darn well', and the worry that we might somehow "break" our treasured healthcare system by trying to set up universal healthcare may be overblown.

 

[calculusrocks]

My source is Wikipedia. My point is that the claim that "If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top" is inaccurate. In fact, the US does have one of the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortalities in the developed world. So, we do NOT treat 'diseases pretty darn well', and the worry that we might somehow "break" our treasured healthcare system by trying to set up universal healthcare may be overblown.

Great, then you can provide a link to it.

Well, when democrat politicians start going to Iceland, or wherever to get their critical treatments, then I'll see your point.

 

[hamster143]

Great, then you can provide a link to it.

Well, when democrat politicians start going to Iceland, or wherever to get their critical treatments, then I'll see your point.

Link to which part?

Would it be adequate if I provided links that showed that Sarah Palin's family went to Canada to get medical treatment?

Look, I have no doubt that the system we have here in the country is ideal for the wealthiest 1% (including most democrat and republican politicians). If your money is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited, you can get very good healthcare and you don't need to go to Canada or anywhere else.

Unfortunately, I'm not in the top 1% and probably neither are you, or most Americans on this forum.