US one step closer to socialism ~~weg~~

[Brita]

U.S. health bill gets Senate committee approval (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/13/us-health-bill013.html)

A major U.S. health-care reform bill took another step forward Tuesday as the influential Senate finance committee approved it by a vote of 14-9.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe broke with her party to vote for the Democratic health care bill, which will require all Americans to purchase medical insurance. She was the only Republican in Congress to do so.

"When history calls, history calls," she said as the committee debated the bill earlier in the day.

Hoping to garner Snowe's support, Democrats had spent months addressing her concerns about making health care affordable and finding the budget to pay for changes to the system.

Tuesday's vote brought U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to reform the nation's health care system one big step closer to reality.

The pivotal Senate finance panel approved the sweeping legislation, which would usher in a host of changes to the nation's $2.5-trillion medical system.

Much work remains ahead before a final bill arrives on Obama's desk, but action by the finance committee marked a significant advance, capping numerous delays as chairman Max Baucus held marathon negotiating sessions aimed at producing a bipartisan bill.

Insurance companies obliged to take all under new bill
Four other congressional committees acted before August to pass health legislation, so for months, all eyes have been on the finance committee, the last of the committees to approve the legislation.

With Democrats holding a 13-10 majority on the committee, the outcome of Tuesday's vote was not in doubt, but the final days before the long-anticipated vote were rocky.

The health insurance industry released a report contending that the legislation would cause hefty increases in premiums.

The drama threatened to overshadow the vote on the 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.

The bill includes consumer protections such as limits on co-pays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to accept anyone wanting to buy their plan, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.

Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies.

The changes would be paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.

[Sinistrum]

*sigh* Yes because taking a step toward the day where my health problems become everyone else's problem and vice versa (therefore giving everyone else the right to have a say in the solution to my health problems) is such a great thing to be grinning over. :rolleyes:

[Firseal]

I'd agree, except I think you are being sarcastic. Look, aside from the fact that our political machine is making a horrible hash out of this crap, we spend much more on worse health care than most countries with nationalized systems.

I am horribly sorry, both that your health is my problem and that such a situation will be orchestrated by the comprimises between two political parties which have the combined IQ of Simple Jack (notably, Political Parties strangely get dumber the larger they are). I am not sorry that this is getting rammed through. Not in the slightest. Yes, its a modestly broken bill that asks for too little and gives away too much (plus enough pork to offend every koshier diet on the East Coast). But its something. Which, for many Americans, will beat the crap out of their nothing.

While you can argue that their nothing isn't your problem, I can argue that if it was you with the nothing, and something could be done modestly, you wouldn't be kinda interested.

Besides. Socialism is no more evil than capitalism. Or liberialism. Or conservatism. Like the vast majority of -isms, its about implimentation not innate qualities. (Communism is an interesting contrast because the only way it 'works' is if human nature doesn't.)

Don't complain that we are getting socialism. For one thing, this is one hell of watered down socialism with a lot of grants to the capitalistic bastards that, let me check, oh yes screwed over nearly the entire planet's economy just last year. If you must complain, complain about the quality of the socialism, and fight to impliment better.

[Sei'taer]

I'd agree, except I think you are being sarcastic. Look, aside from the fact that our political machine is making a horrible hash out of this crap, we spend much more on worse health care than most countries with nationalized systems.

I am horribly sorry, both that your health is my problem and that such a situation will be orchestrated by the comprimises between two political parties which have the combined IQ of Simple Jack (notably, Political Parties strangely get dumber the larger they are). I am not sorry that this is getting rammed through. Not in the slightest. Yes, its a modestly broken bill that asks for too little and gives away too much (plus enough pork to offend every koshier diet on the East Coast). But its something. Which, for many Americans, will beat the crap out of their nothing.

While you can argue that their nothing isn't your problem, I can argue that if it was you with the nothing, and something could be done modestly, you wouldn't be kinda interested.

Besides. Socialism is no more evil than capitalism. Or liberialism. Or conservatism. Like the vast majority of -isms, its about implimentation not innate qualities. (Communism is an interesting contrast because the only way it 'works' is if human nature doesn't.)

Don't complain that we are getting socialism. For one thing, this is one hell of watered down socialism with a lot of grants to the capitalistic bastards that, let me check, oh yes screwed over nearly the entire planet's economy just last year. If you must complain, complain about the quality of the socialism, and fight to impliment better.

I've read the bill.

I will complain. I will bitch. I will be pissed. I will lose my insurance (I've already been told I will). I will have to go on the public option. I will hate it. Luckily, I get to pay almost 4 years worth of taxes for it before I can actually use it. It's gonna be great. I'm so proud.

And now I'm out of it. Everyone knows how I feel and I'm WAAAAY too passionate about it to even get into this debate again. Suffice it to say that I am beyond pissed.

Now, y'all have fun.

[Sinistrum]

While you can argue that their nothing isn't your problem, I can argue that if it was you with the nothing, and something could be done modestly, you wouldn't be kinda interested.

Um Firseal, it is me with the nothing. I haven't had health insurance in over a year and I still oppose a government option. And that is in spite of the fact that I'm still paying over $2100 out of pocket for two stitches and a tetnis shot last December. Sei can get into the technical aspects better than I can but the bottom line to me is that the more you reduce individual responsibility for problems, the more you reduce individual liberty for how those problems are handled. The minute other people's resources get involved in my problems is the minute that they get to tell me what to do on how to solve those problems and that is something I cannot abide.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

How long until we have federally mandated fat camps? Obesity is the #1 killer in America, after all. It's for the greater good we all slim down.

[Sinistrum]

And along with that lets ban smoking, drinking, continue the ban on drugs, cheeseburgers, fetuccini alfredo, coca cola, and all sorts of other stuff that's unhealthy for you. I mean after all, if the tax payer is going to be footing the bill for health care, then the tax payer should get a say in the individual choices that people make that contribute to their need for health care. When you turn responsibility for people's health and well being over to the government, all of those choices stop being individual decisions that people are entitled to make, and start becoming the object of cost cutting efforts.

[JSUCamel]

And along with that lets ban smoking, drinking, continue the ban on drugs, cheeseburgers, fetuccini alfredo, coca cola, and all sorts of other stuff that's unhealthy for you. I mean after all, if the tax payer is going to be footing the bill for health care, then the tax payer should get a say in the individual choices that people make that contribute to their need for health care. When you turn responsibility for people's health and well being over to the government, all of those choices stop being individual decisions that people are entitled to make, and start becoming the object of cost cutting efforts.

You guys are so funny!

[Bryan Blaire]

After all, according to talks with PD, Denmark (and I think other nations in Europe) DO limit the amount of sugar you are allowed to intake with different types of foods, specifically sodas have come up.

Sorry, I'll keep paying for my own health care, and all the rest of you can butt the @#%# out.

This legislation does almost nothing to deal with the real problems in the health insurance system (note I didn't say health care, as health insurance doesn't address dick about health care), all it does is mandate that more people get involved in a mostly broken system and penalizes those that don't, to the tune of more of us paying for this crap.

There is no Public Option currently legislated in the bill that came out of the committee.

Wonder exactly what Snowe got out of the Democrats that was worth enough to make her flip.

[Sinistrum]

You guys are so funny!

Yeah its goddamn hysterical until you realize its already happening. Drug prohibition is still in effect, smoking has been largely banned in public places in this country, and even things like banning "junk food" in public schools is starting to occur. Hell, San Francisco, the bastion of all things Obama and liberal, is already making a push to fine stores that sell sodas.

http://news.aol.com/article/san-francisco-mayor-gavin-newsom/676931

[JSUCamel]

Yeah its goddamn hysterical until you realize its already happening. Drug prohibition is still in effect, smoking has been largely banned in public places in this country, and even things like banning "junk food" in public schools is starting to occur. Hell, San Francisco, the bastion of all things Obama and liberal, is already making a push to fine stores that sell sodas.

http://news.aol.com/article/san-francisco-mayor-gavin-newsom/676931


Hmm... so what's the problem?

[Sei'taer]

Sorry, I'll keep paying for my own health care, and all the rest of you can butt the @#%# out.



Do you work for the feds or the state? If you work for the feds, you automatically go on the public option, according to the Baucus bill, unless you are a member of congress, of course. I'm not sure how it works on the state level. I do know in our city we've already been told that if the option becomes available we will switch to it because the taxpayers won't have to pay to supply us insurance anymore through their property taxes. (I figure the reason they are going to do this is they'll probably be able to keep taxes on prperty at the same rate or lower and be sitting pretty for the next election).

[Bryan Blaire]

The bill that was passed out of the Committee did not include a Public Option at last report.

Regardless of whether I am on the "Public Option" or not, I may continue paying for my own health care.

Health Insurance is legalized gambling. Health Insurance is NOT about health care. Having Health Insurance does not mean that you are actually going to get "care".

I'm tired of all sides of this argument.

[Sinistrum]

Hmm... so what's the problem?

The problem is that its my fucking perogative whether I ingest those things, not the governments and not yours. Its my mouth, my esophagus, my digestive system, my lungs, my blood stream, and my body. Its my health that is impacted by those and my happiness that is at issue with my choice to partake in such things. You may be ok with other people telling you what you can eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise put in your body but I'm sure as hell not. Those kind of individualized choices are the very essence of a free society. They're sort of the point of having one in the first place and the minute you take them away is the minute such a society ceases to be free.

[JSUCamel]

The problem is that its my fucking perogative whether I ingest those things, not the governments and not yours. Its my mouth, my esophagus, my digestive system, my lungs, my blood stream, and my body. Its my health that is impacted by those and my happiness that is at issue with my choice to partake in such things. You may be ok with other people telling you what you can eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise put in your body but I'm sure as hell not. Those kind of individualized choices are the very essence of a free society. They're sort of the point of having one in the first place and the minute you take them away is the minute such a society ceases to be free.

I see it like a speed limit. The government establishes speed limits, because if you drive too fast, you can hurt someone -- not just yourself, but someone else can be affected, whether a passenger or another driver. Your bad decision no longer affects just you -- it affects someone else. And that's Not Cool(tm).

That's why the government institutes speed limits, and that's why most, if not all, states have laws mandating auto insurance coverage.

You may think that drugs should be legal, that children should be able to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, that people should be able to eat whatever they want and if they get sick and die, well that's their own damn fault. But it doesn't work that way, unfortunately. Your bad decisions affect me. It kind of becomes my problem when you go to the hospital for drug overdose, heart attack, lung cancer, or a car accident due to drugs, junk food, smoking or alcohol, respectively. When that happens, health insurers have to pay out more, which means premiums go up -- not just for you, but for others who use that carrier.

From a capitalistic standpoint, this makes sense. It saves money in the long run because epidemics like obesity, drunk driving, drug overdoses and lung cancer drop dramatically, which in turn leads to lower health care expenses, which (ideally should) translate to lower health care premiums.

So.. in that light, I fail to see why your argument holds water.

Don't get me wrong. I like McDonalds as much as the next guy, I just don't see why government efforts to reduce consumption of harmful products is a bad thing.

[Sinistrum]

Camel the indirect harm argument can be applied to all decisions that have the potential to go wrong. And lets face it, that's pretty much all decisions. So since we're so concerned about indirect harm when it comes to "vices" and their effect on health care costs, in order to remain logically consistent, we should be just as concerned about it in other arenas of life.

Shall we start regulating where people can travel too? I mean we wouldn't want people going some place like say the Philippines, spending money, and therefore indirectly supporting violent fringe groups that could come back and kill people. We should probably restrict people's right to travel so that way this doesn't happen.

What about limiting free speech? I mean you could hurt someone's feelings by saying something mean and therefore cause them to do something bad. Thats indirect harm that you'd be responsible for and other people would have to pay to clean up with crime prevention efforts. Therefore would should restrict people's right to free speech to avoid spending tax payer money on police forces.

While we're at it, lets limit people's freedom of religion. I mean after all, quite a few people on this board consider religious belief to be harmful because it leads to stuff like bigotry and hate crimes. The government should be able to step in and prevent that indirect harm from people's poor religious choices too I guess.

And what about sex? Plenty of bad things happen because people have sex, like unwanted pregnancies, std's, and idiot people reproducing. We should have the government put a bunch of restrictions on people's ability to have sex because of all the indirect harm poor decisions regarding it causes that other people end up paying for. That means restrict the right to have it, especially certain kinds of high risk behaviors that can lead to additonal costs like homosexuality, restricting the right to kids, restricting the right to contraceptives, because yanno they encourage people to engage in sexually risky behaviors that we have pay a ton for. And with all the people not having sex, not getting stds, and not having children we can save a ton in health care costs!

If you can't see why the government micromanaging people's lives in order to save money is a bad thing, then I don't know what the hell else to say to you. You may be comfortable living your life at the beck and call of others, but I'm not. The entire point of my life is for me to live, not for someone else to live it for me because they think they know better.

[JSUCamel]

If you can't see why the government micromanaging people's lives in order to save money is a bad thing, then I don't know what the hell else to say to you. You may be comfortable living your life at the beck and call of others, but I'm not. The entire point of my life is for me to live, not for someone else to live it for me because they think they know better.

Chill out. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

But to continue this debate, under what circumstances does the government have the right to tell you what you can and can't do, and at what point does that say-so cross the line?

[Tamyrlin]

I'm all for the Government existing to protect my rights and freedoms. However, I'm sick of being plundered by the Government in the guise that it is protecting me. The Government could have passed many laws to fix the system. Instead, they are developing yet another mechanism to Plunder my property.

Amazing.

[Davian93]

Healthcare should be available for everyone, regardless of their spot on the social ladder. I don't think this bill quite does that or does it in the right way.

[Sinistrum]

But to continue this debate, under what circumstances does the government have the right to tell you what you can and can't do, and at what point does that say-so cross the line?

That's simply. If your actions cause a direct harm to someone else, then and only then should the government step in and prevent them. Its the foundation of most of our criminal laws and government functions such as the military. Then and only then can a truely iron clad causal link between the actions being taken by the individual and the negative consequences we are seeking to avoid exists. And its that causal link that I think is required to truly morally justify government interference in the lives of its citizens. Anything else, IMHO, is just a power grab for the sake of having power.

[Sei'taer]

That's why the government institutes speed limits, and that's why most, if not all, states have laws mandating auto insurance coverage.




What if you don't own a car?

[Davian93]

What if you don't own a car?

You shall be forced to buy one...preferably a Chrysler or GM product as they are both US Gov't owned.

[Sei'taer]

You shall be forced to buy one...preferably a Chrysler or GM product as they are both US Gov't owned.


I already own those companies. Fuckers should be giving me a car. It's as much my right as healthcare.

[Ozymandias]

The problem is that its my fucking perogative whether I ingest those things, not the governments and not yours. Its my mouth, my esophagus, my digestive system, my lungs, my blood stream, and my body. Its my health that is impacted by those and my happiness that is at issue with my choice to partake in such things. You may be ok with other people telling you what you can eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise put in your body but I'm sure as hell not. Those kind of individualized choices are the very essence of a free society. They're sort of the point of having one in the first place and the minute you take them away is the minute such a society ceases to be free.

Not to be nitpicky, but when it comes to smoking, your making a public impact through secondhand smoke. I was in a smoking bar this past weekend and I could barely see (and the smoke made me projectile vomit all over everything, but thats gotta go down in part to lots of Sierra Nevada and vietnamese food, in all fairness).

And they shouldn't ban soda. They should tax it. If its worth it to you to get your sugar fix, go for it. If not, don't complain. Shit, we need the increased revenue anyways.

[JSUCamel]

What if you don't own a car?

As far as I know, states only mandate auto insurance for car owners. If you don't own a car in your name, you don't have to have auto insurance. I could be wrong on that, though.

[John Snow]

Camel the indirect harm argument can be applied to all decisions that have the potential to go wrong.

restrictions on smoking in public places for instance, is based on sound science showing that blow-by smoke results directly in harm to non-smoking people in the vicinity. Camel's argument about very costly bad habits being heavily taxed, as it were, already happens as insurance companies run the rates up on smokers, motorcycle riders, rock climbers, obese people, and the like. One can argue that's direct risk, or that it's a risk to the insurance pool. Either way, your base argument is one of strong individualism, and reflects that heritage, not to say right or wrong, but Korea, for instance, would consider that a very odd perspective.

[Ivhon]

restrictions on smoking in public places for instance, is based on sound science showing that blow-by smoke results directly in harm to non-smoking people in the vicinity. Camel's argument about very costly bad habits being heavily taxed, as it were, already happens as insurance companies run the rates up on smokers, motorcycle riders, rock climbers, obese people, and the like. One can argue that's direct risk, or that it's a risk to the insurance pool. Either way, your base argument is one of strong individualism, and reflects that heritage, not to say right or wrong, but Korea, for instance, would consider that a very odd perspective.

This structure is where the whole thing stands for me. Either the government or the corporation is going to be rationing my care. Right now, I trust the government to act in my better (not best) interests more than the corporation. That may change when I see ANY evidence that the corporation gives a shit about anything other than the bottom line (which is in direct conflict with my best interests). As it is, there are some people with power in the government that are genuinely concerned with my health and ability to afford health care. There is no one with any power in the insurance industry who has any care whatsoever than to take my money and give me nothing in return. Its all the same cookie, I just trust one person more thats giving it to me.

To the individualistic concerns of "I can do what I want with my body" - I conceptually agree. But in terms of this argument it has the same net effect. YOUR behavior is making my premiums go up - it is the exact same argument. EDIT: It seems that the libertarian ideal is easily misinterpreted to be "I can do whatever I want and too bad if that hurts someone else, not my problem." That is actually anarchy, which I dont think most would consider amongst the most effective ideologies.

[Davian93]

Does anyone else find it ironic that we live in a nation that provides convicted felons in prison free medical and dental care but can't get off its collective arse to do the same for law-abiding citizens?

[Sinistrum]

Does anyone else find it ironic that we live in a nation that provides convicted felons in prison free medical and dental care but can't get off its collective arse to do the same for law-abiding citizens?

Not really. The entire idea behind prison is that those in there have proven to one degree or another that they are incapable of being individually responsible. So yeah, they do get stuff like free room and board and health care. But they also suffer an appropriate level of loss of individual liberty to go along with that. They are the epitome of what should happen to anyone who decides its the governments job to wipe their ass for them.

[Davian93]

Not really. The entire idea behind prison is that those in there have proven to one degree or another that they are incapable of being individually responsible. So yeah, they do get stuff like free room and board and health care. But they also suffer an appropriate level of loss of individual liberty to go along with that. They are the epitome of what should happen to anyone who decides its the governments job to wipe their ass for them.

Free Healthcare is their punishment?

[Ivhon]

Does anyone else find it ironic that we live in a nation that provides convicted felons in prison free medical and dental care but can't get off its collective arse to do the same for law-abiding citizens?

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Clearly inmates need to be paying for health care just like everyone else. They can't afford it? Hmm....thats a problem. Nowait. I got it. Just let them rot and die...then we can open up another jail cell for someone else. Two problems solved.

[Sinistrum]

Free Healthcare is their punishment?

No, its a tangental side effect of them not being able to determine where they sleep, when they sleep, what they eat, where they live, where they go, who they associate with, what they say, what they do during the day, and what kinds of behavior they can engage in. People who behave like children should be treated like such. That doesn't mean there aren't any benefits to it. Children usually don't have to pay for their own health care either. They also, however, cannot make anything remotely approaching an adult decision with their lives. And that is as it should be.

[Davian93]

I just think its funny. We will give a guy convicted of murder free healthcare no problem and its even a guaranteed Constitutional Right (8th Amendment) but we balk at providing the same type of care for free law-abiding citizens that cannot afford it or are denied for the ever popular "pre-existing condition" by their private health insurance provider. I guess I would rather live in a country where I never have to fear the loss of healthcare than stuff the coffers of a private for profit industry like healthcare insurance.



EDITED FOR CLARITY.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Dav, your problem isn't the doctors, or the health care system. Your problem is with the HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM.

[Sinistrum]

And the point I'm trying to get across to you is that the only reason that free health coverage for inmates is guaranteed is because they have completely lost their liberty. They can't provide it for themselves because of their incarceration. Because of this loss in liberty, they can't reasonably be expected to have any responsibility for themselves anymore either. That is the nature of the legal and physical handicaps we have placed on prisoners. So if you're really that high on the idea of free health care, may you should get yourself tossed in prison. That way you can get it, and the rest of us can avoid the inevitable loss of liberty that the system you support would lead too.

[Davian93]

Dav, your problem isn't the doctors, or the health care system. Your problem is with the HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM.

Exactly. We have the greatest healthcare in the world...trying to afford it and having adequate "coverage" is the problem the majority of Americans have. I am completely aware of the issue. Insurance reform is the issue, not "healthcare" reform.

To Sini: I get your point, Sini. I just dont agree with it. If healthcare is a guaranteed right to inmates becuase it would be "cruel and unusual" to deny it, how is it okay to allow companies to deny it to other citizens due to a pre-existing condition? Isn't that just as cruel and unusual?

[Sinistrum]

A. its not a punishment and b. its not a government action. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that individual citizens can't be cruel to each other. There is no legal and IMHO moral imperative for other people to help each other. The only one that I think does exist is to do no harm. Live and let die is the way of the world.

[Davian93]

A. its not a punishment and b. its not a government action. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that individual citizens can't be cruel to each other. There is no legal and IMHO moral imperative for other people to help each other. The only one that I think does exist is to do no harm. Live and let die is the way of the world.


Yes, but it doesn't have to be. Its not too late for a better world.;)

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Remind me again everyone. Who IS supposed to pay for healthcare?

Cuz I am still not seeing how exactly "everyone is entitled" works out here.

It exists, so I deserve it, right?

The docs, well, they studied hard and went to school and save my life, so they should get paid. And the company who puts all the money into researching new drugs, they should get paid. And the hospital, who provides the beds, brooms, and bedpans, well heck, they need money. And the electric company, that runs the lights and equipment, they should get paid.


But I wanna sit on my ass and not go to school, not work full time, not worry about eating that bacon and 12 sodas, not take my medicine, and NOT PAY FOR IT.

yep. it's the INSURANCE companies that are at fault.

:: eyeroll ::

This is an no win situation and arguing about it is driving me insane.

[Davian93]

Who is supposed to pay for national defense? I guess if we're ever invaded, the military should make sure you are a taxpayer before they defend your neighborhood.

