ADDED: Breakfast table dialogue:
You're such a winger.
It's a process point!
१६ जुलै, २००९
Why aren't the Democrats giving us a chance to see what is in the health care bill?
Since I have been given no time to figure it out, I will ram through my explanation: They don't want us to see how terrible it is. My working theory must be it's a horror. Therefore, I am vehemently opposed to it. Aren't you?
ADDED: Breakfast table dialogue:
ADDED: Breakfast table dialogue:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२८१ टिप्पण्या:
281 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The simplest explanation? It's full of pork that they don't want people to see until the deal is done.
Alternative explanation: Because that's what the Republicans did with many bills during 2001-2006, and it worked for them.
Alternative explanation: Because that's what the Republicans did with many bills during 2001-2006, and it worked for them.
Sure, but they didn't promise the most transparent and accessible government in history, often citing the very Republican practices you're alluding to.
I think also that they are trying to ram as much through as quickly as they can. Considering the details only provides time for the legislation to be delayed, and possibly (likely?) defeated as the American people find out what is in the legislation.
This is arguably the fourth time that Obama and the Democrats have pulled this off, if they indeed do succeed this time. The previous examples were: the "stimulus" bill; the budget; and cap and trade. The "stimulus" bill was rammed through the House less than 24 hours after being disclosed - and then Cap and Trade was rammed through based on amendments to the bill that had not be consolidated, so no one, even those running the House, actually knew what was in it.
It was one thing to do this when the "stimulus" was urgent. Of course, we find that most of the "stimulus" won't be spent for years to come, but... Again, Cap and Trade was absolutely urgent, since if Congress didn't act immediately, parts of New York City might (if you believed Al Gore) be under water by the end of the century. But health care reform? Someone might die if it isn't enacted immediately, a victim of some evil insurance company denying a worthy claim. (Of course, Obama doesn't mention that the difference is that under a government payer system, those denied treatments have no recourse).
Alternative explanation: Because that's what the Republicans did with many bills during 2001-2006, and it worked for them.
Well ScottM beat me to it. What was it about power corrupts? Well in any event platitudes like transparency don't matter to partisan Dems because they just see it as payback and nothing more.
If I was a singleminded partisan like some of the usual suspects here I would be cheering on Obamacare and tax and trade and even more and more deficit spending because within two years the nation will be in such dire financial straits that people will be flocking to the GOP.
But I'd rather see the country prosper and recover first and miring us into even more debt than what Bush added is not the way to go. If I didn't know any better I'd think he was actively trying to bankrupt the nation.
Of course, we find that most of the "stimulus" won't be spent for years to come,
Of course $28 billion of the $700+ billion stimulus was for those vaunted 'shovel ready projects'. You know, those things that were going to bring in jobs, jobs, jobs.
Kinda makes you wonder where the rest of the money went.
According to INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY via Instapundit, it outlaws Private Insurance. See post at 8:49 today.
Wonder if it jails Doctors who take cash, just like Hillarycare would've.
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
-P.16 of the current House bill.
(According to Investors Business Daily, this prohibits the purchase of private insurance by individuals after the adoption of the law. They say the House Ways & Means Committee confirms this.)
Ann, it's too late to worry what's in that bill. We have a democratic republic and the time to worry about it was back in November when you were voting for the democrats that gave every indication that this is exactly what they intended to do -- especially that marxist Obama.
Don't act surprised and disappointed. You voted for them. You have helped inflict this on us.
Anyone want to place bets that buried in there somewhere is a provision making employer-provided health insurance taxable to all non-union employees? As always, look for the union label!
I don't understand how you can stop insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
If you did, why would anyone bother buying health insurance while they were healthy? Just wait until you get sick and then buy insurance.
Is this the mechanism by which the government drives private insurers out of business? If that's not the intent, I really don't understand this provision.
Hoosier, he IS trying to bankrupt the nation.
Said it before, and I'll keep on saying it: one does not sit in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years and hang out with Weather Underground radicals without sharing at least some of the beliefs those two villains had. At his core, the President believes America is a bad, bad place and needs total revamping. Bankrupting America is just one possible way to accomplish that. Another is to conduct what Victor Davis Hanson calls, "the war against the producers." That's what the people voted for last November. We'll have to live with it until at least Jan. 3, 2011.
Maguro, you understand the provision completely.
BOHICA.
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.
We are so screwed.
Trey
Maguro said...
I don't understand how you can stop insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
If you did, why would anyone bother buying health insurance while they were healthy? Just wait until you get sick and then buy insurance.
Look to the Mass experiment. Insurance companies report lots of folks buying insurance for 5 months then dropping again after they get over whatever sent them to the hospital.
Watching all of this behavior by the Democrats, will this change the way you vote in the future?
I personally don't care about the process used if the legislation doesn't constrain my liberties. But the Dems are doing just about everything they can to eradicate my choices over my own life.
To hell with that.
Watching all of this behavior by the Democrats, will this change the way you vote in the future?
As always, it depends on who is running against them.
That's apparently what Obama meant by "Change".
...it's a horror.
Yep. As have been much of the legislation our caring, concerned, helping the average man Democrats have passed. A screwing of the American people that Republicans never imagined nor wished for.
Part of my theory is that this is the death throws of the Democratic Party. Like an animal facing death, the Democrats are thrashing about wreaking havoc where ever they can knowing this is their last hurrah.
N.B. the Investors' Business Daily editorial a few people have mentioned is nonsense. As suggested by the use of "does not" (instead of "may not" or "shall not"), this section is not itself establishing a prohibition; it is part of the definition of a "grandfathered health plan", which is a pre-existing plan that will not be forced to take part in the Health Insurance Exchange.
There's enough bad stuff in the bill that no one needs to go off half-cocked and invent more of it.
According to INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY via Instapundit, it outlaws Private Insurance. See post at 8:49 today..
I'm surprised they'd move that quickly to do this, though there is no doubt that it is their ultimate goal.
This is THE reason I am so adamently opposed to their health care program. I can tolerate paying more. I can not tolerate the loss of freedom when it comes to my health care.
Hmmm. So under the democrat legislation, if you are working for a firm, and have crap coverage there, or no coverage there, you are prohibited from leaving the firm, starting your own business, and buying your own coverage individually.
Good. God.
Who the hell are these idiots?
(And the idiots who vote for them).
Ann, will you going to repudiate your vote now?
WHY AREN'T THE DEMOCRATS GIVING US A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT IS IN THE HEALTH CARE BILL?
If we knew what was in the bill we would scream bloody murder! For example, Medicare as we know it is to be gutted to pay for the the new entitlement to insure the uninsured. If the the elderly get wind of that, the health care bill is dead on arrival.
The morning show (can't remember his name) on Sirius Left said this morning that someone making $1,000,000 would only be paying $9000 additional.
I'm no math wiz, but somehow that just doesn't seem to be anywhere within the realm of possible.
Someone want to crunch the numbers out?
Look to the Mass experiment. Insurance companies report lots of folks buying insurance for 5 months then dropping again after they get over whatever sent them to the hospital.
Anyone with a bit of sense knows this is why you have to have pre-existing conditions exclusions. The only type of government anything that might be useful is some sort of catastrophic coverage, but how would it work? This bill sounds absolutely horrific.
Yes, MM, McCain was not perfect, but does anyone seriously think the stuff he would have supported would be as bad as THIS?
What I don't understand, is why 90%of the American people have not yet become disgusted with this overwhelming democrat thuggery.
Neither party is perfect, but clearly, the democrats have no concern for the will of the people and see their control simply as a means of imposing their socialist agend in a most despotic manner.
After these democrat examples, why anyone would ever vote for a democrat again is beyond me!
Ann, you and Megan McArdle voted for this thug con artist. Many, many of us expected EXACTLY this. Why didn't you? What is wrong with the supposedly smart Obama voters?
I'm having a very tough time taking seriously anything out of Obama voters, especially after-the-fact complaints.
Martha, Dick Morris is all over that. Shocking, shocking that the AARP is in Obama's pocket. Screw the elderly, eh? Wonder how many of them were stupid enough to vote Dem?
@T
What I don't understand, is why 90%of the American people have not yet become disgusted with this overwhelming democrat thuggery.
Because right now it's just theoretical and legislative thuggery. It has not yet trickled down to Mr. and Mrs. SixPack. Once these policies become law and the necessary forms have to be filled out, THEN you will see the upswell. Unfortunately, it may be too late at that point.
