Precision in Political Debate

[Whimsi]

This is an opinion piece in the Knoxville newspaper. It made me think of the discussions that occur here:

link (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/18/precision-in-language-makes-things-clear/)


Precision in communication is a good thing. Writers who care about their craft always look for the word that best describes an action, a thing or a person. Sometimes there is no perfect word.

As a writer concerned with precision, I occasionally purge a word from my vocabulary because the word has been so overused and badly abused that it no longer has a clear meaning.

It's been some time since I dumped "liberal" and "conservative" from my vocabulary because, in my opinion, they both had become meaningless through careless usage. Essentially, both have come to mean "Satan" or "traitor" depending on who uses them.

They have degenerated into hateful epithets for lazy, nonthinking people to hurl at others. It is not a crime or a sin to be liberal or conservative in the real meaning of the words, but the real meaning of both has been replaced by the verbal equivalent of an obscene gesture.

My banning of the words won't stop them from being abused, but I don't have to participate. In fact, the true test of whether a person even understands a word is whether or not he or she can define it succinctly. If you can't define a word, you don't know what it means; it is a hollow sound borrowed from someone else.

"Socialism" is hanging on in my vocabulary, although it's another vague word dragged out every time health care reform comes up. Lately, I've begun asking people to define socialism when they use it as an argument against health care reform. Any person who understands the word can give a single-sentence definition.

Let's try it. "Socialism is a system of government under which there is no private ownership, and all means of production and distribution are controlled by the state." At one time, most American students learned this in civics class before facts became political footballs. It does not apply to this country.

Asking for a definition of socialism sometimes results in an angry outburst from a person who has been using the word to describe policies he or she just doesn't like. If the person doesn't know the definition, it's embarrassing. If he or she does, it's also embarrassing.

The moment a person who understands the definition of socialism speaks it out loud, it becomes clear that health care reform isn't about socialism. It's about entrenched self-interests in a health system that spends more and delivers less value than any other free society.

Socialism is still in my vocabulary because it has apparently lost some of its evil overtones already. Opponents of health care reform are desperately floating scary ideas like "rationing," "euthanasia" and "federally funded abortions" to obscure the real issue that countries like France, the Netherlands and Canada take better care of their citizens than we do.

Rationing already happens based on age, disease and finances; we are already paying higher premiums for the people who have no alternative but emergency rooms; voluntary counseling for the elderly doesn't equate to euthanasia clinics; and abortion is a sure way to stir controversy, whether it's relevant or not.

Do I want a bureaucrat making decisions for me? No. But insurance clerks are now making those decisions, and it's profit, not my health, that concerns them. They can refuse to insure me or cancel me on a whim without explanation. Somewhere between the two extremes there's a solution, but we have discuss it rationally to get there.

We can start by at least understanding what the words we use actually mean.

[BriarFox]

Good article. Glad to see people are picking up on the buzz-word ploy of those crying out against "socialism."

[radamanthys]

Single payer (as well as a public option), from what I gather, is socialized healthcare, not the current proposal.

[Parkbandit]

Single payer (as well as a public option), from what I gather, is socialized healthcare, not the current proposal.

If you don't believe that single payer is the goal, then you simply haven't been paying attention or you are purposely ignoring the facts to a level I thought only someone ignorant like Tsa'ah could attain.

Whatever gets shoved down our throats is merely a foot in the door.

[Mabus]

Let's try it. "Socialism is a system of government under which there is no private ownership, and all means of production and distribution are controlled by the state." At one time, most American students learned this in civics class before facts became political footballs. It does not apply to this country.
The author is incorrect.

Socialism is a grouping of economic theories, not a "system of government".


no private ownership, and all means of production and distribution are controlled by the state.
This is a little harder to pin down, as under Marx's theories it may have been seen as such. Later (I think it was Lenin that first described a difference) it was described it as more of a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. In this phase there would still be unequal methods of redistribution and some private ownership.

Since the author fails on their basic research, but still puts forth their thoughts on the definition and usage of the term, we can deduce the biased viewpoint/slant is one in support of the proposed policies of the current administration.

[Gan]

Since the author fails on their basic research, but still puts forth their thoughts on the definition and usage of the term, we can deduce the biased viewpoint/slant is one in support of the proposed policies of the current administration.


Below kind of tipped me off as to the slant of the author...



Opponents of health care reform are desperately floating scary ideas like "rationing," "euthanasia" and "federally funded abortions" to obscure the real issue that countries like France, the Netherlands and Canada take better care of their citizens than we do.

[TheRoseLady]

The author is incorrect.

Socialism is a grouping of economic theories, not a "system of government".


This is a little harder to pin down, as under Marx's theories it may have been seen as such. Later (I think it was Lenin that first described a difference) it was described it as more of a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. In this phase there would still be unequal methods of redistribution and some private ownership.

Since the author fails on their basic research, but still puts forth their thoughts on the definition and usage of the term, we can deduce the biased viewpoint/slant is one in support of the proposed policies of the current administration.

You did a fantastic job regurgitating what Wikipedia had to say, you did equally as well trying to repost it in a format that makes it look like your own thoughts.

I think that the article was pretty neutral. (I was able to come up with that thought all on my own!)

[TheRoseLady]

Below kind of tipped me off as to the slant of the author...

Even if you ignore that portion, what the author had to say was true. The mislabeling, mudslinging and all that.

We need healthcare reform in this country, bottom line.