The gov't should have just ignored everyone in the Gulf Coast region after Katrina too. I mean, if they want help, they should pay for their own damn helicopter airlift and emergency supplies.

All roads should be toll roads too. The fire and police dept should charge you if they ever have to respond to your home for a break-in or fire. "What's that? Your CC didn't go through? Pack it up boys, this lady can't pay for this fire."

I mean, we SHOULD have to pay for a service if we ever need it, right?

[Sinistrum]

Um in case you didn't notice Dav, as evident by the multi-trillion dollar national debt and massive budget deficits our nation has, we're already having problems paying for the things you've listed off that the government is already attempting to provide. If we can't pay for the things we've already got, please explain how we're going to pay for even more?

[Davian93]

Um in case you didn't notice Dav, as evident by the multi-trillion dollar national debt and massive budget deficits our nation has, we're already having problems paying for the things you've listed off that the government is already attempting to provide. If we can't pay for the things we've already got, please explain how we're going to pay for even more?

They're gonna tax the healthcare insurance industry, last I checked at least. Besides, its a drop in the bucket compared to the dual war effort that has destroyed our federal budget. $900 Billion is pocket change over 10 years all things considered.

Besides, we have massive budget deficits because Idiot Bush massively cut taxes, especially for the wealthy, and then massively increaseed spending. We had ~gasp~ a surplus under that Clinton guy who actually tried to be responsible on the budget.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Um in case you didn't notice Dav, as evident by the multi-trillion dollar national debt and massive budget deficits our nation has, we're already having problems paying for the things you've listed off that the government is already attempting to provide. If we can't pay for the things we've already got, please explain how we're going to pay for even more?Half the defense budget. Then you'll still be the biggest defense spender in the world, but you will also have some money left over for other things.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Newsflash: the military budget is paid for by...US, the PEOPLE! By our TAXES!

Another newsflash:

YOU CAN GET HEALTH CARE EVEN WITHOUT INSURANCE

I DARE YOU
I dare you -- go to a hospital ER, tell them you have a broken arm and no insurance and then smugly wait for them to say, oh, no, you...you have to go die.

YOU WONT GET TOSSED OUT

have a heart attack and call an ambulance. yep, that works.

trip and cut your arm and have an artery bleed. yep, that gets taken care of.

the issue is WHO PAYS. They will treat you, and they will then send you bills and hound you to pay them.

If you have even the slightest ability to keep yourself ALIVE, then yeah, ya know what, I expect you to ante up and pay a frickin bill once in a while. I had this argument with a friend recently who doesnt have insurance:

Ok, you told me about True Blood and you like it alot. Cable bill + HBO = $100 ?

You gave me your home and cell phone numbers. Cell bill = $80 ?

You sent me an email. Internet bill = $40 ? (not even counting your Computer costs)

You have a car. $200 a month?

Wow, nice outfit. Yep, got some new threads for winter. $200 (whole family? bare necessities for the year?)

You went on vacation? Really. Gasoline is $3-4 a gallon. Should we discuss airfare, hotels?

Did you hear the new U2 song? Ipod = $160

It goes on and on and on. But he doesn't think paying $280 a month for insurance (which included a $500 annual deductible, full office visits and a $20 Rx card)is something he can afford.

These are choices people make. You are taking a chance and hoping YOU WON'T GET SICK. I hate to break it to you, but most of you will if you are not already. And you think the government...the GOVERNMENT = us divided a billion ways...should pay for you? Um. Maybe you could try this thing called insurance. It is there in case you need it. Not a guarantee that you get the best, the newest, the greatest, but it can help keep you out of bankruptcy. Oh. You don't want to pay for it? Ok. Then take the risk that you will stay healthy and if you don't...then figure out how to pay that $100,000 hospital bill.

[Davian93]

You are completely right, I think it is perfectly okay for a privately owned company to deny me or anyone else based on a "pre-existing condition". Yes, that is fair. Even if I pay my premium every month for years, if I suddenly actually cost them enough money, they will refer my file to a cost-analysis team whose sole job is to find ways to deny me coverage whether it be failing to admit to acne treatments as a teenager or not properly filling out paperwork at some point even if it was decades before. Yes, that is a hell of a system and I wholly support it. IF you want to bend over and be raped by a profit making industry because it is your "right", go right ahead. I happen to think there is a better way to do things.

And yes, of course hospitals have to provide emergency care. You know why? Because they didn't used to do it and enough people got so pissed that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT passed laws forcing them to do it. Otherwise, they used to simply dump your broke ass back out on the curb if you didn't pay.

[Sinistrum]

They're gonna tax the healthcare insurance industry, last I checked at least.

And when they go down in flames due to increased costs because of those taxes and an inability to compete with the public option, what then?

Besides, its a drop in the bucket compared to the dual war effort that has destroyed our federal budget. $900 Billion is pocket change over 10 years all things considered.

Besides, we have massive budget deficits because Idiot Bush massively cut taxes, especially for the wealthy, and then massively increaseed spending. We had ~gasp~ a surplus under that Clinton guy who actually tried to be responsible on the budget.

That's great that you've got the blame all doled out like that. But assigning blame doesn't do anything to change the practical realities of the situation.

Half the defense budget. Then you'll still be the biggest defense spender in the world, but you will also have some money left over for other things.

This may not be such a bad idea. I think pulling completely out of Europe and the U.N. would be a great idea. I'd like to see how most European governments and their lionized social welfare systems would fair when they actually have to start footing the bill for their own defense and U.N. military commitments.

[Davian93]

****And when they go down in flames due to increased costs because of those taxes and an inability to compete with the public option, what then?****

Right, just like Fedex or UPS? Because its impossible for private industry to compete with gov't subsidies for people that would never be able to get insurance anyway or would be denied service. That makes sense. Take your strawman someplace else.

Telling the insurance industry that they must have caps on premiums (in these bills) and that they CANNOT deny based on pre-existing conditions (also in these bills) is a good thing. It might nip into their record profits but I think Aetna and Kaiser Permanente will survive.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

You are completely right, I think it is perfectly okay for a privately owned company to deny me or anyone else based on a "pre-existing condition". .


Research state laws on pre-ex. States have carriers of last resort that CANNOT deny you coverage based on this.

If you have a better idea, please do tell.

Obviously our government, the insurance industry, medical professionals can't figure it out so they need you.

If the better idea is give everyone a basic coverage that allows healthcare rights, fine.

Where do you draw the line? I need a medication that is new on the market and costs about $1500 a month. Do I "deserve" it? It might work. It might not, but I want it and it exists. I wanna go to the doc because I have a cold. Kind of a waste of money, I need kleenex, fluids and cough drops, but ok, let's pay for me to go BECAUSE I NO LONGER CARE...it doesn't cost me anything anyway.


Who draws the lines and where are those lines drawn are the ACTUAL issue here. Do you want the government drawing that line for you? Personally, I do not. People will suffer, either way. That is the part that drives me to distraction. There is no perfect solution, and where YOU think a line should be drawn will be far different than someone like Camel or someone like me, both of us having serious, long term and expensive conditions.

[Sinistrum]

Right, just like Fedex or UPS? Because its impossible for private industry to compete with gov't subsidies for people that would never be able to get insurance anyway or would be denied service. That makes sense. Take your strawman someplace else.

Yes because the USPS offers its services for free and people still choose to pay for UPS and Fedex, right? Oh wait, nevermind, you still have to pay at the post office. You're stretching here in order to compare apples to oranges Davian.

Telling the insurance industry that they must have caps on premiums (in these bills) and that they CANNOT deny based on pre-existing conditions (also in these bills) is a good thing. It might nip into their record profits but I think Aetna and Kaiser Permanente will survive.

Dude, I don't think anyone here has said the market reform aspects of these health care bills are a bad idea. I happen to think most of the consumer protections being tossed around are probably a good idea. The only thing I'm arguing against is the public option.

[Davian93]

Who draws the lines and where are those lines drawn are the ACTUAL issue here. Do you want the government drawing that line for you? Personally, I do not. People will suffer, either way. That is the part that drives me to distraction. There is no perfect solution, and where YOU think a line should be drawn will be far different than someone like Camel or someone like me, both of us having serious, long term and expensive conditions.

But you're okay with your private insurer whose single overriding goal is to make money drawing that line? Gee, I wonder what they'll decide when you ask? Maybe you should ask nicely...otherwise they might just say no. People bring up the "OMG, Obama's gonna kill grandma with his healthcare rationing?!?" BS and ignore that the healthcare insurance industry already does this everyday and is a far worse offender than the gov't would be. The fact that there are little to no regulations on the industry is pretty scary.

For example: Car insurance and health insurance are regulated in Massachusetts. Did either private industry collapse as result of this evil gov't interference? Nope, no they didn't. The big auto insurers refused to provide coverage because while they were making a good profit, they weren't making a colossal profite anymore. So smaller insurers moved in and life moved on. Regulating an out of control industry is not a bad thing.

[Davian93]

Yes because the USPS offers its services for free and people still choose to pay for UPS and Fedex, right? Oh wait, nevermind, you still have to pay at the post office. You're stretching here in order to compare apples to oranges Davian.



Dude, I don't think anyone here has said the market reform aspects of these health care bills are a bad idea. I happen to think most of the consumer protections being tossed around are probably a good idea. The only thing I'm arguing against is the public option.

You'd still likely have to pay at least a moderate premium for the "public option". It would only be completely indigent people that wouldn't be paying. Thus the comparison is the same. Hell, even the USPS uses Fedex because Fedex is cheaper than the gov't so the competition issue is not a big deal, regardless of what they say.

VT offers a public option, Mass offers a public option and yet I still have BCBS because of a couple reasons: I can afford it and VT wouldn't let me buy their public option due to my income. Ensuring that people will not be denied basic healthcare is the heart of these bills. None of the 5 or so competing bills have any type of massive universal healthcare that will eliminate private insurers yet that is what the counter-argument is. Its reached ridiculous portions for the back and forth in the national forum.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Ensuring that people will not be denied basic healthcare is the heart of these bills.


Define Basic Health Care

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

The fact that there are little to no regulations on the industry is pretty scary.



Little to no regs? Really. I forgot, I don't devote my ENTIRE career to analyzing and explaining these regulations to people.

[Davian93]

Define Basic Health Care

What my basic BCBS plan provides me. Anything deemed necessary by a doctor to keep me living as well as preventative care. Not elective surgeries, spa memberships, massages, acupuncture, etc but what your average healthcare insurance. If I have a chronic condition (say kidney disease) I dont have to worry about my regular monthly prescriptions, regular checkups and labwork and other stuff that I would otherwise be screwed out of without insurance. Basically, Medicaid/Medicare

[Davian93]

Little to no regs? Really. I forgot, I don't devote my ENTIRE career to analyzing and explaining these regulations to people.

Please explain why people can be denied so often when said care suddenly becomes expensive for the insurer then.

[Ivhon]

These are choices people make. You are taking a chance and hoping YOU WON'T GET SICK. I hate to break it to you, but most of you will if you are not already. And you think the government...the GOVERNMENT = us divided a billion ways...should pay for you? Um. Maybe you could try this thing called insurance. It is there in case you need it. Not a guarantee that you get the best, the newest, the greatest, but it can help keep you out of bankruptcy. Oh. You don't want to pay for it? Ok. Then take the risk that you will stay healthy and if you don't...then figure out how to pay that $100,000 hospital bill.

Bolded the flaw in the argument. You pay for it, but there is no guarantee at all that it will be there when you need it. They will do their utmost to make sure it isn't (because their primary obligation is to the shareholder...not the customer). Their lawyers are better than yours. They have more time than you. They sure as hell have more money than you.

As for my taxes going to the military. Well. If I had any say in it - which of course I don't - I would take $300Bil/annum wasted on a bogus war that we were lied into and give us a GOOD (this thing that passed yesterday is PBR) bill that regulates insurance companies and HMOs so that they are profitting - not profiteering off of my misfortune. It's a matter of choosing priorities. Currently, the military warmaking complex holds sway and therefore it is termed a fundamental necessity of government to make weapons and wage war. Good profit for Haliburton and Blackwater. People who are more pacifist would prefer to have the well-being of the citizenship be a priority of where our tax dollars are spent. However, we are in a minority and therefore that priority is ridiculed as ass-wiping and wasteful. This is what being in a Democracy is about. Also what being in a Democracy is about is raising voices and trying to change public opinion to affect a change in those priorities. THIS is fundamentally what the healthcare/insurance debate is about. Enough of taking an ever-increasing percentage of my salary and paying out an ever-decreasing amount of "benefits (that term always makes me LOL)" so that you (insurance/HMO execs) can live in larger Italian villas. Im paying...PROVIDE THE GOD DAMN SERVICE.

It's like paying a monthly amount to a lawn service who will clean and landscape your lawn - unless a weed grows in it. So you pull all the weeds before they come and they tell you that their underwriting department has determined that grass is now classified as a weed. Sorry no refund and you can't drop the service until October 12th of next year between the hours of 9AM-Noon pacific island time.

So yes. The insurance companies are a BIG part of the problem. Another big part of the problem is the HMO structure of for-profit assessment. This is justified as being defensive against frivolous lawsuits with some (but debateable) justification. However, it doesnt stop the bean-counters from giggling at the margins on the battery of tests you get.

Another big problem is the sedentary fat/sugar/no exercise/spend all day arguing on message boards lifestyle that we live. How do we encourage people to change the way they live? $$$ is a damn good motivator. I dont have much of an answer on this one other than imposing vice taxes and using that tax money to supplement the extra care required by fat alchoholic smoking druggies who jump off cliffs with only a rubber band to break their fall.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Deal with reputable companies and follow the rules. It is pretty basic. And if you don't understand something, ask. Don't assume you are ENTITLED to anything. This is a contract, and yes, they are privat industries...heh, of course THAT is a bad thing, my god I cannot believe the U.S. allows private industries!! :: smacks self in the head ::

I cannot begin to tell you how many exceptions I have to request for companies and their employees because they "forgot" to fill out paperwork, lied about information on said paperwork, didn't read their booklets, didn't make ONE FRICKIN phone call to a 1-800 number they are provided 50 times in a year.

Talk to your doctor, ask why you are getting THAT drug. Did you exercise today? No? oops, sorry you suddenly had a heart attack after being told for 12 years to cut down your cholesterol. Oh, you had access to health assessments to plan for the future of your HEALTH? You were too busy watching Dancing With the Stars to fill that out? Of course, sorry.

Oh no! Now I am sick and SOMEONE NEEDS TO PAY!!

Don't get me wrong, stuff happens to people without reason and I get that, but how EXACTLY are we supposed to plan for every situation that might come up? And how do we share that cost?

Oh, wait. I have an idea. Let's start these groups, these pools of people that consist of hundreds or thousands. Statistically, only 20% of those folks will be seriously ill, so let's spread the cost over the healthy and sick people and it will all work out. THAT is what insurance does. The problem is people get lazier and lazier, feel more entitlement and the way to fix problems get more and more complicated and expensive. You are fat? Ok, keep eating pizza, you can always get that weight reduction surgery. You only have to pay $500 deductible. But your COMPANY or the insurance pays the $50,000it actually cost. You have high blood pressure? Don't exercise, A PILL can fix that.

50 years ago, things killed people that today are fixable to the point of maintenance. Heart attack = death in 1900. Heart attack = hospital, meds, surgery and hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2009. What is better? Well, yes, we all want to live, but the issue is the 80% of folks who should be healthy and helping to support the 20% that cost the majority of dollars, the 80%-ers are NOT holding up their end of the bargain. And the scale shifts.

Like I said, this is a no win argument. People who say "national health care" will solve everything are not being realistic.

[Davian93]

Perfect example of the problem (came to mind due to another thread):

Lance Armstrong quit his job with one cycling team and signed a contract to race for another team but didnt start right away. In the two weeks between his last day with the first team and the startdate of his contract with his new team, he was diagnosed with cancer (as most everyone is aware). He had his surgery after the startdate of his new healthcare but was denied any coverage on all of his cancer related treatments due to a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION. He sold his car, started selling off possessions and was gonna sell his home when the CEO of Rayban (one of his sponsors and a good friend) found out about the issue. The CEO then called up Rayban's Healthcare Insurance provider and told them to cover Lance. They said no, its a pre-existing condition. The CEO then threatened to pull the company's entire contract with that insurance company but was still told no. Only after the 2nd threat (when they knew the CEO really meant it) did that company give Lance healthcare coverage and pay for his months of chemo and surgeries.

Yeah, hell of a system we got...can we please please keep it???

[Davian93]

Like I said, this is a no win argument. People who say "national health care" will solve everything are not being realistic.

People that don't give a damn and think that lining the pockets of a multi-billion dollar industry at the expense of people's live are not being realistic either. Or perhaps just heartless?

[Ivhon]

Perfect example of the problem (came to mind due to another thread):

Lance Armstrong quit his job with one cycling team and signed a contract to race for another team but didnt start right away. In the two weeks between his last day with the first team and the startdate of his contract with his new team, he was diagnosed with cancer (as most everyone is aware). He had his surgery after the startdate of his new healthcare but was denied any coverage on all of his cancer related treatments due to a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION. He sold his car, started selling off possessions and was gonna sell his home when the CEO of Rayban (one of his sponsors and a good friend) found out about the issue. The CEO then called up Rayban's Healthcare Insurance provider and told them to cover Lance. They said no, its a pre-existing condition. The CEO then threatened to pull the company's entire contract with that insurance company but was still told no. Only after the 2nd threat (when they knew the CEO really meant it) did that company give Lance healthcare coverage and pay for his months of chemo and surgeries.

Yeah, hell of a system we got...can we please please keep it???

Works great if you are Lance Armstrong.
Or have a personal lawyer to read each policy change, decipher the language and explain it to you. So you can spend your day off on hold on the 800 number so that you can talk to someone whose job it is to confuse you.

for the record. I am NOT for single payer. I AM for public option. I am all for private companies making a profit. However, anti-trust exemptions are patently unfair to the consumer. The individual consumer does not have the resources that the corporation has (time, lawyers, money, etc, mentioned before) and therefor needs some entity to protect agains predatory practices - such are being employed right now.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Wow, if I didn't know you better Davian I would think that was a slap at me directly. And pretty off base.

If that's how you feel though, I can't change your mind.

Btw. I have worked in this business for 15 years, with thousands and thousands of client/employees.

Once, just once, have I ever seen and insurance company fight a claim to the point of a lawsuit in a denial.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

And if I recall correctly, the Lance Armstrong thing happened years ago, prior to the HIPAA changes that don't allow that to occur anymore.

Those non existent regs though, people forget about them.

[Davian93]

for the record. I am NOT for single payer. I AM for public option. I am all for private companies making a profit. However, anti-trust exemptions are patently unfair to the consumer. The individual consumer does not have the resources that the corporation has (time, lawyers, money, etc, mentioned before) and therefor needs some entity to protect agains predatory practices - such are being employed right now.

That's exactly it. No one here is arguing for a single payer system here, just a public option and controls that ensure coverage for all.

[Davian93]

Wow, if I didn't know you better Davian I would think that was a slap at me directly. And pretty off base.

If that's how you feel though, I can't change your mind.

Btw. I have worked in this business for 15 years, with thousands and thousands of client/employees.

Once, just once, have I ever seen and insurance company fight a claim to the point of a lawsuit in a denial.

You're not gonna and I'm not gonna change your mind. I think its a basic human right, you don't. Its that simple.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Health care is available Dav. It's the question of who pays for it and who sets the rules.

Please don't insinuate I am a sick self absorbed son of bitch who doesn't give a crap who lives and who dies.

I am just willing to admit that it is not quite as simple as people are trying to say it is.

But, if you think that you are entitled to EVERYTHING available in the world without having to put in anything towards it and to play by the rules, well, then yup, I am a sick, self absorbed son of bitch.

[Davian93]

Now who is twisting the other's words?

Healthcare IS NOT available (read affordable) to all Americans and it wont ever be unless the industry is reformed.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Health care is available Dav. It's the question of who pays for it and who sets the rules.

Read it again.

Also, you still have not defined Basic Health Care for me.

Office Visit
Deductible
Co-Insurance Maximums
Emergency Room Visits
Prescription Drugs

Define what should be covered, what the limits should be. What is excluded. Who is covered, at what age, when does a company plan override it, how much should it cost (or be free) and how are doctors and hospitals compensated.

How is pregnancy covered for example?

Monthly visits, pre-natal vitamins, ultrasounds, basic tests, delivery (surgical or natural), medications, spinal block, nursery care, mother follow up, childhood immunizations.

Now tell me, does everyone get this? Who has to use birth control? How many kids will you cover, 2, 4, 16? Do you have to have a job, or can you stay home and just have 18 children? What if they have down's syndrome? Are we pre-natally testing? Do you allow abortion?

Back up. Am I entitled to fertility treatments to let me have children if I have problems? Testing, male & female. Injections, office visits, follow up procedures, labs.

Who sets the rules?

[Davian93]

You dont even agree on the basic premise but you ask me to write out something that would take 50 pages (likely a lot more) of exceptions and what specifically is covered.

Why don't I just scan in my current healthcare plan with its caveats and you can peruse it in your spare time (if you have a couple days)?

You'd rather have those coverages set for a for profit industry. I think that that industry needs to be highly regulated with a lot more restrictions than it has now and that there should be a public option (like Medicare) available to those that dont have any other way to get care. A large public option would lower costs for a lot of reasons but chiefly by its bargaining power (much like the VA system is able to negotiate with drug companies and get massive discounts while the current Medicare system is forbidden by law to do so to protect those companies from having to actually negotiate).

Your entire argument on providing these specifics is a strawman that detracts from the basic argument of "Should healthcare be affordable and available to all Americans?"

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Your entire argument on providing these specifics is a strawman that detracts from the basic argument of "Should healthcare be affordable and available to all Americans?"

No, it's not. Define healthcare.

[Davian93]

No, it's not. Define healthcare.

Yeah, it really is.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

If you want the taxpayers to cover it, Dav, you need to identify what we'll cover. Define Health Care.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

DEFINE BASIC HEALTHCARE Dav

you are saying it should be available and affordable.

DEFINE WHAT "IT" IS
and DEFINE AFFORDABLE

That is my whole point. What are you saying is a bacic human right?

Health care IS available. Go to the doc, go to a clinic, go to the ER. The issue is WHO PAYS FOR IT AND WHO DEFINES THE RULES.

