On January 26 2011 07:58 Nysze wrote: The only reason republicans are so against this bill is that the insurance companies are putting money in republican pockets. Then they get on the news and spread lies to make the people believe that this bill is hurting them. If you are one of those glad to see this repealed I really hope that you own an insurance company or are a major stakeholder in one, otherwise your likely very misinformed and just repeating someone-else's lies.
I don't know what the insurance companies could have asked for besides the individual mandate. That alone to capture all of the healthy low-risk individuals is enough to make the bill worthwhile for them. After that they can push all of the unhealthy individuals towards publicly subsidized plans and make the US taxpayer eat the really expensive claimants and the pre-existing conditions.
The losers were doctors and people under Medicare coverage and everyone forced into buying health insurance.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
"THE TIME FOR BICKERING IS OVER. THE GAME FOR GAMES HAS PASSED. NOW IS THE SEASON FOR ACTION, NOW IS WHEN WE MUST BRING THE BEST IDEAS" Haha, I have Phil Davison in my head for some reason :-)
On January 26 2011 07:58 TanGeng wrote: Sneaks and peeks.
Probably not unconstitutional, it only affects notice of the warrant, and in practice, rarely makes a difference.
Roving wiretaps. Blanket wiretaps.
Authorized in 1986.
Librarians clause. NSLs were a bigger problem.
Not unconstitutional after U.S. v. Miller (1976). And I'm not sure if it qualifies as "spying" on the person, when it's a subpoena for information about the person held by third parties. But I agree it was good policy to scale them back.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
You realize that public healthcare is both affordable and far more effective than privatized healthcare, right?
The government has a duty to serve its citizens. Under a governmental healthcare plan, you can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. You won't find a case such as those often glorified in movies where lawyers are hired to fight for patients because their insurance companies bailed out on them when they needed a critical medical procedure.
Also, the CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will reduce the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion.
Lastly, as others have said, most European countries have had public healthcare for decades now. The U.S. in this regard, along with many other areas of policy and in mindset, is years behind. It's no wonder the world thinks so negatively of us.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Patriot act, nuff said. What the practice of dealing out shitty policy in a shady way is only deplorable when it's not your side doing the nasty? Both deal the same thing, least this policy is to help people get treated medically while your republican fear campaign spawned the illegitimate devilchild that is the patriot act.
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Patriot act, nuff said. What the practice of dealing out shitty policy in a shady way is only deplorable when it's not your side doing the nasty? Both deal the same thing, least this policy is to help people get treated medically while your republican fear campaign spawned the illegitimate devilchild that is the patriot act.
Senator Joe Biden wrote the Patriot Act in 1995. Are you trying to tell us that Joe Biden was a republican?
"Actually, in 1995 Biden wrote the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. It included all the aspects on the USA Patriot Act, so much so, that when the bill was passed up, it led Biden to quip that it was in fact his bill."
On January 25 2011 17:25 VonLego wrote: You'd rather they sit around and do nothing as opposed to working to repeal that bill as they promised their voters? The bill was never popular in the first place, and for good reason. Health care reform is an important topic, but the underhanded tactics and recklessness that were involved in passing the bill in the first place shouldn't be the methodology.
Patriot act, nuff said. What the practice of dealing out shitty policy in a shady way is only deplorable when it's not your side doing the nasty? Both deal the same thing, least this policy is to help people get treated medically while your republican fear campaign spawned the illegitimate devilchild that is the patriot act.
Senator Joe Biden wrote the Patriot Act in 1995. Are you trying to tell us that Joe Biden was a republican?
"Wrote" is such a strong word, a secretary "writes" things but is she to be held responsible for what she/he writes?
Look all I'm saying is that Bush was president, an unpopular bill (the patriot act) was passed under the guise of fear and necessity, how can one side say the other side is underhanded when both are shady dealers worthy of an alley?
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
On January 26 2011 08:29 wherebugsgo wrote: You realize that public healthcare is both affordable and far more effective than privatized healthcare, right?
The government has a duty to serve its citizens. Under a governmental healthcare plan, you can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. You won't find a case such as those often glorified in movies where lawyers are hired to fight for patients because their insurance companies bailed out on them when they needed a critical medical procedure.
Also, the CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will reduce the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion.
Lastly, as others have said, most European countries have had public healthcare for decades now. The U.S. in this regard, along with many other areas of policy and in mindset, is years behind. It's no wonder the world thinks so negatively of us.
Let me see if I can help you out here.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Second, that CBO budget is the biggest joke of all. No one who knows anything takes it seriously because it's projections are so speculative. Making an accurate 10-year budget projection about a bill that's hardly even been fleshed out by the necessary regulations is impossible. This one thing that everyone forgets about Obamacare: most of what it ultimately will become hasn't even been written yet because that will be left to the administrative process.