[radamanthys]

Even if you ignore that portion, what the author had to say was true. The mislabeling, mudslinging and all that.

We need healthcare reform in this country, bottom line.

What's your definition of reform? And why?

[Parkbandit]

I think that the article was pretty neutral. (I was able to come up with that thought all on my own!)

Sorry, that opinion piece was completely slanted... and we both know the author isn't a conservative.

I agree that we need healthcare reform.. but looking to the government to manage it is a HUGE mistake. I mean, come on.. they can't even manage their own damn cafeteria!

[Tisket]

This is a little harder to pin down, as under Marx's theories it may have been seen as such. Later (I think it was Lenin that first described a difference) it was described it as more of a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. In this phase there would still be unequal methods of redistribution and some private ownership.

I think what you (and wikipedia) are referencing is this:


Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks which will have to be nationalized and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867

The problem being that Marx never said that and it isn't in Das Kapital at all.

[Tisket]

And wtf, someone was able to read the article in the OP and call it neutral? lmao.

[Mabus]

You did a fantastic job regurgitating what Wikipedia had to say, you did equally as well trying to repost it in a format that makes it look like your own thoughts.
You may have never studied economic theory, but some of us that post here have. It is likely I was reading about Socialism before you were born. Some of us have books, read and can understand concepts. Perhaps someday you will do these things as well?

If you are accusing me of plagiarizing Wikipedia, come out and say it. Then prove it.

Let's see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Now what have I plagiarized from there? Nothing. Your accusations are baseless and slanderous.

Historical facts are historical facts. That facts from one book, lecture or a lifetime of learning might also be partially found on a wiki (or other website) is not surprising.

If all you have is baseless ad hominem attacks, then please go spout them to others that enjoy that sort of rubbish.


I think that the article was pretty neutral. (I was able to come up with that thought all on my own!)
Yes, I am sure you could.

[Warriorbird]

Mabus has been a Constitutional scholar for over 9000 years!!! Therefore he's been an economic scholar for even more!

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/15786u.preview.jpg

If you look closely you'll see Mabus in his first Presidential election.

[Mabus]

I think what you (and wikipedia) are referencing is this:
So did Merriam Webster get that phrase from wiki as well?

In:

Socialism - Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)
I also post the www.merriam-webster.com definitions of Socialism, which has the 3rd definition as:

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I believe others on these boards (and some that even may support Socialism) have also brought up the differences between Communism and Socialism.

[Mabus]

The problem being that Marx never said that and it isn't in Das Kapital at all.
I never said Marx said it.

It may have been Lenin, in one of his "The goal of socialism is communism." lectures.

[Tisket]

So did Merriam Webster get that phrase from wiki as well?

In:

I also post the www.merriam-webster.com definitions of Socialism, which has the 3rd definition as:


I believe others on these boards (and some that even may support Socialism) have also brought up the differences between Communism and Socialism.

My point was that it's a very pervasive myth that Marx said that at all. You find that phrase EVERYWHERE.

[Mabus]

My point was that it's a very pervasive myth that Marx said that at all. You find that phrase EVERYWHERE.
If you look at my first post in this thread I stated (paraphrasing) that Marx may have seen the two systems as equivalent.

I never said that Marx gave the definition of one being a transitional phase.

[Tisket]

And listen, don't be so touchy. I think insulting someone for using wikipedia as a source to be a weak insult at best. Especially since you did not plagiarize at all and it is mentioned across a broad spectrum of internet sources.

[Tisket]

I never said that Marx gave the definition of one being a transitional phase.

He's the one you find most attributed for that phrase though.

[Mabus]

And listen, don't be so touchy. I think insulting someone for using wikipedia as a source to be a weak insult at best. Especially since you did not plagiarize at all and it is mentioned across a broad spectrum of internet sources.
I was going from memory in this case, and I take charges of plagiarism seriously. Once I looked up the wikipedia site I knew RoseLady was fishing without bait, but the charge still needed a response (hence why I provided the link, and asked her for proof).

I also looked it up because there is always, always the chance that a person with any sort of decent memory could quote something verbatim, and if this was the case I would have apologized for not providing the source.

[diethx]

It is likely I was reading about Socialism before you were born.

How old are you exactly? Because Anne's not in her 20s like most of us here.

Also, it's pretty funny how hard she hit that nerve.

[Tisket]

I don't know, I think you'd be pretty mad if someone called you a intellectual thief too.

[Mabus]

How old are you exactly?
The first computer I wrote code for used punch cards, and was state of the art at the time.

Now you kids get off my lawn!

[diethx]

I don't know, I think you'd be pretty mad if someone called you a intellectual thief too.

Yeah probably, but I haven't noticed Mabus get that snarky that often. It's pretty funny.

[Tisket]

You know it freaks me out when you agree with me. Stop it or I will cut you.

[Mabus]

Yeah probably, but I haven't noticed Mabus get that snarky that often. It's pretty funny.
Bad day. My apologies.
:hug2:

[diethx]

Bad day. My apologies.
:hug2:

Haha don't apologize, like I said it was funny. DO IT MORE OFTEN.

[Drew]

Opponents of health care reform are desperately floating scary ideas like "rationing," "euthanasia" and "federally funded abortions" to obscure the real issue that countries like France, the Netherlands and Canada take better care of their citizens than we do.


It's a funny article because the author apparently doesn't know what the definition of the word 'better' is.