It seems odd to me that, given geopolitical history over the last four or five decades, Europe is starting to slide right while we are sliding left. There's something at work there I'm not fully clear on yet.
Lastly, making the completely asinine statement that this "harms the fewest number of people the least" is complete wacko politics. If he actually believes that, he needs a padded cell. The top 1 to 5 percent having less money to spend will start affecting all of us very quickly.
I think Obama is making a conscious decision on all the bills he's rushing through. He could let them be debated in Congress and possibly have some of the problems worked out. However, there's a danger in this--The bill could be stopped and then his entire agenda would be in jeopardy.
So he's just jamming them through and going to deal with the problems when they show up. Maybe the public will have a lot of programs they hate, but Obama will have the special interest groups on his side. Maybe the public will decide they can't live without his programs and love him.
It's a gamble and short term thinking. But hey, he won, and you can't say he isn't changing things. Look at all the money he's spending.
OK, everyone who voted for OBama raise your hand.
HOw's that working out for you now?
The motivation is the motivation of what used to be called a louse, the guy who steals your $500 stereo to sell it for $5.
If you create a vast money flow to Washington, skimming even a tiny tiny percentage makes you wealthy.
So the louse wants a vast money flow, and he doesn't care for what or what it delivers or what it costs. He takes his tiny piece and is happy.
2.a. They don't have as high of standard of living as we have here - not even close.
Oh I don’t know about that. I’m not saying it’s better than ours but is pretty comparable. Particularly the Scandinavian countries.
I am not adamantly opposed to a state funded health care program. I don’t think someone should be bankrupted because they have diabetes or get cancer or their kid breaks their leg. I think we can provide state funded health care that essentially covers those kinds of critical care situations without breaking the bank. Where I start drawing the line is when we get to the point where every tom dick and harry is lined up at the Doc’s office with a plantar wart on their ass and demanding free treatment. For example, I’m a pretty healthy person as is my family (knocks on wood) other than our annual check-ups, we don’t visit the doctor much if at all. As it stands, we shell out about $4000 a year in premiums that by and large cover 3-4 office visits each year which means I’m getting hosed. Then a couple of years ago I was in a crash while on my bike and broke my elbow, a couple fingers and needed stitches. By the time the bill came in and after my $1000 deductible the insurer paid about $7500 so I essentially came out ahead that year. On the flip side, I know a certain individual that is at a doctor’s office at least once a month. The kicker is there ain’t a damn think wrong with said individual other than being a hypochondriac. Now the way I see it, give me catastrophic care coverage and I’ll pay my annual check-ups out of my pocket. Only problem is I have group coverage and don’t have such an option. Which means I’m paying for a whole lot of services that I never use.
Guaranteed issue (the prohibition against insurers and plans for underwriting pre-existing conditions) without an individual mandate (the requirement all buy health coverage) plus a "public option" is a heat-seeking missile to the private health insurance market.
If you think this is an accident, you aren't thinking.
I'm not supposed to despair. It's getting awfully hard not to, though. And that's what works so well. People give up fighting this stuff.
Damn you, 52. And those who nominated McCain, too.
other than our annual check-ups
No real man has been to the doctor for a checkup in 20 years.
So yesterday, NY Times Mag ran a lengthy piece on Why We Should Ration Health Care by none other than Peter Singer.
Singer is the leading advocate in the country calling for the deliberate murder of infants. Without a shred of exaggeration, Singer has gone at length crafting a deliberate case justifying infanticide.
These are the kinds of people pushing UHC. A rabid strain of utilitarianism gone malignant.
The logic behind it is Nazi logic.
And not a word about Singer's whacked-out writing from the Times. As far as I know, people are missing it. But these are the people coming out of the woodwork to plug Obamacare.
Don't tell me Obama's not caught up in this radical philosophy. There he was, palling around with Bill Ayers... a man who seriously contemplated the imprisonment and murder of hundreds of thousands - on utilitarian grounds.
And those catchphrases as "least harm to fewest people" give the game away.
Ann, will you repudiate your misguided vote now?
When will the Propaganda Media report on the real end of the world. No, it is not a warmer climate. It is simply an end to American's freedom to work hard and keep the rewards. From now on everybody has the same reward for free. In 24 hours, everybody that thinks will cease all productive work and join the Government task of stealing OPM like the California Legislature's method. What's the chance of any stories about our downfall coming out of the Media outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, and the AP?
Guaranteed issue (the prohibition against insurers and plans for underwriting pre-existing conditions) without an individual mandate (the requirement all buy health coverage) plus a "public option" is a heat-seeking missile to the private health insurance market.
The House bill includes an individual mandate, but it's pretty toothless (a 2.5% income tax surcharge if you aren't covered). In the Senate version, the penalty for not getting coverage is one the many things that are left to be filled in later.
No real man has been to the doctor for a checkup in 20 years.
Just dumb ones.
Me too! I want to see a public mea culpa from Ann!!
But I know I have some time to wait yet..:(
Paul Zrimsek,
I think Tim's point is that guaranteed issue and no individual mandate (or a toothless one, as you mention), plus a public option (i.e, cheaper, publicly-subsidized insurance) will quickly kill the private insurance market.
Apologies if that was the point you were making.
Peg C. said...
Ann, you and Megan McArdle voted for this thug con artist. Many, many of us expected EXACTLY this.
I think that he rationale went something like this:
- I like the guy and feel good about votin for him
- I think the image would be good for the country
- I don't like a number of his policies, but he is just pandering to the crowds. When he is elected, he surely will be more pragmatic and centrist in governing
Another thought for all the Hope and Changers out there. When seat belt laws were passed in Georgia every official in the State assured everyone who asked that no enforcement would be done. It was just to encourage people to do a smart thing. Within 10 years we have regular traffic cops hiding to stop and issue people tickets for seatbelt violation. The Loving Nanny State is in business to collect money first, last, and always, no matter what the weasels say in public. Think over Blago and Dailey and Obama from ChiTown promising you anything for the common good. It's just a hoax like Climate Change Crisis and Wind mills Powering America. Follow the money!
give me catastrophic care coverage and I’ll pay my annual check-ups out of my pocket..
Yes, yes, YES!
Unfortunately, that makes too much sense.
I am not against some safety net form of health coverage either.
Like Hoosier, it should be a catastrophic policy that covers everyone and is funded by some form of payroll tax.
But the Dem constituencies, in general, are like Hoosier's example. They are shiftless and would rather sit in a doctor's office for a cold than go to work.
Does anyone know if this bill covers the 10-15 milion illegal immigrants?
Me too! I want to see a public mea culpa from Ann!!.
I fully expect that day will come.
Can we stop the hyperbole? If McCain was in office he'd be jamming through the same stimulus, cap&trade and health care just the same. AT least this way the tarnish goes on the Dems instead of the GOP come 2010-2012!
"OK, everyone who voted for OBama raise your hand.
HOw's that working out for you now?"
They're not going to get it until they are ill and have to wait 90-120 days to get an MRI or CAT scan.
Let's hear it for pragmatism. I think that is what we were supposed to get with this crew.
What part of don't waste a crisis did the intelligentsia miss?
And yet as a supposedly intelligent woman, you voted for Obama. Did you actually fail to see this and other disasters like this coming? You could not foretell the ham-fisted tactics that would be used to cram socialism down our throats?
When will you admit that you were a fool for voting for him?
There will be a health care bill. I will pay more in taxes and will wait longer for services. I can live (probably) with such sequlae. But here is the real sticking point. American medicine for all the iniquities in its delivery system has been forward moving and innovative. Effective treatments and drugs have more often been developed here in the USA than in countries with socialized systems. Why? I feel the simple truth is that money more than altruism will push more bright people into medicine. Sam Waksal was in many respects a greedy person, but it was his greed that pushed him to develop an effective cancer medicine. If you take the profit motive out of medicine, you will take the Waksals out of research......The left has never been comfortable with the fact that people want to get rich. I want smart, ambitious people going into medicine in order to strike it rich. I salute the Schweitzers and the Salks, but if you want to change the world, you must harness the energies of the Waksals.
until they are ill and have to wait 90-120 days to get an MRI or CAT scan.
Optimist. More like 6 months if they aren't obviously hemorrhaging or have a bone sticking out of their skin.
"give me catastrophic care coverage and I’ll pay my annual check-ups out of my pocket.."
If forced to it the Dems would compromise on some form of bill that would encompass this. But, the camel's nose is under the tent.
Inexorably, little by little, year by year, the government expansion of control will increase.
We will all be the frogs in that slowly heating kettle.
So has been. So Shall it be.