Third, you are dangerously naive if you think that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens. The people who founded this country certainly had no delusions on this point, and no intelligent person would ever assume that the federal government is always looking out for the little guy.
Lastly, not having public insurance is not good enough of a reason to rush through a shitty healthcare bill. Let's take time to get it right. More importantly, if you're really that embarassed about how the US is seen in world's eyes (not that you should give a shit anyway), then move.
This is blatantly false and unbased.
Really? Again, go read about Canda's health care system. If you can't accept that rationing is real, then you don't even belong in this debate.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
Let me ask you this: who decides what treatment is available to which patients? I'm guessing that there is some government agency that has created regulations that dictate exactly what treatment is available, who gets it, and when. Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Then again, you have 20% of your population not insured AT ALL! Look it is true that public health care gets watered down to cut costs which brings its own problems, but you are missing a crucial point in this debate. The public health care system is there as a safety net. People who did not hit the social and economical lottery are still cared for in a system as this, which to me is good from a purely ethical point of view. That is not my main point here, the main point is that the systems are not mutually exclusive, the people who can afford it can still take private health care insurance, What is happening when you have only the private system in place is widespread uninsurance and potentially lower costs. I would choose the ethical option and go for the system that takes care of those in need.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
Let me ask you this: who decides what treatment is available to which patients? I'm guessing that there is some government agency that has created regulations that dictate exactly what treatment is available, who gets it, and when. Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
basically, insurance is divided into two parts: the mandatory and optional part, every insurance company is forced by law to provide standard insurance package that covers the basic care for everyone at a low price. (can get government aid for this i think as well but i would have to look it up.) Then you can pay extra for premium, non-essential care such as retainers for children etc.
Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
think there is a current trend to go for the more generic medicine (same active substance obv) versus "brand names", especially in cases that do not have patent anymore like paracetamol. Other then that i think i know where you are trying to go with this, but doctor ordered medicine is the thing that gets funded.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
Why would the quality of health care be ruined?
Again, it's a money issue. Whenever the government steps in and caps the amount of money available to providers for treating patients, the insureds (ie us) will see a reduction in the availability and quality of treatment. It's called rationing, and it happens everywhere and everytime the health care industry is socialized.
Well thats not how the system works in my country atleast. The government doesnt cap the amount of money available to providers for treating patients. The system covers itself. There is no reduction in the availability and quality of treatment.
Let me ask you this: who decides what treatment is available to which patients? I'm guessing that there is some government agency that has created regulations that dictate exactly what treatment is available, who gets it, and when. Is any drug that has ever been created available to everyone in your country under your public insurance or are you limited to certain generics?
Pretty much all treatment is available, except for some problems where treatment is still in the experimental stages usually things which like only 1 in 10 million people have. Those people usually get on tv and get funded by donations (if they need it) to get treatment (usually) in the US where they have this experimental treatment and hope it works.
Pretty much everyone gets all treatment they need when they need it, except people who require an organ donor simply because there are not enough organs available. There is a waiting list for organs, the longer you wait, the higher you get on the list, the higher the urgancy, the higher you get on this list. So its not regulated by who offers the most money, which is totally fair imo. Doctors decide who gets an organ when its available (highest on list, urgancy, least chance of rejection etc).
I think pretty much all drugs are available(except maybe antidote to some rare snake poisoning which dont live in my country anyway), but not all drugs are covered by insurance, but i dont know the exact details.
edit: I'm sure our system is not perfect and could still improve, but its a lot better than the current system in the US.
On January 26 2011 08:09 Enzyme wrote: We have Public Health Care in Australia and we are not bankrupt, how come the United States seems to think it is impossible?
It's not an issue of whether it's "impossible." The real issue is how to provide public health care for everyone without either driving up the costs or ruining the quality of health care for everyone in the US who is already covered. Yes, about 15-20% of the country is uninsured. However, the many of the rest who have insurance generally have excellent coverage and benefits that they do not want to see reduced.
I love this lie you keep spreading that if you have insurance you obviously have good insurance. Maybe YOU have good insurance, that doesn't mean you can speak for "most people". Stop spreading lies, especially to people who don't live here.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Then again, you have 20% of your population not insured AT ALL! Look it is true that public health care gets watered down to cut costs which brings its own problems, but you are missing a crucial point in this debate. The public health care system is there as a safety net. People who did not hit the social and economical lottery are still cared for in a system as this, which to me is good from a purely ethical point of view. That is not my main point here, the main point is that the systems are not mutually exclusive, the people who can afford it can still take private health care insurance, What is happening when you have only the private system in place is widespread uninsurance and potentially lower costs. I would choose the ethical option and go for the system that takes care of those in need.
20% of the population not being insured is an example of how expensive the insurance model and its moral hazards are. It does not follow that we should force 20% of the population who find it an unacceptable price to pay to buy that insurance. These 20% of the population have to be more careful on their health care and they are EXTREMELY careful about their health or at least they should.