[Back]

This is an opinion piece in the Knoxville newspaper. It made me think of the discussions that occur here:

link (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/18/precision-in-language-makes-things-clear/)

Thank you.

This makes me think we need to drastically overhaul our education in America.

Ignorance is the real enemy.

[Back]

It's a funny article because the author apparently doesn't know what the definition of the word 'better' is.

Enlighten us, Einstein.

[Gan]

The first computer I wrote code for used punch cards, and was state of the art at the time.

Now you kids get off my lawn!

Sounds like you have me beat.

I was first coding on a TI99-4A, numberline basic (if you can call that coding) with the casette tape drive. Then I was working Pascal on the Apple IIe (and IIe+) with the rocking green monochrome and dual floppy (5.25").

[Back]

FORTRAN and that was steampunk.

[Ker_Thwap]

I thought the most amusing part about that article was how he claimed to be a champion of using the the proper words, then he snuck in some "weasel words" of his own.

[Parkbandit]

Sounds like you have me beat.

I was first coding on a TI99-4A, numberline basic (if you can call that coding) with the casette tape drive. Then I was working Pascal on the Apple IIe (and IIe+) with the rocking green monochrome and dual floppy (5.25").

I have you all beat.. my first computer was a grouping of rocks used to track time.

[Parkbandit]

Thank you.

This makes me think we need to drastically overhaul our education in America.

Ignorance is the real enemy.

I think this everytime I read one of your posts.

[ClydeR]

This is an opinion piece in the Knoxville newspaper. It made me think of the discussions that occur here:

link (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/18/precision-in-language-makes-things-clear/)

Telling people what words they can use is Communist.

[Daniel]

Telling people what words they can use is Communist.

AND CLYDER COMES IN FOR THE WIN!!!!11!!!!!!!

[TheRoseLady]

Sorry, that opinion piece was completely slanted... and we both know the author isn't a conservative.

I agree that we need healthcare reform.. but looking to the government to manage it is a HUGE mistake. I mean, come on.. they can't even manage their own damn cafeteria!

Yeah, I was actually trying to show how ridiculous Mabus looked quoting shit from the Wikipedia.

I think the part about labels is actually true on both accounts, from that vantage point it did seem neutral. I should have been more explicit.

[TheRoseLady]

You may have never studied economic theory, but some of us that post here have. It is likely I was reading about Socialism before you were born. Some of us have books, read and can understand concepts. Perhaps someday you will do these things as well?

Now what have I plagiarized from there? Nothing. Your accusations are baseless and slanderous.


Isn't whipping your age out and trying to use that in the same vein as someone who plays GS since GEnie days and never fails to trot it out to *prove* that their opinion has more validity?

The Internet is SRS BIZNESS.

[Tsa`ah]

Yeah, I was actually trying to show how ridiculous Mabus looked quoting shit from the Wikipedia.

I think the part about labels is actually true on both accounts, from that vantage point it did seem neutral. I should have been more explicit.

Some clarification is needed. You could have said the sky is blue with some whisps of white clouds ... the response would have been "Bullshit, it's aqua and it looks like it's going to pour ... fucking liberal whacko".

[Mabus]

Yeah, I was actually trying to show how ridiculous Mabus looked quoting shit from the Wikipedia.
And instead made yourself look quite the ass since it was clearly shown I did not.

Good job!
:clap:

[Back]

And instead made yourself look quite the ass since it was clearly shown I did not.

Good job!
:clap:

You have somewhat of a level head... but I think TRL and Whimsi trump you. Feel like stepping up? Or down.

[Parkbandit]

You have somewhat of a level head...

http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/2/9/rofl128470858931406250.jpg

Almost as funny as you claiming you are the PC Pundit.

[StrayRogue]

It cracks me up how every political thread, no matter how neutral, well-written or level-headed it begins, ends with the same people pot-shotting the same other people.

What makes me laugh the most is that you people think this shit matters.

[Hulkein]

You did a fantastic job regurgitating what Wikipedia had to say, you did equally as well trying to repost it in a format that makes it look like your own thoughts.

I think that the article was pretty neutral. (I was able to come up with that thought all on my own!)

Go back under your rock plz.

[Tsa`ah]

Go back under your rock plz.

Why should she go away ... because she busted Mabus' e-chops and he couldn't handle it? Maybe he'll put her on ignore as well.

[Hulkein]

I just like telling people to go back under their rocks.

[Hulkein]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Precision in Political... 08-24-2009 10:49 AM You're the asshole here.

---

You say this as if I was calling someone else an asshole. I know I was being an asshole; that was the point of my post.

[TheRoseLady]

What's your definition of reform? And why?

Reform has several components in my opinion. Some of these things would be legislated, some would be good in practice overall.

1. Individual coverage requirement is essential.
2. Create affordable options for everyone to obtain coverage.
3. Invest in healthcare infrastructure. An example, if the majority of our records were digitized and available from one physician to the next - there wouldn't be a lot of repeat testing. Treatment could be given in a more holistic environment as opposed to a vacuum.
4. Focus on preventive medicine, promoting routine screening etc.
5. Actually get the people who are eligible for existing programs signed up and using those, as opposed to the "emergency room".
6. Reduce state mandates and enable consumers to go across state lines to purchase insurance.
7. Promote price transparency, quality and empower people to be better consumers in their healthcare.
8. Eliminate pre-existing condition stipulations.

I'm sure there are more, but there's so much more than just this whole "public option" that we hear so much about.