This is the way the US Congress does business. It's NOT a Democrat thing or a Republican thing it's just the way they work.
Why the faux shock, surprise, outrage?
Are those of you upset by this just upset because a Democrat is in the White House but this kind of crap is fine as long as a Republican is in the Oval Office?
IMO the bill won't pass. It is looking like a bad bad summer for President Obama. What has he gotten right in six months?
Foreign affairs? No unless you give him credit for his mass apology tours.
Fixed car industry? No his czar & boy wonder made it worse.
Fixed bank/ lending situation? No, almost the same as 8 months ago.
Crafted wise & targeted Stimulus? Hahahahaha. Oh but I must give him credit where it is due. Obama definitely stimulated the teleprompter industry.
Fixed health care? Sure if you want a PERMANENT SPENDULUS!
Fixed the real estate bubble and mortgage problems? No , not even close.
Can we stop the hyperbole? If McCain was in office he'd be jamming through the same stimulus, cap&trade and health care just the same. AT least this way the tarnish goes on the Dems instead of the GOP come 2010-2012!
Well, no. I am no fan of John McCain, but he did vote against the "stimulus" bill. And there is some reason to believe, from what he has said, that if he had indeed tried to pass a (real) stimulus bill, it would have leaned more towards stimulus and less towards pork and paying off political constituencies.
Part of the problem with the "stimulus" bill has always been that tax cuts are some of the best stimulus available to get us out of a recession. I have some reason to believe that McCain understands this, while Obama obviously does not (with tax increases in both his Tax and Bribe bill, his health care bill, and for smoking, etc.)
The other thing to keep in mind is that even if McCain had won the election, he wouldn't have had a working super-majority in Congress. Indeed, it is unlikely that he would have had a bare majority in even one house.
Obama is ramming all this through without debate or review because of the size of the majorities his party has in both houses of Congress. He is doing it because he can.
But as someone pointed out, this is a short term outlook. Every major vote in Congress without adequate review of the legislation is going to cost him House seats. A lot of those 1st and 2nd term Democrats in the House from districts that voted for Bush in 2004 should make sure that they haven't sunk too much money into houses in the D.C. area, if they have been suckered into voting, sight unseen, for this stuff. For their reelection chances, the "stimulus" package and the pork filled budget were bad, but Cap and Trade and health care are far, far, worse for their reelection chances.
"I'm not supposed to despair. It's getting awfully hard not to, though. And that's what works so well. People give up fighting this stuff."
"When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."-Abraham Lincoln
I am not adamantly opposed to a state funded health care program. I don’t think someone should be bankrupted because they have diabetes or get cancer or their kid breaks their leg.
The problem is of course that some of use are concerned that those "standards of Care" and "Best Practices' commissions in Obamacare wll determine that diabetes is a "lifestyle" choice due to Obesity and that C/B analysis says treating your cancer doesnt create a benefit to society, so sorry.
As for the broken leg, yep we'll treat that, come back in 60 days for your appointment
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Even if they pass it in this form, it will take years to get rolling and by that time the Chinese, Indians and Brazilians will have moved the world to a different global currency and we won't be able to borrow the gazillions this will cost.
By the time this actually comes on line, we'll be struggling to make interest payments on the Stimuloid Porkgasm™. Giving everyone free health care won't even be a possibility.
You people need to quit asking anything from Althouse. Having tenure means never having to say you're sorry.
KT Cat:
I like the way you think.
It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured. Ever since Hillarycare was proposed, however, all they've done is squinch their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and mutter, "Socialists socialists socialists"
The public option will take away those whom the free market has deemed unprofitable -- the Dems are doing private insurers a favor.
Stimulus isn't such a great idea anyway. Businesses doing the wrong things (eg. building houses, bad cars) have to stop and their resources used for something else.
Only government can't be stopped from doing the wrong thing by reality.
Bailing out the banks was okay. It was really avoidance of a dysfunctional legal system. The owners of the banks were wiped out in any case.
I object to any health care reform bill that isn't single payer, that doesn't, in effect, REMOVE the insurance companies entirely from the process and essentially expand Medicare to cover everyone.
I know we're not getting that, as Obama is too timid and weak and too invested in the system as it is to stand up and fight for what's right and for what's needed...so yes, I object.
Hey, I'm uninsured. Or as it's also known, self-insured. The pay your own bills system.
For a large part of American history people were uninsured. And for a large part of American history, medical bills were the economics example of variable pricing. They charge what they think you can pay.
An old joke was that the Presentation of the Bill was part of a medical education, with the implication that it was inflated and needed a certain steeliness against patient incredulity that could be taught.
Insurance is a problem today because of TV hype. Don't tune away, ladies, you could die.
The obvious fix for the health care bill is that providers and patients can opt out and go to cash.
That puts us squarely back in the good old days when it worked, as there would be no providers at all in the system.
Since I have been given no time to figure it out, I will ram through my explanation: They don't want us to see how terrible it is. My working theory must be it's a horror. Therefore, I am vehemently opposed to it. Aren't you?
Absolutely.
The administration rushed through the Porkulus (a massive waste of money to benefit political contributors and punish dissenters), and it tried to rush through Cap & Trade (a massive new tax that will benefit certain political contributors without reducing CO2 output)
Now it wants to rush through health care "reform" so it can destroy the private healthcare system, replace it with Single-Payer, so all healthcare is as inefficient as Medicare, as heartless as the VA, and as broke as the federal healthcare system for Indian reservations. The reason: Obama wants to destroy private-sector jobs, and replace them with government employees who will be loyal Democrats.
He's willing to make 1/6th of our economy unprofitable, and take away people's private healthcare, and impose rationing, and discourage medical innovation, in order to generate a few more reliable D votes.
And he's hoping to present it to the American people as a fait accompli by rushing it through before we notice.
Another old joke, a doctor specializing in diseases of the rich.
The joke depends on the variable pricing that was the standard back then. The rich can pay more.
Are those of you upset by this just upset because a Democrat is in the White House but this kind of crap is fine as long as a Republican is in the Oval Office?.
Nope. Not even close. Crap is crap, no mtter who is doing the flinging.
AllenS, unfortunately for Ann there is no blogosphere tenure - just ask Andrew Sullivan! Who used to read him? I certainly did. Who reads him anymore? Only dear Ann, so she can make fun of him and amuse us.
On the bright side for Ann I don't think she is stupid for having voted for Obama and I don't have any intention of stopping reading her blog - it is one of my favourites, and now I have only the added incentive of hanging out for the mea culpa :)
It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured. Ever since Hillarycare was proposed, however, all they've done is squinch their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and mutter, "Socialists socialists socialists".
You are presupposing a problem that is not obviously one. In particular, you seem to be assuming that the problem of the uninsured in homogeneous. It isn't. All of the "uninsured" are thrown together by those who are trying to create a problem that supposedly needs to be solved.
But once you have eliminated those who voluntarily are uninsured (many of the younger uninsured), the illegal aliens, those uninsured for short periods of time, etc., all of a sudden, the problem becomes extremely tractable - just expand Medicaid, etc. coverage. There just aren't that many uninsured left. But, by throwing all those groups together, it appears there is a big problem, when, at worst, there is a small one.
so yes, I object.
You object, but you don't want to pay, someone will say. Underlying all this talk seems to be the assumption that people should not have to lose their life's savings because they get sick. That there is, somewhere, written down, a right to non-bankruptcy because of health issues. That it's not fair for person A to have a run of bad luck health-wise and have to lose a lot of what he or she has worked for.
There is a Public Health reason for Universal Health Care -- namely, festering conditions that breed resistant or new strains of bugs may be more likely to be treated if a person is insured. I'm thinking tuberculosis, STDs, influenza -- things that pass from one person to another and that businesses and governments have an interest in stamping out if only to improve economic conditions -- Government wants a healthy economy to generate tax revenues to pay for everything. I think that kind of Health Insurance Money would be money well spent.
A second 'type' of treatment is for things that can develop into something worse. Early detection of a cancer, for example. Health Insurance Money there seems to be well spent as well. Wouldn't it be better to remove that cancerous skin lesion than to let it develop into a true malignancy?
Recently, our dental coverage changed. Suddenly, orthodontia became covered. At the time, we had been paying out of pocket for the daughter's overbite-correction (~$6K, IIRC). Suddenly, though, it was covered. Meaning, the insurance company paid for part of it -- a completely voluntary procedure. It's not like her life with an overbite would have been horrible. Why should anyone but me pay for that?
