On February 27 2010 06:37 0neder wrote: Where is the reform? They watered down a horrible bill to be even worse (benefits will probably decline, and rates are guaranteed to increase). The majority of Americans now realize that the bill is bad, after having enough time to digest it.
Benefits will decline and rates will increase regardless of any healthcare bill. The nation is getting older and unhealthier (weight, mostly. Combined with neurological disorders that are becoming more common). This will leave a heavy burden for workers who are themselves unhealthy. Problem is not artificially high costs; its increased burden of support for the working age people of today, declining health themselves, and increases in perscribed drugs as well as more expensive cures\treatments.
If you argue healthcare will be rationed; it already is. Just about every plan has lifetime\yearly limits on care. Scare tactics will work on some but you've yet to convince me.
Conservatives will try to correlate increased costs with the healthcare bill but that is crap, they are increasing without the healthcare bill. The two are not tied together. Undoubtedly costs will increase due to unhealthier people being given access to care. Still, this will be offset by younger people who often go without healthcare who will be paying premiums without really needing care.
In the end, health reform WILL be passed in some form. Liberal reforms have always been passed and a new generation of conservatives will defend the status quo (which now includes those liberal reforms). Conservatives are just a little... behind?
Well just about every health care economy is regulated to the point that it's either really really expensive or it hides its ridiculous costs in other ways or provides poor service in several other ways.
The alternative narrative to the "liberal" one is that the old liberal reforms of 70's that promoted health insurance in the form of HMOs and ESI have already done its damage in the US. Rolling back the tax breaks for ESI and lowering insurance rates would help mitigate costs as well as reward aggressive cost cutting while maintaining quality of care. Such a type of economy would be best for everyone in the long run.
Liberals will cry "unfair!" in the short run, so we all be doomed in the long run.
Why would it be surprising that some of the best doctors are in the US? They can make the most money, by far, working in the US than in any other country (I believe, at least). Simple logic tells you the highest quality doctors should be where they can make the most money.
If bill gates starts to get a heart attack in chicago, they will take him to chicago general hospital. While in the hospital he will be directed into an operating room, and the on staff heart surgeon will then operate on bill gates and save his life. Bill gates is left with a hefty bill. Because hey- that heart surgeon went to school for a long time, and is really good at what he does.
Now-
A plumber starts to get a heart attack in chicago, they will take him to chicago general hospital. While in the hospital he will be directed into an operating room, and the on staff heart surgeon will then operate on the plumber and save his life. The Plumber is left with a heft bill. Because hey- that heart surgeon went to school for a long time, and is really good at what he does. Hopefully the plumber has insurance (because hey you should buy that first before anything.) and if not the plumber could use medicade.
Now if the health care bill were to be put into place:
All of the high end surgeons would not want to be payed on the government paycheck. because hey, if you go to school that long and you are very good at what you do- you deserve to be compensated. So most of the well qualified doctors now leave and form private practices. These are of course expensive, however they will be offering the best medical care money can by.
At the government run hospital under qualified and under payed health care providers will now be taking care of you. Think of this- if bill gates gets a heart attack now, where is he going to go? What about the poor plumber? Health care does not equal out the playing field. In fact it makes things even more unfair, because now if your poor- you are not receiving the same care as a rich person.
Lastly-
Do i want to pay more taxes? no.
Does government run health care shy away from preventative / expensive surgery? yes.
Do I feel like waiting in line for months to use an MRI? no.
Do people go to the hospital more if they know it is free? yes. (ie. I have to pay even more)
Do i want government run health care? no.
And lastly- do i want varying degrees of medical treatment based on my economic status? fuck no.
On February 27 2010 06:37 0neder wrote: Where is the reform? They watered down a horrible bill to be even worse (benefits will probably decline, and rates are guaranteed to increase). The majority of Americans now realize that the bill is bad, after having enough time to digest it.
Benefits will decline and rates will increase regardless of any healthcare bill. The nation is getting older and unhealthier (weight, mostly. Combined with neurological disorders that are becoming more common). This will leave a heavy burden for workers who are themselves unhealthy. Problem is not artificially high costs; its increased burden of support for the working age people of today, declining health themselves, and increases in perscribed drugs as well as more expensive cures\treatments.
If you argue healthcare will be rationed; it already is. Just about every plan has lifetime\yearly limits on care. Scare tactics will work on some but you've yet to convince me.
Conservatives will try to correlate increased costs with the healthcare bill but that is crap, they are increasing without the healthcare bill. The two are not tied together. Undoubtedly costs will increase due to unhealthier people being given access to care. Still, this will be offset by younger people who often go without healthcare who will be paying premiums without really needing care.
In the end, health reform WILL be passed in some form. Liberal reforms have always been passed and a new generation of conservatives will defend the status quo (which now includes those liberal reforms). Conservatives are just a little... behind?
This is the same reason why I oppose to health care in the first place. I don't see why do healthier/younger people have to support with their labor unhealthy habits of others (smoking, drinking, being fat, etc) paying taxes to fund a healthcare system.
On the other hand it seems cruel that people die for medical reasons just cause they couldn't afford treatment.
Bah, that's how economy works. In the long run a healthcare system is worse for population, so I disagree with it.
On March 03 2010 14:23 IntoTheWow wrote: But we are not talking of health care for millionaires or famous people, but for the average joe.
The "average Joe" in the US today does have health insurance.
That is not to say everyone has insurance, or that more should not be done to help those without it. However, we need to acknowledge this will come at a cost to many people who currently have access to some for the best health-care in the world. You can't have something for nothing.
Meh, the recent commentary oversimplifies the US healthcare system.
In the US system money is going to get you differential treatment. The factor in play, choice of doctors, is what scuttled the first attempt by Hillary Clinton way back in the days of Bill Clinton's administration. Those that pay more get better doctors to treat them. Those that have money can also pay for elective surgery or expensive expensive treatments for complications not covered by health insurance. The only time rich and poor are on equal footing is for emergency care and that's because of moral and legal prohibitions against differentiating based on patient. Yet if you have enough money and connections you probably can still get an excellent doctor to rush into the ER for treatment.
The proposed system is also nothing like Canada's system. The proposed bill is mandatory health insurance with perhaps subsidies for those that cannot afford it. Without stringent regulation of pricing to consumers and services delivered, that kind of mandate on the individual would amount to a huge giveaway to the health insurance companies. The individual mandate provision forces those that cannot afford the health insurance or can afford it but opt out due to overpriced insurance to buy insurance. It gives the insurance model for delivering health care a 100% monopoly of the market. Naturally the federal government is going to price control the hell out of the health care insurance industry under this plan.
The insurance model is based on hiding the true costs of health care from the consumer. That way they can blissfully consume expensive health care without wondering how it truly impacts their wallet - until they see their new insurance premiums. The risk pooling provisions of the ESI tax break for corporations that offer their employees is a way to diffuse costs among a large group of people (one person goes on a health care shopping spree - may or may not be by choice - and everyone in the risk pool pays for it).
I think it's odd that Canadian politicians get heat for choosing to have operations in the U.S. Why would they not want their politicians to get the best health care they feel they can get? The fact is that for those who can afford it, the U.S. has some of the best healthcare in the world. I would think they would want applaud someone going somewhere else for healthcare if there is indeed a waitlist he would have had to wait on. That just bumps everyone up 1 spot in line and now maybe someone else can get an operation they need even faster. Really confusing.
On March 03 2010 16:48 BlackJack wrote: I think it's odd that Canadian politicians get heat for choosing to have operations in the U.S. Why would they not want their politicians to get the best health care they feel they can get? The fact is that for those who can afford it, the U.S. has some of the best healthcare in the world. I would think they would want applaud someone going somewhere else for healthcare if there is indeed a waitlist he would have had to wait on. That just bumps everyone up 1 spot in line and now maybe someone else can get an operation they need even faster. Really confusing.
you dont have to get retarded to prove your point, (that being that it is the best healthcare in the world if u can afford it, not that i agree with it).
And with retarded i mean, do you really find odd that canadians get outraged by it? , if so damn dude... ur not very smart.
On March 03 2010 16:48 BlackJack wrote: I think it's odd that Canadian politicians get heat for choosing to have operations in the U.S. Why would they not want their politicians to get the best health care they feel they can get? The fact is that for those who can afford it, the U.S. has some of the best healthcare in the world. I would think they would want applaud someone going somewhere else for healthcare if there is indeed a waitlist he would have had to wait on. That just bumps everyone up 1 spot in line and now maybe someone else can get an operation they need even faster. Really confusing.
you dont have to get retarded to prove your point, (that being that it is the best healthcare in the world if u can afford it, not that i agree with it).
And with retarded i mean, do you really find odd that canadians get outraged by it? , if so damn dude... ur not very smart.
Lol when have I ever tried making a point without being sarcastic? It's just not as fun
WASHINGTON (AFP) – In a boost to President Barack Obama's flagship reform drive, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a Senate health care bill would cut the deficit by 118 billion dollars.
The release of the report thickened the intrigue in a tense period of vote hunting for Obama's Democratic allies in the House of Representatives, with the White House pushing for a crucial vote on the measure within a week.
The non-partisan CBO said in its updated assessment that the Senate bill would cost 875 billion dollars over 10 years and reduce projected budget deficits by 118 billion dollars.
EPT