[Parkbandit]

Reform has several components in my opinion. Some of these things would be legislated, some would be good in practice overall.

1. Individual coverage requirement is essential.
2. Create affordable options for everyone to obtain coverage.
3. Invest in healthcare infrastructure. An example, if the majority of our records were digitized and available from one physician to the next - there wouldn't be a lot of repeat testing. Treatment could be given in a more holistic environment as opposed to a vacuum.
4. Focus on preventive medicine, promoting routine screening etc.
5. Actually get the people who are eligible for existing programs signed up and using those, as opposed to the "emergency room".
6. Reduce state mandates and enable consumers to go across state lines to purchase insurance.
7. Promote price transparency, quality and empower people to be better consumers in their healthcare.
8. Eliminate pre-existing condition stipulations.

I'm sure there are more, but there's so much more than just this whole "public option" that we hear so much about.

1) Agreed, as long as you can determine what level of coverage you need.

2) You can already get medical insurance for less than the cost of many cable package options. It's all on what your priority is in life. I know when I was going to college, I didn't have insurance... and I ended up having knee surgery that pretty much broke me. But when I had to make the decision of whether I needed insurance or beer money.. I chose beer money.

3) I'm all for technology.

4) Again.. as long as you are not forced to do it.. I'm fine with it.

5) People are stupid. Good luck with that.

6) Another great example of how Government fucks things up.

7) Not sure that will actually help as most people don't know what the costs are for running a business.

8) I would love to see this stopped.. but insurance companies would come up for another reason to deny coverage.

All of these can be accomplished without the Government managing healthcare.

[TheRoseLady]

7) Not sure that will actually help as most people don't know what the costs are for running a business.



If you are responsible for a portion of your healthcare, wouldn't it be helpful to be able to see which facilities or providers offer better rates and good quality at the same time?

I can have an MRI of the neck at the imaging center connected to my PCP's office, the estimated cost $457-$557. The same MRI at a hospital that I would likely utilize, $1636-$1814. If I'm responsible for 20%, I want the least out of pocket.

[Mabus]

What makes me laugh the most is that you people think this shit matters.
Ranting can pay! And some people here could make money...

http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/misc/BidRequests/ShowBidRequest.asp?lngBidRequestId=1236716


Hello writers,

I need rants! You know, "Dont you hate it when..", "I wish my dog would listen", I was cut off today in traffic and..."

Those types of things. I need a minimum of 100. I'd prefer many more but its nice to mix up different people and styles.

Interested in this? Send me a sample rant and how many you will do for your bid price.

Please ask if you have questions.

The possible topics are:

Friends, health, kids, life, love, misc., money, school, travel and work. I can probably ad more if you have a good subject or two.

These need to be between 40 and 300 characters and I'd like a wide rage on lengths. So, not all will be 40 but not all will be 300 either.

Turn that unused, unbridled vitriol into cash!

(Just thought I would share that. Was browsing the requests.)

I prefer rational, logical discussions interlaced with a little humor (even on this forum).

[Tsa`ah]

2) You can already get medical insurance for less than the cost of many cable package options. It's all on what your priority is in life. I know when I was going to college, I didn't have insurance... and I ended up having knee surgery that pretty much broke me. But when I had to make the decision of whether I needed insurance or beer money.. I chose beer money.

If you want coverage it's going to cost ... if you want to just give your money to an insurance provider, that's called a high deductible policy.

You having knee surgery without insurance probably saved money over buying into a plan that costs less than a cable bill.


4) Again.. as long as you are not forced to do it.. I'm fine with it.

There's nothing wrong with getting an annual physical and blood screening. It should be mandatory.


6) Another great example of how Government fucks things up.

Actually a great example of "you're fucked no matter what". It requires universal regulation that would cause people to bitch about the federal government trampling on state rights. If you don't do it you're "increasing premiums through regulation".


7) Not sure that will actually help as most people don't know what the costs are for running a business.

You don't need to "know" how to run a business to know that you're getting slammed with bullshit charges and inflated rates. If providers are required to detail your charges line by line the result is a customer who'll look elsewhere for coverage/care.


8) I would love to see this stopped.. but insurance companies would come up for another reason to deny coverage.

You say this, and then follow up with ...


All of these can be accomplished without the Government managing healthcare.

The regulation/management boogie man seems to be confused by your statements. You imply that government regulation/management is bad ... but at the same time point out why it's needed.

That aside, deregulation sure as hell made us dodge the real estate crash ... oh wait. I mean deregulation sure as hell prevented book cooking ...no wait, I'll get it this time. We deregulated the airlines and ... oh fuck.

[Daniel]

That aside, deregulation sure as hell made us dodge the real estate crash ... oh wait. I mean deregulation sure as hell prevented book cooking ...no wait, I'll get it this time. We deregulated the airlines and ... oh fuck.

Yea, but dude, you know the government has never done anything right. All of these fiascos are obviously the governments fault for letting business do these things.

[Gan]

That aside, deregulation sure as hell made us dodge the real estate crash ...

Please tell me you're not saying that the real estate crash was solely caused by banking deregulation.

[Tsa`ah]

Please tell me you're not saying that the real estate crash was solely caused by banking deregulation.

Did I say that?

[Parkbandit]

If you want coverage it's going to cost ... if you want to just give your money to an insurance provider, that's called a high deductible policy.

You having knee surgery without insurance probably saved money over buying into a plan that costs less than a cable bill.