There is so much room for waste and frivolous medicine being paid for by taxpayers in this law. It's hard to balance that onerous thought with compassion for those who could genuinely be helped.
Does anyone else think that Congress is exempting themselves from this Health Plan?
"...so all healthcare is as inefficient as Medicare...."
I can't speak for others, but my retired parents have had NO problems with Medicare and my father, who had a number of expensive surgeries and other procedures prior to his death, was never hounded for payment or bankrupted by the costs of these procedures. The expenses that Medicare did not pay were paid by their supplementary insurance.
"My working theory must be it's a horror. Therefore, I am vehemently opposed to it. Aren't you?"
Well, yes, but I would apply that to Obama in general. All the signs were there to see, but you chose not to.
"It's a process point!"
If this means what I think it means, I agree wholeheartedly.
It doesn't MATTER what is in the bill. It matters that *we* don't have time to see it and discuss it and it matters even more that the people we have entrusted to vote on it don't have time to read it or have staffers with the appropriate back-ground read it and dissect it.
We've seen this happen over and over... with the stimulous bill, as a glaring example. With cap and trade! And now it's happening with the health care bill?
You know...
The Protestant Reformation, at it's heart, was a reaction to the Catholic Church restricting information by enforcing a "latin only" language rule. That is why Luther's life work was translating the Bible into German. It's why Wycliffe was under a sentence of death for translating the Bible into English.
But this is even worse... this is as if the church didn't even let the *priests* read, understand, or discuss doctrine.
How can we put up with this? How can we TOLERATE our own representatives who vote ANYTHING other than "no" on a bill they did not have time to read?
I think a filibuster would be in order and all the filibuster-er would have to do is read the legislation out loud!
Force a delay of the vote until the bill itself was actually READ.
"It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured."
FLS, I do. I tithe to my church and I give away 10% of my work time. It is in my ethics code.
I work in an office full of pediatricians, they do the same.
Trey
They're ramming it through because Obama's numbers are going south, people are wising up to the whole Obama/Dem scam, and they know if they don't do this now, they won't get to do it soon...and because once they do this, a million genies will not go back into their bottles.
This is borderline evil, now. This has nothing to do with America or how America is supposed to run.
"You object, but you don't want to pay, someone will say."
I don't know what this means. No one says single payer health care is free; we all pay through our taxes, as we pay for roads, bridges, police and fire departments, etc. None of us could afford individually to pay for such things, but through our tax payments we enjoy the benefits of these things without even noticing the cost to us.
I'm very happy to pay for access to health care through my taxes, and also happy to know that everyone else can have access to health care because of the input of my own taxes with everyone else's.
Within 10 years we have regular traffic cops hiding to stop and issue people tickets for seatbelt violation.
The feds will take their highway funds away if there isn't a high enough level of belt usage. Surreptitous centralization.
It means you don't want to pay for your medical bills -- you want other people to help you. You alluded to it in the discussion about your Dad -- that he wasn't bankrupted. Would it be bad if he had been bankrupted? You can't take it with you, you know.
There's a big difference between infrastructure -- used by everyone -- and an individual's health. I don't think that comparison is apt.
None of us could afford individually to pay for such things, but through our tax payments we enjoy the benefits of these things ...
Reminds me of the old joke about the company who lost money on every sale, but expected to make up for it with volume
Does anyone else think that Congress is exempting themselves from this Health Plan?.
Oh, I'd bet the ranch.
The fact that Peter Singer signed off on this pretty much seals the deal for me. Singer is an example of being intellectual to a fault.
Aside from his dubious arguments on the unborn, his statement a few years back about the responsibility of citizens to "pay the freight" for civilized society without any discussion of the morality of who's deciding what freight and how much is ridiculous.
Obama's own words, echoed by a lot of people I know that support single-payer (government only) health care, maintain that we need to remove the profit motivation from health care. Obama himself seemingly can't understand how conservatives claim government, who we say can't run anything, are going to be able to compete with superior private care.
Bullshit. The operative word is "subsidy".
The other glaring example of removing profit motive that nobody seems to mention in this context is public education...and we all know what a wonderful job the left has done with that over the past 30 years.
The expenses that Medicare did not pay were paid by their supplementary insurance.
That your parent's have the CHOICE of purchasing or not.
Wouldn't it be nice if every local newspaper asked their local US Representative and/or Senator if they will fully participate in this plan because it makes any other plan illegal and obsolete?
Mad Man:
You make an excellent point.
I remember reading a MSM sob story in the local paper about a 55 year-old widow who had a home worth $500K [paid off], was collecting a survivor's pension from her late husband [a teacher].
The story was sympathetically telling her tale of woe about paying for health insurance. She even said she was "saving the home" in case she ever needed long-term care.
WTF- as you pointed out- should we protect people with a net worth of $500 Thousand from tapping into that net egg?
fls -
"It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured. "
Sen. DeMint already did propose an alternative along with Rep. Shaddegg based on free market principles which involves doctors being required to disclose costs for procedures upfront, being allowed to shop for insurance across state lines (a huge problem), and other details. I posted a link to it a couple of weeks ago.
But yet it's never mentioned by the MSM.
But there's no bias there, and bias never hurts the American public. Nope. Never.
It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured.
Well for those who care to look, its call applying for coverage and paying for the premium. Keep in mind the 47 million uninsured are not necessarily ‘un-insurable’. Take out the 7-10 million chronically ill and you’re left with a good chunk of the uninsured who would rather pay for Sirius radio, an Iphone subscription, 2,437,349,992 cable channels and Whole Foods.
The public option will take away those whom the free market has deemed unprofitable -- the Dems are doing private insurers a favor.
Well it depends on how that all is written. If there is a public option available, any business owner with half a brain will immediately drop their coverage and refer their people to the public option. Of course if all businesses are forced to provide coverage, we should be at 25% unemployment within six months of the passage of the bill.
What folks like you fail to understand is that a private company is motivated by a profit motive whereas the public option doesn’t need to worry about pesky things like solvency. I mean we just raise taxes and hire the Video Professor to hold up a T-Bill asking China to please buy our product.
Again, expand Medicare Part A to everyone . If you want additional coverage to pay for regular office visits, pap smears, massage therapy then purchase an individual supplement policy. That’s how it works in France and we all know how fucking cool they are.
...and hire the Video Professor to hold up a T-Bill asking China to please buy our product..
:-)
@Jim
being allowed to shop for insurance across state lines (a huge problem)
Why does this one aspect of the problem ever get any mention? If health insurance were opened up to nationwide providers, much like car insurance (THAT WE'RE ALL REQUIRED TO CARRY) costs would drop from competitive pressures alone without any further reform.
@Hoosier Daddy
The number of "uninsured" also includes a lot of people the Dems would rather not talk about because it deflates their numbers. Specifically, those that CHOOSE not to have health insurance...the young, the self-employed, etc. Granted, it's a minor point, but still...
I can't speak for others, but my retired parents have had NO problems with Medicare and my father, who had a number of expensive surgeries and other procedures prior to his death, was never hounded for payment or bankrupted by the costs of these procedures.
He wasn't hounded for payment because the procedures were covered by Medicare. I can guarantee you though if it wasn't a Medicare covered procedure he would have been hounded.
The expenses that Medicare did not pay were paid by their supplementary insurance.
Cookie you do know that Medicare supplementary insurance provided by private insurers don't you? Had your Dad not had that Med Supp policy he would have been hounded for the 20% that Medicare leaves to you to pay for.
Even France who has THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD still relies on private insurers to cover a good chunk that the state doesn't pay for.
Well, Traditional Guy and Ralph L nailed it - the signs that something like ObambiCare was coming down the track were evident years ago, with seatbelt laws and smoking restrictions (and no, I am not interested in the debate over whether belts save more lives or the junk science on both sides of the 'secondhand snoke' hysteria).
The seatbelt laws, at least here in Massachusetts, were 'secondary.' In other words, the cops couldn't pull you over for not wearing a belt, but if they had you for speeding, they could hammer your ass for not wearing the belt, too. Then it became (or will become; I'm not certain) 'primary' - the cops can pull you over BECAUSE you're not wearing a seatbelt.
And if you decide the federal government has no right to restrict your personal freedom? Then they blackmail you: if you don't have a seatbelt law, your state won't get millions of dollars for road work.
Once you accept that the State has the right to restrict your behavior - whether 'for the chiiiiiillldren' or for nebulous 'public health' benefits, then you've surrendered any notion of choice. You will have ONLY as much choice as the State will grant you. And that is the answer to Althouse's question.
