While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.
From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.
But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.
So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?
(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)
Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):
Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):
Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.
Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.
Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.
For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.
And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.
Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)
Cheers!
Also, these are the off-topic boards of a software company. I mean, would agents of insurance companies or politicians really waste their time here? You give us too much credit, sir.
Thank you, Aroddo, for trying to ground his comments in the rational world.
sure, if they can reach enough people. Let's check the blizzard forums.
Even then, you're grasping if you make that claim. If said agents were voluntary, perhaps. But who would volunteer to spread misinformation for these EVIL insurance companies? It's not like there are dozens of unemployed anti-war hippies to take up the cause. However, assuming the readership of these forums, it would be especially laughable for interest groups to deploy their agents here.
Depends on how you define "reform".
HR 3200, which is the bill in question, is not "Reform" in my opinion. I'm against it on many different grounds including:
1. The plan really has no clue on how it's really going to pay for itself so there's really no control over expenses.
2. The "public option" will (not might, will) lead to many companies dumping their expensive private insurance programs to let people pick up on the "public option". This in turn will lead to the government having a great deal of power over what gets covered by said insurance.
History has shown that when the government is paying for something it's rarely what any objective person would say "is best for society as a whole" but rather which special interest groups are loudest and most influential with the right politicians.
3. Moving from a system that is paid for by the people who use it to a system in which the costs are paid for by one group and the users include people of a separate group is likely to lead to an unhappy ending. As a general principle, I think there should be a financial connection between what programs a citizen supports and that citizen. It's easy to support "universal healthcare" for instance if, like 40% of the American adult population, you pay no net federal taxes.
4. Presently, there are 40 million people in the US who don't have insurance. If you take away illegal immigrants, people who are switching jobs, people who make over $65,000 a year, and people who qualify for Medicaid but haven't signed up you're left with 10 million people. It seems a bit hasty to redo the whole system for 10 million people who are mostly people with pre-existing conditions and as a result can't reasonably afford healthcare.
5. HR 3200, the actual bill again, does little to curb the actual problems in the United States with its health care such as the fact that the government limits private competition by not allowing insurance companies to compete in every state which greatly limits competition.
It also does nothing to eliminate the plethora of ridiculous requirements that various state governments have already mandated that private insurance companies must cover which drives up the cost. A 25 year old looking for catastrophic insurance should not be forced to pay for insurance that covers, amongst other things, psychological therapy, propecia (hair growth), lasik, and any other number of things that different states have inserted due to the lobbying of special interests.
The one good thing about this stuff being state by state I guess is that the crapola that gets inserted into health insurance is on a per state basis. Wait until the federal government starts to get going and soon catastrophic insurance begins to have to cover all kinds of items that most people would consider non-catastrophic.
HR 3200 also does nothing for tort reform which is a major driver of costs. We Americans love to sue people. Not just medical but everywhere. Heck, we're a software company and 2% of our budget is dedicated to legal fees because there's always "something" to deal with. Americans love to take people to court, especially doctors.
6. HR 3200 and people in general have not addressed the #1 reason Americans pay so much for health insurance. It's not mainly, like conservatives say, due to lawyers (though it's an issue) and it's not mainly due, like liberals say, due to greedy insurance companies. The main reason is that Americans culturally are in love with medical treatment. In the US, we will spare no expense to get an extra 3 months. 2/3rds of our medical expenses occur in the last 6 months of life. No other country is like this and it's not just because socialistic governments won't allow it. Europeans and Canadians in particular do not culturally embrace the idea of living at all costs.
I'm not saying either culture is right or wrong on that. What I am saying is that Americans fundamentally believe that medical technology will save them.
Lastly:
HR 3200, the actual bill, is not that similar to the UK system or the Canadian system. Debating the pros and cons of Britain's system or Canada's system is academically interesting but not very relevant to what is actually put together.
One country, in all of history, finally gets it right, and we fuck it to hell inside 200 years.
Personally, if a public option had over 50% of the public on it, I would give tax rebates based on how much a person excercised, and deny said tax rebate if they drank frequently, smoked, or had a vast amount of sugar on a regular basis. In addition, I would tighten food standards to make food healthier in general.
