next »

[John Nesky]

I do not actually know what I'm talking about but I felt your statement required clarification. And then you clarified it and now all is well.

EDIT: Why didn't the state governments take action first?

[rob]

"You wanted health care? Move to Hawaii."

Or Mass, which is why the whole "Mass elected a Repub! They hate Obamacare!" Thing was ridiculous.

[team_q]

I have a friend who joined a group whose description is this:

    We are against ABORTION and we OPT OUT of Obamacare. It is a violation of our religious beliefs and a violation of our Constitutional 1st Amendment rights. We are UNITED against Obamacare and will fight it all the way to the SUPREME COURT! Join us and the ACLJ's efforts to defeat Socialized Healthcare. THIS is how we DEFEAT Obama's socialized healthcare and his marxist transformational agenda.

WTF? They aren't even American. The bill isn't even Socialist, it's more small 'l' liberal then anything.

[Smithy]

And considering the first amendment is freedom of speech, and abortion isn't covered, and every other aspect of that statement is wrong, I'd say it sounds like a parody.

Then again, with fox news and Limbaugh spewing things that sound word-for-word the same, one can never be too sure...

The bill is so watered down, it's amazing that people can be so passionately against it. It's a confusing time to be alive.

[Aquin]

I don't see why it's confusing.  Just realize that the conservative party has been hijacked by larger corporate interests since Reagan and their constituents have been hijacked by fundamentalism, with Fox News leading the way.

This isn't about ideas or promoting beliefs or "the future for our children."  This is about ratings and control.  Once you figure that out, it stops being confusing. This is why the conservative party sticks so well together in the face of increasing odds (to the point where satirizing their 'fight' and the fight itself has become difficult to distinguish.)

Democrats?  They're a bit tougher to figure out.

[SirNiko]

"You wanted health care? Move to Hawaii."

Or Mass, which is why the whole "Mass elected a Repub! They hate Obamacare!" Thing was ridiculous.

To be fair, Mass's healthcare system has been cited repeatedly the last few days as an example of government sponsored health care not working as intended.

Not proof that it doesn't work, mind you. Just evidence that it takes more effort than simply passing a bill and waiting for the accolades to roll on in.

I agree with the notion that the states should provide it (Or even the counties or cities, just not the feds), but not so that folks can move from state to state to get 'what they want'. If you manage to create a system that works for your state, it should work for everyone. There should be no need to move unless you have some really aberrant standards.

-SirNiko

[Curseman]

For families who have enough money to just pick up and relocate to wherever they want at a moment's notice without consequence.

So what if there's a consequence?  There will always be consequences.  Life's not perfect.  Someone will have to make a sacrifice somewhere to get what they want.  It's more fair for the person benefiting from it to have to make the change than some unrelated third party.

SirNiko mentioned scalability earlier.  That's another reason why it would be much better to have the states deal with it individually.

Anyway, the whole thing about it being money vs people is a lie.  It's money vs money.  If you go to the emergency room with a serious condition, they're required by law to treat you.  You'll be expected to pay for it after, of course, and you may go into debt or need to declare bankruptcy after, but they won't just leave you to die because you don't have money.

More people are going to go into poverty from the jobs this bill will destroy and the new taxes and fees that come with it than are going to be brought out of poverty by it, and that's to say nothing about what could happen to the entire nation from the government's blatant disregard for the ever increasing national debt.

[Valter]

I'm beginning to think the "Grand Ole' Party" is nearing its end.

The Democrats need at least one serious opposing party to keep their bullshit in check, but the Republicans just aren't up to the task anymore. I feel like there used to be a moral structure to the GOP, but it's all collapsed into childish resentment, obvious lies, and blatant hypocrisy.

That's not to say that the Democrats aren't experiencing unprecedented dithering, futile kowtowing, and partisan arrogance right now, but at least I can still glimpse the slightest coherency to their mission statement.

More people are going to go into poverty from the jobs this bill will destroy

Could you back this statement up? 