Because it is too complicated for you, I am suddenly trying to divert the topic? Good try.

[Davian93]

If you want the taxpayers to cover it, Dav, you need to identify what we'll cover. Define Health Care.

Short Answer: Current coverage under Medicare/Medicaid.

You're looking for nuts and bolts. First we have to agree that some form of basic healthcare should be available and affordable for all. THen we have to get into the sausage making portion of the debate. You're looking at Step 2 while I am arguing for Step 1 to be an acceptable premise.

[Davian93]

Health care IS available. Go to the doc, go to a clinic, go to the ER. The issue is WHO PAYS FOR IT AND WHO DEFINES THE RULES.

Because it is too complicated for you, I am suddenly trying to divert the topic? Good try.

Not quite but good try. Yes, emergency care is available to anyone...though you WILL get a massive bill at the end. Then you have to find a way to pay for it...or just go bankrupt like a lot of Americans. You're trying to sidetrack the debate by getting into every little detail and posssible scenario while ignoring the basic issue.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Health care IS available. Go to the doc, go to a clinic, go to the ER. The issue is WHO PAYS FOR IT AND WHO DEFINES THE RULES.

Illegal aliens do it all the time.



What's really at issue? The Baby Boomers are retiring and we're getting an influx of illegal aliens in places like Cali and TX and Arizona. The remaining work force is too small to support these twin burdens. Therefore, everyone's screaming for an easy fix which will just fuck us in 10 years.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Not quite but good try. Yes, emergency care is available to anyone...though you WILL get a massive bill at the end. Then you have to find a way to pay for it...or just go bankrupt like a lot of Americans. You're trying to sidetrack the debate by getting into every little detail and posssible scenario while ignoring the basic issue.

Really? The homeless get billed? The illegal aliens get a running tab? I'm sure Ben Taub Hospital here in Houston would LOVE to get some of their money back.

[Brita]

Through all entities in its public-private system, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation in the world,[11] but is the only wealthy industrialized country in the world that lacks some form of universal health care.[12] (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_sy stems))

If you want nuts and bolts, there are a lot of countries to build programs from, like every other wealthy, industrialized country in the world. But hey, what does the rest of the world know? God forbid the US look to other countries for example.

EDIT- sorry if this came off as snarky, but I just don't understand how so many people in the US are so vehemently opposed to equal access to healthcare when the rest of the indutrialized world agrees this is a basic right. And our countries have laid all the groundwork, with many options, programs, mistakes, successes and plans to learn and gleen from.

[Sinistrum]

Because we've seen what it has done to you in terms of loss of economic and other freedoms, budget issues, taxes, and increases in illegal immigration, etc. And all of this supposedly wonderful health care that other countries have acheived has been done without them incurring the majority of costs associated with their own defense and territorial integrity. Removing American money and forces from things such as the U.N. and NATO and adding a reasonably sized defense budget would collapse the modern welfare states under the weight of their own demands.

[Brita]

You spend more than we do, both in GDP and per capita....

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Not quite but good try. Yes, emergency care is available to anyone...though you WILL get a massive bill at the end. Then you have to find a way to pay for it...or just go bankrupt like a lot of Americans. You're trying to sidetrack the debate by getting into every little detail and posssible scenario while ignoring the basic issue.


Sigh. The point is the "every little detail". Your basic issue is not a simple wave of the hand. I deserve healthcare...ok, I deserve to live to 102. Make it happen. The premise is flawed, we are biological and healthcare is a fix to an evolutionary issue. We start to die the day we are born. And you cleary state it above, the bills are HUGE. So if everyone, everywhere is gonna have it, how exactly is that going to REDUCE costs?

Dav, health care is available, not just emergency care as you state, that is completely inaccurate. Go to to a doc and PAY for it. If you can't, why is that the problem of the insurance companies? And why is it my problem if you are being lazy, unfocused, uneducated and not TRYING to stay healthy? If you want to be that way, fine, but why do I, me, myself, have to help pay for that in today's world?

Even if you have no insurance, you can get office visits, you can get Rx, you just have to pay for it. And, shocking as this may be, most doctors, hospitals and Rx companies are willing to negotiate and work with folks who don't have coverage. Again, people don't bother to try or investigate.

I am not saying people shouldn't have health care. In fact, I argue that people don't pay enough attention to this early enough in life to avoid the problems. I am arguing that this is not something that can be quickly and easily fixed.

Medicare requirements = you (or your spouse) must have worked for 10+ years and contributed towards taxes. Check your pay stubs, you DO pay for this, your entire life.

Medicare costs = for 2009? If you don't have the 10+ years, Part A costs $244 a month Part B costs $96 and change (regardless if you have 10 years in or no). And you have a $1000 (roughly) deductible. Medicare limits are notorious, you hit a limit, you are OUT of the nursing home. You hit a limit, you PAY for your meds, over $4,000 a year. You hit a limit, they can come after your net assets.

The point is, there are requirements that you have to WORK, you have to PAY, and there are LIMITS. Most folks who are on Medicare only are struggling day to day. The rest have supplements and advantage programs or savings to support them. Life isn't free, unfortunately.

[Orc]

Because we've seen what it has done to you in terms of loss of economic and other freedoms, budget issues, taxes, and increases in illegal immigration, etc. And all of this supposedly wonderful health care that other countries have acheived has been done without them incurring the majority of costs associated with their own defense and territorial integrity. Removing American money and forces from things such as the U.N. and NATO and adding a reasonably sized defense budget would collapse the modern welfare states under the weight of their own demands.

Hahahahahahahaha.... let me just read that again.... yup, still hilarious!

[JSUCamel]

Just throwing my two cents in.

Despite my support for the health care reform bills, I will point out and concede that there is always an option. It may not be pleasant, it may not be easily affordable, and it may not be easy -- but it's there.

I recently got a refill on my meds. CVS was kind enough to print how much the insurance company paid versus how much I paid. I paid $20 for my prescription. My insurance company paid (or was billed) $925.

I've looked into my insurance of last resort, and I'm fully prepared to take that step when I have to.

But I really, really, really don't want to. I don't think I should have to. But, you know, that's the crux of the issue here.

All I want, really, is the comfort of knowing that I'm going to be able to afford to live. I want to know that as long as I pay my premiums, as long as I do what my doctors tell me to do, and as long as I take my medicine, I'll be able to get refills.

As long as that's true, I'm satisfied. Not necessarily happy or stress free, but satisfied.

I do, however, think that health insurance coverage, up to a point, should be mandatory, especially with respect to emergency services.

To use your example, SBC, if I were a low-income worker, and I go into the ER and say I broke my leg in a car accident, they're not going to turn me away. There are laws about that, I believe. They'll treat me and then bill me $25,000 for it.

What if I can't pay the $25,000? I make $1500/month, my rent is $500/month, my car insurance is $200/month, my car payment is $300/month, then there's food, rent, clothes, hearing aid batteries, utilities.

What happens to that 25,000? It gets sent to a collection agency that tries to make me pay. But I can't.

My credit goes to shit, but there's nothing I can do because I don't have enough money. But the hospital never gets paid, because I can't pay.

What happens then? Like you said, it's not a matter of availability, it's a matter of who pays. But in this case, the hospital pays (or rather, doesn't get paid).

So tell me. What are the consequences of this scenario? And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's not an uncommon scenario.

[Davian93]

So tell me. What are the consequences of this scenario? And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's not an uncommon scenario.

I'll answer since I deal with this scenario almost everyday in my position.

First, you call the creditor and ask to arrange a payment plan. You offer something like $20-50 a month (a lot for you but very very little to them). They say no and demand a payment of at least 10% to start or something like a minimum of $500 a month. You can't pay it or even come close. If you're smart, you at this point go and get a decent bankruptcy lawyer. This lawyer/attorney will review all your financial information (I mean EVERYTHING) and then likely recommend one of two options: Either file for a Chapter 07 Bankruptcy that liquidates all of your debt (with a few exceptions like fed. debt, student loans, and tax liens) or a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy where all your debt is consolidated and you pay a single payment every month for a maximum of 5 years in an attempt to pay down or off all that debt. Likely you can't afford even that regular payment so you decide to file for Chapter 07 Bankruptcy. You (with your attorney) prepare your paperwork and pay the filing fee as well as attorney's fees (about $1000 give or take). At this point, all of your creditors are sent cease and desist orders and are not even allowed to contact you for money. After about 90-180 days, you go to Bankruptcy Court and 99% of the time, all of your debt is liquidated and the only things you can keep are a home (if you DO NOT have a 2nd mortgage against its value) and a car (you can affirm this debt as well and continue to pay it as it is often a necessity.). Then, for the next 84 months, you will not be able to get any credit whatsoever. You will have trouble even renting an apartment, no new or used car, no credit lines of any sort, etc etc. You are screwed. Your credit score is around 350 for a long long time.

However, if you just ignore the debt (as many people do because they are scared or simply dont know what to do), the creditor will constantly harass you for several months. After that debt is in collection (usually Medical debts are sent to collection within 30-60 days), that Collection Agency will harrass you, call your friends and find any way they can to get you to pay. However, you still dont have any money so you still ignore it. Eventually, they go to Court and get a Summary Judgment against you. This Judgment goes on your credit and is almost as damaging as a Bankruptcy. It is public record. A lot of places won't hire you with it on there, you cant get credit and you are screwed. Eventually, you still file for Bankruptcy but that Judgment (being a public record) sometimes cannot be liquidated in that bankruptcy (there are some exceptions that I dont recall without my references in front of me). So you are still on the hook for that Judgment regardless of your ability to pay. Even after you pay it and think it is gone, the original creditor won't take it off your credit report. You will have to make them. This takes a written letter to them and to the credit agencies. Oftentimes, people don't realize its still there till they try to make a major purchase (usually a home) and then they are screwed again because it takes a minimum 30 days to get it removed from your credit report so that purchase falls through.

Fun, eh?

[JSUCamel]

Fun, eh?

hummmm... the question was more along the lines of... since I can't afford to pay it (and therefore never will), how does the hospital get paid?

As far as I can tell, the answer is simply: it doesn't.

Which means, again as far as I can tell, that the hospital has to compensate for those losses by raising prices.

Am I wrong?

[Davian93]

hummmm... the question was more along the lines of... since I can't afford to pay it (and therefore never will), how does the hospital get paid?

As far as I can tell, the answer is simply: it doesn't.

Which means, again as far as I can tell, that the hospital has to compensate for those losses by raising prices.

Am I wrong?

I believe in a lot of cases that the hospital is subsidized by the fed and state gov'ts in that case as they have to treat them due to those laws. I strongly remember reading something about that a few months ago. They will TRY to get the money from you but regardless, they eventually get paid. It was something about a hospital that tried to deny service to an illegal who was in critical condition.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

So tell me. What are the consequences of this scenario? And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's not an uncommon scenario.

Complicated. First, a broken leg probably would cost $10K. And if it happened in a car accident, the car insurance would pay first, with remaining costs then sent to the medical insurance.

Again, choices. Do you have car insurance? Did the guy who hit you? His might pay first, with no bill at all to you.

Ok, ok, say you just fell and broke it...$10K

Yep, you will get a bill, yep if you completely ignore it, collection agency referral. But, if you call the hospital, they might discount it for you. Just a phone call...hey no insurance, help me. Ok Joe, $7,000. But pay us a little. Ok St Perpetual Rip Me Off of the Holy Red Cross Hospital, I can pay $20 month. Ok Joe, let's do that. For as long as it takes. I see hospitals agree to this ALL THE TIME. It will take me 15 years to pay you? That's ok, you are trying and we can bank it in our receivables for that time period. Just keep your word.

You don't believe me? Try it.

I have seen a hospital bill for preemie twins at $300,000+ reduced to $50K. Just by one phone call and seeing what assistance might be available. Is there a fund set up by someone to help others? This happens alot, you just have to ask. Hey preemie ward, is there any anonymous (or not) benefactor who has set up grants of some kind to help people like me? There is? WOW, thank you! When I get on my feet, I may be able to add to this fund.

Rx can be negotiated directly with the company that makes it if you try...if you are in a bad situation temporarily or even chronic situation that will never get better without the meds. I have see $1000 a month meds given to patients for free. Just TRY. They want to help you, I know that is hard to believe, but PEOPLE work there, PEOPLE answer those phones and most will try to help you rather than let you lose your home or die.

There are situations where people cannot pay and it goes to collections...eventually it will be written off as a loss. It could take ten years and ruin your credit, but a lot of folks here don't really seem to care if that happens to them. EVERY hospital has financial counselors that will help you.

If you are below poverty level, you are eligible for Medicaid. That seems to slip everyone's minds here too. Uninsured children can be covered by the state they live in. Low income families too.

Some doctors offer pro-bono (free services). Have you asked?

I have Multiple Sclerosis. I get it, even if people think I am heartless. The minute I was diagnosed I started planning for what might happen when I turned 40,50,60,70 -- will I be in a wheelchair? Will I be able to feed myself? Will I have someone to take care of me, pay my bills, drive me places? Guess I need to put money away rather than buying that new car. Guess I don't need those new shoes, I should put money in my savings account. The MS Society has financial counselors and they offer assistance. Hopefully I won't ever need them, but I will call if I do.

The companies that make the meds contact me ALL the time for surveys, for free trials. I joined mailing lists, I investigated what is out there. If I need help, it's there. You just have to get off your butt and look and ASK. It could be a full time job if you are really sick and really n debt, but again, it's a choice. I want to be healthy, I don't want to owe people money, I don't want to end up in a nursing home some day. So I am preparing now. If you aren't, why should I NOT be annoyed? If you aren't even trying to control your cholesterol, why SHOULDN'T that piss me off?

[Davian93]

The companies that make the meds contact me ALL the time for surveys, for free trials. I joined mailing lists, I investigated what is out there. If I need help, it's there. You just have to get off your butt and look and ASK. It could be a full time job if you are really sick and really n debt, but again, it's a choice. I want to be healthy, I don't want to owe people money, I don't want to end up in a nursing home some day. So I am preparing now. If you aren't, why should I NOT be annoyed? If you aren't even trying to control your cholesterol, why SHOULDN'T that piss me off?

That's the thing though. Sometimes, Sh!t Happens. I've seen too many cases where the person did everything right and they still end up having to file for bankruptcy and lose everything. No matter how much you prepare, it falls apart.

Say you have a couple, you are responsible and have a rainy day fund, you can survive on just one of your incomes so it sucks but is survivable if one is laid off. Then both get laid off, crap, bring on the unemployment. That runs out (it doesn't last forever). You can't find a job, not one that even comes close to paying the bills. Then your spouse has a heart attack. Bring on $50K in medical bills. Now, you have nothing left, you've gone through unemployment assistance, you've liquidated your retirement funds, stock portfolio, taken out a 2nd mortgage as you desperately try to pay all these bills. A good number of people do everything they can to pay their debts...they just don't ignore them. Eventually they run out of options and are $100K+ in debt.

I've seen this exact scenario at least a dozen times in the paset year...it SUCKS and its not fair.

[JSUCamel]

Complicated. First, a broken leg probably would cost $10K. And if it happened in a car accident, the car insurance would pay first, with remaining costs then sent to the medical insurance.

Again, choices. Do you have car insurance? Did the guy who hit you? His might pay first, with no bill at all to you.

Ok, ok, say you just fell and broke it...$10K

Yep, you will get a bill, yep if you completely ignore it, collection agency referral. But, if you call the hospital, they might discount it for you. Just a phone call...hey no insurance, help me. Ok Joe, $7,000. But pay us a little. Ok St Perpetual Rip Me Off of the Holy Red Cross Hospital, I can pay $20 month. Ok Joe, let's do that. For as long as it takes. I see hospitals agree to this ALL THE TIME. It will take me 15 years to pay you? That's ok, you are trying and we can bank it in our receivables for that time period. Just keep your word.

You don't believe me? Try it.

I have seen a hospital bill for preemie twins at $300,000+ reduced to $50K. Just by one phone call and seeing what assistance might be available. Is there a fund set up by someone to help others? This happens alot, you just have to ask. Hey preemie ward, is there any anonymous (or not) benefactor who has set up grants of some kind to help people like me? There is? WOW, thank you! When I get on my feet, I may be able to add to this fund.

Rx can be negotiated directly with the company that makes it if you try...if you are in a bad situation temporarily or even chronic situation that will never get better without the meds. I have see $1000 a month meds given to patients for free. Just TRY. They want to help you, I know that is hard to believe, but PEOPLE work there, PEOPLE answer those phones and most will try to help you rather than let you lose your home or die.

There are situations where people cannot pay and it goes to collections...eventually it will be written off as a loss. It could take ten years and ruin your credit, but a lot of folks here don't really seem to care if that happens to them. EVERY hospital has financial counselors that will help you.

If you are below poverty level, you are eligible for Medicaid. That seems to slip everyone's minds here too. Uninsured children can be covered by the state they live in. Low income families too.

Some doctors offer pro-bono (free services). Have you asked?

I have Multiple Sclerosis. I get it, even if people think I am heartless. The minute I was diagnosed I started planning for what might happen when I turned 40,50,60,70 -- will I be in a wheelchair? Will I be able to feed myself? Will I have someone to take care of me, pay my bills, drive me places? Guess I need to put money away rather than buying that new car. Guess I don't need those new shoes, I should put money in my savings account. The MS Society has financial counselors and they offer assistance. Hopefully I won't ever need them, but I will call if I do.

The companies that make the meds contact me ALL the time for surveys, for free trials. I joined mailing lists, I investigated what is out there. If I need help, it's there. You just have to get off your butt and look and ASK. It could be a full time job if you are really sick and really n debt, but again, it's a choice. I want to be healthy, I don't want to owe people money, I don't want to end up in a nursing home some day. So I am preparing now. If you aren't, why should I NOT be annoyed? If you aren't even trying to control your cholesterol, why SHOULDN'T that piss me off?

I'm not stupid, SBC. You've said the same thing about a hundred times in this thread. I get it but the fact remains that many, many people do NOT pay their bill. And if they DON'T pay their bill, then WE pay their bill, whether through increased premiums, increased rates, taxes, whatever.

That's why car insurance is mandatory in most, if not all, states. If I get into a car accident, and it's deemed to be my fault, then my insurance pays. But what if I hit your car, and you break your leg, and I don't have car insurance? Then you have to pay and hope that I can pay you back. But what if I can't? When do you get your money? Ten years from now, after spending thousands in legal fees to collect money from me?

But since car insurance is mandatory, then this scenario ends well. Your broken leg gets taken care of, your car gets taken care of, my car gets taken care of, and everyone leaves bruised and slightly less rich, instead of pissed off and bankrupt.

I'm ignorant as to how car insurance actually works, but that's my thought process here.

In this medical scenario, I don't have health insurance, but I have an emergency. When they bill me, I can't pay the bill -- not $100, not $10,000.

However, if I had health insurance, this whole thing becomes moot -- those doctors who trained for years to perform the operation get paid, the people who make those bedpans and sheets get paid, the EMTs get paid -- and the only entity I owe money to is my insurance carrier who, as Dav pointed out a million times, can do a heck of a lot to make sure I pay up my $500 deductible.

[Sinistrum]

Yep, you will get a bill, yep if you completely ignore it, collection agency referral. But, if you call the hospital, they might discount it for you. Just a phone call...hey no insurance, help me. Ok Joe, $7,000. But pay us a little. Ok St Perpetual Rip Me Off of the Holy Red Cross Hospital, I can pay $20 month. Ok Joe, let's do that. For as long as it takes. I see hospitals agree to this ALL THE TIME. It will take me 15 years to pay you? That's ok, you are trying and we can bank it in our receivables for that time period. Just keep your word.

This is precisely what happened with my trip to the ER last December. I ended up getting discounts from both the hospital and the doctors (since they are contract employees of the hospital they bill separately) and only had to pay $47 and $75 a month for each respectively on a bill that was originally over $2100. They will work with you as long as you make the effort.

[Davian93]

This is precisely what happened with my trip to the ER last December. I ended up getting discounts from both the hospital and the doctors (since they are contract employees of the hospital they bill separately) and only had to pay $47 and $75 a month for each respectively on a bill that was originally over $2100. They will work with you as long as you make the effort.

That's good when its $2100, when its $50,000 and its not an emergency (say its something like Chemo), they won't give you the treatment. They wont make an arrangment. They'll say "Sorry, you don't have the coverage for this, good luck with that"

[Sei'taer]

I'm not stupid, SBC. You've said the same thing about a hundred times in this thread. I get it but the fact remains that many, many people do NOT pay their bill. And if they DON'T pay their bill, then WE pay their bill, whether through increased premiums, increased rates, taxes, whatever.

That's why car insurance is mandatory in most, if not all, states. If I get into a car accident, and it's deemed to be my fault, then my insurance pays. But what if I hit your car, and you break your leg, and I don't have car insurance? Then you have to pay and hope that I can pay you back. But what if I can't? When do you get your money? Ten years from now, after spending thousands in legal fees to collect money from me?

But since car insurance is mandatory, then this scenario ends well. Your broken leg gets taken care of, your car gets taken care of, my car gets taken care of, and everyone leaves bruised and slightly less rich, instead of pissed off and bankrupt.

I'm ignorant as to how car insurance actually works, but that's my thought process here.

In this medical scenario, I don't have health insurance, but I have an emergency. When they bill me, I can't pay the bill -- not $100, not $10,000.

However, if I had health insurance, this whole thing becomes moot -- those doctors who trained for years to perform the operation get paid, the people who make those bedpans and sheets get paid, the EMTs get paid -- and the only entity I owe money to is my insurance carrier who, as Dav pointed out a million times, can do a heck of a lot to make sure I pay up my $500 deductible.

I absolutely hate this argument for a number of reasons.

1. You can choose not to carry car insurance...and you can do it legally with no penalties whatsoever. It's simple as hell...don't buy/drive a car. Nobody talks about how those people cost the system by not contributing their fair share.

2. Auto insurance does NOT pay for tire rotation, brake work, oil changes, pre-trip check ups, air in your tires, etc. I've never heard anybody talk about how their car insurance was screwing them by not paying for a transmission to be replaced (depending on the vehicle, anywhere from a $3000 to $8000, and try asking your mechanic if you can make payments on it and still use the car)

3. Automobile insurance is not to protect you, it is to protect the person you plow into or the company that loaned you the money for the vehicle.