This used to be why the US really was the land of the free. This is the only country on earth where that shit is prevented by a limited government framework, the Constitution.
There are hundreds of more dictatorial governments that will tell you how to live your life on this planet. All you have to do is pick one at random. Stop fucking up what used to be the only free country in existence and just pick one to move to. If enough of you sheeple leave, we can halt the progress of collectivism.
My one and only response here: The President is acting to prevent a financial catastrophe. The current INSURANCE situation is untenable and unsustainable. Period.
This is about health INSURANCE reform.
You will have a choice you currently do not have: It will have options in it.
IT WILL DRIVE THE COST OF PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE DOWN.
It isn't about the lies bought and paid for by Insurance Co.'s and their bought politicians.
You can listen to someone who has worked in healthcare for more than thirty years here and abroad, or bought and paid for politicians (good ones...they stayed bought) and whacko lies designed to panic already frightened people who don't take the time to go beyond sophistry and fodder.
I would not lie to you. That would be unethical.
Uhuh... right...
HR 3200 does nothing to prevent catastrophe.
We're not talking about some ideal bill here, we should be talking about the actual bill that has been put up there and it will almost certainly lead to more financial problems than it solves due to the basic issue of insuring everyone with no plan on how to fund that (again: we're not talking about how they COULD fund it, we are talking about how they actually state it in HR 3200).
It's quite obvious how they're going to pay for it; well, to be fair, I should say how *you're* going to pay for it. I fall in that category that gets hosed for taxes (single, no dependants, no morgage, really no deductions whatsoever) but my income is low enough that the standard deduction is a significant factor in my taxes. I'm willing to bet you are the only person in this topic that falls in the top 5% income bracket that pays 60% of the total income tax.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
I'm sure you don't for a moment believe you are lying. But you are trying to pass off your opinion as certitude, while insulting the intelligence of everyone who doesn't agree with you, and we are legion. It's good that your response is a one-off.
That's from a fellow physician (assuming that's what 'worked in healthcare' means, given your avatar) who entered practice 31 years ago.
I've worked in two wholly-government-run healthcare systems - the military & the VA - as well as the evil 'private sector.' To say I'm not too sanguine about our government moving even a teeny bit closer to control of all of healthcare would be a gross understatement.
Optimal control over what *CAN* be altered to minimize some costs (as in, profits out of incorporated greedy hands) for all & every American citizens.
Government is not exactly a mechanism under democratic variations (there are permanent staff, bureaucracy, advisors, etc), it's a device constantly used by elected officials which, once in power, can offer, suggest, implement, manage solutions.
Decisions MUST be taken (or recommended, btw) when problems lead to such absolutely overwhelming deficits of operation -- caused by lack of control.
Rationalize Health Care now or keep stashing debts.
Motive enough for anyone, including the current administration.
I've got a better idea, stop funding everything through the government and people can make their own choices how they spend their own money. Novel idea, ain't it? Out of control costs are a product of out of control spending, something Uncle does really well.
I'll gladly pass on my own social security and medicare to end the cycle of nonsense at my generation. Problem solved.
If your mind were present, you'd be scary. It obviously doesn't function at that level though. Your great aunt would never have gotten five years of top notch care anywhere else in the world. Top notch has never been affordable in anything. You get to have one or the other, there is no both. Medicare has demonstrated this abundantly by giving us a rapidly expanding budget shortfall.
Very interesting point.
When it comes down to it anyone with common sense knows that's true and if the Republicans tried to end Medicare they would lose elections for the next decade at least, so while it may be fun to approach the issue from an abstract Randian or libertarian perspective, I'd be much interested in hearing about a politically viable solution beyond just tort reform.
The reason the government wants to control healthcare is because of political power. What is the number one voting demographic in this country? Old people! What is the one thing they pay attention to most? Medicaid and Medicare! If they are made to believe that one political group is going to take away something from them, they will come out in droves to vote that person(s) down. For as long as I can remember that is one political talking point that has been in every election, with one side saying "They are going to cut your medicare". The other side having to repeat that "We will not cut or take away your medicare".
Now imagine an entire country now needing healthcare from the goverment. The balance of power will shift permanently to one side, Democrats, they give no matter what the cost is. Look at the foolish spending now? Do you really think it's going to end anytime soon? The White House just released the 10 year debt projection and now it's topping 9 trillion and they still want to pass this 1 trillion + heathcare bill at any cost. Even if if costs some seats in both houses!
Ask yourself why? Why would they be willing to give up seats and power? Because they know if this passes, they will get them back, they will just promise us some more when we run out. Level heads will try to fix the problem by saying we need to cut back, but once you become dependant on something, cut is one thing you never want to hear. Welfare is another good example of this. Who do the poor typically vote for? The group that gives the most. Bet you can't guess who that is?
Now understand, not all dems are this way, just the far left, who have become the controlling power in both houses and the White House. This is there tool to cement the power that they will need in future elections. Social Security, welfare and now heathcare for all, thats quite a lot of control over a lot of people who will need it. Think of all the votes they will be harnessing.
All three of those programs go against every conserative view in principle. It doesn't belong in a capitalistic society. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to insure that government was not going to take control of its people, for god sakes it's the first line of our constitution. WE THE PEOPLE not we the government!
This is my personal opinion on why healthcare is being rammed down our throat. They are taking advantage of tough times and know people are upset because healthcare costs too much. I do believe healthcare needs to be fixed, but tweek it in small pieces. That way if it doesn't work, we can change it without having to go through hell. It's time to stand up and tell those leftys that we don't want government control, we want to be able to do things ourselves! Remove restrictions on state to state insurance and reduce the amount of lawsuits the doctors must be subject to. Alow us to shop around to get better plans and rates and maybe finally we will get to own our own plans and not have it be up to our employer who we are insured with.
I want anyone here to name me a country where government healthcare works as well as our free system does here. To the degree of care and time it takes to get care. Does this country deny certain treatments or drugs for aliments that we could get here because we have the power to go elsewhere if we want. Does this country have others from other countries coming to it for treatment, because it's the best in the world? That country shouldn't be going broke from its healthcare and not costing its people an arm and a leg for. If that country fits all that criteria, I want to know about it.
Tort reform is a good starting point.
So, why do so many people think that this 'high cost of health care' should be paid for by anyone other than themselves?
What is the RIGHT!!! to have the highest cost health care, if you can not afford it?
What is the RIGHT!!! to MAKE!!! someone else pay for you?
This is such a stupid argument.
Every 'right' has exceptions.
The right to life, except if you have murdered someone - for example. Even the Bible has certain exceptions. And the Bible calls upon the charity of others, first and foremost, over the mandated requirement. (something which the U.S. has been at the forefront of (the charity aspect, up to now, is that of which I speak))
The 'right' to health care? I don't think so. The hope for, yes. But not the right.
Because in demanding the right you are taking away certain other rights of others for your own personal gain. You are taking away their liberty because you are forcibly taking away their earnings, and thus making them a slave to your own desires. You are taking away their pursuit of happiness because they will only know that with the more they make and pursue, the more that will be taken away from them for your own happiness.
Universal health care should be something that everyone agrees on, and with. It should not be something that is forced upon anyone. Because with force, the rights of many are lost.
I have used public health care to fix me. But I never considered it, and will never consider it, a RIGHT!!!.
To me, it was a blessing.
And a blessing is good for both parties, not only for one side.
Interesting spin.
Do i also have the right to work and, as a result, gain enough money to PURCHASE a healthy, stable, progressive, reasonably solid condition to keep working?
That IS the entire issue, in fact.
The wealthy HAVE the financial (or fiscal context at the society principles level) capacity to be covered from bad luck (because, becoming ill or sick is either the effect of work (yes, accidents and risks DO happen) or life/habit/food/pattern/etc personal **AND** collective choices.
While the RIGHTS for life are protected under constitution, anything slightly less "important" would be considered slow death?
I mean, get real. The poverty slaughtering and execution firing squads OF unemployment isn't obvious enough to you all, by now?
Well you see, society is a contribution model... some are part of its success, others lack (somehow) what it takes to reach it -- namely; crippled by minimal education, handicapped by the PHYSICS of their body, parsed by cumulative cash figures, looped in a struggle like everyone else.