[Craig Stern]

Anyway, the whole thing about it being money vs people is a lie.  It's money vs money.  If you go to the emergency room with a serious condition, they're required by law to treat you.  You'll be expected to pay for it after, of course, and you may go into debt or need to declare bankruptcy after, but they won't just leave you to die because you don't have money.

Health care is about more than just going to the emergency room when you're on death's door. It's that kind of attitude that has helped our health care become so notoriously expensive and inefficient in the first place. People need to be able to afford regular check-ups and preventative medicine in order to lead healthy lives.

As for the idea that this bill is going to destroy jobs: why would it? If anything, I'd expect the opposite: when fewer people go bankrupt paying exorbitant medical bills, more people will have discretionary income to spend, which will increase consumption, fuel the economy, and create jobs.

[Jrsquee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032103548_pf.html

this is why i like the health care bill

[Curseman]

Health care is about more than just going to the emergency room when you're on death's door. It's that kind of attitude that has helped our health care become so notoriously expensive and inefficient in the first place. People need to be able to afford regular check-ups and preventative medicine in order to lead healthy lives.

That's true, but a lot of people blame government meddling for being the cause of regular checkups being so expensive in the first place.  That was before my time, so I won't pretend to know for certain whether that's actually true or not.

I still say the best way to ensure that as many people as possible can afford health care is to encourage economic prosperity and job growth.  I see hurting the economy to improve health care as a contradiction.  Maybe it'll help for a while, but in the long term it'll catch up to us.

I feel like there used to be a moral structure to the GOP, but it's all collapsed into childish resentment, obvious lies, and blatant hypocrisy.

Both parties are like that.  They've both long outlived their usefulness, and a major part of the problem with American politics today is people who ignore or at least tolerate the severe problems with one party because they want to stop the other at any cost.

Could you back this statement up? 

Sure.  Here's one example:

Companies with 50 or more employees must offer coverage to employees or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee after their first 30 if at least one of their employees receives a tax credit. Waiting periods before insurance takes effect is limited to 90 days. Employers who offer coverage but whose employees receive tax credits will pay $3,000 for each worker receiving a tax credit.

The last thing we need when the unemployment rate is so high is to make it even more expensive to hire people.

Other examples include the fees for not buying your own coverage, and the various tax increases included in the bill.  These things will leave people with less spending money, which will translate into lower profits for businesses, meaning more job losses.

I'm not against health insurance reform.  They're just going about most of it in the most backwards way possible.  They should be lowering taxes on businesses across the board so more can afford new employees, and if they're so concerned about jobs offering health benefits, they should offer further tax breaks for doing that.

Putting a fine on jobs that don't give health benefits in a time of economic crisis like this will most likely mean that employers who can't afford health benefits will stop hiring, and more people will go into poverty which will put more stress on government programs like this, and so forth.

It isn't fair for insurance companies to drop coverage for someone once they get sick, and I'm glad that that's being dealt with, but saying that insurance companies can't charge more for people in bad condition is nonsense.  That's like buying auto insurance after you wreck your car and expecting them to buy you a new one.  There's no way they could make money doing that.  They'll drive the costs up on everyone else to compensate for it.

Sorry for the giant wall of text.

[Soulliard]

Are you serious? Whether or not someone is a reckless driver is entirely under his or her control. No one chooses whether or not they have a disease. And while you can survive without driving, you may not be able to survive without medical treatment.

The comparison is absurd.

[Lazer]

More importantly, businesses don't need less taxes to afford to "hire new employees." Most businesses don't NEED to hire more employees, and work effectively at the level they're at. I can't think of any reasonable business owner who is going to expand their company simply because they have a greater spending limit. Perhaps once their staff is no longer capable of running their business at the current level they're at, but otherwise, why throw away profits? That's not at all how a growth model for a company works.

Some knowledge of economics is important when considering the health bill.

[Movius]

Anyone have a dollar figure on this unaffordable insurance in the USA, like what a typical plan would cost atm?

[Curseman]

Are you serious? Whether or not someone is a reckless driver is entirely under his or her control. No one chooses whether or not they have a disease.