4. You can buy auto insurance from any company you want, anywhere in the whole entire US. There is no rule about which state you have to be in to get coverage from a certain company. Because this is not a factor, there is no insurance company basically monopolizing a state and driving up prices because you can't get insured anywhere else. But just because 90% of AL (Obama's number, not mine) is insured by one company, does that mean the company sucks or the gov't rules about selling insurance across state lines sucks?

IMO, the problems in our health care system really have been mandated by the state and federal government and have limited choice and caused prices to rise.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

And no one in Congress is willing to regulate the health insurance industry back to logical and reasonable limits, nor are they willing to allow Tort reform.

[Davian93]

You can buy auto insurance from any company you want, anywhere in the whole entire US. There is no rule about which state you have to be in to get coverage from a certain company.

None of the big companies will sell insurance in Massachusetts because of the regulations there that tell them they HAVE to offer insurance to anyone and the caps on the premiums. They dont make enough money so they said screw it and won't sell it. I had Progressive when I moved there and they said, "Tough luck, we won't insure you there.". So I got a local insurance and never had any issues. The world didn't collapse, just big insurance and only because they refused to make moderate profit instead of ridiculous profit.

Part of the problem with the insurance industry (as it pertains to medical insurance) is that they have an anti-trust exemption. Get rid of that and allow true competition. Cap premiums, offer a public option to those that want to pay for it, and insure the indigent aren't left to die. I am not arguing for a single-payer system like Canada or the UK (though I wouldn't mind it if it happened). Allowing the invisible hand to "regulate" the industry hasnt worked. Every year, premiums go up and my coverage goes down and I'm not the only one. Its ridiculous to allow them to do that.

However, I am scared (terrified actually) that this bill will end up being corrupted by the insurance industry and turn out to be the following:

1. Everyone must have insurance.
2. No caps or controls on that insurance.
3. No public option

This would be a cash bonanza for the insurance industry as we'd HAVE to buy their product or pay a massive fine.

If you make insurance mandatory to cut down on costs, you have to make it affordable and you have to offer a public option to those that cannot afford anything else.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

they have an anti-trust exemption. Get rid of that and allow true competition. Cap premiums,...


That argument completely negates itself. You can sell mustard, but it CAN'T cost more than $1.

And the anti trust exemption is a limited sphere, with many of the argued "pitfalls" actually controlled by state regs. All it actually does is allow sharing of loss data. Part of that was also in turn regulated by the HIPAA stuff years ago.

Try again.

However, I am scared (terrified actually) that this bill will end up being corrupted by the insurance industry and turn out to be the following:

1. Everyone must have insurance.
2. No caps or controls on that insurance.
3. No public option

This would be a cash bonanza for the insurance industry as we'd HAVE to buy their product or pay a massive fine.

I guess I don't understand your point in all of this.

You want true competition, but you want it limited. That isn't competition.

You want everyone to have insurance, but you want it controlled. So back to my question...who doesn't get it? Who gets part of it? Who gets the office visits, but not the heart surgery?

You want true competition, but you want a public option. Doesn't that by nature remove the competition?

[Tamyrlin]

Why do we insist that plundering each other for more money is the way to solve societal problems? It doesn't work. Great social programs feel morally good - but greatly detract from our sense of personal responsibility for our communities, states and country, and encourage us to worry more about how much plunder we get or are not getting (bank buyouts, tax breaks, credits for purchasing a new home, the list goes on and on) than how our neighbor is doing, or how we can contribute to its improvement....because remember, improving society is the Government's job! Thanks to these attitudes, when we get into Government, we fight to make sure people like us, that share our ideas, get the plunder they were denied. Luckily, years later, the other group gets in charge and makes sure to fight for equality of Plunder, because who doesn't like free money - essentially the argument of "you had a war I don't like that cost lots of money - so I think we should use as much money on ourselves". Two wrongs don't make a right. We tried to escape plunder a long time ago, in different forms, and now (over the last century) we are buying back into the same system.

Increased taxation (for anything other than protecting our individual freedoms) has not made us a better society and will never make us a better society. But I feel so much better knowing the Government is there to catch me if I fall! Go Government!

By the way - I'm all for initiatives by local citizens, or even at the national level, that do not involve the Government, or subsidies (more plunder), or Government incentive (more plunder), or tax breaks (more plunder). In essence what corporations should be - what they've become and what rights we've given them - that's where our Government (we) failed us.

[Davian93]

Many argue that the Socialist Scandinavian countries have the highest standard of living in the world and that its due to their high taxes. They beat the US on most markers for quality of life so maybe they know something we don't?

[GonzoTheGreat]

Somalia has much lower taxes. Wouldn't that be even more perfect than the USA is?

[Davian93]

Somalia has much lower taxes. Wouldn't that be even more perfect than the USA is?

They are free to join whichever militia group/murder gang they want...its a wonderful type of freedom. No Big Brother telling you what to do.

[JSUCamel]

I absolutely hate this argument for a number of reasons.


I'm going to quote these out of order, because they make more sense to me this way:

3. Automobile insurance is not to protect you, it is to protect the person you plow into or the company that loaned you the money for the vehicle.

Yes, I believe that's what I said. Auto insurance is designed to make sure that the not at-fault person is protected.


1. You can choose not to carry car insurance...and you can do it legally with no penalties whatsoever. It's simple as hell...don't buy/drive a car. Nobody talks about how those people cost the system by not contributing their fair share.


Yes, you're absolutely right. When you don't own or drive a car, you do not have to have auto insurance. Why? Because you're not posing a danger to yourself or anyone else -- financially or physically. When you're not driving a car, THERE IS ZERO RISK FOR AN ACCIDENT THAT COSTS A SHITLOAD OF MONEY. Thus, no insurance is necessary.

However, every single person out there has a risk of a health emergency. Some people have high risks for cancer, others for diabetes. You may fall from a ladder and break your leg, or you may fall from a ladder, hit your head, and die of hemorrhaging in the brain (it happened to my grandfather, a perfectly healthy man until that fall).

No matter how safe you are, how many times you wash your hands, how many times you go to the doctor for checkups, how many multivitamins you take -- no matter what -- you're always at risk for a health emergency. You are ALWAYS at risk. You could catch the swine flu, you could trip and break a limb, you could have a stroke or a heart attack. And most of these things you'd never see coming.

Now you can sit there and argue with me that you haven't been sick in 5 years, so why should you have to pay for insurance you don't use? Because that's the point of insurance. I haven't had a car accident in 5 years, but that doesn't mean that I have virtually no chance of getting into a car accident. You simply can't take into account external factors.

Mandatory health insurance makes sense for everyone. You can choose not to drive a car, and therefore not pose a threat to yourself or others. But you can't opt out of a health emergency.

2. Auto insurance does NOT pay for tire rotation, brake work, oil changes, pre-trip check ups, air in your tires, etc. I've never heard anybody talk about how their car insurance was screwing them by not paying for a transmission to be replaced (depending on the vehicle, anywhere from a $3000 to $8000, and try asking your mechanic if you can make payments on it and still use the car)

This is a good point, actually. I would, however, argue that tire rotation, brake work, oil changes, air in the tires, etc, are more equivalent to taking care of yourself (i.e. eating well, exercising, taking multivitamins, washing your hands, etc) than they are for doctor's visits. It's basic maintenance. No matter how many times you go to a doctor, if you don't take care of yourself on your own by eating healthy, exercising, etc, you're still going to crash and burn.

4. You can buy auto insurance from any company you want, anywhere in the whole entire US. There is no rule about which state you have to be in to get coverage from a certain company. Because this is not a factor, there is no insurance company basically monopolizing a state and driving up prices because you can't get insured anywhere else. But just because 90% of AL (Obama's number, not mine) is insured by one company, does that mean the company sucks or the gov't rules about selling insurance across state lines sucks?


This is certainly a good point (one that I don't think anyone here argues), but I don't see what this has to do with my earlier post.


IMO, the problems in our health care system really have been mandated by the state and federal government and have limited choice and caused prices to rise.

Not sure I agree with that, but only because I can't think of any examples off the top of my head to support that conclusion. Help me out here?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

They beat the US on most markers for quality of life so maybe they know something we don't?

Yeah, a smaller population and an inability to go outside 9 months of the year without having important body parts freeze off.

[Davian93]

Yeah, a smaller population and an inability to go outside 9 months of the year without having important body parts freeze off.

I live in Vermont, Gil. I already have both of those issues.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Mandatory health insurance makes sense for everyone. You can choose not to drive a car, and therefore not pose a threat to yourself or others. But you can't opt out of a health emergency.

Fine, it might make sense. But you demand a family of 4 who subsists under the poverty line to buy insurance at the regular exorbitant rates, and they'll go hungry, quickly. Forcing people to buy insurance will only hurt them in the long run. You're either going to have to have a public option, or force insurance companies to cap their rates. The population shouted a resounding NO! to the public option and the health insurance lobbies won't stand for the rate cap. Then what?

[Davian93]

Fine, it might make sense. But you demand a family of 4 who subsists under the poverty line to buy insurance at the regular exorbitant rates, and they'll go hungry, quickly. Forcing people to buy insurance will only hurt them in the long run. You're either going to have to have a public option, or force insurance companies to cap their rates. The population shouted a resounding NO! to the public option and the health insurance lobbies won't stand for the rate cap. Then what?

Um, the choice of the public option is actually fairly popular outside of Glenn Beck led TeaBagger rallies. It has polled as high as 77% recently. Its in Congress that there is an issue getting it passed and even then, its simply because its hard to get 60% of Congress to do anything.

[JSUCamel]

Fine, it might make sense. But you demand a family of 4 who subsists under the poverty line to buy insurance at the regular exorbitant rates, and they'll go hungry, quickly. Forcing people to buy insurance will only hurt them in the long run. You're either going to have to have a public option, or force insurance companies to cap their rates. The population shouted a resounding NO! to the public option and the health insurance lobbies won't stand for the rate cap. Then what?

Regular exorbitant rates? Oh, so this whole health care reform thing is to keep the status quo. Yeah, that makes sense. You're right. Let's spend months arguing about this and passing reform bills and stuff to make sure the prices keep going up.

You're right! What in the world was I thinking!

[Davian93]

Followup: 63% of Doctors Favor Giving Patients Choice of Public Option (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960)

Hmm, odd that doctors would want something like that.

Another good article on this issue: Doctors Say Current System Impedes Care (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105419421&ps=rs)

And Another: Rationing Already Exists (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106168331&ps=rs)

And another: Polls Show Strong Support For ObamaCare (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/opinion/polls/main5303015.shtml)

[JSUCamel]

Followup: 63% of Doctors Favor Giving Patients Choice of Public Option (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960)

Hmm, odd that doctors would want something like that.

Another good article on this issue: Doctors Say Current System Impedes Care (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105419421&ps=rs)

And Another: Rationing Already Exists (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106168331&ps=rs)

And another: Polls Show Strong Support For ObamaCare (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/opinion/polls/main5303015.shtml)

But everyone knows NPR is run by liberal nutjobs!

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

The one thing that I keep forgetting to mention...

regarding comparisons to European countries with universal health care:

Our country, to a point, uses health care more extensively to combat social ills that are not as prevalent in other countries.

Violent Crime(gunshots/stabbings/domestic abuse etc)
Mental Health (don't get me started on Mental Health Parity and how that could affect the assumed costs if mandated to be "Basic Health Care". No one has even touched on that yet)
Drug & Alcohol Abuse
Homelessness (and that one is circular...is this a problem because people can't afford stuff like health care?)

[Sinistrum]

When you're not driving a car, THERE IS ZERO RISK FOR AN ACCIDENT THAT COSTS A SHITLOAD OF MONEY. Thus, no insurance is necessary.

So cars and pedestrians never get into accidents with each other where its the pedestrian's fault huh? This is a classic example of what I'm talking about Camel, and why your concern for indirect harm is a pretty bad idea. Why don't we force people without cars to get car insurance just in case they decide to jay walk and thereby damage someone else's car? I mean that is a cost associated with our system of transportation that everyone else is having to eat without the person causing the costs contributing anything after all.

There's another point that I think both Camel and Sei missed but that supports what Sei is saying about the non-comparability of auto and health insurance. In many states, including Texas, you don't actually have to have auto insurance. You can drive a car uninsured as long as you set aside sufficient money in an account designed to cover liability, usually in between 10-100K.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Regular exorbitant rates? Oh, so this whole health care reform thing is to keep the status quo. Yeah, that makes sense. You're right. Let's spend months arguing about this and passing reform bills and stuff to make sure the prices keep going up.

You're right! What in the world was I thinking!

Actually, I prefer the caps, or a different option. Something has to be done. But go ahead and see what you want about my views. Personally, I think a public option coupled with letting me keep my private option is best. But fining someone for not getting health insurance is stupid, especially if they're wealthy enough to be able to pay out pocket.

And in Texas, you don't HAVE to HAVE car insurance, you do have to PROVE to the TXDOT that you carry enough money in liquid assets to cover a car accident. (I think it's a ridiculous amount like 50-100K, though.)

[Davian93]

Perhaps pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise every new drug they have (i.e. ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT...) non-stop? Perhaps there is a problem with a system that would rather medicate every little thing that could happen? Unless you really think that that many people have clinical depression and that many kids are really ADD/ADHD? Americans love a quick fix, a pill for everything and our for profit industry pushes that mentality over preventive care. In many cases, its been shown that a change in diet and exercise is at least as effective as medication in alleviating depression...what do most people choose to do though?

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Um, the choice of the public option is actually fairly popular outside of Glenn Beck led TeaBagger rallies. It has polled as high as 77% recently.

Remind me to pull out survey information and show you completely different responses to the same issue based on how the question is worded.


Vague polls, left and right wing reporting and Wikipedia sources continue to make me roll my eyes at this situation. We all disagree on this, and no one is 100% right or 100% wrong here.

I prefer to argue it out to make sure people are THINKING, not just listening to sound bites.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Perhaps pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise every new drug they have (i.e. ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT...) non-stop? Perhaps there is a problem with a system that would rather medicate every little thing that could happen? Unless you really think that that many people have clinical depression and that many kids are really ADD/ADHD? Americans love a quick fix, a pill for everything and our for profit industry pushes that mentality over preventive care. In many cases, its been shown that a change in diet and exercise is at least as effective as medication in alleviating depression...what do most people choose to do though?

And here, we agree. Completely.

Btw, drug companies advertise to get sales to help compensate for the 30 years of research they put into getting the drug out there. After the patent expires, anyone can make it. Why would I ever want to research, I can wait it out and make my money anyway by copying someone else with deeper pockets. Advertising is buying loyalty.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Perhaps pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise every new drug they have (i.e. ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT...) non-stop? Perhaps there is a problem with a system that would rather medicate every little thing that could happen? Unless you really think that that many people have clinical depression and that many kids are really ADD/ADHD? Americans love a quick fix, a pill for everything and our for profit industry pushes that mentality over preventive care. In many cases, its been shown that a change in diet and exercise is at least as effective as medication in alleviating depression...what do most people choose to do though?

Actually, I kinda think they shouldn't be allowed to do this. (Who the hell ever heard of restless leg syndrome before those commercials?) I actually find the asthma meds ones very insulting and they piss me off each and every single time. They make asthma sufferers sound like idiots with permanent congestion instead of an incurable condition. (Asthma IS NOT a disease, contrary to what they say in those commercials.) I imagine if you suffer from one of the other diseases they advertise for, I'm probably not the only one.


~muttesr~ Really? Asthma doesn't GO AWAY???? WHO'D a thunk? I'm so glad they're here to tell us these things!

[Davian93]

Remind me to pull out survey information and show you completely different responses to the same issue based on how the question is worded.


Vague polls, left and right wing reporting and Wikipedia sources continue to make me roll my eyes at this situation. We all disagree on this, and no one is 100% right or 100% wrong here.

I prefer to argue it out to make sure people are THINKING, not just listening to sound bites.

The lowest it has polled was in the high 40s when it was worded negatively, the highest it polled was 77%. The median polling shows it has pretty strong support.

[Davian93]

Actually, I kinda think they shouldn't be allowed to do this. (Who the hell ever heard of restless leg syndrome before those commercials?) I actually find the asthma meds ones very insulting and they piss me off each and every single time. They make asthma sufferers sound like idiots with permanent congestion instead of an incurable condition. (Asthma IS NOT a disease, contrary to what they say in those commercials.) I imagine if you suffer from one of the other diseases they advertise for, I'm probably not the only one.


~muttesr~ Really? Asthma doesn't GO AWAY???? WHO'D a thunk? I'm so glad they're here to tell us these things!

That's exactly what I'm talking about. All of a sudden, everyone has Restless Leg Syndrome or Fibromylagia (which is actually a pretty rare condition that completely sucks if a person really has it).

With the children/over medication thing, it used to be normal for some kids to act up or be more boisterous. They're kids, they're not supposed to sit around and never be excited. Now, everyone expects a child to be as staid as a 60 year man and freaks out when the kid wants to run around. Oh God, he must have ADHD!!!

[JSUCamel]

So cars and pedestrians never get into accidents with each other where its the pedestrian's fault huh?

No. I don't know the statistics that are relevant to that scenario, but I'm willing to guess that they're low in comparison with auto-to-auto accidents. I do know that in Alabama and Georgia, and probably other states as well, pedestrians nearly always have the right of way.

This is a classic example of what I'm talking about Camel, and why your concern for indirect harm is a pretty bad idea. Why don't we force people without cars to get car insurance just in case they decide to jay walk and thereby damage someone else's car? I mean that is a cost associated with our system of transportation that everyone else is having to eat without the person causing the costs contributing anything after all.

I don't think getting hit by a car is indirect harm. The auto insurance system makes sure that if an accident happens, everyone damaged is covered. When there's no insurance, there's no guarantee that the people injured or cars destroyed are going to be covered.

There's another point that I think both Camel and Sei missed but that supports what Sei is saying about the non-comparability of auto and health insurance. In many states, including Texas, you don't actually have to have auto insurance. You can drive a car uninsured as long as you set aside sufficient money in an account designed to cover liability, usually in between 10-100K.

So you have liquid assets of 50-100k? So what? What if the damages run up to 200k? What if your shitty driving puts me in the hospital and it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to save my life?

You can't cover that, but car insurance will.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Well, they were doing that as early as the 70's. They wanted my younger sister on it because she pestered her teacher with questions. My mother, wisely, told them, "You can't handle a 6 year old little girl? Why are you a teacher?"

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So you have liquid assets of 50-100k? So what? What if the damages run up to 200k? What if your shitty driving puts me in the hospital and it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to save my life?

You can't cover that, but car insurance will.

Actually, no, it won't. When my back was damaged in 2000, it took me three years of physical therapy, one steroid epidural injection and five years of pain meds so I could walk without a limp. You know what the asshole's insurance covered? 20K of that, plus the cost of my car. So, in total, I got royally fucked to the tune of an an extra 50K plus whatever my OWN PERSONAL HEALTH AND CAR INSURANCE could pay because some asshole didn't want to stop for a red light. Car insurance ISN'T the be all, end all of repairs and medical coverage. If you get in an accident you are only covered by what the jerk's policy covers. You CAN go after his personal assets, but if he's broke like the jackass who hit me was, and everything's in his parents' names, not even a lawyer can recoup those costs.

[JSUCamel]

First of all, you really suck at the replying thing, tree-wise, lol. Your posts are never directly after the person you're replying to. No biggie, just sayin'.

If you get in an accident you are only covered by what the jerk's policy covers. You CAN go after his personal assets, but if he's broke like the jackass who hit me was, and everything's in his parents' names, not even a lawyer can recoup those costs.

That's why in Alabama and Georgia there are minimum liability coverage requirements. The liability coverage must cover X amount of damages, etc.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So's Texas. The minimum is 20K personal loss, 20K property. (I think. I don't have the minimum, so I'm not sure.)



As far as the reply thing goes, I hit the reply button in the posts of the person I reply to. But then, I don't use the tree format. Not sure how else to do it.

[Sinistrum]

You can't cover that, but car insurance will.

You do know that most car insurance polices have police limits, right? And if the damages involved exceed those limits, the insurance company only pays up to those limits and you get to pay the rest. This just another reason why comparing health insurance to car insurance is a bad analogy.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Also, there's a limit on the amount you're allowed to have your health insurance cover, too.

[JSUCamel]

Also, there's a limit on the amount you're allowed to have your health insurance cover, too.

Yep, for instance, my health insurance will only cover up to $1 million in costs.

This just another reason why comparing health insurance to car insurance is a bad analogy.

Another indication you don't get analogies.

They're not exact comparisons -- they're relative comparisons. An apple is to an orange as a Volvo is to a Ford. That's an analogy. Of course apples aren't oranges and Fords aren't Volvos. But they're related: the first set are fruits and the latter set are cars.

Don't they teach this in lawyer school?

[Sinistrum]

Yes, and they also teach us to do more than just scratch the surface on our analogies, make sure they are more than just vague generalities, and also make sure that they actually make sense. Guess they don't teach that when they teach people how to be drama queens...er actors though. ;)

[JSUCamel]

Yes, and they also teach us to do more than just scratch the surface on our analogies, make sure they are more than just vague generalities, and also make sure that they actually make sense. Guess they don't teach that when they teach people how to be drama queens...er actors though. ;)

I think I've done far more than just scratch the surface of this analogy. I've made direct comparisons between how auto insurance operates (and why) and how health insurance operates and why it should be mandatory. Just because you disagree with my argument (that health insurance should be mandatory) in no way discredits the strength of my analogy.

Thanks for the ad hominem attacks, by the way.

[Davian93]

Yes, and they also teach us to do more than just scratch the surface on our analogies, make sure they are more than just vague generalities, and also make sure that they actually make sense. Guess they don't teach that when they teach people how to be drama queens...er actors though. ;)

I thought he had a Masters in Education or something like that...in addition to the Drama thing.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Yep, for instance, my health insurance will only cover up to $1 million in costs.

That's a pretty high limit. The company I work for, their insurance's cap is $250K. I am not on this insurance any more, mind you. It sucked.

[JSUCamel]

That's a pretty high limit. The company I work for, their insurance's cap is $250K.

Well, considering that my transplant and related services have racked up over $500k in costs (at least that's what my bills say), I'm not sure I think of it as a lot at all. And that's not including other services. Also, I had a really, really good plan at the time (and I was paying out the wazoo for it).