I'd love to pull a John McClane and yell, "welcome to the party, pal!" but it'd be a hollow victory.
Pushing it through quick (along with not seeing the bill) also helps avoid debate... we all know what dems think about single payer (they've been telling us for years...) but hardly anyone has been exposed to the other side's arguments.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm happy my father-in-law, as he passed, had excellent health insurance for the last two years of his life, when he was in and out of the hospital for a variety of ailments -- nothing super-major, though. He may have put more into the Health Insurance via premiums over the course of his life than he extracted. Maybe not. And I don't think he tapped into his savings. It's nice that my mother-in-law has a comfortable living now. But it would not have been the end of the World had all savings been wiped out by her husband's lingering high-expense death, if it had played out that way. We'd probably just have someone else living in our house right now. Maybe I would be wailing, then, that it's not fair, but life isn't.
You could go read the entire bill or summaries at http://www.opencongress.org/
Of course, 3 committees are marking it up, so you make an impossible demand to see "the" health care bill. I suppose that's an effective tactic when angling for victim status.
It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured.
Many of the uninsured are younger folks could get coverage, but simply don’t want to pay for it. Many are covered under state plans. There have been strides, with prescription drugs, for example. And things like flu shots you can get already. I like the idea of clinics staffed with nurses at Walmart (or wherever) that are reasonable, but I’m not sure if tort claims might make that incredibly difficult.
I've relied on health insurance for the last 25 years. My life was saved from cancer at a cost of $500K to my insurance company. No loss of coverage, no increase, no delays. In fact, it was the speed and extensiveness of the treatment that saved me. Under govt. care I would be dead now.
This is just the most serious of many medical treatments I've needed over the years.
Currently, I have a bad rib, broken a few years ago playing basketball. It never healed right and will likely have to be removed. It started hurting bad. I called my doctor, got in the same day, got x-rays, an extended consult. Got a CT scan the next day. Cost = $10. I will probably have surgery in a few weeks. This is painful, but no emergency.
My insurance cost about $2900/yr and my employer is kind enough to pay 60%. $3k/yr to keep you healthy, secure and save your life? with no waiting or bullshit. I can't imagine a better system.
My understanding is that a person in Quebec making $33K pays about $10K more in taxes than one in California, and everything else there cost much more because of taxes.
We are on the verge of a catastrophic fatal mistake.
Next thing ya know FLS will tell us that it's a right-wing lie/meme about the 10 million or so that would rather pay for Sirius/XM, Whole Foods and iPhone then health insurance. WE really need a survey!
If Senator Dodd is in the middle of this that just increases the likelihood of pay for play on the backs of the taxpayer.
After Fannie anyone who has confidence in this guy is not paying attention.
He needs to go.
Did anyone find out about coverage for illegals?
I just came from HuffPo, which I pretty much see as a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. BUT...
No one is happy over there either. It's single payer all the way.
For those who like reading, they are reviewing the legislation, page by page, with the ability through some new beta project, to leave comments line by line. It might be nice to drop off "the OTHER view", just to balance things a bit.
Here's the link for those of you feeling ambitious today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/health-care-bill-released_n_232206.html
I know we've entered an era of lunacy when people can straight-facedly claim that there's nothing really so bad about being bankrupted due to high medical bills.
Come back to the discussion when it's happened to you or yours.
But it would not have been the end of the World had all savings been wiped out by her husband's lingering high-expense death, if it had played out that way. We'd probably just have someone else living in our house right now. Maybe I would be wailing, then, that it's not fair, but life isn't.
Well see that’s the real point of insurance which is to protect us from those catastrophic events that life unfairly throws at us. This goes back to my point being that we conflate health insurance with health coverage. We all should be paying for our basic health maintenance out of pocket and leave insurance for the big ticket items. Say you have a treatable form of cancer; that would bankrupt anyone. That is what insurance should cover. Not your annual prostate exam or pap smear which most people can afford or should make provisions to cover if they can’t all at once.
We all thought that Logan's Run was a movie about a dystopia, it turns out that the Democrats consider it to be about a utopia. Old people are left to die so that you people don't have to have their credit harmed because they chose not to have medical insurance. Meanwhile, the entire population of the US will get the same limited care available now for people with no insurance and no means to pay.
Did you know that Obama lied that he would leave every bill on line for five days before he signed it?
People make fun of Joe Biden, but his problem is basically that he is an honest man, and has trouble keeping up with all of Obama's lies.
The Protestant Reformation, at it's heart, was a reaction to the Catholic Church restricting information by enforcing a "latin only" language rule.
The Protestant Reformation took advantage of technological change. It's no coincidence it started in the German speaking lands, where Gutenberg set up his press.
But until printed material was widely available, to be literate meant you could read Latin. When your means of mass reproduction was hundreds of monks engrossing the Bible on parchment, providing copies of the Bible in a dozen European languages would have multiplied the work unreasonably.
"Come back to the discussion when it's happened to you or yours."
For the record, My wife and I and our infant daughter lost our home in a little noted regional (New England) recession of the early '90s. We had to sell the vast majority of our possesions for a grub stake, and move in with her sister. So please, talk about what you know about, and accuse people only of things you know to be true.
We all should be paying for our basic health maintenance out of pocket and leave insurance for the big ticket items. Say you have a treatable form of cancer; that would bankrupt anyone. That is what insurance should cover. Not your annual prostate exam or pap smear which most people can afford or should make provisions to cover if they can’t all at once..
Except a lot of people already put off these procedures simply because they don't have the money and they don't go in until it's catastrophic, which ends up costing everyone else a ton more money.
We all should be paying for our basic health maintenance out of pocket and leave insurance for the big ticket items.
People will neglect to take care of things until they get out of control, making their ills much more expensive when we do take care of them. Unfortunately, we don't live in the "people should" universe; we live in the "what people do" world.
Imagine the "people should" universe: no tooth decay, no venereal disease, no melanoma, no heart disease or lung cancer -- man I'd like to live there.
Hoosier dad -- Scandinavian standard of living is a myth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17bawer.html?ex=1271390400&en=44ea05b3e068feb5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"Come back to the discussion when it's happened to you or yours.
7/16/09 12:27 PM"
I'd rather be bankrupt than dead. I'm 100% sure that I would be dead now under a system anything like what is in Canada or Europe.
I understand your point, but there is no need to go bankrupt with insurance. Just buy it and keep your freedom and your life.
Under govt. care I would be dead now.
Unsupported assertions like this fail to persuade. It's the right-wing equivalent of all praise be to Allah.
Which government care? Medicare? Medicaid? VA care? Active military care? Canadian care? UK NHS? Spanish care? Italian care? French care? German care? Swedish care?
And how exactly would this lethal government care have led to your death?
People will neglect to take care of things until they get out of control, making their ills much more expensive when we do take care of them..
I am so, so tired of this argument. Not only is its veracity unproven, but even stipulating it's correct for the sake of argument: who the hell are you, their mother?
And, if it does cost me more in the end (a fact I don't concede), it's a small price to pay to keep you people from fucking up my health care.
Really, it never ceases to amaze me the propensity for liberals to stick their nose in other people's business.
And, if it does cost me more in the end (a fact I don't concede), it's a small price to pay to keep you people from fucking up my health care.
As long as you pay for every procedure from your own pocket, that's fine. When you start trying to share costs, say by buying insurance, or having your employer buy insurance for you, then it affects me. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
"I know we've entered an era of lunacy when people can straight-facedly claim that there's nothing really so bad about being bankrupted due to high medical bills.
Come back to the discussion when it's happened to you or yours."
No one said it wasn't BAD, or unpleasant or anything else.
But what sort of lunacy is it to, 1) think that you shouldn't pay for your own care even when you *can* or to the extent that you *can*, and, 2) figure that no one should ever have to take care of their very own relatives if the relative falls on hard times.
People will neglect to take care of things until they get out of control, making their ills much more expensive when we do take care of them. Unfortunately, we don't live in the "people should" universe; we live in the "what people do" world.
This isn't that hard. If you don't take care of yourself, your premiums go up. And if you decide to drop your insurance because your premiums are higher, then nobody's paying for your pigheadedness but you.
Meanwhile, when I can't be dropped and my costs can't go up, what incentive do I have to actually follow through on those preventative things? You have to know that lots of people still aren't going to do them even if they're "free," and even though their costs must born by everyone else. What then? You can see pretty obviously where this line of reasoning ends, I think.
"Except a lot of people already put off these procedures simply because they don't have the money and they don't go in until it's catastrophic, which ends up costing everyone else a ton more money."