There are things you can that can make you more or less safe while driving, and there are behaviors that can make you more or less likely to catch a disease, but in both cases you can end up getting unlucky no matter what you do.

The comparison is absurd.

Not from a business point of view it isn't.

If you look at the insurance company as a magical fountain of endless money that withholds it from people just out of sheer spite then yeah, it is absurd, but that's not how it is.

There is no reason why an insurance company should be forced to pay for someone who comes to them with a preexisting condition other than "the insurance company has a lot of money and that sick guy doesn't so they should give it to him."

More importantly, businesses don't need less taxes to afford to "hire new employees." Most businesses don't NEED to hire more employees, and work effectively at the level they're at. I can't think of any reasonable business owner who is going to expand their company simply because they have a greater spending limit. Perhaps once their staff is no longer capable of running their business at the current level they're at, but otherwise, why throw away profits? That's not at all how a growth model for a company works.

Of course they don't just hire employees because they can, but you don't understand economics at all if you don't think that raising the costs of hiring someone will discourage businesses from acquiring new employees when they would otherwise be interested in doing so.

[undertech]

Anyone have a dollar figure on this unaffordable insurance in the USA, like what a typical plan would cost atm?

For a woman in her mid-50's (say, like a lot of our mothers!), I looked up the costs from Kaiser Permanente (a local HMO, cheaper than "regular insurance") and the cheapest plan is $224.00USD per month.
The plan does not cover prescription medicine, and has a $7500USD deductible. Pretty much an emergency-only plan.
The cheapest non-deductible plan starts at $564USD/mo.
*none of these quotes have taken into account pre-existing conditions, etc.

[bento_smile]

I live in Britain which has a national health system, and it is good.  We pay income tax which is %0 if you're on less than $10,000; 20% for up to $31,000; 40% for more than that (roughly converted to US dollars).  Healthcare is free!  If you like you can also have private health insurance, which basically means you get non-emergency treatment faster and cable TV if you stay in hospital.

That's not quite how the tax is worked out... but yeah.   These are the income tax rates if anyone is interested. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm (Scared me to think about paying 40%! Haha!)

But we also have National Insurance, which pays for benefits and things too. (£100-ish a month)

/pedantic

[Zenorf]

I normally live in the UK and enjoy the benefits of the NHS. A lot of stuff is taken for granted such as childbirth services. It also has an excellent record for emergency treatment. It does have it's drawbacks though. The service can be very slow as many people abuse it for minor ailments that will just go away in a couple of days, and the GP service in general is pathetic. My son had a rash on his chin that was getting progressively worse and there was still no sign of improvement after 4 separate GP's had looked at it and prescribed various creams and medicines. It was visually so bad we were slightly concerned that immigration would quarantine us when he went to visit my in laws in Shang hai.

We did get in however which brings us to part 2 of the story.

I've spent a fair bit of time in china over the years and had to visit the doctor on several occasions for my two kids. China has a different system. You can get health insurance or you can pay as you go and most people also have a sizable state medical allowance (Free health care up to the value of $XXX). They of course offer emergency treatment immediately regardless and work out payment plans afterwards based on income, age and other factors. In a city such as Shang hai there is also another factor to consider. All the doctors are extreme specialists. They really know what they are doing. When my daughters are was dislocated it was fixed within a minute of seeing the doctor. He was so efficient that I didn't even notice he had done anything other than had a quick look at her arm. While we were at the hospital we took my son to see the skin specialist. She looked him over and after a couple of minutes prescribed a cream and a medicine with some instructions on how to use them. His face cleared up within the week.

Each system has it;s strengths and drawbacks and although free health care for everyone sounds like a fantastic ideal on paper you have to weigh that up against doing the best you can fr the most people. I don't think either ideal is wrong and have little opinion on the issue myself.

Having said all that Drugs companies in general are selfish greedy profiteering bastards and so are the politicians that work for them.Although there are valid reasons for not supporting the health care bill I despise many of the methods and reasons and lies that many republicans used to try and stop the original health care bill with much success.

[Smithy]

Stuff

The health care bill doesn't have anything to do with a National Health Service, and it actually sounds like Shang Hai had a step up on American Healthcare, in that the people were given a certain allowance for coverage.

The bill is essentially a set of needed regulations on a corrupt industry, and a slight expansion of medicaid.

The comparison is absurd.

Not from a business point of view it isn't.

If you look at the insurance company as a magical fountain of endless money that withholds it from people just out of sheer spite then yeah, it is absurd, but that's not how it is.

There is no reason why an insurance company should be forced to pay for someone who comes to them with a preexisting condition other than "the insurance company has a lot of money and that sick guy doesn't so they should give it to him."

What?
No, people don't say an insurance company has a magical pool of money and that's why it should pay for sick customers...

They say an insurance company should pay for a sick customer because that's their job, and that's the expensive, expensive service that they've been selling.

It's fascinating that just about everybody in this country knows somebody who was dropped or let down by their insurance company, after paying six hundred/seven hundred+ dollars monthly for many years. The lady at the gas station just down the street--she's sixty and she and her husband have been paying for most of their lives. Doctors just discovered multiple brain tumors in the guy--and the insurance companies won't pay a dime. They deny coverage because that's what makes a bigger profit. But if the couple just saved the seven hundred per month, they'd be able to pay in cash. Makes you wonder how much worth the insurance industry has when left unchecked.

The idea is that having a larger pool of funding to draw from and more healthy people paying in, they'll be able to pay for procedures more easily and premiums will be cheaper.

Stuff about trickle down economics being 'the way things work.'

Trickle down economics is a joke, and you can look at history as a case study. The idea that if you give the rich more money, some of it might trickle down from their pockets to the poor and help society as a whole hasn't worked in the time of Hoover, it exacerbated things during the depression, and it doesn't work right now---and whoever taught you that it does work was an asshole.

The idea behind any social program is that it's an investment. You put a dollar into funding of a school system, you get more than a dollar back in the long run because the educated population is capable of being more productive with an education. Health care works the same way.

To be completely simple, it's like a farmer getting rid of his mule-driven plow to buy a tractor. The costs are in the short run. Productivity goes up in the long run.

Productivity of a society goes up in the long run if people are educated and healthy. And it almost seems as if the republican party lately has been making an effort to keep people as ignorant and sickly as possible, which is strange. And this bill--this was the cheapest, most watered down provision they could come up with. Which is why there are estimates of them getting such bang for their buck, that's where the 132 million dollar cut on the deficit comes from.

For families who have enough money to just pick up and relocate to wherever they want at a moment's notice without consequence.

So what if there's a consequence?  There will always be consequences.  Life's not perfect.  Someone will have to make a sacrifice somewhere to get what they want.

Statements like this just serve to make the right seem extraordinarily vapid and self-centered. Anger disconnected from reality.

A family that lives paycheck to paycheck cannot just pick up and relocate to Hawaii for universal health care. Sometimes the consequence is homelessness and death.

There are things you can that can make you more or less safe while driving, and there are behaviors that can make you more or less likely to catch a disease

This is a slippery slope if ever I saw one.

Anyway, the whole thing about it being money vs people is a lie.  It's money vs money.  If you go to the emergency room with a serious condition, they're required by law to treat you.  You'll be expected to pay for it after, of course, and you may go into debt or need to declare bankruptcy after, but they won't just leave you to die because you don't have money.

Bankruptcy or injury? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're a privileged kid who's never had those kind of stakes against him. People live with this choice, it is reality and not theory, do you understand? It is life changing and it's difficult, it's...

You're so disconnected! I mean, it sounds like you're theorizing what 'those poor, poor people's' lives are like from your gold plated toilet seat. It's ridiculous.

You're saying people should choose between their house (or their family's house), or getting that chest pain checked out? And whatever choice you make, it often doesn't go well.

Also, an emergency room can only treat something that's wrong with you *right now,* a nail in your foot, whatever. If you go to an emergency room and say you think you have cancer, they will throw you out. They won't help you until you're puking blood and it's too late to do anything about it.

[Dacke]