I'm not sure if prescription drugs fall under that limit, though.

I'm also not sure if, since I've switched providers since then, if that limit still applies. Hmm. Worth looking into, i think.

[Sinistrum]

Yes because your slight on my law school education was such a fair minded and intellectually honest debate tactic. If you're going to dish it out, then don't whine when someone else gives it right back at you Camel.

[JSUCamel]

Yes because your slight on my law school education was such a fair minded and intellectually honest debate tactic. If you're going to dish it out, then don't whine when someone else gives it right back at you Camel.

I was simply pointing out that you missed the point of analogies, which I think every lawyer should know how to use. Isn't that how you dumb things down for juries? I didn't say "that little school for scumbags", did I?

Let me check. Nope, I didn't.

[Sinistrum]

I was simply pointing out that you missed the point of analogies, which I think every lawyer should know how to use. Isn't that how you dumb things down for juries? I didn't say "that little school for scumbags", did I?

Let me check. Nope, I didn't.

Gee I wasn't aware you were the Master of Analogy. However, you might want to refresh yourself on the concept instead of lecturing me on it in the most abrasive, arrogant, and condescending manner possible, since yours just flat out suck. As I've already pointed out, auto insurance isn't mandatory. Your entire analogy is dependent upon the idea that it is, and since its not, it has completely fallen apart.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Well, considering that my transplant and related services have racked up over $500k in costs (at least that's what my bills say), I'm not sure I think of it as a lot at all.

I use the linear boards too, so my posts probaly fall randomly, that's why I try to quote who I am responding to each time.

Camel, check your policy, transplants usually have a separate maximum. So if you have a $1 mill max, you might have a separate $1 mill max on the transplant stuff. But make sure the claims were applied correctly.

[JSUCamel]

As I've already pointed out, auto insurance isn't mandatory. Your entire analogy is dependent upon the idea that it is, and since its not, it has completely fallen apart.

It is mandatory in some states, including the ones I've lived in. Just because it's not mandatory in Texas doesn't mean it's not mandatory anywhere else.

Are you even trying to disprove what I'm saying or are you just bored today?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Well, then, for Texas the analogy falls apart.

[JSUCamel]

I use the linear boards too, so my posts probaly fall randomly, that's why I try to quote who I am responding to each time.

Camel, check your policy, transplants usually have a separate maximum. So if you have a $1 mill max, you might have a separate $1 mill max on the transplant stuff. But make sure the claims were applied correctly.

See, that's what I thought. At least, I was pretty sure prescriptions would have a different maximum than inpatient and outpatient procedures, but I wasn't sure if it was specific kinds of procedures or just broad categories. I'll check out my policy though.

[Sinistrum]

Furthermore, you were the one who made the original blanket statement about it being mandatory in most if not all states.

That's why car insurance is mandatory in most, if not all, states.

Which you then used to support this statement.

But since car insurance is mandatory, then this scenario ends well. Your broken leg gets taken care of, your car gets taken care of, my car gets taken care of, and everyone leaves bruised and slightly less rich, instead of pissed off and bankrupt.

Thus analogizing to why you think health insurance should be mandatory. You were trying to garner popular support for health insurance mandates by attempting to claim that auto insurance mandates already existed, had a similar mandate, and therefore that the reasons for both were the same. That analogy is dependent upon your first statement being true about car insurance. Since I've already demonstrated that its not true that most if not all states mandate auto insurance the analogy falls apart.

[JSUCamel]

Furthermore, you were the one who made the original blanket statement about it being mandatory in most if not all states.

I don't see what's wrong with this. According (http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content20009.aspx) to (http://www.insure.com/car-insurancefaq/required-liability.html) my research (http://www.netquote.com/auto-insurance/news/states-require-auto-insurance-policies-754.aspx), most states (including Texas (http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/auto/frvp.html)) require liability coverage for for all drivers.

Thus analogizing to why you think health insurance should be mandatory. You were trying to garner popular support for health insurance mandates by attempting to claim that auto insurance mandates already existed, had a similar mandate, and therefore that the reasons for both were the same. That analogy is dependent upon your first statement being true about car insurance. Since I've already demonstrated that its not true that most if not all states mandate auto insurance the analogy falls apart.


OK, first of all, in several states (maybe not most, and definitely not all), auto liability coverage IS mandatory for drivers. Therefore, IN THOSE STATES, if you get into a car accident, YOU ARE COVERED.

Therefore, for the populations mentioned and the states covered under my blanket statements of "several states", my analogy holds.

Just because it's not mandatory in Texas doesn't mean my analogy doesn't work. It just means Texas doesn't have mandatory car INSURANCE. LIABILITY COVERAGE is still required by all drivers.

I'm really surprised at how dense you're being about this.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Car insurance still doesn't take care of everything, Camel. See my (personal) example above. Requiring mandatory health insurance (without discounts or a public option) would be catastrophic for the poor. Mandatory liability insurance already puts a great strain on them.

[Davian93]

Car insurance still doesn't take care of everything, Camel. See my (personal) example above. Requiring mandatory health insurance (without discounts or a public option) would be catastrophic for the poor. Mandatory liability insurance already puts a great strain on them.

Unless it was subsidized...ooh, ahh big scary Socialism.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Unless it was subsidized...ooh, ahh big scary Socialism.


Uh, gee, what the hell did I say before that I was in favor of, Dav?

[Davian93]

Uh, gee, what the hell did I say before that I was in favor of, Dav?

I know you are okay with it, Gil. It was directed at others.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I know you are okay with it, Gil. It was directed at others.


Then aim better. :p

[Sinistrum]

Um Camel, first off, you didn't say liability coverage. You specifically said INSURANCE.

That's why car insurance is mandatory in most, if not all, states.

Secondly, (and this why the idea of not having mandatory auto insurance is so important to my point) you have a CHOICE about what kind of liability coverage it is. You don't have to get it from the government and play by their rules nor do you have to get it from auto insurers and play by theirs either. You are still free to pay out of pocket if you so choose without incurring any penalties or obligations to other people or the government. With your proposed mandate for health insurance, this would not be an option.

Unless it was subsidized...ooh, ahh big scary Socialism.

And then we're back to how we're going to pay for it. And that comes down to holding people who happen to have more at gun point, taking what they've rightfully earned, and restricting their ability to earn it (ie general taxation) or inventing a money tree.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

...inventing a money tree.

I vote for that one. I've always wanted to see one.

[JSUCamel]

Um Camel, first off, you didn't say liability coverage. You specifically said INSURANCE.


Fine, liability coverage.

Secondly, (and this why the idea of not having mandatory auto insurance is so important to my point) you have a CHOICE about what kind of liability coverage it is. You don't have to get it from the government and play by their rules nor do you have to get it from auto insurers and play by theirs either.

See, this is where we differ. I don't think a government public option is restrictive, and I don't think it means playing by their rules. You have a very limited choice of health providers right now, just as you have a limited choice of auto insurance providers. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

You are still free to pay out of pocket if you so choose without incurring any penalties or obligations to other people or the government. With your proposed mandate for health insurance, this would not be an option.

For the liability coverage we're talking about for autos, you may be able to demonstrate sufficient financial assets to cover a $25k liability coverage mandated by your state. But just as Gil pointed out, a health insurance policy has much higher limits -- closer to $250k. You may be able to demonstrate financial assets to cover a broken leg, but 90+% of Americans can't demonstrate financial assets to cover cancer treatment or organ transplants.

If you can, then fine, go ahead and pay out of pocket. I'm okay with that. But the point I'm making is that states are mandating that drivers be able to cover any emergency liability costs, and I think states should also require that patients be able to cover any health costs -- whether through insurance or personal financial assets. And since 90+% of Americans can't do the latter, then the must do the former.

And then we're back to how we're going to pay for it. And that comes down to holding people who happen to have more at gun point, taking what they've rightfully earned, and restricting their ability to earn it (ie general taxation) or inventing a money tree.

I'm all for a money tree.

[Tamyrlin]

It's getting annoying, as it widens out. And it doesn't seem like this is going to end anytime soon.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

I have no problem with Socialism. My issues are with the lazy, sneaky do-nothings who take advantage of situations.

This won't equalize anything, it will just give more people the option to NOT work (or not work hard), NOT go to school, NOT pay for stuff, NOT plan for the future and reinforce the sad entitlement egocentrism that our country leans towards more and more and more.

Socialism means you get out of a situation based on the ratio of what you put into it. Amount of work = Amount of reward. I have no problem with that. I have a problem being optimistic that people will try HARDER.

[Davian93]

I have no problem with Socialism. My issues are with the lazy, sneaky do-nothings who take advantage of situations.

Socialism: Lazy, sneaky do-nothings take advantage
Capitalism: Lazy, sneaky multi national corporations take advantage.

[Davian93]

Read this article and tell me our national healthcare system isn't fvcked up.


Wife’s cancer prompts man to enlist
By Mark Johnson of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Oct. 18, 2009

56 days .&ensp.&ensp. 55 days .&ensp.&ensp. 54 days .&ensp.&ensp.

Chelsea Caudle began signing her text messages this summer with a countdown. At 14 years old, she knew no better way to express what was coming. Day Zero was to be Oct. 7, the day Dad left for Army basic training in Fort Jackson, S.C. He was moving 950 miles from their home in Watertown, 950 miles from Mom.

He was leaving, even though Mom was sick with ovarian cancer. Even though he had been at her side through two long, miserable rounds of chemotherapy. Even though she now faced the likelihood of a third.

In fact, Dad was leaving because Mom was sick.

In March, he was laid off from his job as a raw materials coordinator for a plastics company called PolyOne, where he'd worked for 20 years. His severance package had provided several months' salary, but by August the paychecks were winding down. Soon the cost of his family health coverage was going to triple, then a few months after that, nearly triple again. They needed coverage so Mom could fight her cancer.

Dad's solution: a four-year hitch in the Army.

So Chelsea counted down the days to his departure. When the countdown reached 49, the text message signature began to annoy and depress her, so she stopped. High school was beginning, her freshman year.

In the first week of class, one of the teachers asked: What do your parents do?

The question jolted Chelsea back to the shifting ground of her family. Mom was working part time at a Culver's restaurant, preparing for more chemo, worrying about how to pay the bills. In less than six weeks, Dad would enter the Army and her care would be covered.

The tradeoff was that he would be far away when Mom needed him home, when Chelsea needed him, too. He would miss all of her high school years. The band performances. Prom.

Chelsea thought of all his absence would mean.

When she sent her next text message, she resumed the countdown.

36 days.

***

Mom and Dad are Michelle and Bill Caudle, high school sweethearts now 40 and 39, respectively. They have three children: Chelsea, the youngest; Alysha, a 21-year-old working at a nearby Holiday Inn; and Little Bill, an 18-year-old ex-high school wrestler.

The Caudles are not fond of politics. Michelle and Bill have paid little attention to the shouting this summer over health care reform. They have not gone to any of the town hall meetings. They are well aware that politicians and interest groups would like to trumpet their story or dismiss it to score points in the debate - and they would just as soon avoid all of that.

"We're not activists," Michelle said.

But this year the national story of lost jobs became their story. And the saga of families losing health insurance was about to become theirs, too.

Except that Bill wouldn't let it.

True, he had been interested in the Army for years. And he could always request an emergency leave to come home if Michelle's condition grew dire (Army regulations allow this if a family member's death is imminent).

But for weeks before enlisting, Bill had sought other options. He revised his résumé. He answered "help wanted" ads, then watched the companies cut workers instead of hiring them. He interviewed for one job that would have paid $13 an hour - less than half of what he was making at PolyOne. He didn't get the job.

Finally, on May 13, his 39th birthday, he signed the Army papers.

He remembers thinking: What did I do?

Chelsea learned about her dad's decision when Michelle picked her up from school. It had been a bad day already: a problem with one of her teachers, then she had to do the mile run.

"I have something to tell you," her mom said after Chelsea slid into her seat. "Your dad enlisted in the Army. There's more: He'll be gone for four years."

Chelsea started to cry.

Two weeks later, Michelle Caudle sat in the office of her doctor, Peter Johnson, at Aurora Women's Pavilion in West Allis. Johnson has been an oncologist for 13 years, and despite the immeasurable sorrow that comes with treating cancer, he loves the work for the hope in it. He has shared the joy of patients who've lived to see birthdays, anniversaries, and the graduations and weddings of their children.

On this particular day, Michelle's latest tests had come back. Just six months earlier she'd celebrated the end of her second chemotherapy treatment. Now, the tests revealed tiny "spots," or changes on her abdomen, neck and lungs. Not a good sign. The measure upon which cancer hopes rise and fall, the CA125 number - Please, let it stay low - was climbing.

"I could lie to you but I'm not going to," Johnson told Michelle.

Although he could not say for certain the cancer was back, this early sign pointed to that possibility. The doctor compared her cancer to a chronic disease that would never be completely vanquished from the body.

Michelle broke down. For three years she'd been nurturing her hope in the face of uncertainty.

"I'm not going to beat this," she said.

***

Ovarian cancer is a stealth disease, shadowy and overshadowed.

Years of publicity about breast cancer have empowered women with the knowledge that they can catch the disease early by performing a self-exam.

Ovarian cancer has garnered just a fraction of the publicity, and the message has been decidedly more negative. There is no self-exam. By the time ovarian cancer has announced its presence, the disease has often progressed to the third of the four cancer stages. Once a woman has been diagnosed, her odds of surviving five years are less than 50-50. All told, the disease kills about 15,000 American women every year.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the day Michelle first walked into Johnson's office, she thought she had a cyst. Her abdomen felt tender and she was constipated. No one had said "cancer." Still, she had been referred to an oncologist and she was scared.

A CT scan showed a large mass, about 8 inches in diameter. Her CA125 level, which measures cancer antigens, was 21 times higher than it should have been.

The next day she went into surgery. Johnson spent more than four hours removing as much of the cancer as he could.

From that day forward, Michelle and Bill had a new job that superseded any other: fighting cancer.

Although the disease was hers, he would assume responsibility for meals and laundry and the things she'd always done but was too tired and sick to do now. Michelle passed some of the days curled up on the recliner, drained and queasy. Bill worked around her, cooking hot dogs and other simple meals. Chelsea made spaghetti and chicken.

Bill went with Michelle to her doctor appointments, surgeries and chemotherapies. When the cancer returned in 2008, he sat beside her as the doctor discussed what to try next.

He felt he had to be "the strong one," so when she cried, he did not.

Of all Bill's responsibilities, one rose above the others:

Health coverage.

***

The March 2009 layoff was announced months before it took place. Though the news was jolting, Bill thought maybe it wouldn't be so bad. He'd wanted a job a little closer to home than PolyOne, 30 miles away in Sussex. Now he could find something better.

But it had been a long time since he applied for work or sat for an interview. What do you tell people about yourself?

After sending out résumés, he got the feeling it didn't much matter. Even companies that had advertised for staff were changing their minds.

By the second week at home, he was struggling to find things to do. He cleaned the kitchen. He vacuumed. He exercised. He logged onto the computer and checked job sites.

The president's stimulus bill was helping laid off workers pay for the health coverage they had while employed. Between this assistance and Bill's severance package from PolyOne, the Caudles initially paid $136 a month for their coverage.

But in September, when Bill's severance package ended, they would pay $497.

In January, when they would be on their own: $1,370.

Bill needed a job. He needed health benefits. And a cursory look persuaded him that the answer would not be BadgerCare Plus, Wisconsin's public health insurance program.

Besides, he was leaning toward another idea, one that presented the Caudles with a quandary. The Army would solve their health coverage problem. In years past he would have been too old, but in 2005 the age limit for enlistment was increased from 35 to 40, and a year later it was raised again to 42. The tradeoff would be his absence from home.

In the end, although he risked leaving Michelle to fight cancer on her own, Bill chose the Army. He signed on for a job as a signal support systems specialist, a soldier who works with communications equipment.

"Seventy percent of the reason is for the insurance," said Bill's mother, Marguerite Hemiller. "He told me, 'I've always wanted to do something for my country and I have to help Michelle.'&ensp"

***

Enjoy the summer, Johnson had advised Michelle in May when they got the first inkling her cancer might be back yet again. There was no emergency, no need to hurry into another round of chemo. Not yet.

So Michelle tried to live her life as if cancer and health coverage were not calling the shots. She continued working at Culver's in Watertown. She enjoyed the return of her auburn hair after the previous rounds of chemo. She spent time with her husband and children, though it was not always easy to avoid reminders of what they were facing.

Bill began a vigorous program of jogging, pushups and exercises to prepare for basic training. Once a week, he went to the Army recruiting office in Watertown to train with other recruits.

In August, they celebrated a friend's wedding. As they slow-danced at the reception, Michelle wondered how many dances they had left. She leaned close to Bill's ear.

"That'll have to be good for the next four years," she said.

Bill reminded her they had another wedding in two weeks. Also, they had a week coming up at a cabin in the Great Smoky Mountains with Chelsea, Little Bill and Michelle's parents.

The vacation in Tennessee was a last chance for the kind of closeness the family would have to manage without.

Bill and his son went four-wheeling in the mountains. He took Chelsea horseback riding along a forest trail. Riding single file was not conducive to long conversations, so they savored the quiet.

Michelle and Bill had their time, too, sitting together at the cabin, then white-water rafting down the Pigeon River. Michelle enjoyed the cool spray on her face. The future stretched only as far as the next bend in the river.

One day they all hiked up Clingmans Dome, an elevation of 6,600 feet. There were benches every tenth of a mile or so. Michelle had to sit frequently. She found it hard to watch her parents, both in their 60s, waiting for her.

She had been trying to forget about being sick.

***

On Aug. 27 - 41 days - Michelle's summer ended. She sat with Bill in a private room in Aurora Women's Pavilion waiting for the official word on her latest blood tests. The doctor's office had called to tell her that her CA125, the cancer measure she hoped to keep low, had risen from 17 to 66.

"Odds are he's going to tell me it's back," she said.

Johnson entered the room and crouched beside Michelle's chair. There was cancer in her abdomen, he said. "There's some areas in the lung, too."

"Oh no."

"Not a lot," the doctor continued. "There's one area in the right side. There's a little area on the left side. None of these are big. We're talking three-eighths of an inch."

Michelle's eyes went watery. The nurse reached for a tissue.

"You know what? I brought my own," Michelle said, and her smile let everyone know it was OK to laugh. For a moment they did.

Johnson said there was no single area to go after surgically, but Michelle had responded well to chemotherapy. His soft voice outlined the chemo plan. "I'd suggest we start fairly soon," he said. Right after Labor Day.

Michelle bowed her head and Johnson leaned toward her.

"I'm sorry," he said.

During the car ride back to Watertown, Michelle told Bill there was one thing she wished she could do.

"I'd like to be a grandmother. I'd be a really good grandmother."

At home, Michelle wrote six words on her Facebook page:

"Cancer back. Sucks to be me."

***

35 days.

"I'm going to blow the whistle and you are going to jog."

Staff Sgt. Larry Finefield stood before Bill and half a dozen other recruits on an empty soccer field in Watertown on a cloudless September afternoon. Finefield called out each new exercise. The recruits shouted back in unison, then went to work.

Bill was surrounded by teenagers, kids who could have gone to school with Little Bill - in fact, one had. After 10 minutes of pushups, leg lifts and other drills, Bill's face reddened. Sweat beaded along his forehead. The teenagers were straining, too. Each time they jogged, a chorus of panting filled the air. An hour later, they finished by sprinting pass patterns one-by-one as Finefield hurled the football downfield.

"All right guys," Finefield shouted finally. "We're done."

This was a taste of what Bill could expect at basic training. He was building up his body.

20 days.

Michelle was more than a week into her new round of chemo. The exhausting ritual was familiar and she tried to approach it with humor.

"They have to draw my blood first to see if I'm healthy enough to be poisoned," she said one morning as she waited to be treated.

Chemotherapy destroys healthy cells as it attacks cancerous ones.

That's why nurses had to measure Michelle's white blood cells, red blood cells and platelets to be sure that she had recovered sufficiently from the previous dose and could receive the next without risking life-threatening complications.

And that's why Michelle's stomach churned and her energy vanished. The previous Sunday, she had gone back to sleeping in the recliner for a simple reason: "When you sleep, you don't feel sick."

As she slept, Bill cooked and cleaned. When she woke, he asked what she wanted.

"Who's going to baby me?" Michelle asked, anticipating the days ahead.

Now, as she sat beside Bill, waiting for the next dose of chemo, she still had no answer.

The pale liquid arrived in an IV bag. The pump pulsed, emitting a soft, mechanical whir as the liquid flowed. Michelle talked about going to work at Culver's. Might take her mind off things.

The bag was empty, the poison inside her. On the way to the car, she told Bill she might look for a new hat.

"I have a feeling I'm going to need it."

11 days.

The cake was for Bill, but the party was as much for Michelle. In the chemo cycle - two weeks on, one off - this was her break from the poison. She was ready to feel good again.

Friends and relatives arrived at the Caudles' backyard carrying dishes. Bill shook hands. Michelle wandered back and forth between the kitchen and the yard, smiling and laughing. She stayed on her feet until just about everyone else was seated.

"She's a strong woman," said her mother, Sharon Hutchins.

Both Hutchins and Bill's mother, Marguerite Hemiller, have accompanied Michelle to her cancer treatments. Hemiller, a nurse for 27 years, remembered that during the first months of chemo, Michelle would stand in the parking lot crying, not wanting to go inside. Now, Hemiller felt conflicted about her son's decision to join the Army.

"One half of me says, 'Go.' The other half says, 'You'd better stay,'&ensp" she said. "I know he's got to do it. He's got to get that insurance."

Hemiller lived without insurance for two years after she lost her job late in 2006. When she did not feel well, she diagnosed herself. That would not be an option for her daughter-in-law.

At the party, Michelle wore her birthday present from Bill: a Green Bay Packers jersey with the number of her favorite player, defensive end Johnny Jolly. Her birthday was still a few weeks away on Oct. 20, but by then Bill would be gone.

After dinner, friends and family sliced up a "Farewell Bill" cake decorated with an eagle clutching arrows and a shield. There were no songs, no toasts.

"We're kind of quiet," Michelle said.

By evening, most of the guests were gone. The Caudles lighted a fire in their outdoor fireplace and sat around talking until it was time for bed.

6 days.