Had the knee surgery been a car accident where my life was threatened.. I would have been thoroughly fucked financially. Much like how you spend money on other insurances, it's there in case you have a catastrophic event.

Using your logic, I would never carry fire, structure, flood, etc.. insurance on my house.. or liability on my vehicle.


There's nothing wrong with getting an annual physical and blood screening. It should be mandatory.

It should be mandatory because you say so? Awesome. There are plenty of people who don't like going to doctors.. and no one has a right to say they must do it.




Actually a great example of "you're fucked no matter what". It requires universal regulation that would cause people to bitch about the federal government trampling on state rights. If you don't do it you're "increasing premiums through regulation".



Incorrect. State regulations are put in place to actually stop competition from across state borders. Remove them and you will see decreased prices in places like New York. Look at mess NYC is in right now with their city/state imposed restrictions and regulations on health insurance. Look at the percentage of people under Medicare.



You don't need to "know" how to run a business to know that you're getting slammed with bullshit charges and inflated rates. If providers are required to detail your charges line by line the result is a customer who'll look elsewhere for coverage/care.

I can actually buy into this.. as long as every medical facility is required to do so.



The regulation/management boogie man seems to be confused by your statements. You imply that government regulation/management is bad ... but at the same time point out why it's needed.

Where exactly did I say I am against government regulations? Unbridled capitalism is almost as bad as government run anything.. we need Government there to establish the "morality" of business decisions. (LOL at Government establishing any morality.. I know)

Government regulation /= Government managed.



That aside, deregulation sure as hell made us dodge the real estate crash ... oh wait. I mean deregulation sure as hell prevented book cooking ...no wait, I'll get it this time. We deregulated the airlines and ... oh fuck.

You do realize that deregulation had very little to do with the real estate crash.. right.. and that it was a government social engineering plan of easing up credit requirements that was a far bigger culprit? I noticed you didn't mention that at all.. as if it never happened or had nothing to do with the mess we're in now.

[TheRoseLady]

Much like how you spend money on other insurances, it's there in case you have a catastrophic event.



Health insurance shouldn't be just for catastrophic events. I have read numbers that suggest that 75% of annual healthcare spending is on chronic conditions; asthma, arthritis, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. (I'm sure there are others, obesity comes to mind).

Prevention and early treatment before conditions are out of control is essential.

[Parkbandit]

Health insurance shouldn't be just for catastrophic events. I have read numbers that suggest that 75% of annual healthcare spending is on chronic conditions; asthma, arthritis, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. (I'm sure there are others, obesity comes to mind).


Says who? It should be left up to the individual to determine their insurance needs. I carry a very modest insurance policy that covers me for 6 doctor visits per year (I rarely go more than once) and catastrophic care. I save a ton of money each year by doing this.



Prevention and early treatment before conditions are out of control is essential.

I agree it's essential and important.. I disagree we should have our Government mandating that we must do it.

[CrystalTears]

I agree it's essential and important.. I disagree we should have our Government mandating that we must do it.Agreed.

[Warriorbird]

So... the uninsured are just going to spontaneously become insured by an act of God?

[CrystalTears]

So... the uninsured are just going to spontaneously become insured by an act of God?
So the only answer to getting everyone insured is through the salvation of the government?

[Parkbandit]

So... the uninsured are just going to spontaneously become insured by an act of God?


Who are the uninsured? Currently, even the most liberal estimates say that 46 million people are uninsured. Of that number, again, even the most liberal estimates say there are 12 to 20 million illegal aliens living in this country. That brings the number of AMERICANS that are uninsured down to 26 to 34 million... or 8 to 10% of our total population.

Why are we so willing to scrap a system that takes care of 90% of the total population? I agree that some reform is needed, but completely dismantling the system in place and handing over all that power/money to our government to manage it is one of the dumbest ideas ever put forth... especially given our Government's track record of running things within a budget.

[Warriorbird]

I'm just curious who's scrapping the system.

Insurance isn't going to vanish. There are far too many lobbyists paid by them for that to happen.

This is Chicken Little Republican-ism right up there with 'They're going to end private gun ownership!'

[Parkbandit]

I'm just curious who's scrapping the system.

Insurance isn't going to vanish. There are far too many lobbyists paid by them for that to happen.

This is Chicken Little Republican-ism right up there with 'They're going to end private gun ownership!'


Answer this very simple question. I know there is a great deal of pressure on you right now, given that Shit4Brains was unable to understand it... but I think I still have a tiny amount of faith in you.

Question: Do you believe that Barack Obama wants the United States of America to eventually have a single payer system for universal healthcare?

It's a simple question that requires a simple answer.

[Warriorbird]

There's a different between wants and will get. I believe Obama would provide free insurance for everybody if he could. I don't think he can.

Ultimately, I think folks like Tim Kaine and Jim Webb (some of the folks pulling the strings) are a bit smarter. I think we'll pay more. I think there'll be a limited public option VA style for the poorest who can't afford insurance.

[Parkbandit]

There's a different between wants and will get. I believe Obama would provide free insurance for everybody if he could. I don't think he can.

Ultimately, I think folks like Tim Kaine and Jim Webb (some of the folks pulling the strings) are a bit smarter. I think we'll pay more. I think there'll be a limited public option VA style for the poorest who can't afford insurance.

Ok.. at least you were able to answer the question. Kudo's to you.. +rep on the way.