I'm continually baffled by the obtuse
argument that this is going to save us money. Show me any government program that has saved the citizen's money. The costs are without exception gross underestimates.
This is the same line of reasoning that was used for Porkulus...it's going to save jobs.
When you start trying to share costs, say by buying insurance, or having your employer buy insurance for you, then it affects me. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Wouldn't that mean then, logically, that nobody on the government medical plan has a right to partake in any unhealthy activity whatever? Are you really willing to go there?
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
Buying insurance gives us all equal opportunity to the best care we can afford both singular ly and as a group. You may have to work at affording it, but that is true of all things in life. From my personal experience I would sacrifice all other things short of food for health insurance, even live on the street if needed.
FLS: What are you talking about? What is being proposed is not insurance. It doesn't even come close to the model of insurance. Insurance is where 4 of us pay into a catastrophic plan, and the 1 guy who gets cancer gets his bills paid. That's insurance. What you propose is 4 people pay in for house "insurance", and all 4 get money out to pay for painting their house. That econimic model does not work. A 10 year old figures that out.
"As long as you pay for every procedure from your own pocket, that's fine. When you start trying to share costs, say by buying insurance, or having your employer buy insurance for you, then it affects me. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
That makes no sense, fls.
A situation of voluntary association for the purchase of insurance in no way at all forces someone else's poor health choices on you because you have the same right to go buy insurance for lots cheaper from a company that does it properly and demands preventive care and healthy living or at least gives you a discount.
The fact that I'm pretty sure such a company doesn't exist is because going to the doctor for every sniffle doesn't save money after all and it would probably be illegal not to insure you if you're obese or smoke, and I can't imagine how they'd verify that you wear your seat belt and never drink to the point of drunkenness or engage in promiscuous or unsafe sex.
If Obama had any balls, he'd propose what Hoosier is suggesting.
When people complain, Obama could just say "Look (he loves to stat off with that) if you can afford a cell phone, cable TV, Ipod gadgets, nice sneakers, the govt does not have to keep paying everytime you get the sniffles".
But like I said , if Obama had balls.
"a lot of people already put off these procedures simply because they don't have the money..."
A lot of people don't go to the doctor because they don't want the hassle, don't like the doctor, are waiting to get better on their own (which happens more often than not, actually), don't believe (often enough with reason) that the doctor can actually help, or simply don't want to deal with the possibility they might be seriously sick.
Other people go *constantly* for any reason at all... every sniffle gets an antibiotic, every flu season gets a shot, every ache and pain needs to be seen to, and besides, they had a special on television about "restless leg syndrome".
wow oh wow. In FLS' "universe" voluntary participation in health insurance = "fist colliding with my nose". Doesn't that tell it all regarding far left wing ideology? They literally HATE freedom.
Orwell was so on the money. FLS is proof of that.
Freedom = slavery
Slavery = freedom
You will love Big Brother(ie Obama)
If you did, why would anyone bother buying health insurance while they were healthy? Just wait until you get sick and then buy insurance.
This is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts.
Washinton Post
Wall Street Journal
Kinda makes you wonder where the rest of the money went.
Two words: A-Corn
fls -
" Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
Which is exactly the argument against government-mandated anything with regard to my personal lifestyle choices.
You yourself admit that you don't have the right to jam those things down my throat without my consent, but then you advocate doing exactly that.
You could at least be honest and say that you think you have the right to smack somebody else in the nose, but that you reserve the right to hide behind your mother's skirt if they swing back.
It might all be a moot point. U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark, says by rules it takes 7 votes to stop something from getting out of the committee that working on this.
He says he had 7 votes yesterday and 10 today.
They literally HATE freedom.
I thought conservatives opposed the freedom to pick my pocket, as any cost-sharing scheme must do. Buying insurance is not more noble than universal health care.
"No one said it (going bankrupt from medical expenses) wasn't BAD, or unpleasant or anything else."
Madison Man said: "It's nice that my mother-in-law has a comfortable living now. But it would not have been the end of the World had all savings been wiped out by her husband's lingering high-expense death...."
MM also said in an earlier comment: "You alluded to it in the discussion about your Dad -- that he wasn't bankrupted. Would it be bad if he had been bankrupted? You can't take it with you, you know."
Bagoh20 said, "...there is no need to go bankrupt with insurance. Just buy it and keep your freedom and your life."
What about the many who can't afford to buy insurance, or who can't afford the deductibles on insurance they can afford? What about the many who cannot find an insurer to issue them a policy due to "pre-existing medical conditions?" If I left my current job and it's group health insurance coverage, I would not be able to buy insurance anywhere due to past medical conditions I have been treated for...at costs that would have bankrupted me several times over had I not had my employer-provided health insurance.
Shocking, shocking that the AARP is in Obama's pocket.
Have you ever looked at an AARP publication? I saw one at my in-laws' and it was practically one long ad for democrat social programs. All scare-mongering, in other words. Cover-to-cover, it was: "Bleed as much out of your government as you can before you die. You deserve it!"
I would not be able to buy insurance anywhere due to past medical conditions I have been treated for
See, this man would have died under FreeMarketCare (tm) because no rational insurer would accept the risk that he would have cost them money.
Why make free market providers take on unprofitable customers? Alternatively, why let him die? Let Obamacare handle them.
Robert Cook - most Americans do not agree with blowing up the entire health care system because 30-40 million lack insurance. Why not insure the truly needy instead of blowing up my health care?
I thought conservatives opposed the freedom to pick my pocket, as any cost-sharing scheme must do. Buying insurance is not more noble than universal health care..
I have no idea what this means, but you sure hit the nail on the head with the word scheme.
We all should be paying for our basic health maintenance out of pocket and leave insurance for the big ticket items.
Bingo, Hooiser, But notice that you cannot convince some people here of that, even as an ideal.
Some people really do want to be taken care of like children. That's the greater problem.
FLS - for the sake of argument why not simply put those people under Medicare instead of blowing up my health insurance and private care? Or do you despise my freedom and want me to slum it?
most Americans do not agree with blowing up the entire health care system because 30-40 million lack insurance. Why not insure the truly needy instead of blowing up my health care?
isn't that why Obama is proposing adding a "public option" to our current patchwork system of health insurance? To preserve what's already here?
MadisonMan: I'm a little curious as to what would have happened if, had your MIL been bankrupted and she had moved in with you, becoming your responsibility, she then got a catastrophic illness. Would you say it would be your responsibility to pay for her care, even unto bankruptcy? And then, when you got older and had issues of your own but were low on resources, would it then be your kids' responsibility to take you in and care for you and your wife, even unto bankruptcy?
I'm just curious where/how your thoughts lead you. Curious, not snarking.
**
I tend toward the distinction HoosierDaddy makes between health insurance and health care coverage. It strikes me that these are two different issues--problems, if you will--requiring different responses--solutions, if you will.
**
Robert Cook: I'm glad your parents have not faced hassles w/medicare (and that they bought supplemental insurance, which also did not pose hassles). As someone else pointed out, I think, this may have had to do with the nature of your dad's health problems and treatments. I mean, maybe not--I can't know--but it's worth your considering that, don't you think?
**
As an aside, Medicare is NOT fun to deal with you if what you end up with is something like ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). The pace of bureaucracy alone is (and some waiting periods for getting upgraded equipment, such as wheelchairs, as the situation changes) is very much a mismatch for the realities of those particular types of catastrophic, progressive diseases. Of course, the supplemental insurance companies (yes, my parents bought additional coverage years ago) aren't much fun to deal with either. Some illnesses really are more catastrophic than others, I've come (regrettably) to learn.
I support what Alex said. We have Medicaid. And if it's underfunded, provide more funding (and if you think it is underfunded, why?, why?, why? do you think this new scheme isn't going to resemble Medicaid in a few years?).
Robert,
Those problems are all solvable without destroying the best heath care system in the world and the engine of medical advancement in the process.
We currently treat everyone. We just charge too few for the cost. Meaning without insurance, you get wiped out or I pay for you anyway. I would prefer anything including tax funded insurance for the poor if it saved our fantastic system.
Buying private health insurance = Punching fls in the face?
Is this an argument for or against private health insurance?
But notice that you cannot convince some people here of that, even as an ideal.
I deal in reality, not ideals. If you can suggest how to engineer human nature out of human beings I would like to hear it.
When you start trying to share costs,...
Sharing costs is what Obamacare is all about. But, a lot of people's share of the cost will be in negative numbers because too many already take much more than they contribute. This in large part is the group upon which Democrats depend for votes.