Oct. 1, Chelsea's 15th birthday. A balloon and flower bouquet waited for her on the dining room table. Chelsea was at a football game.

In the living room, Michelle lay in her recliner, huddled under a blanket. She had turned the television way down, but the glow from the screen flickered over her, the only light in a dark room.

The chemo, administered two days earlier, had hit full force, nausea overwhelming her. During earlier rounds of chemo, Bill had tried to talk with her, to distract her. Now he knew better. He left her alone.

Posted on the door of the refrigerator were the doctor's orders and the date of her next appointment: Oct. 6. The same day the recruiter would take Bill to Milwaukee before his flight to South Carolina.

"It doesn't seem real yet," Bill said, coming in from the garage where he had been cleaning. "I don't know if I feel anything yet."

In the dining room, he had the list of things to bring: comfortable clothing, socks, underwear, shampoo, soap, deodorant, toothpaste, disposable shaver, $50, Social Security card, birth certificate and marriage certificate.

"I'm scared for when you leave," his daughter Alysha said.

Bill knew how the family felt. To help them prepare, he had written lists of the tasks they would have to pick up when he was gone. Weekly jobs: "garbage, cleaning the bathrooms and bedrooms, laundry, vacuuming." Biweekly: "dusting, cleaning the shower, recyclables." Monthly: "cleaning windows, running computer disk cleanup."

Seasonal: "mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, switching the furnace from summer to winter, then winter to summer."

Little Bill had arranged the night's dinner, a rotisserie chicken that came free with the purchase of 10 packages of Rice-A-Roni. Bill ate alone at the dining room table. Michelle slept. Then her cell phone began beeping.

A text message from Chelsea. The football game was over. "Get me."

Michelle called to her husband.

Bill grabbed the keys and headed to the garage.

***

Day Zero.

The separation came sooner than Chelsea had expected.

Her dad was not scheduled to fly to basic training until Oct. 7, but a day earlier he had to report to the recruiting office where a van would take him to Milwaukee. The recruits would be driven to a hotel in the city so that early the next day, they could be processed, sworn in and flown to their base.

Bill's family would not be there on the 7th. Hard enough to face one farewell. No one had the stomach for a second.

Besides, separation wasn't the family's only misery scheduled for Oct. 6. Hours before Bill left, Michelle was to receive her next dose of chemo. Bill planned to accompany her to the hospital. Chelsea, too.

This time, however, Michelle's blood tests were not good. She was not healthy enough to be poisoned. She would have to skip a week.

So, on a rainy morning, everyone, including Bill's mother and stepfather, waited in Watertown, watching the clock tick closer to 1 p.m. and his appointment at the recruiting office.

Less than an hour remained. Bill hooked up the camera to the TV and they watched a slide show of images from the past year. Here was Little Bill at his high school prom and graduation, and Chelsea at confirmation. Here was the Fourth of July parade, Chelsea marching with the band and holding the flag. Here was the trip to the Great Smoky Mountains - the cabin, four-wheeling with Little Bill, horseback riding with Chelsea.

"This is me dying," Michelle said, smiling at a photo of the climb up Clingmans Dome.

"You made it," Bill said.

When the slide show returned to Little Bill's prom, the family stood up to go. Bill grabbed his backpack. The long goodbye moved to the recruiting office.

The van was late. Michelle straightened her husband's jacket and hugged him. She talked about the last few months, how strange it had felt to have him home during the day instead of away at work. It would feel stranger still not to have him around at all.

"I'll find out how many times I say, 'I don't know. Ask your Dad. That's your Dad's department,'&ensp" she said.

Just before 2:30, the van arrived.

"Butterflies are coming back," Bill said, excusing himself for a last trip to the restroom.

The driver checked IDs, consulted his clipboard, then eyed Bill and the other recruit.

"You ready?"

Chelsea and her Dad hugged. It happened so quickly; all she could say was: "Bye."

In the parking lot, tears streamed down Michelle's face. She held Bill near the van, unable to find any words at all.

"I love you," Bill said. "I'll call."

And then he was gone.

On the ride home, Chelsea texted her cousin and her best friend.

My Dad just left.

No signature this time. The countdown was over.

***

Early the next morning, Bill Caudle learned that he would not be going to Fort Jackson, S.C. He was headed to Fort Knox, Ky., instead. He would be half as far from home - 475 miles instead of 950.

The moment he was processed at Fort Knox, his Army health coverage kicked in.

Having missed a week of chemo, Michelle is scheduled to return for treatment Tuesday. Her birthday. "Not exactly where you want to spend your birthday," she said, managing a grin.

If all went according to schedule, Bill would finish basic training in mid-December. Michelle would still be in the midst of chemo. She hoped to make it to his graduation.


Read this article and tell me our national healthcare system isn't fvcked up.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I can't, because it is. If it weren't for the fact that my dad's a vet, my parents would be destitute, if in fact, he hadn't died 10 years ago from one of the major strokes brought on by the Lupus that they originally diagnosed him with in the Air Force. Hell, he might have died even earlier because it hit his kidneys first.

There is no real treatment or chemo for Lupus.

[Davian93]

Okay, now read this story and tell me our current healthcare system isn't completely fvcked up.

Linky Goodness (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21343449/detail.html)



Parents Says 2-Year-Old Girl Perfectly Healthy
By Lance Hernandez, 7NEWS Reporter

POSTED: 5:56 pm MDT October 19, 2009
UPDATED: 10:47 am MDT October 20, 2009

ERIE, Colo. -- First it was a 4-month-old Grand Junction boy who was denied health insurance coverage because, at 17 pounds, he was considered overweight. Now comes word that a 2-year old Erie girl has also been denied coverage because she doesn't weigh enough.
Aislin Bates weighed 6 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. She now tips the scale at 22 pounds.

"She's perfectly healthy, yet she has become a statistic," said Aislin's mother, Rachel Bates. "There's no reason for her to be a statistic as a non-insured person."

When Aislin's father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan.

Now that Rob is working on his own, he's had to get new insurance. The company, UnitedHealthcare's Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says in part, "We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards."

"It took me by surprise," said Rob Bates. "I didn’t think that her size was that abnormal and that it was something that you'd consider to be unhealthy."

"I had no idea that this would be an issue, Rachel Bates added, "because we always had group insurance with his job. I was floored when a height-weight standard prevented coverage."

A spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare's Golden Rule said 89 percent of the people who apply for insurance get it. Ellen Laden, the company's public relations director, told 7NEWS that most insurers have their own propriety height and weight guidelines.

"Ours are based on several medical sources, including the Centers for Disease Control, and are well within industry standards," she said.

Laden, who said she couldn't talk specifically about the Bates' case, added that, "When evaluating height and weight, we typically utilize other factors as well in making a decision, such as medical records that show evidence of treatment or any underlying medical conditions."

The Bates say Aislin is undergoing treatment for an active gag reflex.

"It's very minor and she probably will only need therapy for a few more months," Rachel said.

Rachel told 7NEWS that both the therapist and her pediatrician wrote letters in support of the family’s quest to appeal the insurance company's decision. Both stated that Aislin is healthy and continues to grow.

"We would definitely like to see insurance reform," Rob Bates said. "We are not proponents of universal health care by any means, but what we want to see is that insurance companies have legitimate reasons for denying coverage."

State Senator Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, chairs the state's Health Care Task Force. She said, "If I were making the decisions, I think I would certainly cover this child."

Boyd said it behooves insurers to be reasonable when making their decisions.

"If insurers exercise reason, they're less likely to see mandates coming down the pike."

Laden said, "If a child did not meet our weight guidelines and the child was treated and continued to show steady growth for several months after treatment ended, in most cases we would reconsider covering the child."

Laden added that comprehensive coverage is currently available through Cover Colorado for individuals who don’t qualify for health insurance in the individual market. The Bates said Aislin is temporarily covered through COBRA, a federal program that allows people to continue an employer based health insurance plan for up to 18 months. The parents said it costs as much to cover Aislin under COBRA as it costs to cover the remaining three family members.

"You’d never think that something like size, something that seems so irrelevant to your health, would be a discriminating factor," Rachel said.

In the Grand Junction case, Rocky Mountain Health Plans changed its policy and now says it won't consider obesity a "pre-existing" condition barring coverage for hefty infants. The Bates are hoping United HealthCare's Golden Rule has a similar change of heart.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

There is more to this story. This is as close as I have ever seen an insurer come to discussing privacy issues. She is trying to tell the newsmonger that there is an UNDERLYING ISSUE as well.

Laden, who said she couldn't talk specifically about the Bates' case, added that, "When evaluating height and weight, we typically utilize other factors as well in making a decision, such as medical records that show evidence of treatment or any underlying medical conditions."

You are convinced insurance is evil, yet they are the ones WHO PAY FOR CARE. You aren't willing to concede that insurance, while not perfect, has/had a place in the world. Things will not improve or get cheaper by covering EVERYONE. It won't be free, it won't be perfect and it will allow more people to take advantage of the system.

Life isn't fair.

[Davian93]

SBC, you will never convince me that access to healthcare should not be a fundamental right. Other countries have done just fine with public healthcare, we can too. A system that can deny coverage for a 2 year old is a broke system.

[Ivhon]

SBC, you will never convince me that access to healthcare should not be a fundamental right. Other countries have done just fine with public healthcare, we can too. A system that can deny coverage for a 2 year old is a broke system.

This.

[Sinistrum]

While those situations are tragic Dav, they are neither my fault nor my problem. Therefore, it is not my responsibility to do anything about them.

[Davian93]

While those situations are tragic Dav, they are neither my fault nor my problem. Therefore, it is not my responsibility to do anything about them.

That's a pretty screwed up philosophy to have.

[Orc]

While those situations are tragic Dav, they are neither my fault nor my problem. Therefore, it is not my responsibility to do anything about them.

Do you feel no empathy for the child though? She's only 2 years old, and if anything goes wrong with her after her 18 months of health insurance is up, she's screwed because she's 'below normal weight' or whatever. I pay my taxes, and, here in Ontario, a special health care tax, and I'm (generally) happy to do so. I have also donated to the local children's hospital, because if anybody should have adequate healthcare, it's children.

[Davian93]

Do you feel no empathy for the child though? She's only 2 years old, and if anything goes wrong with her after her 18 months of health insurance is up, she's screwed because she's 'below normal weight' or whatever. I pay my taxes, and, here in Ontario, a special health care tax, and I'm (generally) happy to do so. I have also donated to the local children's hospital, because if anybody should have adequate healthcare, it's children.

I'm sure he would care if it were his kid and he couldn't otherwise get coverage or afford care. Till then, its not his problem.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

SBC, you will never convince me that access to healthcare should not be a fundamental right. Other countries have done just fine with public healthcare, we can too. A system that can deny coverage for a 2 year old is a broke system.

1. You do have access, the question is who pays
2. Other countries don't have the societal ills we have that are constantly addressed by ERs and health care providers.
3. For every person who claims public health care works in other countries, I can dig up one that says their mom died waiting to see a specialist about cancer.

We have to, at this point, agree to disagree. Please stop tossing up inflammatory news stories that have deeper discussion points and then ignoring the validity of the argument that healthcare IS available, it just ISN'T FREE & doesn't cover everyone and everything and won't be, even with a public plan.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Dav, I don't agree with Sini's policies 100%, but that was a low blow. He feels, like Sei, that any children he has are his own responsibility, and any problems they have are his alone. Where that deserves your condemnation, I'm not sure.


As far as that first family is concerned, he found a solution, the Army. Sucks he's got to be away from his family, but that option wouldn't even be open for someone like me or Bryan, or even you, now. That second situation, well, in Texas, that little girl would have medical insurance. Every child is eligible for it, IIRC. As SBC keeps pointing out, it's not that there is no health care, it's that there's no one to pay for it. Insurance is legalized gambling, you know. You're betting you'll get sick, the company is betting you won't. It was originally only supposed to pay for the big ticket items like chemo and CAT scans, not your yearly visits. But doctors had to raise their rates to cover their own insurance and medical insurance became a necessity.

[Davian93]

Its only inflammatory because you don't agree with it. You think it is okay to deny coverage to a 2 year old because of weight standards and a possible pre-existing condition.

Yes, the parents can go pay for that healthcare out of pocket...assuming they can afford it. No one is arguing that. That doesn't change the real issue of this type of BS denial of coverage on the flimiest of excuses.

[Davian93]

Dav, I don't agree with Sini's policies 100%, but that was a low blow. He feels, like Sei, that any children he has are his own responsibility, and any problems they have are his alone. Where that deserves your condemnation, I'm not sure.

Gil, I simply restated exactly what he said in his post above. I didn't make it up "While those situations are tragic Dav, they are neither my fault nor my problem". How is that a low blow?

[Sinistrum]

Yes and I find your philosophy of demanding I help and thereby sacrifice my hard earned money and my liberty to benefit people I know absolutely nothing about and have no personal connections to at the point of a government gun to be equally screwed up. And despite any protestations to the contrary that is PRECISELY what you are doing when you advocate for a public option.

Furthermore you and Orc can cut this strawman crap out your trying with regard to me being a heartless bastard. Just because I don't wish to be held up at gun point to help strangers doesn't mean I won't help people of my own free will. It has to be MY choice though. I feel plenty of empathy toward them. As I said, they're circumstances are tragic. However, I'm just not willing to have my income and my freedoms mugged by the government just to ease your bleeding heart. If their stories tug on your heart strings so much, why don't you pay for their health care instead of trying to force the rest of us to do it along with you.

Its only inflammatory because you don't agree with it. You think it is okay to deny coverage to a 2 year old because of weight standards and a possible pre-existing condition.

Or she and I thinks its wrong but think your proposed solution would do an even greater harm. If you weren't so blinded by emotionally based fanatacism on this issue, you might actually be able to recognize that distinction.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Your word choice.

[Davian93]

Yes and I find your philosophy of demanding I help and thereby sacrifice my hard earned money and my liberty to benefit people I know absolutely nothing about and have no personal connections to at the point of a government gun to be equally screwed up. And despite any protestations to the contrary that is PRECISELY what you are doing when you advocate for a public option.

Furthermore you and Orc can cut this strawman crap out your trying with regard to me being a heartless bastard. Just because I don't wish to be held up at gun point to help strangers doesn't mean I won't help people of my own free will. It has to be MY choice though. I feel plenty of empathy toward them. As I said, they're circumstances are tragic. However, I'm just not willing to have my income and my freedoms mugged by the government just to ease your bleeding heart. If their stories tug on your heart strings so much, why don't you pay for their health care instead of trying to force the rest of us to do it along with you.

Your argument boils down to "I don't want to pay for this one benefit so I shouldn't have to". Its akin to saying, "the military doesn't help me out, why should my taxes pay for it?" or "I can just buy a gun and fortify my home, why pay for police?" Its funny how you have no stated issue with paying for other basic services but balk so violently at ensuring basic healthcare to all Americans. What is the difference between paying to "protect and defend" Americans by supporting military spending but refusing to do the same for something like healthcare?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Because health care is wrapped up in personal choices, ie: smoking, that last 20 twinkies, the choice to play Guild Wars another 100 times rather than jogging a mile, even having children is a choice.

Military spending is necessary if you want to keep your country intact. It is not up to each individual citizen how best to defend it. It is up to you how you treat your body.

[Davian93]

Because health care is wrapped up in personal choices, ie: smoking, that last 20 twinkies, the choice to play Guild Wars another 100 times rather than jogging a mile, even having children is a choice.

Military spending is necessary if you want to keep your country intact. It is not up to each individual citizen how best to defend it. It is up to you how you treat your body.

Yes, like people that CHOOSE to be genetically predisposed to certain conditions.

Study after study has proven that lack of access to affordable healthcare costs far more in the long run as people simply won't get preventative care and instead use the ER as an acute care clinic.

And the Brits and Canadians didn't give up Freedom for their public healthcare, they gave up more tax money for a service that keeps them healthier than the US in the long-run. You act as if we aren't already taxed and that its a good thing that we continue to enrich private corporations at the expense of a large majority of Americans.

[Sinistrum]

Because there is an evident quid pro quo between myself when it comes to things such as military services or police forces. Both, given the nature of humanity, have benefited me in the past and are almost guaranteed to benefit me in the future. I have a directly vested interest in anarchy and totalitarianism being staved off. This is especially true in light of the fact that the rule of law and the existence of government are dependent upon government's ability to project force to back up its governance. You simply cannot have a government or law without force to back it up because otherwise, all it takes is one asshole willing to use force where the government isn't to collapse both. Ergo, cops and military benefit me DIRECTLY.

This is no where near true for health care, as our current status quo is demonstrative. Health care, much like welfare, medicaid, and social secuirty, only benefits me if certain conditions come to pass. It is does nothing for me as long as I either maintain private insurance (assuming I'd still have a choice) or don't get sick. All it does barring those two circumstances failing is provide for other people. Furthermore, as we've seen with social security, there is the strong likelihood that even if the triggering condition does manifest, the system will be so poorly designed and managed by government that it won't be there when I actually do qualify for it and need it. The possibility of getting free health care, if I'm irresponsible with my health, assets, and job situation, or if something catastrophic happens, and the government doesn't fuck up the system before I need to use it is NOT a quid pro quo for my hard earned tax dollars or the freedoms I'd end up sacrificing by giving the government control over my health care choices.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Yes, like people that CHOOSE to be genetically predisposed to certain conditions.

And I'm the proud [/sarcasm] recipient of one, what's your point?

Study after study has proven that lack of access to affordable healthcare costs far more in the long run as people simply won't get preventative care and instead use the ER as an acute care clinic.

They're still going to use the ER, Dav. Where did it say that would stop?

And the Brits and Canadians didn't give up Freedom for their public healthcare, they gave up more tax money for a service that keeps them healthier than the US in the long-run. You act as if we aren't already taxed and that its a good thing that we continue to enrich private corporations at the expense of a large majority of Americans.

No, actually, they're a different case, entirely. Our country has already proven it can't be trusted with our physical well-being. Just to use the Prohibition for an example, how long before we legislate ourselves in outlawing seconds at dinner? Or mandatory fat camps for the obese? Or a complete ban on smoking and transfats per a Constitutional Amendment? After all, like liquor, that would save us from ourselves, would it not?

[Sinistrum]

No, actually, they're a different case, entirely. Our country has already proven it can't be trusted with our physical well-being. Just to use the Prohibition for an example, how long before we legislate ourselves in outlawing seconds at dinner? Or mandatory fat camps for the obese? Or a complete ban on smoking and transfats per a Constitutional Amendment? After all, like liquor, that would save us from ourselves, would it not?

As I pointed out to Camel, its already happening (banning of junk food in schools, drug prohibition, smoking bans, San Fran attempting to tax sodas out of existence, ridiculous suits against fast food places). So this idea that our freedoms wouldn't be impacted by a publicly run health care system is simply not supported by the reality of the situation.

[Davian93]

The possibility of getting free health care, if I'm irresponsible with my health, assets, and job situation, or if something catastrophic happens, and the government doesn't fuck up the system before I need to use it is NOT a quid pro quo.

So everyone that doesn't have a job is simply irresponsible?

That's good to know. And people that get things like Cancer (lots of people that get cancer didn't do anything specific to make it happen) were being irresponsible with their health?

Also, it could be a quid pro quo if people actually supported it. It is in other countries with Socialized Medicine.

The odds are that both of us will eventually get some sort of serious disease. Its just in the cards. Regardless of whether we eat right, dont drink, dont smoke, exercise, etc. Sure, we can do all the right things and lower that risk but you never get that number down to ZERO. Additionally, one of my biggest problems with the current status quo is that private insurers can and have denied coverage based on the flimsiest of excuses (the 2nd article I linked is a great example of that and there are thousands more stories just like it). People don't PLAN to lose their job, to get laid off in a major recession, to not be able to afford private insurance with no support when all that happens (See article one about the army guy). Bottom line is that sh!t happens and even a boy scout can't be prepared for everything.

[Davian93]

They're still going to use the ER, Dav. Where did it say that would stop?

Yes, they'd use it for what its supposed to be used for: Emergency Care. If everyone has affordable insurance, everyone's overall cost goes down as we're not covering for the uninsured when we go to the hospital. Also, there is a direct correlation between the availability and affordability of preventative medicine with a healthier overall populace. A healthier population in turn lowers overall medical costs.

[Sinistrum]

Davian try actually reading what I wrote. I said being irresponsible OR something catastrophic happens. I've acknowledged that possibility with everyone, myself included. But just because I can't control everything that impacts my health status doesn't mean that it is incumbent upon everyone else to pick up the slack if I can't. I'm certainly not going to DEMAND AT GUN POINT that everyone else do so, nor claim that coverage for that possibility equates to equal value for the loss of resources and liberties that such a government hold up would entail.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

They'll continue to go to the ER because that's what they know. I doubt my GP will suddenly be overrun with patients.

Also, doctors can refuse any and all insurance and just lower their prices.

And frankly, for me, Dav, it IS nearly a guarentee I'll get cancer. As a matter of fact, my mother's came back (after being declared cancer-free). So, frankly, scaring me with a doomsday scenario where I'm dying with no coverage won't work. If there's a "public option" somewhere on the table, I want checks and balances on it and I want it limited.

[Davian93]

They'll continue to go to the ER because that's what they know. I doubt my GP will suddenly be overrun with patients.

It might take a while but people have proven they can change their ways. Eventually people realize they don't HAVE to go to the ER and it will change. Once you force the rudder over, the ship eventually changes course regardless of how big it is.

Also, doctors can refuse any and all insurance and just lower their prices.

They could but they won't...not voluntarily.

And frankly, for me, Dav, it IS nearly a guarentee I'll get cancer. As a matter of fact, my mother's came back (after being declared cancer-free). So, frankly, scaring me with a doomsday scenario where I'm dying with no coverage won't work. If there's a "public option" somewhere on the table, I want checks and balances on it and I want it limited.

I'm not trying to "scare" you. I'm just stating reality. These situations happen to Americans every day. I just want to live in a world where when someone gets gravely ill, the last thing they have to worry about is affording coverage.

[Sinistrum]

I'm not trying to "scare" you. I'm just stating reality. These situations happen to Americans every day. I just want to live in a world where when someone gets gravely ill, the last thing they have to worry about is affording coverage.

So essentially you want to live in a world with unlimited resources for everyone and perfect government efficiency. Gee let me bust out my magic wand and get right on that. Anything else unrealistic that you'd care for while I'm at it? World peace, faster than light travel, a politician with both brains and morals?