Now.. let's just say that Obama gets what he does want.. a single payer system. Would he have to scrap the current healthcare system we have in place now in order to bring about that change that you admit he wants?

Let's pretend for a moment that Obama's goal is a single payer system. What would be the first thing he would have to get put in place in order to bring about that change? Wouldn't he have to put into place a government option?

[Warriorbird]

Slippery slope arguments can work. I don't believe it can here because he's going to lose control of Congress if he pushes too hard. You forget the conservative portion of the Democratic party. You don't think it exists.

[TheRoseLady]

Says who? It should be left up to the individual to determine their insurance needs. I carry a very modest insurance policy that covers me for 6 doctor visits per year (I rarely go more than once) and catastrophic care. I save a ton of money each year by doing this.

I agree it's essential and important.. I disagree we should have our Government mandating that we must do it.

I didn't say a word about mandates by the government. Rady asked me to outline some of the things that I think about reform, no where did I say that they all have to be mandated by anyone. You have responded more than once that anyone can get catastrophic coverage if they make better choices.

Simply, I am demonstrating that the bulk of healthcare spending is not on catastrophic events, it's on chronic conditions. You are in relatively good shape (for your age ;) ) and likely don't need much help in the way of chronic conditions, but clearly there are others that do.

A focus on preventive care doesn't have to require that people are obligated to use it. However, I think that it should definitely be available and focus should be placed on utilizing it.

If you can diagnose that you have termites when they are a very small problem and get them fixed, or you realize it after your deck collapses, which is going to be more cost effective?

I haven't seen a plan yet that advocates a complete take over of the healthcare system.

[Parkbandit]

Slippery slope arguments can work. I don't believe it can here because he's going to lose control of Congress if he pushes too hard. You forget the conservative portion of the Democratic party. You don't think it exists.

If he's able to push through Cap and Trade through the House, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he could push through healthcare 'reform' with a single payer system as an end goal. It's not a slippery slope argument at all... given his stance over the years... and his admission that a single payer system wouldn't happen immediately.. that it could take years to enact.

If you don't realize that any type of government option is a foot in the door to the single payer system, then I'm not sure what to say at this point. Either you are being blissfully ignorant, or the end result is one you desire.

[Warriorbird]

Here's the problem with your whole notion.

Cap and trade was originally an industry proposed solution to the sulphur dioxide problem in the Clean Air Act of 1993. The main pushers were Max Baucus (probably one of the most corporate loved Democrats and John Warner .... a Republicn.

Industry achieved 120% compliance in just over 2 years.

It was credited as one of the best instances of industry/government cooperation ever by the the Economist.

... yet now, what was originally something that Republicans got behind in a bipartisan fashion gets totally impressive Republican Chicken Little-ing because they want to retake Congress.

[Daniel]

So the only answer to getting everyone insured is through the salvation of the government?

Feel free to throw out a solution that involves businesses doing the right thing.

[Daniel]

I haven't seen a plan yet that advocates a complete take over of the healthcare system.

It's a part of the unpublished socialist agenda that the Republicans are trying to prevent.

[TheRoseLady]

It's a part of the unpublished socialist agenda that the Republicans are trying to prevent.

I could see the skepticism since the last administration hood-winked the American public on so many levels.

1. The Iraq War
2. Katrina's aftermath and the abandonment of NO
3. Mass surveillance in violation of the FISA law.
4. The use of signing statements which declared the White House unaccountable to Congress, international law, the Constitution etc. etc.

[Mabus]

I could see the skepticism since the last administration hood-winked the American public on so many levels.

1. The Iraq War
2. Katrina's aftermath and the abandonment of NO
3. Mass surveillance in violation of the FISA law.
4. The use of signing statements which declared the White House unaccountable to Congress, international law, the Constitution etc. etc.
And I can agree with you on all of those points. The abuses were terrible.

You read that correct; I agree with you.

But how many of those signing statements are still in effect under this administration?

Who in the White House voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms, thereby stopping the lawsuits that would have helped the citizens prevent future FISA violations?

Who still supports warrant-less wiretapping?

This is where we may disagree, but I would hope not:
It does not matter which "party" is in control of the executive, but whether the actual people in power follow the Constitution and relinquish any potentially abusive powers that previous administrations have misappropriated.

[Parkbandit]

Here's the problem with your whole notion.

Cap and trade was originally an industry proposed solution to the sulphur dioxide problem in the Clean Air Act of 1993. The main pushers were Max Baucus (probably one of the most corporate loved Democrats and John Warner .... a Republicn.

Industry achieved 120% compliance in just over 2 years.

It was credited as one of the best instances of industry/government cooperation ever by the the Economist.

... yet now, what was originally something that Republicans got behind in a bipartisan fashion gets totally impressive Republican Chicken Little-ing because they want to retake Congress.

Again WB.. My values are not instilled in me by a political party.. so you throwing out a republican congressman to me means exactly jack squat. I don't vote along party lines, I don't just go with the flow because that's the easy thing to do. My values are mine and mine alone. There are going to be things that I agree with the Republicans on, there will be things I disagree with the Republicans on.

Cap and Trade, while it will inevitably make me more wealthy, is a bad program, designed to redistribute wealth and to give government more power and more money.

Just because I am an environmental realist and created a few energy conservation companies, doesn't mean I should just go along with this grab for power.