Meanwhile, people who contribute to society by earning money, paying their own way, paying taxes, creating jobs for others, paying for their own health care are demonized by Democrats for being selfish.
The larger point here is not that the liberals want to insure the needy, their larger aim is to destroy any vestige of private care. Just out of hate and spite for those who can afford it.
FLS: The public option is designed to kill private insurance, as it surely will.
If Obama was being reasonable and not a total ideologue, he'd simply propose to extend Medicaid and that would be it. No controversy, no extra trillions needed. But Obama is not here for pragmatic solutions, but to REDO society like FDR's New Deal.
if it does cost me more in the end
It will. Mandatory prostate exams and colonoscopies.
I survived single payer Navy medicine in the 70's, after the end of the draft and tight budgets left mostly mediocre doctors and staff. At least I just missed the cardiologist at Bethesda who was molesting teenage boys. My catheterization was humiliating enough as it was.
The rest of the world wants us to have single payer so they won't lose their best doctors. They don't realize they'll also lose future treatments and wonder drugs that we won't subsidize for them as we do now.
There will be a health care bill. I will pay more in taxes and will wait longer for services. I can live (probably) with such sequlae.
I hate the thought of it, but I could live with it.
What I live in fear of is one of my kids getting seriously ill and having to wait for treatment under state-run healthcare. Possible dying in the meantime. That is the contingency that I can't live with. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Except a lot of people already put off these procedures simply because they don't have the money and they don't go in until it's catastrophic, which ends up costing everyone else a ton more money.
Because they don’t have the money or because they don’t want to spend the money? C’mon garage, few other than the dirt poor and they’re on Medicaid, can’t swing the money for an annual mamogram or prostate exam. The median US income is $50k a year so I call bullshit that people can’t afford an annual checkup. This is where my conservatism diverges. I have no problem with the government helping people but I just cannot understand the liberal mindset in which stupidity must be subsidized.
I deal in reality, not ideals.
Previously stated:Imagine the "people should" universe: no tooth decay, no venereal disease, no melanoma, no heart disease or lung cancer
You're in more of a fantasy land than anyone else commenting here. If everyone did what the "should," you'd still have tooth decay, melanoma, heart disease, lung cancer, etc. (Maybe no venereal disease)
What about the human nature liberals want to deny or engineer out? The human nature that motivates people to work harder and longer for greater rewards. The rewards that liberals want to take away from them.
What about the human nature of people unwilling to work hard and long but want the government to take from the hard working earners and give it to them? This is the group that "redistribution of wealth" appeals to, the something for nothing group.
I deal in reality, not ideals. If you can suggest how to engineer human nature out of human beings I would like to hear it.
Well that's an interesting point of view, sort of like: fuck ideals because they're unattainable anyway.
In truth you've set up your own version of an ideal, that people deserve to others have others pay their way.
The larger point here is not that the liberals want to insure the needy, their larger aim is to destroy any vestige of private care. Just out of hate and spite for those who can afford it.
No, no, no, Alex. The really rich, like the Kennedy Clan, George Soros, Streisand and the other Hollywood liberals, etc., they will continue to be able to afford it. This attack is aimed squarely at the middle and upper middle class, lest they -- the really rich -- continue to be forced to share top-quality healthcare providers with riff-raff scum who work for a living.
Because they don’t have the money or because they don’t want to spend the money.
Spot on again Hoosier. I live in a lower middle class neighborhood and am surrounded by people with this attitude. Yet they don't lack the money for new trucks, TVs, and bling.
most Americans do not agree with blowing up the entire health care system because 30-40 million lack insurance. Why not insure the truly needy instead of blowing up my health care?
isn't that why Obama is proposing adding a "public option" to our current patchwork system of health insurance? To preserve what's already here?
No he’s creating an entirely new Federal beauracracy when the easiest way to solve the whole ‘crisis’ is to extend Part A coverage to the uninsured which would be a helluva lot cheaper than the $1 trillion money pit he’s proposing.
It's not too late for free market providers to propose how to cover the uninsured. Ever since Hillarycare was proposed, however, all they've done is squinch their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and mutter, "Socialists socialists socialists"
Bullshit. First of all the Free Market doesn't speak in one voice. It's a competition. It's a bunch of individuals, like us--not a bunch of politicians!
Second, there happen to be many developments that, given time, will help to get us back on track.
1. Health Savings Accounts
2. Cheap clinics like what are popping up at WalMart,Target and the like
3. Cheap generics
4. More and more things like super cheap eyeglasses, contacts, and other things that innovation and technology make cheaper over time. (this ceases under state run health care by the way)
At the very least, stop expecting that politicians are the ones to solve a problem. They'll just make it worse and line their pockets doing it.
If everyone did what the[y] "should," you'd still have tooth decay, melanoma, heart disease, lung cancer, etc. (Maybe no venereal disease).
Yep. "Prevention saves money" is a completely unproven assertion.
@Knox: Four excellent points in your last comment!
I love how the socialists who didn't want politicians making medical decisions for women are perfectly happy letting politicians make medical decisions for everyone.
I would add to knox's list, allow catastrophic-only policies to be sold in every state (or, alternatively, allow cross-state sale of insurance). Such policies are outlawed in many states.
their larger aim is to destroy any vestige of private care
Why do you think this?
Has public transportation wiped out private transportation?
Has city-provided tap water eliminated bottled water?
Have libraries obliterated Amazon? Public schools eliminated private schools? Police eliminated private security?
Why would the existence of a public option in this one endeavor above all others destroy private options?
chickenlittle is of course expected to shout "The sky is falling; the sky is falling!" What excuse do the rest of the alarmists have?
chickenlittle is of course expected to shout "The sky is falling; the sky is falling!" What excuse do the rest of the alarmists have?
No no no it's more like "ACORN is falling"
But you can't handle the truth. I love how this topic is outing the Obama agenda at long last.
One big reality is: People who have the money to choose come to our system. That should tell you what will happen to choice and quality.
Second, many universal plans are looking for ways to privatize for better results even though they hate the very idea of it.
Third, We are the only nation moving left because we don't understand the negatives others have experienced. We should learn from their mistakes, not repeat them.
Then it became (or will become; I'm not certain) 'primary' - the cops can pull you over BECAUSE you're not wearing a seatbelt.
re: seatbelt law...Ditto for Arkansas, this just went into effect June30th. Was this because of a national push? I wondered when my cousin said the same thing happened in Tx and many others have mentioned it.
Garage and FLS have demonstrated better than I could have ever described the mentality of the modern liberal. Here I am, one conservative voice advocating a Federal program to cover catastrophic care coverage for the uninsured and it’s still not good enough because people still won’t take it upon themselves to get check-ups because the government (taxpayers) won’t pay for it.
Well thanks you two because you just proved that we don’t have a health care crisis. As I said, the median US income is $50K per year so the assertion that people can’t afford annual screenings is complete and utter bullshit.
My in-laws are more my responsibility than the government's. So reader, in that case you cite -- likelihood of happening, zero, btw, because my in-laws purchased long-term health insurance to guard against it -- I would be weighing the costs and benefits of expensive treatments vs. just palliative care. (That presupposes I have power of health care, however, which I do not at the moment -- My wife did for her Dad, and she, her brother and her mom decided on mostly palliative care at the end because the high-expense alternative wouldn't have done much for his quality of life). My approach might cost my bankrupted MIL some years of her life -- and there'd be a long discussion about that, because maybe it's worth it for her to prolong the inevitable. And if she wanted it, we'd try to make it work, but you don't always get what you want. Am I ready to say to her "I'm sorry, we just can't afford to save you because it would cost us our house, but we'll make sure you are very comfortable"? No. Not right now. But I think time might help me along. After denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
I just think people should always be aware as they fritter away money on health care (maybe fritter is too light-hearted a word) that those funds are coming from somewhere. Making it a stark choice between bankruptcy and life is the extreme choice. We were extremely fortunate with my FIL -- the choices were relatively easy and straightforward -- and I am very grateful for that.
Similarly, my parents are still healthy -- for their age -- and living in their house. I'm very grateful. I know I am extremely lucky.
Hoosier, I believe it's Part B, not Part A, that covers doctor & hospital costs.
Part D is the new one. What is Part C?
Why would the existence of a public option in this one endeavor above all others destroy private options?.
Because employers would dump their coverage, forcing people into the public option. Your other examples are poor analogies for the health care structure in this country.