Lack of insurance is lack of access to the primary delivery model for health care. It is not a complete lack of access to health care. They can go see doctors and pay in cash for regular checkups. Some doctors prefer that since they don't have to deal with insurance agencies. Emergency care and many specialists, however, are all but out of the question for economical prices. If you want to be ethical, you could also improve the access of the uninsured to health care.
On January 26 2011 08:29 wherebugsgo wrote: You realize that public healthcare is both affordable and far more effective than privatized healthcare, right?
The government has a duty to serve its citizens. Under a governmental healthcare plan, you can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. You won't find a case such as those often glorified in movies where lawyers are hired to fight for patients because their insurance companies bailed out on them when they needed a critical medical procedure.
Also, the CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will reduce the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion.
Lastly, as others have said, most European countries have had public healthcare for decades now. The U.S. in this regard, along with many other areas of policy and in mindset, is years behind. It's no wonder the world thinks so negatively of us.
Let me see if I can help you out here.
First, whether public healthcare is more effective and affordable than private health care depends upon what your definitions of "affordable" and "effective" are. I'm guessing from your post that you have no clue how the public health care systems of other countries work. As an insured within those systems, you don't just make a claim to receive X treatment for Y condition. Because it's all rationed through government-promulgated regulations, there are a lot of treatments -- especially cutting edge treatments -- that simply are not available to people who are covered by the public systems. The only waiting lists for treatment that exist in the US right now are for organ donations, and those lists exist only because there's a limited supply of organs. In contrast, countries like Canada have waitling lists for basically every kind of specialized treatement. Go read the Canadian case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, it's a real eye-opener. Again, this is all from rationing.
Second, that CBO budget is the biggest joke of all. No one who knows anything takes it seriously because it's projections are so speculative. Making an accurate 10-year budget projection about a bill that's hardly even been fleshed out by the necessary regulations is impossible. This one thing that everyone forgets about Obamacare: most of what it ultimately will become hasn't even been written yet because that will be left to the administrative process.
Third, you are dangerously naive if you think that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens. The people who founded this country certainly had no delusions on this point, and no intelligent person would ever assume that the federal government is always looking out for the little guy.
Lastly, not having public insurance is not good enough of a reason to rush through a shitty healthcare bill. Let's take time to get it right. More importantly, if you're really that embarassed about how the US is seen in world's eyes (not that you should give a shit anyway), then move.
Lastly, I am not naive in believing that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens, because I don't believe that and I never said I did. I said that a government has a duty to serve its citizens. Private companies have no duties, they simply exist to churn out money.
Public healthcare legislation is written so that patients cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions and other things which private companies often use as excuses to avoid paying medical fees and compensation. Private companies don't have such regulations, and it is, quite frankly, impossible and highly ineffective to try and police private insurance companies into serving people fairly when their sole goal is to make money. It's no secret that insurance companies like to enroll healthy people and dig up any excuse possible to avoid paying claims. This has been documented numerous times, people have died because of it, and there have been dozens of lawsuits on the matter.
When the government is responsible for health insurance, this kind of fraud happens far less because the standards are universal. There are no business loopholes because the government is not in search of profit.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that Canada is the ONLY industrialized country where wait times are, on average, longer than for the U.S. However, Canada's system is rapidly improving, and the healthcare is guaranteed anyway. The wait is just longer than in the U.S. (but not by much, and it's rapidly changing.) The system here in the U.S. doesn't seem to be improving at all. It's also important to mention that there is no wait time in Canada for emergency surgeries (unlike here) and there aren't millions of uninsured people.
I lived in NZ. Healthcare there is excellent, both in availability and affordability. You might say, well, NZ is tiny, so it's clearly easier to implement an effective system there, and you'd be right. However, the UK, Germany, and Australia also boast better systems than the U.S.
In Germany, for example, wait times are much shorter for everything (even specialized treatment) than here in the U.S., and yet they have a national healthcare system.
On January 26 2011 09:50 wherebugsgo wrote: Lastly, I am not naive in believing that the government always acts in the best interest of its citizens, because I don't believe that and I never said I did. I said that a government has a duty to serve its citizens. Private companies have no duties, they simply exist to churn out money.
If you've ever been in part of a big big company you would know that you have to at least satisfy your good customers. You'll try to weed out the bad and unruly customers. The good customers have to be satisfied to come back. That means insurance agencies can't appear openly unfair to some unlucky soul that happened to get sick under their coverage. These insurance agencies will try if nobody is watching, but people are.
Most of the red tape, the hassle, the clinical paperwork, and the coding practices are to combat the moral hazard of having too high of a co-insurance rate. People with insurance consume a lot of health care because they don't see the full cost.
Finally, good customers who either think the quality of insurance coverage is too poor, the hassle of insurance is too much, or the cost of insurance is too high go uninsured. That is the expression of how bad the economics of insurance has become.
EPT