[Latrinsorm]

So the only answer to getting everyone insured is through the salvation of the government?It was the answer to getting children out of coal mines, cars insured, rivers no-longer-flammable, water clean, coloreds in schools, etc. Why not getting everyone's health insured?
Why are we so willing to scrap a system that takes care of 90% of the total population?We are willing to reform the system because 90% leaves room for improvement - around 10%, in fact.

[Keller]

Cap and Trade, while it will inevitably make me more wealthy, is a bad program, designed to redistribute wealth and to give government more power and more money.

Could you please help me understand (pre-emptively asking you not to say something like, "I would never succeed in helping you understand X" or other such witty retorts) how Cap and Trade was "designed to redistribute wealth."

Also, was the redistribution of wealth a principal purpose? The principal purpose?

[Fallen]

At a complete and mostly uneducated guess, larger companies will need higher level of pollution limits, so they will give smaller companies lots of money (or whatever the currency is to buy/trade these things) to buy theirs?

[Keller]

At a complete and mostly uneducated guess, larger companies will need higher level of pollution limits, so they will give smaller companies lots of money (or whatever the currency is to buy/trade these things) to buy theirs?

Emissions allowances will be distributed based on current "pollution" levels.

Those allowances will then be gradually removed, so that you will be forced to either (1) reduce your emissions level or (2) purchase allowances from companies that have reduced their emissions levels.

It provides an economic incentive, where no incentive previously existed, for companies to reduce their emissions (to either not have to buy allowances or to be able to sell excess allowances).

I don't see how you could say this was wealth redistribution. It is monetizing (albeit as a liability) pollution (i.e. cap) and then introducing capitalism (i.e. trade).

[Back]

This is all I have to say about political threads today...

Dem: WTF?
Rep: NO U!

Rep: WTF?
Dem: LOL!

[Gan]

Emissions allowances will be distributed based on current "pollution" levels.

Those allowances will then be gradually removed, so that you will be forced to either (1) reduce your emissions level or (2) purchase allowances from companies that have reduced their emissions levels.

It provides an economic incentive, where no incentive previously existed, for companies to reduce their emissions (to either not have to buy allowances or to be able to sell excess allowances).

I don't see how you could say this was wealth redistribution. It is monetizing (albeit as a liability) pollution (i.e. cap) and then introducing capitalism (i.e. trade).

I'm actually in favor of cap and trade on a fundamental level. I like the idea of creating a pollution based market where heavy polluters are incentivized to pollute less through emission trading. My concern lies with the limits (pollution ceiling and credit availability) that are determined by Congress. Congress being the scary part.

One thing that our industrial side has proven over the years is that they are very unlikely to reduce emissions on their own.

[Gan]

This is all I have to say about political threads today...

Dem: WTF?
Rep: NO U!

Rep: WTF?
Dem: LOL!

You know, if you say this enough times, someone is bound to find it funny.

[Keller]

I'm actually in favor of cap and trade on a fundamental level. I like the idea of creating a pollution based market where heavy polluters are incentivized to pollute less through emission trading. My concern lies with the limits (pollution ceiling and credit availability) that are determined by Congress. Congress being the scary part.

One thing that our industrial side has proven over the years is that they are very unlikely to reduce emissions on their own.

I agree with you.

I'm not sure whether I'm for cap and trade or not. I tend to support the monetization of externalities, positive or negative.

I just think it's ironic that someone called cap and trade "wealth redistribution" in a thread that was, at one time, dedicated to the topic of imprecision in political debate.

[TheRoseLady]

Who are the uninsured? Currently, even the most liberal estimates say that 46 million people are uninsured. Of that number, again, even the most liberal estimates say there are 12 to 20 million illegal aliens living in this country. That brings the number of AMERICANS that are uninsured down to 26 to 34 million... or 8 to 10% of our total population.

Why are we so willing to scrap a system that takes care of 90% of the total population? I agree that some reform is needed, but completely dismantling the system in place and handing over all that power/money to our government to manage it is one of the dumbest ideas ever put forth... especially given our Government's track record of running things within a budget.

I have looked and looked and can only find citations that list the number of illegal immigrants counted in the magic 46 mil to be about 5 mil. I found a pretty good round-up on Kaiser Health News.

Several news organizations fact-checked statistics about the uninsured, specifically the often-cited 46 million figure.

NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111651742) reports that 46 million represents "roughly 15 percent of the U.S. population," and the number comes from 2007 Census Bureau estimates. "Although the number of uninsured has grown slowly in the past several years, it's speeding up, mainly because employment has declined drastically since the Census report. And most of us get our insurance through our jobs."

"Contrary to popular belief, most of the uninsured are working families. They tend to be poorer and in worse health than those with insurance, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation." About 40 percent are between the ages of 19 and 29, and "while there is heated speculation that many of these young people don't buy insurance because they are healthy and don't want to, the evidence suggests that they are actually less likely to be able to afford insurance. ... But not everyone agrees that 46 million is the right number. ... Part of the argument against using the 46 million number is that a few million of them are likely enrolled in Medicaid but tell the Census that they are uninsured because they don't have private insurance — the so-called Medicaid undercount. Also ... some 5 million or so — are undocumented [immigrants]" (Fulton, 8/21).