[Davian93]

So essentially you want to live in a world with unlimited resources for everyone and perfect government efficiency. Gee let me bust out my magic wand and get right on that. Anything else unrealistic that you'd care for while I'm at it? World peace, faster than light travel, a politician with both brains and morals?

Canada, France and the UK all have magic wands?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Uh, Dav.... I wouldn't even have been treated for my thyroid under those systems, because other than depression and dry skin, I was asymptomatic. They'd have thrown a Prozac at me and prescribed a lotion. I'd still be waiting on my first appointment with a specialist. And my mother would still be waiting to get her thyroid taken out in the first place because neither of us were dying from our conditions. But we would have been had we waited.

Just out of curiousity, Canadians, how does fertility treatment work in your country?

[Zanguini]

I dont see how you can equate public health care with government forcing people to go to fat camp, or any other such methods. Isnt health care about how to pay for medical care and not about the treatments avaliable? I dont care either way as I am a veteran and get free coverage anyhow.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

No, health insurance is how you pay for it. Health care is your treatments.

You start insisting the taxpayers pay for your health care, be your health insurance, don't you think they have a right to dictate how their money's spent? At least with a private only insurance, if one company said, "No, you're too fat," you could go to another company, as long as it was within your state, you can shop around. Private health insurance already dictates those things. Why shouldn't a public one?

[Zanguini]

Well your paying for my goverment health care right now... Am I too fat?

[Sinistrum]

Zan the issue of how to pay is going to exist regardless of whether its done private or through the government. Fats camps and the like are directly connected to that issue because one of the ways government can and WILL come up with to control costs is to control behaviors that have a link to those costs.

Canada, France and the UK all have magic wands?

Yes because I'm sure their systems have never wrongfully denied or delayed coverage or never had problems with their budget. :rolleyes: I get your objection to private insurers denying coverage based upon stupid criteria. What I don't get is why you think the government would do any better, particularly in light of the fact that there are two threads already on active on this board that deal with governments wrongly denying services, one of which you started.

So the government isn't driven by profit. Big fucking deal. That doesn't mean there aren't other motivations (cost cutting, political ideology being injected into what conditions are covered and what treatment options are available, bureaucratic laziness, government employee power tripping, CYA behavior, lack of availability of suit as redress, pork projects that detract from necessary spending) that the government would be driven by that would lead to the same exact result. Same shit, different asshole, with the exception that we'd lose a hell of a lot more than just money and it would be a hell of a lot harder to fix because its being done by a government bureaucracy.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I want the health INSURANCE system fixed, I just don't think the government is the answer.

Zan: I don't know if you're too fat. I don't really care. Your health care/insurance is one of the perks you get for your service to this country. That I gladly pay for, as I pay for Bryan's and Davian's disabled status. That is a "Thank you for your service."

[Sei'taer]

1. No bill in congress right now covers 100% of the american people. The baucus bill is closest at 94% which is just barely at the level we are now without the gov'ts help.

2. For every article you post about people getting screwed in the US, I can post one for people getting screwed in Canada, England, Oz and anywhere else that has public healthcare. It's anecdotal at best...or that's what I was told when I posted similar articles.

3. I forgot what three was.

[Zanguini]

My brother has medicare...your paying for his health care is he too fat?

My boss' daughters child birth was paid for by medicare, does she now belong to the state?

If me going to a fat camp, though i am vet, will save you money will you send me?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I don't know, is he? I probably am. That's the point, Zan, I don't want it to come to that.

[Jonai]

Which bill turns the United States into Sweden? You know company massages, beautiful women, all that.

[Sinistrum]

Furthermore, it won't be me, Gilly, you, or anyone else on this board making that decision. It will be a government bureaucracy. And that is our point Zan.

If me going to a fat camp, though i am vet, will save you money will you send me?

And the answer those government bureaucrats will give you when you ask that question will most likely be a resounding YES.

[Zanguini]

But, Ive not gone to fat camp. And currently my health care is administered by said buracracy. And trust me the VA is the buracracy to eat all buracracies

[Sinistrum]

That's because the VA only serves a part of the population and thereby doesn't have the same kind of pressures a universal health care system will have in terms of costs.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

And the VA WILL NOT be in charge of the NEW WORLD ORDER, so to speak, so comparing whatever public health system we get to that is apples and oranges. The head of the VA has come out and said whatever legislation is passed won't effect vet's health care.

[Zanguini]

now to the other side of the question

Dav, health care in most VA hospitals, not to mention military hospitals in general are some of the worst. To the point if I have something more major than a checkup or advise or outpatient stuff I will not go to the VA. How would Gov't run health care system be any different. I am registered with the VA hospital in Little Rock which is mildly close hour and a half away. If I move I have been told that it will take 6 months or more to get approved to another VA hospital in another region. Were something to happen to me during this time its just too bad. Because my brother is on medicare doctors wont approve a surgery that would make him more mobile and perhaps be able to walk without extreme pain. But since he is young they think that he can learn to deal with the pain and the surgery is not required for his ongoing health.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Well, your brother's condition may not have anything to with Medicare. They refused to operate on my back because there was too high a chance something would go wrong ad I'd never walk again. It's taken quite a few years and a painkiller addiction or two, but I can walk without pain, for the most part. Their reasoning was the same: you're young, you'll deal.

[Zanguini]

oh no the operation is adding a disk under the knee cap, its a reletively simple procedure. without it he will be in pain there is no question of that. The doctors think he will just get used to the pain over time. It wont go away unless he has this particular surgery.

[Brita]

Uh, Dav.... I wouldn't even have been treated for my thyroid under those systems, because other than depression and dry skin, I was asymptomatic. They'd have thrown a Prozac at me and prescribed a lotion. I'd still be waiting on my first appointment with a specialist. And my mother would still be waiting to get her thyroid taken out in the first place because neither of us were dying from our conditions. But we would have been had we waited.


Gil, that is simply not true. You may have had to wait a bit longer, but you make it sound as though you and your mother would never have been treated. That's simply not true. And why do you think our system wouldn't look into your symptoms as closely as the US system? Why would you say socialized health care would just throw Prozac at you and ignore you? Our stats show we have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, both benchmarks of country's health and health care, yet you seem to imply that we are backwards and useless, leaving thyroid disorders undiagnosed and untreated.

Please, don't slander other health care systems with misinformed ideas.

Oh- and to answer your question about infertility- treatments are not covered, and must be paid out-of-pocket. Although there is a recommendation (http://www.globaltoronto.com/entertainment/story.html?id=1931493) that some should be covered.

[1Powerslave]

You are convinced insurance is evil, yet they are the ones WHO PAY FOR CARE. You aren't willing to concede that insurance, while not perfect, has/had a place in the world. Things will not improve or get cheaper by covering EVERYONE. It won't be free, it won't be perfect and it will allow more people to take advantage of the system.

Life isn't fair.
I am confused as to the significance of who pays. The people who pay are the same whichever system you use. The insurance company doesn't pay for anything (they profit), it's people that buy insurance who pay for all the insurance holders. Equally, everyone who pays taxes (which is generally everyone in the whole country that has a salary) pays for the health coverage. The systems are equal in that the group that pays, pay for the health coverage of that same group. Those who doesn't pay taxes are the unemployed I guess, but they need and deserve health care as well, just as they need some financial support until they can get a job.

The potential for it being cheaper in a public health care system is very obvious. When you remove the middle hand that extract winnings (insurance company) out of the pool of money from the people, then you get a lot of extra money that can cover a lot more of costly medical procedures. And personally I see no reason why the government even need to break even in their health care budget. Having people in my country taken care of is worth a few extra percent on the tax. Especially in light of the west world's excellent living standard, that doesn't get much of a dent because of that extra percent on the tax.

I don't see how more people would be able to take advantage of the system. (I know those people will always exist). Unless you count the unemployed who of course should be covered as well, as every citizen should. Like every working citizen is paying taxes.


I have no problem with Socialism. My issues are with the lazy, sneaky do-nothings who take advantage of situations.

This won't equalize anything, it will just give more people the option to NOT work (or not work hard), NOT go to school, NOT pay for stuff, NOT plan for the future and reinforce the sad entitlement egocentrism that our country leans towards more and more and more.

Socialism means you get out of a situation based on the ratio of what you put into it. Amount of work = Amount of reward. I have no problem with that. I have a problem being optimistic that people will try HARDER.

The financial support for those who are unemployment is regulated so that it is not desirable to be unemployed of course. They of course do not have more money than the lowest paying job for instance. I don't understand how you can think that a significant amount of people, in this society of owning lots of stuff, would find it desirable to stay unemployed and live on the bare minimum of economic resources.

Jobs wont magically appear if the education level of the unemployed were raised a notch. There will always be that percentage of unemployed. And every job can't be a high paying one, everyone can't be a lawyer and affort costly insurance, some people will need to be cleaners inorder for society to go around.




I think the gist of it is
1) How we view the great majority of our fellow countrymen:
- as lazy do nothings who doesn't deserve any help and instead deserve what they got and what they don't get
- or as fellow countrymen that just couldn't get a job and happened to get sick because of, one of thousands of good reasons
2) The trust/distrust of the government/the corporations' intentions/quality of service.

[Jokeslayer]

The financial support for those who are unemployment is regulated so that it is not desirable to be unemployed of course. They of course do not have more money than the lowest paying job for instance.

I don't see that there's any "of course" about this. It may be the case where you are that the lowest paid jobs pay better than government handouts, but I know that at least here in the UK that's not true. Under the right circumstances, it's completely possible for someone to make more money from being unemployed than they would at minimum wage. There's even forms and stuff they make you fill in when you're coming off benefits to make sure you're not about to lose money.

[Sei'taer]

I don't see that there's any "of course" about this. It may be the case where you are that the lowest paid jobs pay better than government handouts, but I know that at least here in the UK that's not true. Under the right circumstances, it's completely possible for someone to make more money from being unemployed than they would at minimum wage. There's even forms and stuff they make you fill in when you're coming off benefits to make sure you're not about to lose money.

When The Limey came to the US to avenge his daughter, he was on the dole...so were all the Trainspotting guys, except when Mark decided to go straight and quit using, he got a job...and I think Sick Boy did too. Spud took speed to keep himself from getting a job so he could just stay on the dole...Begbie was the coolest one though.

[Davian93]

now to the other side of the question

Dav, health care in most VA hospitals, not to mention military hospitals in general are some of the worst. To the point if I have something more major than a checkup or advise or outpatient stuff I will not go to the VA. How would Gov't run health care system be any different. I am registered with the VA hospital in Little Rock which is mildly close hour and a half away. If I move I have been told that it will take 6 months or more to get approved to another VA hospital in another region. Were something to happen to me during this time its just too bad. Because my brother is on medicare doctors wont approve a surgery that would make him more mobile and perhaps be able to walk without extreme pain. But since he is young they think that he can learn to deal with the pain and the surgery is not required for his ongoing health.

Zan, I am well aware of the limitations of the current VA system. I use it as my primary health provider due to the lack of copays and BS that Blue Cross Blue Shield otherwise puts me through. The biggest problem with the VA is that Bush gutted their budget back in the early 2000s and ended up firing about 4000 doctors. Then he went and started 2 wars that vastly increased the number of veterans needing care. Thus, we have huge wait times for some non-life threatening issues. For example, I had to have a cyst removed from my earlobe a year or so back. I had to wait about 3 months or so to get in to see a dermatologist for the surgery. It would have been 4-5 weeks (perfectly fine for a minor issue in my mind) but I was bumped due to a emergency skin cancer surgery (DUE TO PRIORITIZATION). I still got my surgery, post-op care and prescriptions for infection/pain prevention and never once had to pay a penny or turn over an insurance card or get 3 bills for walking into an ER.

As a national system would be funded by everyone and would be a hot-button item, they would never be able to get away with that type of budget cuts.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Brita Said:
Gil, that is simply not true. You may have had to wait a bit longer, but you make it sound as though you and your mother would never have been treated. That's simply not true. And why do you think our system wouldn't look into your symptoms as closely as the US system? Why would you say socialized health care would just throw Prozac at you and ignore you? Our stats show we have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, both benchmarks of country's health and health care, yet you seem to imply that we are backwards and useless, leaving thyroid disorders undiagnosed and untreated.


The longer WAIT may have killed my mother, Brita. You know as well as I do how quickly cancer spreads.

I shouldn't have said that about my own care. Until my mother found her problems, NOONE was looking at my neck and they were just throwing prozac at me. Why would a socialized system be different?

[Davian93]

The longer WAIT may have killed my mother, Brita. You know as well as I do how quickly cancer spreads.

I shouldn't have said that about my own care. Until my mother found her problems, NOONE was looking at my neck and they were just throwing prozac at me. Why would a socialized system be different?

If its anything like the VA model (even as poorly funded as they are), cancer patients (and any time critical people) get booted to the top of the list.

Tricare (Gil's complaint to "public" medicine) has alot of issues because their doctor's are so used to dealing with soldiers that are basically faking all sorts of issues to get out of military stuff that their first inclination is to sometimes just toss "prozac" at the patient and move on. Of course, that's why there is a Patient Rep at every military hospital (and civilian for that matter) and a 2nd opinion (for free) is a right under Tricare's rules.

[Zanguini]

Malandering is a crime and is punishable with two weeks in the stokade in Manheim and an other than honorable discharge.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

If its anything like the VA model (even as poorly funded as they are), cancer patients (and any time critical people) get booted to the top of the list.

Tricare (Gil's complaint to "public" medicine) has alot of issues because their doctor's are so used to dealing with soldiers that are basically faking all sorts of issues to get out of military stuff that their first inclination is to sometimes just toss "prozac" at the patient and move on. Of course, that's why there is a Patient Rep at every military hospital (and civilian for that matter) and a 2nd opinion (for free) is a right under Tricare's rules.

She wasn't a cancer patient, Dav. Not at first. But from detection to thyroidectomy was about a year and that was barely safe.

I was never at a military installation for Tricare. But in Houston, the best and the brightest, so to speak, don't take it. So yeah, I got treated for depression and bad skin. If public health care will be like Tricare, forget it. Who pays won't effect the doctors' abilities.

And Brita, like Bryan once pointed out to Ishara, just because it works for y'all doesn't mean it would work for us. As y'all keep pointing out, we're different on some very fundamental levels as a country and culture. What works for you and Britain would be disastrous here.

[Sei'taer]

Our stats show we have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, both benchmarks of country's health and health care, yet you seem to imply that we are backwards and useless, leaving thyroid disorders undiagnosed and untreated.



Infant mortality ratees are based on three factors.

1. Education. Our education system is run by our gov't. Our world scores are far below other countries. Minorities suffer a lot of problems because of inferior education in our country.

2. Family planning services. Our family planning services are well funded through donations and through gov't aid. The problems is that in general (very general because I only know about the part of the country I live in) minorities, black and latino especially, are leery of gov't. They don't like banks either, for some reason.

3. The presence of a trained attendant at birth. It may seem like we just dump these people off, but there are resources for pregnant women (especially teens). There are a lot of non-profits out there to help women who are pregnant get the medical care they need. I know women who have used it and they were very happy with the treatments and the help in learning to care for a baby. They were also pleased with the doctors and nurses. But again, in general, minorities have a fear of these kind of places. I don't really know why. Maybe education is the key.

Anyway, public healthcare helps in other countries, but I have a feeling it wouldn't in the US. There will still be that fear of gov't as far as I can see. I think it sucks that things are that way, but a lot of problems we have in the US aren't just the fault of one thing...it's the fault of several that didn't do the job they were supposed to do that all comes together to cause things like high mortality rates. If they were educated correctly, if they knew there were programs to help and had the education to find them, etc, etc.

Just my thoughts.

[Davian93]

I was never at a military installation for Tricare. But in Houston, the best and the brightest, so to speak, don't take it. So yeah, I got treated for depression and bad skin. If public health care will be like Tricare, forget it. Who pays won't effect the doctors' abilities.



You can't blame Tricare for the "best and brightest" not taking it. That's part of the BS in our healthcare system that needs to be fixed. Force all medical facilities to take any legit insurance. Get rid of the whole "in network/out-of-network" BS that occurs now. That's another issue you run into with a for-profit insurance industry. A military hospital would have likely treated you just as well as a good civilian one.

Malandering is a crime and is punishable with two weeks in the stokade in Manheim and an other than honorable discharge

Of course it is...and that doesn't mean it doesnt happen often in the military...particularly when an unpleasant deployment is imminent. I knew a soldier who admitted to me that she managed to fake her way into an unnessary major surgery on her legs just so she wouldn't have to do PT.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

You can't blame Tricare for the "best and brightest" not taking it. That's part of the BS in our healthcare system that needs to be fixed. Force all medical facilities to take any legit insurance. Get rid of the whole "in network/out-of-network" BS that occurs now. That's another issue you run into with a for-profit insurance industry. A military hospital would have likely treated you just as well as a good civilian one.

Tricare isn't taken because it's government Dav, it's not taken because it doesn't pay.

[Davian93]

Tricare isn't taken because it's government Dav, it's not taken because it doesn't pay.

Yes, I know that. Its the same issue that medicare runs into with some places (particularly rural hospitals) as it pays less than other insurers. Thats a funding issue and a issue with the private insurance industry. Its something that is easily fixable.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

How is timely payment an issue with PRIVATE INSURANCE when the public one doesn't pay on time or at all? What, fix it so doctors don't get paid at all???

[Davian93]

How is timely payment an issue with PRIVATE INSURANCE when the public one doesn't pay on time or at all? What, fix it so doctors don't get paid at all???

Fix it so tricare actually pays on time. Fix it so Medicare pays a fair amount.

[Zanguini]

I am sure with a public plan doctors would get a standard monthly wage. which would be part of the health care plan.

[Davian93]

I am sure with a public plan doctors would get a standard monthly wage. which would be part of the health care plan.

I think you're confusing a public option and a single payer system (like the UK or Canada). The public option would work the same as private insurance except you'd buy the insurance from the Gov't and not a for-profit industry. In a single-payer system, the doctors can be employees of the gov't. That is how the UK system works.

[Brita]

The longer WAIT may have killed my mother, Brita. You know as well as I do how quickly cancer spreads.

I shouldn't have said that about my own care. Until my mother found her problems, NOONE was looking at my neck and they were just throwing prozac at me. Why would a socialized system be different?

How do you know our sytem wouldn't have found your mother's cancer immmediately (and once confirmed cancer, she would have been top priority and there would have been no wait, let me be clear about that). Gil, your post implied that socialized systems would have let you both completely fall thorough the cracks. This is not based on any fact. It is only conjecture, and no one knows. I could conjecture our healthcare system may have diagnosed you both sooner. Who knows?

And your statement was a direct stab at socialized healthcare, not at healthcare or physicians overall, and their treatment of thyroid disorders. You specifically said "I wouldn't even have been treated for my thyroid under those systems".

I understand your emotion in this area, but please be careful you don't buy into the propaganda that is spread about socialized healthcare. Yes, we have some challenges, but we also have much success. To assume it is commonplace for people to be misdiagnosed, left wallowing with disease, untreated and ignored is not only misinformed, but damaging to the overall debate. By almost all measures our country is at par or exceeds health outcomes.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

The public option would work the same as private insurance except you'd buy the insurance from the Gov't and not a for-profit industry.


At this point, I am giving up. You are aguing things you DON'T actually understand.

Many insurance companies are non-profit. Recognize the name Blue Cross?


Quote:
Also, doctors can refuse any and all insurance and just lower their prices.


They could but they won't...not voluntarily.

Actually, this happens all the time. The specialists don't accept insurance. I had a client with a torn labrum, they wanted the best in the country to fix it...the guy doesn't accept insurance because he doesn't have to. He doesn't do it help people, he does it because he is MAGNIFICENT and wants to charge what he feels he deserves. He is not willing to accept insurance reimbursement levels which are deemed "reasonable and customary" for a procedure. So what happens when YOU want to see him? YOU pay for it. It is available, but it is YOUR choice.

Fix it so tricare actually pays on time. Fix it so Medicare pays a fair amount.

I am laughing this is so ridiculous. Your arguments run in circles. Medicare is government run. And you use it as an example of how folks CAN get treatment under the public dime (which is inaccurate, as I pointed out before, you do pay for this by WORKING!!!)

And the best for last:


Yes, I know that. Its the same issue that medicare runs into with some places (particularly rural hospitals) as it pays less than other insurers. Thats a funding issue and a issue with the private insurance industry. Its something that is easily fixable.


You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. None. Rural hospitals. LMFAO. Yep, that is the problem. Funding issue. LOL. Private insure, for profit. LOLOLOL.

You don't understand how this all works, but you refuse, refuse, refuse to admit you * might * not understand something and your solution, while well intentioned, is not as simple as you lay out for the world to believe.


This is my last message, signing off. It is pointless to argue with you, you are just taking a stand without actually understanding the depth of the situation and trying to make it seem as if this is a human rights issue.

Health care is available. Who is entitled to it. Should it have a monetary value attached to it. Who pays. Who makes the rules.

Those are the issues, and they are not easy solved. And I am sorry, just because something EXISTS does not mean everyone is entitled to it.

[Davian93]

I have never said it would be easy just that it IS possible.

I think its pathetic that you refuse to even consider the possibility of change.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

That's right D, when all else fails, slap. Where have I refused to consider change? I just don't agree with THIS idea, where the public gets a free ride and everyone merrily rides into the sunset with their weight reduction surgeries and lung cancer treatments when they have known their whole life they are fat and should quit smoking.

Again, to clarify. I do believe things need to be changed. I work in this industry and understand far more than you ever will. I actively participate in forums, industry feedback sessions, I call and write my government reps. I am here, trying to help clarify your misstatements to the rest of this board. I analyzed the presidential ideas and discussed them with folks, neighbors, family who didn't understand them. Most importantly, and something you seem to forget, I work, daily, trying to help people navigate the red tape. And while not perfect, it does work for most people.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

How do you know our sytem wouldn't have found your mother's cancer immmediately (and once confirmed cancer, she would have been top priority and there would have been no wait, let me be clear about that). Gil, your post implied that socialized systems would have let you both completely fall thorough the cracks. This is not based on any fact. It is only conjecture, and no one knows. I could conjecture our healthcare system may have diagnosed you both sooner. Who knows?