I don't like the employer-based health insurance structure we have. But you have to analyze the future from the starting point of the present.
Does anyone else think that Congress is exempting themselves from this Health Plan?
Congress is covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, same as all Feds, and you bet. There will be an exemption.
The Irony is that the FEHBPis jut a wrapper around that evil BCBS private plan.
what these Obamatons don't understand is the simple difference between a private plan, competing fo customers through efficent service is far better than a public plan where sick people are a nuisance to be run off.
FLS:
Public mass transit monopoly has effectively pre-empted efficient, convenient, for -profit competitors.
Ditto for Arkansas.
Ditto Wisconsin.
Here I am, one conservative voice advocating a Federal program to cover catastrophic care coverage for the uninsured
Just saying that might not be the lowest cost option.
Here I am, one conservative voice ... .
You feeling lonely on this site, are you, Hoosier?
Knox:
The AARP "newsletter" is like a propaganda letter.
I got so sick of their liberal agenda I let my membership lapse. I still wonder if or how they are really a non-profit group?
They are certainly partisan.
Just saying that might not be the lowest cost option..
I thought you dealt in reality?
You're not referring to that "prevention saves money" argument again, are you?
Yeah, I refuse to join AARP. They send me membership cards every 2 - 3 months but I want nothing to do with them.
"FLS:
Public mass transit monopoly has effectively pre-empted efficient, convenient, for -profit competitors."
SAVE AMTRACK. Everybody's entitled to low cost transportation. It's a basic human right.
Lars:
I need a ride right now. Anyone know Obama's phone number? I will call the White House to get my limo!
Heh.
Shanna: If memory serves me correctly, I believe there was some sort of deadline this year by which states had to have passed "primary" seatbelt laws in order to be eligible for a certain type of federal funds. Those with "secondary" seatbelt laws (or none--I think that's only NH?) would not be eligible.
I could be wrong about that, but I think that's the situation.
Yeah, forgot AMTRAK. Beacon of hope for those who think Government-run transportation is efficient.
Here in Seattle the Pointy Head Liberals are proposing a new passenger-only ferry with a per-head cost of $324 per trip. This is to go about 3 miles across a lake. And the funny thing is, the cost ($324) o't phase them. They reason that the government will get the money somehow.
And the pointy heads in the state government were furious that we didn't get "our fair share" of the stimulus money for "desperately needed funding," and got our Sonia-Sotomayor-of-the-Senate to pull a hissy fit. So we get funding for our ferries for this year, and will bankrupt our great-grandchildren.
Yeah, tell me some more how the government-run healthcare will be efficient, low-cost, and unpoliticized.
Like Teh One™, I'm all ears.
Original Mike,
Agree with you totally on the AARP. I joined when I turned 55, looked at all the info they sent me and let it lapse. They were doing nothing that agreed with my agenda and expected me to sign up for all the ideals they wanted. I sent them a letter to stop bothering me since they did not support anything I did but they still keep on sending me junk in the mail. I don't even bother to open it any more. Maybe I should start sending back the post-paid envelopes so it costs them.
When you start trying to share costs, say by buying insurance, or having your employer buy insurance for you, then it affects me. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
??
Truly one of the weirdest comments of all time.
thanks, chickenlittle. A compliment from you means a lot.
Maybe I should start sending back the post-paid envelopes so it costs them..
You and me both. In fact, I can get them twice. They send me 2 mailings under different permutations of my name.
Let's do it.
MadisonMan: Thanks for the thoughtful response.
We've had "Click it or Ticket" in NC since 94. We may be nationally red, but the state govt is bright blue, which may explain why my former insurance co. (MofO, appropriate acronym) pulled out of the state individual market, as had my ins. co. before them.
@FLS
Has public transportation wiped out private transportation? No, because public transportation is generally awful. Here in STL, observably and unimpeachably, it has allowed a criminal element (that never buys tickets, by the way) to propagate along its recently expanded lines.
Has city-provided tap water eliminated bottled water? It will once bottled-water is taxed if you don't use city water and/or it becomes illegal to use cash to pay for it
Have libraries obliterated Amazon? Two completely different things...non-sequitur
Public schools eliminated private schools? Nope, but using this logic, why does the Left, then, fight so hard against vouchers?
Police eliminated private security? If you mean policy and private citizen's personal weaponry, there's examples of that all over the country, DC being one of them. If you mean police versus salaried henchmen guarding you...I'm not sure I know where to go with that as it applies to, I'm guessing, nobody on this blog. Regardless, police are reactive security. Private security (weaponry or goons) is preventative, so, again, non-sequitur.
Why would the existence of a public option in this one endeavor above all others destroy private options? Because despite what's being bandied about, the real motivation behind the progressive UHC movement is to expand government, acknowledged or not. Even if they get the most watered-down version of a public option, it's still a thin slice in a death by a thousand cuts, so to speak
"The sky is falling; the sky is falling!" What excuse do the rest of the alarmists have? Please excuse me for straying from topic, but someone from the same side of the spectrum that brought us Cap-And-Tax decrying alarmism strikes me as not a little hilarious
I am suspicious of any government run healthcare program. The insurance companies, on the other hand are doing a great job.
The VA, which is horrendous, should be discontinued immediately. As well Medicare is a joke-get rid of it now.
Fuck you seniors, find an insurance carrier to help you.
Those of you with any pre-existing conditions need to just die and quickly please.
You can't pay for your health care bills? Tough, don't get sick or better yet get better credit so you can get some more credit cards to help. Or better yet there is a thing called life savings, use it. If you don't have any life savings than die.
Again, thank you so much for your time and interest.
You want insurance like your senators than get a job as a file clerk for the federal government.
I am outraged by all these Americans wanting a government handout.
Government isn't the answer it is the problem.
"My working theory must be it's a horror. Therefore, I am vehemently opposed to it. Aren't you?"
Uh, yeah. I figured that out last year. Why I voted against him.
When are we going to final receive your regret on your vote for Obama.
This is getting ridiculous.
Have you not learned by now Althouse that you threw your vote away and for what?
A commie, foreign born, muzzie, with an American hating wife, as president.
Come on fess up. We are waiting for it and we will feel better about ourselves that you feel bad about your vote.
Yes he would of still won Wisconsin by a landslide (commie state) but it would of been one less vote for the fascist, nazi, treasonous messiah.
"Why do you think this?
Has public transportation wiped out private transportation?
Has city-provided tap water eliminated bottled water?
Have libraries obliterated Amazon? Public schools eliminated private schools? Police eliminated private security?.."
What images do the following conjure up:
Public schools
Public housing
Public bathrooms
Public transportation
Nice, huh?
@LarsPorsena
That is an excellent point. Well crafted.
Thank you for thinking by points are great ScottM.
All in a days work here.
Hoosier, I believe it's Part B, not Part A, that covers doctor & hospital costs.
Part D is the new one. What is Part C?
No. Part A covers inpatient care, skilled nursing and hospital costs. This is free and beneficiaries pay no premium for it. You automatically get Part A when you turn 65. Part B is outpatient care and doctor visits. This you get at 65 but you pay a premium for it. Part C is Part A and B combined and is provided by private insurers. This is the Medicare Advantage plan. Part D is the prescription drug plan.
My idea is extend Part A to the uninsured which would provide them with the basic hospitalization coverage. That way no one is going to go bankrupt from a catastrophic illness or accident. Crisis solved.
If people simply refuse to go to the doctor for their screenings then as the saying goes, your lack of planning does not constitute a crisis for me.
You know, Titus, often enough you're funny. In this case, there are some serious and thoughtful points being made from both sides, and I'm not sure what, this time, you think you're adding, unless you really would prefer the conversation veer off entirely into the useless. Is that your preference? If so, why?
Here I am, one conservative voice advocating a Federal program to cover catastrophic care coverage for the uninsured
Just saying that might not be the lowest cost option.
Oh no? I would love to see how providing full coverage versus a basic cat policy is going to be cheaper.
reader, you're welcome.
Funny dilemma for the blue dog Dems -- vote for the bill and risk a tax revolt, or vote against and deliver a body blow to the president and therefore their re-election chances?
Hoosier:
I know you understand that many of the Dem constituents don't believe in the idea of buying insurance to protect an asset. They don't understand the idea of an asset either.
Which reminds me of a Jay Leno joke. I saw him in a show in Atlantic City about 20 years ago.
His joke was "Jeez- I was watching many of you playing blackjack and I was surprised to see you insuring your $2 bet aginst the dealer's 21. What is that all about? Most of you don't even insure your cars!".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा