Healthcare Reform debate.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:23 PM GMT
    I was just catching up on Obama's Healthcare Reform bill. While remaining very optimistic about this bill, I'm not sure that it can be passed before his desired deadline (which i think is march 1icon_cool.gif. From an economic viewpoint, I'm also uncertain that it would benefit the US as a nation in the long run. I mean, take premiums for example. Republicans already noted that the average of premiums in the individual markets would rise by about 12%. Raising the cost of premiums would not be legit in my opinion.

    P.S. I'm also not a big fan of the nationalized id cards either. I think this could only result in a lose of civil liberties. Maybe we need to find another way to lower illegal immigration?

    Comments anyone?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:27 PM GMT
    To be quite honest, in one of my management classes yesterday, my team had to debate with another on the fact that government must mandate all employers to provide health care to their employees. We found a lot of great information supporting our case and also the other team found great evidence to go against our case.

    Overall, we need to realize that this is a tough issue that NEEDS to be addressed. Obama's plan might not be THE plan that should be implemented, but it seems (in my opinion), it is a step to the right direction. It has gotten people to go in the right direction of discussing health care reform on a serious note and taking steps to do something about it.

    It is ultimately the current college students' generation that has to deal with this stuff, and man, I am excited! lmao.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:37 PM GMT
    lol Psh, yeah... as if being a college student isn't tough enough already! But I think I understand where you are coming from. Obama's plan may not be the appropriate plan for us at this time, however, it could potentially spark other innovations for health care?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:39 PM GMT
    Exactly my point. We'll get it one day hahah. I hope it's soon though!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 6:58 PM GMT
    Rhule08 said...Republicans already noted that the average of premiums in the individual markets would rise by about 12%....


    There's your problem - citing Republican's analysis of the bill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 7:11 PM GMT
    um..arent we like more than 6 months passed the deadline....lolz
    i thougt this thang wusupposed 2b done last summer icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 7:12 PM GMT
    reppaT said
    Rhule08 said...Republicans already noted that the average of premiums in the individual markets would rise by about 12%....


    There's your problem - citing Republican's analysis of the bill.


    next time show less shoulders n more bush on the shot kthanksicon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 7:26 PM GMT
    What the alternative gents. It's sad one of the most popular nations on the planet does not have universal health care. It's really pathetic.

    It's does not matter what version is put fourth it's never going to happen. I have lost faith in either party to ge things done.

    They are constantly trying to one up each other. I seen grade school children behave better.

    It's shameful.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 10, 2010 7:27 PM GMT
    Oh cut the crap .... the gov't FORCES you to pay taxes
    if you don't you go to jail
    so stop with the gov't can't force you to pay ... it's getting old

    I work in the health field
    and under the present system ... this country CANNOT sustain itself
    so either you do it Now

    OR ...... it's going to crash and burn under it's own weight
    Plain and simple

    WE No longer have the Time to sit back any longer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 7:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidOne of the major issues of contention is the government mandates for the purchase of health insurance.

    The government isn't allowed to force anyone (or corporation) to purchase anything, yet this is exactly what the House version of the bill does.

    If the government can force you to purchase health insurance, what else might it want to force you to purchase?

    Slippery slope....


    Ahh, yes, the slippery slope argument. The same type Republicans use for gay marriage, right? You know the, "if we let gays marry, then we'll have to allow for polygamy and bestiality, and other perversions..." argument. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 8:10 PM GMT
    GQjock saidOh cut the crap .... the gov't FORCES you to pay taxes
    if you don't you go to jail
    so stop with the gov't can't force you to pay ... it's getting old

    I work in the health field
    and under the present system ... this country CANNOT sustain itself
    so either you do it Now

    OR ...... it's going to crash and burn under it's own weight
    Plain and simple

    WE No longer have the Time to sit back any longer


    I agree with you on this one bub. Seeing that both of my parents are family physicians, I strongly understand the positives and negatives. It's way better to address the situation now (early) rather then later (too late).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 8:42 PM GMT
    He ain't heavy his my brother, but I am not also his keeper.

    As for Id cards my wonderful country Oz wanted to introduce them well over 20 years ago, and the people of Oz said NO! So now our tax file number is our Id card instead, it follows us everywhere. to the bank, to work, to collect social security so on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 8:54 PM GMT
    Some things, like electric power, phone, communications, fire control, police, libraries, schools, roads....infrastructure, are considered needed by everyone. In regular countries, health care is as much a given as going to the library, or calling the fire department. It just is, and, everyone has access. We're unique in that we value our property and pets more than our citizens.

    Health care in Hawaii (which has been universal for 40 years) has been a successful. Of course, that's been true in all the first world countries for a very long time, as well.

    In Nebraska, the citizens of the state feel that electric power should be delivered to everyone at a fair price, without the greedy influences of folks like Enron (which ruined the California economy). In NE, everyone get power at a great rate without huge profit-taking.

    We shouldn't view as sick and injured as a profit center for major corporations that view health care as "losses."

    Our citizens deserve better. We're a better people.

    Strangely, we don't squawk about fire, or police, and its a given for all citizens, but, we treat our health care as a privilege of the rich. It should not be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 9:37 PM GMT
    This whole thing is a pretty big mess.

    I get sick of people arguing that the other side doesn't want it, that's a lie. Everyone feels the health care system should be reformed, it needs some fixing up indeed. Saying its all the Republicans blocking is, is another lie. Because there are quite a handful of Democrats who don't like it either. The majority of Americans do not like what's been presented to them nor how it was put together.

    Massachusetts already did this, and its caused more problems than good. Hawaii even messed around with it, and so did California. Not only that but its the same kind of health care Native Americans on the reservations receive... None of it has proven to be effective, and has been expensive. And still not many have the health care coverage this planned was designed to do. For anyone to think Scott Brown's victory, was just because his opponent ran a poor campaign. They are sadly mistaken, and just as out of touch as a lot of these silly politicians.

    First things that should be done is fixing Medicaid, and Medicare. Along with really getting on the insurance companies and watching their asses, because yea they can be cheating, lying, greedy, cold, bastards. These things need to be fixed first before anyone rushes to implement some big entitlement program, that is very hard to do away with when its in place, and causes problems down the road. Europe is starting to really see the problems of it, and in the UK many of them have tried to repeal it, to fix it but it is just so hard.

    I'm starting to doubt if these wankers even care about health care for the people... Americans overwhelmingly want the bill to be redone, the polls show most Americans are against what has been proposed, the elections also said something. And yet these politicians don't seem to want to listen to the people and run along with it and in such a rush too... Why?

    This kind of thing makes it difficult to defend Obama and company, when he is called a socialist. And by socialist I don't mean Hitler/Stalin-like cause I don't think Obama is evil like they were. I mean Western European Democratic Socialist. I'm not saying that is even illegitimate, its just a different style of Democracy. However it is a style of government that is too much government, in the long run causing economic stagnation, and no incentive.

    Finally how in the hell are we going to pay for this? You'd have to raise taxes which is what they do in Europe and other countries that have this universal health care. Is raising taxes on people in the economic climate we are in a good idea? Then I look at some of the people he's got around him, and what they say, and have said.. What they believe in.. It makes me raise some questions and doubt even more about this whole thing, because these people are pretty dodgy and a bit too much on the radical side...

    The more he explains it, and with his props (the "doctors" in the white coats behind him), the more people dislike it. It seems this whole thing is just a rush to expand the government and nothing more. Because I believe if they really did care about the people, and health care. They'd redo the damn thing, and work together as both parties do have some really good ideas. Something like this shouldn't be rushed, nor done behind closed doors shutting out the other party.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 9:59 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidOh cut the crap .... the gov't FORCES you to pay taxes
    if you don't you go to jail
    so stop with the gov't can't force you to pay ... it's getting old

    I work in the health field
    and under the present system ... this country CANNOT sustain itself
    so either you do it Now

    OR ...... it's going to crash and burn under it's own weight
    Plain and simple

    WE No longer have the Time to sit back any longer


    The Constitution empowers the government to collect taxes.

    The Consitution does not empower the government to dictate that citizens or corporations purchase specific things.

    Do you understand the difference?


    Exactly, and if they want to change this. They have to make what they call Amendments, to change this.. Not just go on and rush something like this in, which would no doubt change a lot of things in this country economically.. Big change.
  • mustangd

    Posts: 434

    Mar 10, 2010 10:00 PM GMT
    as a goal, health care reform is necessary. we need to stop avoiding it. we need action, that doesn't mean it should be rushed, or, it doesn't need to happen all at once in on large package.

    an incremental approach would be wise. example, a national pharmaceutical card. canada buys large amounts of medications, negotiates the price with the supplier, the supplier is guaranteed X number of sales, the unit price drops because of the large quantity. this isn't rocket science, and is far less complicated than an entire overhaul of the health care system. cheaper med's for people with chronic illnesses would be a substantial relief to them.

    as far as where the money might come from for reform(s), how about we review all the tax breaks given to companys that have moved offshore or moved their offices offshore to skirt paying taxes. that won't get us where we need to be, but, its worth looking at as a place to start.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 10:40 PM GMT
    Rhule08 saidlol Psh, yeah... as if being a college student isn't tough enough already! But I think I understand where you are coming from. Obama's plan may not be the appropriate plan for us at this time, however, it could potentially spark other innovations for health care?


    If you want innovation for healthcare, why not try this idea....

    Let each state, both democrat and republican leaning run set up their own health-care bill which should ideally create 50 different systems of healthcare. Give it some time and let the most efficient systems beat out the poor systems. Once enough time is given and the research completed to pick the best system, then the united states government can implement the best system.

    Argument against might be that it's playing with peoples' lives. However Obamacare itself will set up a new system , but will affect every american. What if it's poorly run? Think about how much of a problem that would be for the country, and think about how hard it would be to change it again after its into affect. A state run healthcare can be overturned easier if its doing poorly because it's a smaller system to change with less bureaucracy and money involved.

    As much as this president thinks that he has the solution, he really doesn't know. Just like republicans don't really know if they will fail. Both progressives and conservatives have entirely different views on the solution so why not make it a competition (and it really is a competition) to see who has the best ideas.

    Best system depends on a bunch of criteria...in no order
    cost of healthcare itself
    cost for the people
    cost for the state
    percentage who has healthcare
    pre-existing condition problem fixed

    Basically see who can get the most people covered for the least cost.

    Why would this be a bad idea?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 10:55 PM GMT
    sportsguy933 said
    Rhule08 saidlol Psh, yeah... as if being a college student isn't tough enough already! But I think I understand where you are coming from. Obama's plan may not be the appropriate plan for us at this time, however, it could potentially spark other innovations for health care?


    If you want innovation for healthcare, why not try this idea....

    Let each state, both democrat and republican leaning run set up their own health-care bill which should ideally create 50 different systems of healthcare. Give it some time and let the most efficient systems beat out the poor systems. Once enough time is given and the research completed to pick the best system, then the united states government can implement the best system.

    Argument against might be that it's playing with peoples' lives. However Obamacare itself will set up a new system , but will affect every american. What if it's poorly run? Think about how much of a problem that would be for the country, and think about how hard it would be to change it again after its into affect. A state run healthcare can be overturned easier if its doing poorly because it's a smaller system to change with less bureaucracy and money involved.

    As much as this president thinks that he has the solution, he really doesn't know. Just like republicans don't really know if they will fail. Both progressives and conservatives have entirely different views on the solution so why not make it a competition (and it really is a competition) to see who has the best ideas.

    Best system depends on a bunch of criteria...in no order
    cost of healthcare itself
    cost for the people
    cost for the state
    percentage who has healthcare
    pre-existing condition problem fixed

    Basically see who can get the most people covered for the least cost.

    Why would this be a bad idea?


    That would be interesting to see!

    But it was done already in a few states.. Well half of it, meaning what the Republicans are offering hasn't been tried out yet. Though what is being offered to us now has been implemented in Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii. It didn't and isn't doing too well though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 10:58 PM GMT
    IHG, I have read the proposed package. Would you be so kind as to point out what's being proposed that did not work out in those states?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 11:07 PM GMT
    good lord, just take every penny that everyone pumps into private health care and put it into public, America would end up with the worlds best health care system that's so incredibly well funded that no one would ever manage to compete with'em
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 11:23 PM GMT
    lilTanker saidgood lord, just take every penny that everyone pumps into private health care and put it into public, America would end up with the worlds best health care system that's so incredibly well funded that no one would ever manage to compete with'em

    Not if it were run with the efficiency of Medicare is currently - I believe that's the primary objection. There's no evidence that government run (or heavily regulated) healthcare will necessarily be better. If the goal is to insure the uninsured, it would seem wiser/prudent to develop a program for them than to change health insurance for everyone - where most people seem to be reasonably happy with their private plans (more so as the debate on healthcare has dragged on).

    Part of the plan for healthcare cost reduction is regulating and defacto cost controls for doctors. I have to imagine that doctors are going to object in particular.

    Finally, it is remarkable that the US spends more per capita on public healthcare through Medicare than Canada. You'd think that those who advocate for a total public system would first seek to make the monies spent far more efficient.

    And just to pour more oil on the fire, here's a youtube from Reason.com -

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    I........WANT........LOWER........PREMIUMS! icon_twisted.gif

    (Self-employed, I pay it all)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 11:30 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidI........WANT........LOWER........PREMIUMS! icon_twisted.gif

    (Self-employed, I pay it all)


    Don't expect them to go down with the healthcare bill - that is if you believe Dick Durban (D):



    According to the CBO, "Senate bill would increase individual insurance premiums" - http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-report-predicts-increases-in-insurance-premiums - "Individual insurance premiums would increase by an average of 10 percent or more, according to an analysis of the Senate healthcare bill" - according to their report.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    I know. If they give the HMO's time to "adjust" to the new bill, they will do what the credit card companies did before those reforms kicked in: raise the rates.

    Oh Canada, Oh Canada. I hear you calling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2010 11:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    chuckystud saidStrangely, we don't squawk about fire, or police, and its a given for all citizens, but, we treat our health care as a privilege of the rich. It should not be.

    Because the fire and police departments are not run by the Federal government.

    States and local municipalities are free to do what they like so long as it is not unconstitutional.

    The Federal government, however, has limited powers and those limited powers are specified in the Constitution. And providing "universal health care" (whatever that means - it seems to have different meanings to different people) is absolutely NOT something that the Federal government is empowered to do under our Constitution.


    I should have given an example you can understand: The Interstate Highway System; The Universal Service Fund (rural telephone), The REA (Rural Electric), The FAA (flight control nation wide), The National Weather Service. All are services that we take as an every day part of our lives that are provided very well at the federal level. Here's a couple of more examples: The V.A.; Medicare / Social Security. None are state programs.

    Having a single service provider often makes great sense.

    In something simpler that I hope you can wrap your head around: Walmart doesn't buy regionally, or by state, or locale. Walmart has its huge buying power, which it passes along to the consumer, by buying at the national and international level. Walmart saves millions of folks LOTS of money because they buy for every store. It makes perfect sense. So, if it's about saving money and getting the best prices, a single provider makes THE BEST sense of all.

    Now, if it's about quality of care, we would do well to learn from regular countries that spend far less but have a much higher standard of care. In this country sick folks and injured folks are regarded as a lottery ticket win by big pharm and big medical. In other countries, that greed is nipped in the bud, and quality of care is much higher.