You have the rights to remain silent but the mute can't answer back UNLE$$ given the chance.
Yes, you have the right to work and gain enough money to purchase whatever you want.
But others do not necessarily have the duty to exchange their labour (or wealth created from it) for your labour.
I never got (or must have missed) the answer for my question.
Somebody argued that "in the end all americans would pay for everyone's health care" and I replied with the following question:
How so? Half of them don't pay federal income taxes. How would "all Americans" pay?I thought this system was supposed to work via taxes? Maybe I'm wrong.
Can someone explain to me how in a system that is financed by taxes, which less than half of people pay "everyone" would pay for everyone's health care?
I am beginning to think that "everyone" is a liberal code word meaning "them" when it comes to paying and "us" when it comes to receiving. Any counter examples?
Ultimately, your country is what you want it to be. That is the essence of democracy.
I may not agree with some of your opinions on what "right" or which values your society as whole should treasure.
If the majority should agree that your rights include the right to sell your organs to whoever they want (yes, you may not do so) - then it becomes your right under god and country. Of course, some squeamish minority might complain that this reduces the poorer population to nothing more than sentient cattle - but if people lived long enough in a society where it's common to sell your liver to be able to afford a bit of luxury - or to pay bills or face bankrupcy - then it will be hard to change back to a society where living donations are banned. Some people will believe that it's their right to do what they want with their bodies, some will argue that without living donations wait times for transplantations will become too long. Some will proclaim - loudly and on TV - that banning organ trade will spell the death of many people in need for a new kidney and that this 'death bill' must be stopped ... and some will argue that this will spell the doom for a whole industry.
Selling your organs is banned for ethical reasons. Organs may not be traded either even though doing so would immediatly generate a gigantic market of basically live saving services. It is a conscious choice to not let profit devalue human life.
So, what was the point of all that rambling?
You americans now have to opportinity to define anew what should be important in your society. To decide what is your 'right'. You have arguments on both sides of the issue and it's an important issue. It's important to discuss it, it's important to discuss about what values are important and it's important to be informed before you commit to a path.
But look around you, how are these topics discussed? TV shows invite pundits who appeal to emotions rather than your intellect. Lies are being told and repeated until they are treated as fact. Examples from other countries are being misrepresented or glorified, promising socialist hell or welfare heaven while concrete numbers and evidence are ignored or twisted to fit a preconceived opinion. Nothing is true if the other one said it.
It's really just a matter of what americans think what american values are and what they should be. If you are clear about that, make your country act upon these values.
For the majority of my life I've had insurance. I am retired but not old enough for medicare but I still have insurance. My heart attack with a Quad bypass totaled out at $110,000 of which I co-payed about $500 or so. The insurance company only payed about 1/3 of the total. The rest wassucked up by all concerned. Just some facts.
I don't think there should be a new health care (Gov.) system. If the Gov. wants to cover all citizens, expand the medicare system. At least that way ya only have 1 corrupt system instead of 2. But there needs to be a better controls to eliminate waste and corruption.
Now, can we afford it? They keep wasting money bailing out everyone and then they have parties and give out bonuses. How can one justify a bonus when all ya did was run a company into the ground. They say to keep the best people so they don't go else where. I say let them go. Hell, hire me, I can run a company into the ground for a lot less pay.
This may sound cynical...
But in my time on this planet, no matter what country you live in, when you are talking about politics...
You will ALWAYS find your answer by asking "Who is in position to gain power and influence?" and "Who is going to make the money?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you aware that we cannot buy health insurance from a company outside of the state we live in? I think deregulation would go a looooooong way in reducing health insurance costs for the individual.
There will NEVER be a "PLAN" to reduce healthcare costs without TORT REFORM. The malpractice insurance hospitals and doctors pay is a good portion of our healthcare costs. Who to blame for that... LAWYERS!
Immigration is yet another problem... millions of illegal immigrants, who cannot buy health insurance are driving up healthcare for everyone else. Side note... California is definatlely broke because of it's socialist ideas involving illegal immigrants. (sarcasm: hey, I got an idea let's take this to the national level).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