And your statement was a direct stab at socialized healthcare, not at healthcare or physicians overall, and their treatment of thyroid disorders. You specifically said "I wouldn't even have been treated for my thyroid under those systems".

I understand your emotion in this area, but please be careful you don't buy into the propaganda that is spread about socialized healthcare. Yes, we have some challenges, but we also have much success. To assume it is commonplace for people to be misdiagnosed, left wallowing with disease, untreated and ignored is not only misinformed, but damaging to the overall debate. By almost all measures our country is at par or exceeds health outcomes.

Brita, you also missed the part where I said the US is fundamentally different from Canada and the UK and I don't trust how we'd do this. How we'd do this would be utterly incompetently. If it were possible for us to do it well, why are Medicare and Medicaid, Tricare and the VA so damned awful?

I really don't give a rat's ass how other countries do the single payer, socialized medicine. We're not your country. I do not expect, with the absolutely STERLING examples I've listed above, that our government is capable of administering to the public health in a compassionate and efficient manner since it is incapable of doing so in other areas. For example, the USDA was once named the most efficient and effective government department in the US. What happened in the next fiscal year? It was gutted. Half its workforce was siphoned off to that totally effective agency, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and its budget was slashed to a quarter of what it had been. It's now limping along like a lame duck. We end up with a major crop infestation, you can blame CBP. (And no, this is not from Bryan, I watch the news.)

[Davian93]

SBC, How can you even consider yourself a non-biased source? You are directly supported by the industry in question.

The current system is clearly broken. You support the current system. You refuse to think about changing that system.

You haven't offered any changes other than to say the current proposed changes aren't good. What good does that do anyone?

[Davian93]

Brita, you also missed the part where I said the US is fundamentally different from Canada and the UK and I don't trust how we'd do this. How we'd do this would be utterly incompetently. If it were possible for us to do it well, why are Medicare and Medicaid, Tricare and the VA so damned awful?

I really don't give a rat's ass how other countries do the single payer, socialized medicine. We're not your country. I do not expect, with the absolutely STERLING examples I've listed above, that our government is capable of administering to the public health in a compassionate and efficient manner since it is incapable of doing so in other areas. For example, the USDA was once named the most efficient and effective government department in the US. What happened in the next fiscal year? It was gutted. Half its workforce was siphoned off to that totally effective agency, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and its budget was slashed to a quarter of what it had been. It's now limping along like a lame duck. We end up with a major crop infestation, you can blame CBP. (And no, this is not from Bryan, I watch the news.)

So, when properly funded, you are saying a gov't Agency CAN run things well?

[GonzoTheGreat]

You haven't offered any changes other than to say the current proposed changes aren't good. What good does that do anyone?In some cases, it may prevent you from throwing away a system that works at least occasionally well. If your replacement would be just plain worse, then that criticism would indeed be both valid and worthwhile.
Assuming it is listened to, which is not a given, I'll grant you.

Simply changing something because it isn't perfect is not always the best possible approach.
Now, I do think that it would be possible to improve the American system, but I am also quite willing to admit that your country seems to have a lot of politicians who I would trust to come up with an actually worse mess than what you have now.
Just for laughs: would you prefer a health care system devised by Sarah Palin over the one that is now in place?

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

SBC, How can you even consider yourself a non-biased source? You are directly supported by the industry in question.

The current system is clearly broken. You support the current system. You refuse to think about changing that system.

You haven't offered any changes other than to say the current proposed changes aren't good. What good does that do anyone?

I work because I want to. I don't have to. How's that for an argument? My husband makes enough money to allow me to fritter away my time any way I choose. And I CHOOSE this because I actually feel like I help people. My salary is indirectly paid for by companies. I help them plan their benefit packages. I DON'T tell them to buy private insurance.

Something to throw in the mix...companies can actually SELF FUND their medical costs. They pay for services as they arise and pay the providers through an administrator. Insurance is available in these situation ONLY on catastrophic siatuations (called stop loss) where one claim exceeds $50k, $100K, $500K. Some companies don't even buy stop loss.

You likely wouldn't understand my suggestions. :D

That isn't a snotty response, it is just a statement based on the conversations on this board.

I can tell I am making you mad Davian, and tone of voice is important--and lacking on this environment--you need to realize I am not trying to be a witch here...I just feel strongly that government run healthcare is a very, very bad idea. Gil and Sini have covered that base pretty well, I haven't felt the need to add to their comments. I also feel most of the public does not understand this...and when the Facebook anthems started about EVERYONE DESERVES HEALTHCARE, I lost it. Do I want everyone to be healthy and happy? Of course I do. Do I want children to get cancer care? Of course I do. But look at the H1n1 hoopla right now. Backlash is already starting about the vaccine and people are saying...NOT MY KID!!! I worry about the gut reaction, the immediate dig-my-heels-in-and-don't-budge that happens with the general public. They listen to sound bites, read a headline and think they are experts.

[Brita]

Brita, you also missed the part where I said the US is fundamentally different from Canada and the UK and I don't trust how we'd do this. How we'd do this would be utterly incompetently. If it were possible for us to do it well, why are Medicare and Medicaid, Tricare and the VA so damned awful?


Ahh, well that I can understand. But just to be clear, Davian said:

Canada, France and the UK all have magic wands?

To which you directly responded:
Uh, Dav.... I wouldn't even have been treated for my thyroid under those systems
and
I'd still be waiting on my first appointment with a specialist.
and
And my mother would still be waiting to get her thyroid taken out in the first place because neither of us were dying from our conditions.

So you can se why I thought you were speaking specifically about Canada, France and the UK in your comments.

[Davian93]

You likely wouldn't understand my suggestions.

:rolleyes:

Yes, you are SO much smarter than me. I'm a moron because I don't agree with you.


Something to throw in the mix...companies can actually SELF FUND their medical costs. They pay for services as they arise and pay the providers through an administrator. Insurance is available in these situation ONLY on catastrophic siatuations (called stop loss) where one claim exceeds $50k, $100K, $500K. Some companies don't even buy stop loss.

That's GREAT...assuming one is actually employed. What do people do when they are under-employed or unemployed completely (Like 17-20% of Americans currently are?).

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So, when properly funded, you are saying a gov't Agency CAN run things well?

No, because it will inevitably be gutted. The MINUTE y'all do anything efficiently, it's deemed that you don't really need the money and/or personnel and it's all shuffled over to something else.


Something to throw in the mix...companies can actually SELF FUND their medical costs. They pay for services as they arise and pay the providers through an administrator. Insurance is available in these situation ONLY on catastrophic siatuations (called stop loss) where one claim exceeds $50k, $100K, $500K. Some companies don't even buy stop loss.

This sounds like what my company currently has. It sucked. It was essentially an 80/20 system for the employees. Great when you don't have an emergency appendectomy a week into your marriage or a car accident with an under-insured motorist.


Brita: I can see where I was confusing and I apologize. I don't know enough about your systems to say when or where I'd be treated. And I should have said that about our system when I addressed Dav's point about other countries. Our bureaucracy is arranged so that no one government institution is too efficient or too able. It's the only check on bureaucratic tyranny we have. I once, laughingly, told Bryan that if our bureaucracy was more efficient, we'd be far less free. He thought about it for a second and said, you're right.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Davian93:rolleyes:

Yes, you are SO much smarter than me. I'm a moron because I don't agree with you.


Sigh. Done.

[Davian93]

Sigh. Done.

Hey, you said it.

You attack opposing points of view but then refuse to offer any alternatives because "Dav wouldn't understand". Great debate tactic there.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Explain it to him, SBC. Then he'll shut up. ;)

[Davian93]

Explain it to him, SBC. Then he'll shut up. ;)

She hasn't offered one alternative in over 200 posts on the subject. Its fine to disagree with something but its pointless to continually say No, no, no, no and never offer any alternatives.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

Make a decision in life as to what is important to you and then...pay for it, both financially and with your own sweat. plan for the future & if you think something is important, like LIVING, then forego the car, the new couch, the cigarettes, the donuts, go out and excercise, get a job. And, I am sorry, but if you do get a catastrophic illness, life sucks and then you die. We ALL need to deal with that.

That was my initial argument, 3 weeks ago when this started. It still is my argument. But that makes me a bad guy.

so...

I could make arguments for HSAs, HRAs, FSAs, POP plans, Section 125 changes, coinsurance changes, flat copayment plans, capitated reimbursements similar in nature to old HMOs, tort reform, tax incentives, Rx rebating, privacy restructing, and...shall I go on? Each one would take a day and you won't understand it. You think in/out of network discounts are the issue after all!!


Here is a recent (yesterday) editorial opinion from someone in my industry :

Just for entertainment purposes, try this one on the next time you talk about reform and our
industry gets the full blame. Let’s try and defi ne exactly what is an “obscene profi t”. Would
it be 50%? Maybe 35%...or 20%? I would imagine that most would believe it has to be AT LEAST
10%. Four of the largest for-profi t providers (Cigna, Aetna, United Health, and WellPoint) cover
approximately 93 million members. I ran some very imperfect calculations (see below) that show
the combined average profi t of these companies was $82 per member in 2008 and will be fairly
similar in 2009. Based on an average premium of $12,000, that’s less than 1% “profi t”. Dumbing
down obscene to this level shows the bias and prejudicial tactics being deployed against our
industry. Noting the huge block of covered members under non-profi t Blue plans and others, it’s
amazing what passes as common knowledge these days. Certainly covering millions of people makes
this a profi table business, but I’d submit that the effi ciencies gained far exceed the down side.
Besides...even if all the “profi ts” were removed, it wouldn’t fi x a thing. Simply throwing
out
more weight from the balloon doesn’t change the fact that there’s still a hole in it!
So the spin and scapegoating is designed to avoid the questions no politician wants to
touch...what will be cut, denied, or postponed when we can no longer pay more?

[Davian93]

Make a decision in life as to what is important to you and then...pay for it, both financially and with your own sweat. plan for the future & if you think something is important, like LIVING, then forego the car, the new couch, the cigarettes, the donuts, go out and excercise, get a job. And, I am sorry, but if you do get a catastrophic illness, life sucks and then you die. We ALL need to deal with that.

Here's the problem. There is a large percentage of Americans who disagree with your view on life. I am one of them. I find that entire philosophy of "Oh well, you got cancer and can't afford it, start planning your funeral" repugnant.

Your "Get a Job" comment is the most arrogant piece of tripe I have ever heard. In case you were unaware, not everyone CAN get a job. Sometimes, just sometimes, they LOSE that job through no fault of their own. In your world, that's too bad and they get to then die. In mine, I think we should help them.

It is a philsophical difference and it is clear that neither one of us will EVER agree with the others' view on life and how a society should run.

I do, however, doubt that you would be completely okay with dying for lack of money if you are ever not able to financially support yourself and afford insurance to help with your previously stated medical conditions. To be completely clear, that is not a personal attack on you specifically. I doubt anyone would be okay with that scenario. "Well golly gee, I lost my job along with my healthcare coverage and that life-saving surgery is far more than I can afford even if I sell everything. I guess I fold at the game of life." People, in general, tend to want to live.

EDIT: Add on...

That was my initial argument, 3 weeks ago when this started. It still is my argument. But that makes me a bad guy.

so...

I could make arguments for HSAs, HRAs, FSAs, POP plans, Section 125 changes, coinsurance changes, flat copayment plans, capitated reimbursements similar in nature to old HMOs, tort reform, tax incentives, Rx rebating, privacy restructing, and...shall I go on? Each one would take a day and you won't understand it. You think in/out of network discounts are the issue after all!!

Its not that I wouldn't understand you but rather the limitations on arguing over a message board. Also, it doesn't make you the "bad" guy in this debate no more than my disagreement with you makes me a "Good" or "Bad" guy. We disagree. We are allowed to do that. I respect your right to an opinion even if I strongly disagree with it. This debate has, in no way, changed my opinion of you as a person overall.

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

In your world, that's too bad and they get to then die. In mine, I think we should help them..


I actually do help them. In my career choice, with my own (significant)financial support to friends and strangers alike and by using my voice to my government. What do you do?

Get a job was ONE part of that statement by the way, just one. But you focus on it, because the rest is not arguable.

[Davian93]

I actually do help them. In my career choice, with my own (significant)financial support to friends and strangers alike and by using my voice to my government. What do you do?

In your career choice for which you are amply compensated for? In that case, I have supported thousands of Americans by helping them navigate the difficult process of obtaining and keeping federal employment. I, too, am a true humanitarian then. You have "ample financial" assets apparently to support people. The large majority of Americans don't. Many barely live paycheck-to-paycheck. I feel no need to list the volunteer work I do here or my charitable contributions.

Get a job was ONE part of that statement by the way, just one. But you focus on it, because the rest is not arguable.

It was merely the most ridiculous one. Overall, you assume the only reason people DO NOT have health insurance is because they blow their money on other things like cars, new couches, etc. That is not the case. Its the equivalent of saying "Well, that one person abused the system so the entire system is bad."

[Sei'taer]

I think everyone should be provided food. It's sad that in a country as rich as ours people go hungry.

I think everyone should be provided a place to live. It's sad that in a country as rich as ours we should have so many people who are homeless or living in tiny little apartments because they can't afford bigger places.

I think everyones pay should be exactly the same across the board. It shouldn't matter that you have an education or took the time to learn and were driven enough to be the best at what you do.

I think everyone should be provided a computer and have internet access. It's sad that some people are not given the advantage of gaining the knowledge provided by the internet.

I think everyone should be provided a car. All of them should be the same. It's sad that some someone driving a Civic should have to share the road with some rich asshole driving a Tahoe. It's also sad that some people have to spend hours on public transit just to get to work or even look for work.

I think ALL education should be provided for us. It's sad that some people have to look around for grants loans and scholarships just so they can get a degree. It's also sad that some people just don't want to go to college and get a degree. I think education above the high school level should be required.

I think everyone should be provided access to free vacations. It's sad that we have so many beautiful places in this world and only the rich assholes get to see them.

[Davian93]

I think everyone should be provided food. It's sad that in a country as rich as ours people go hungry.

I think everyone should be provided a place to live. It's sad that in a country as rich as ours we should have so many people who are homeless or living in tiny little apartments because they can't afford bigger places.

I think everyones pay should be exactly the same across the board. It shouldn't matter that you have an education or took the time to learn and were driven enough to be the best at what you do.

I think everyone should be provided a computer and have internet access. It's sad that some people are not given the advantage of gaining the knowledge provided by the internet.

I think everyone should be provided a car. All of them should be the same. It's sad that some someone driving a Civic should have to share the road with some rich asshole driving a Tahoe. It's also sad that some people have to spend hours on public transit just to get to work or even look for work.

I think ALL education should be provided for us. It's sad that some people have to look around for grants loans and scholarships just so they can get a degree. It's also sad that some people just don't want to go to college and get a degree. I think education above the high school level should be required.

I think everyone should be provided access to free vacations. It's sad that we have so many beautiful places in this world and only the rich assholes get to see them.

You jest but we do some of those things because they are basic necessities of life.

We try to ensure people don't starve with Welfare, WIC, Foodstamps (whatever you want to call it). We have public soup kitchens and shelters. Hell, I volunteer in one regularly. We provide FREE basic education...we call it K-12 in the US. We have subsidized housing, We provide free formula to nursing mothers. Our nation already has a vast social safety net. We are not a Capitalist society as some want to think. We have been a mixed socialist nation for a long time (pretty much since the Depression) because we saw what happens to average citizens when the crap hits the fan. The Depression woke up a lot of Americans to the NEED of a safety net. You can't always do it all on your own.

You make a good point that there should be a line between what is a basic need and what is a want. We merely disagree on where that line is.

[Sei'taer]

People are provided the means to get food. They are not given food provided by the gov't. I work at the WIC center twice a month cataloging donated food. The food at the kitchen you volunteer at is likely donated too.

Basic education is not free. Higher education isn't either, but the the means to pay for it are provided thru loans and grants and scholarships. Meaning you either for your education or a donor does. Either way, not free.

People are not provided free homes. Low income housing is based on your ability to pay. You pay part and then taxes pay the rest.

Now, the million dollar question. Why, if all of this is available, do we have uneducated people, hungry people, and homeless people? The country we live in is big enough and resourceful enough to provide for everyone, yet people refuse it...why? They're costing us money, after all. Just like all those people who choose not to have healthcare. There are provisions in place to help people with healthcare who need it, but they refuse it. It's not because nobody provides it...it's there. I found a provider AND a donor to help with my daughters medical bills. I have talked to pharmaceutical companies who were more than willing to provide medications for my daughter for free or for pennies. Is it what I wanted? No, I'm way too proud to go begging for myself and wish I had the means to do it on my own but I didn't and where my daughter is concerned I was willing to throw pride out the window and beg like a little kid. I also worked my ass off. I worked harder on that than I did on anything I've ever done. The means for getting what you need, not want, what you need, is there if you are willing to swallow your pride and get it. Gov't can't do that for you and making it a law doesn't mean people are going to do it.

[Davian93]

People are provided the means to get food. They are not given food provided by the gov't. I work at the WIC center twice a month cataloging donated food. The food at the kitchen you volunteer at is likely donated too.

That's all a public option and subsidizes would be...I'm not arguing for a single payer system, just an expansion of our current safety net. You still get to choose your private doctor, etc etc.

[Sei'taer]

That's all a public option and subsidizes would be...I'm not arguing for a single payer system, just an expansion of our current safety net. You still get to choose your private doctor, etc etc.

Ok...so who pays for it? You say rich people. Which ones? The ones who are already donating money to help my daughter and several others? Someone has to pay for it. Is it fair for me to pay for my insurance and then be taxed to pay for your insurance too? It's not the gov't job to provide. If anything, (and I don't agree with this but we're simplifying here) the gov't should provide you the means to get affordable health insurance. That's all.

[Davian93]

If anything, (and I don't agree with this but we're simplifying here) the gov't should provide you the means to get affordable health insurance. That's all.

I would take that as a step in the right direction. My biggest fear is that this bill will be neutered down to something that does the following 2 things:

1. Makes health insurance mandatory.
2. Does nothing to control the cost of that insurance.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Which is what it is right now.

[Sei'taer]

I would take that as a step in the right direction. My biggest fear is that this bill will be neutered down to something that does the following 2 things:

1. Makes health insurance mandatory.
2. Does nothing to control the cost of that insurance.

Thats exactly what it's going to do. I know you already know this becase you work for the gov't. What happens if you turn in a budget for your department of say $250,000. Then, over the budget year you work everything to perfection and only spend $200,000? What happens to your budget for the upcoming year? It gets chopped. So your boss comes and says "look, dumbass, if you don't spend that money then we are going to lose at least $50 grand next budget cycle so figure out some way to spend that money.

It'll be the same way when the bureaucrats get their hands on this money.

As far as it being mandatory, the only reason that's not in the baucus bill is because the blue dogs and the republicans fought to get it out. The bill Pelosi is trying to put together does make it mandatory.

Sorry for the terrible spelling. at times I fumble finger on my phone.

[Davian93]

Which is what it is right now.

4 of the 5 bills still have a Public Option in it. Special thanks to Max Baucus (and the insurance folks payrolling him) for the one that doesnt. At least I think its the Baucus one that doesnt have the Public Option...its hard to keep track of which bill is which at this point.

I fully trust the Senate and House to fvck this up somehow.

[Sinistrum]

I fully trust the Senate and House to fvck this up somehow.

Which makes my question, that you have yet to answer, about why you trust the government to do a better job at providing health insurance over the private sector all that more poignant. You've already admitted that thing like Tricare, Medicare, and VA hospitals are terrible at providing coverage and care. You've admitted that the assclowns ramrodding this entire idea down our throats are probably going to screw the pooch on it. So how is injecting sovereign and civil service immunity, among any other things, into an already FUBAR system going to help any? As I already stated, a system doesn't need profit margins to come up with reasons to wrongfully deny or delay coverage and prevent care from being had.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Which makes my question, that you have yet to answer, about why you trust the government to do a better job at providing health insurance over the private sector all that more poignant.Because now, after 8 years of Bush, the American voters have finally learned that when deciding which politician to vote for, they should pay attention to the quality, the actual fitness for that office, the trustworthiness, the good common sense, the willingness to say "no" to lobbyists with large campaign checks, the moral integrity of the candidates. In short, from now on, you'll only get really good politicians rather than the crappy ones you've had to make do with so far.

Excuse me, my sarcasm meter just blew a fuse. I should've switched it off before starting to type.

[Sinistrum]

I think I just blew a fuse too because it almost sounds like you're agreeing with me.

[Crispin's Crispian]

I think I just blew a fuse too because it almost sounds like you're agreeing with me.
Say it together, both of you:

YES WE CAN!

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Sorry, Gonzo, couldn't rep you for that one, got Sini and Muttley, though.;)

[SauceyBlueConfetti]

I got him for ya Gil

[Sei'taer]

I got him for ya Gil

I took care of all three.

[Sei'taer]

4 of the 5 bills still have a Public Option in it. Special thanks to Max Baucus (and the insurance folks payrolling him) for the one that doesnt. At least I think its the Baucus one that doesnt have the Public Option...its hard to keep track of which bill is which at this point.

I fully trust the Senate and House to fvck this up somehow.

Max didn't take it out. The blue dog dems and the republicans voted it out in committee. It was all nicely bi-partisan, just like everyone in DC wants things to be.

I fully trust the Senate and House to fvck this up too. That's why I don't want them fvcking with it.

[Davian93]

Obama needs to grow a pair and say screw it to this bipartisan farce crap. You have a majority, dumbass. If you want to pass a strong reform bill, simply bull it through and tell the GOP to go fvck themselves. He's too weak to do it though and depending on two more weaklings like Reid and Pelosi to be the bad guys is a mistake. They're all too worried about having some people hate them to make any real reform and its pisses me off. The middle road will screw everyone.

[Sei'taer]

Obama needs to grow a pair and say screw it to this bipartisan farce crap. You have a majority, dumbass. If you want to pass a strong reform bill, simply bull it through and tell the GOP to go fvck themselves. He's too weak to do it though and depending on two more weaklings like Reid and Pelosi to be the bad guys is a mistake. They're all too worried about having some people hate them to make any real reform and its pisses me off. The middle road will screw everyone.

Been saying that for months now. Funny how bipartisanship isn't a good thing when it goes against the president.

My guesses on why they aren't pushing it throough...

It won't pass.
They'd like to get re-elected.