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/20/cnn-truth-squad-the-uninsured-46-million-or-8-million/) reports that the Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think tank, claims the number of uninsured is only about 8 million. "That study concluded that a third of the uninsured — more than 14 million people — qualified for existing government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but were not enrolled in them. About another 13 million had incomes of $50,000 or more, suggesting they could obtain insurance on their own. Nearly 6 million were what Blue Cross called 'short-term uninsured,' meaning people who are either between jobs or are just entering the work force. Many of the remainder were low-wage workers in firms with fewer than 10 workers, who could obtain coverage if the government offered tax credits for small businesses or grants to states, while others are illegal immigrants, it said." CNN concludes, however, that while the 46 million number is in dispute, "most researchers who study health care issues rely on the Census Bureau's figures" (8/20).

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13173764): "The 46 million figure comes from solid sources but includes illegal immigrants, who would not qualify for help under the health care reform plan" (8/21).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/August/21/Fact-Check-Fri.aspx

[Geshron]

If we don't need reform, what will solve the problem of the 40m or more people uninsured? Really not attempting to stir the pot, I just want a legitimate, concise answer as to what these people should do precisely from members here of the other party.

[CrystalTears]

If we don't need reform, what will solve the problem of the 40m or more people uninsured? Really not attempting to stir the pot, I just want a legitimate, concise answer as to what these people should do precisely from members here of the other party.
I have yet to hear of someone saying that the healthcare system does not need reform of some kind. What some are saying is that handing the whole thing over to the government to manage is not the solution either. There has to be some kind of middle ground.

[TheRoseLady]

And I can agree with you on all of those points. The abuses were terrible.

You read that correct; I agree with you.

But how many of those signing statements are still in effect under this administration?

Who in the White House voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms, thereby stopping the lawsuits that would have helped the citizens prevent future FISA violations?

Who still supports warrant-less wiretapping?

This is where we may disagree, but I would hope not:
It does not matter which "party" is in control of the executive, but whether the actual people in power follow the Constitution and relinquish any potentially abusive powers that previous administrations have misappropriated.

Obama already made his statement concerning the 1200 signing statements that Bush wrote, he instructed officials to consult with the Attorney General before using any of the signing statements to bypass a statute, in essence he rolled backed Bush's overreach.

Let's hope that Obama keeps his campaign promise on the warrant less wiretapping, we'll see.

[Daniel]

I have yet to hear of someone saying that the healthcare system does not need reform of some kind. What some are saying is that handing the whole thing over to the government to manage is not the solution either. There has to be some kind of middle ground.

Once again..


Feel free to throw out a solution that involves businesses doing the right thing.

Saying Government is not the answer while providing absolutely no alternatives or options is hardly a "Solution". If you want to find the middle ground you have to be willing to engage in the issue, but as Gan and PB will tell you, there really is no problem and the "wheel" ain't broke.

[Mabus]

Saying Government is not the answer while providing absolutely no alternatives or options is hardly a "Solution".
Neither is a bill based on backroom deals with insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists a "Solution".

But that is what we currently have.

If anyone believes the proposed changes will be good for health care consumers, ask yourself:

Why are the pharmaceutical and insurance companies spending over $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 (from estimates in various news websites and sources) to SUPPORT the bill?

We need a full, public and honest debate on health care changes. We need a system that is for the citizens, not for the entrenched corporate interests.

[radamanthys]

Neither is a bill based on backroom deals with insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists a "Solution".

But that is what we currently have.

If anyone believes the proposed changes will be good for health care consumers, ask yourself:

Why are the pharmaceutical and insurance companies spending over $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 (from estimates in various news websites and sources) to SUPPORT the bill?

We need a full, public and honest debate on health care changes. We need a system that is for the citizens, not for the entrenched corporate interests.

Mabus has it. Better than any of the R-team or even myself, I think.

There's something rotten in Denmark.

[CrystalTears]

Saying Government is not the answer while providing absolutely no alternatives or options is hardly a "Solution". If you want to find the middle ground you have to be willing to engage in the issue, but as Gan and PB will tell you, there really is no problem and the "wheel" ain't broke.If I knew how to fix it, I'd be sitting in the White House. But sorry if I don't like the idea of the government completely taking over. I have no desire to have a bigger, more controlling government, thank you very much.

[Daniel]

If I knew how to fix it, I'd be sitting in the White House. But sorry if I don't like the idea of the government completely taking over. I have no desire to have a bigger, more controlling government, thank you very much.

Well, then if I were you I'd be looking at your Republican leaders to come up with some viable alternative, because those of us without some irrational fear of the "Government" are not going to sit around waiting on you all to get off your collective asses.

Or you can just rally people to make a lot of noise and hope it goes away on its own.

[Daniel]

Neither is a bill based on backroom deals with insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists a "Solution".

But that is what we currently have.

If anyone believes the proposed changes will be good for health care consumers, ask yourself:

Why are the pharmaceutical and insurance companies spending over $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 (from estimates in various news websites and sources) to SUPPORT the bill?

We need a full, public and honest debate on health care changes. We need a system that is for the citizens, not for the entrenched corporate interests.

I'd have to imagine it has something to do with them realizing that they have everything to lose in this debate and very little to gain. So, it's much better to be viewed as an active participant along the lines of current trends (i.e. request for reforms) so as to not generate any sort of negative backlash.

They piss off enough people and they could easily see themselves in a position of getting shut out of a lot of things, such as patent enforcement which they are thriving off of and that they need the government to support at places like the WTO.

That's not to say that I'm enthusiastic about everything that has gone on, but it's silly to suggest that it's a zero sum game, especially when it's based upon one parties political fearmongering (oh no!! there's going to be a single payer system!!! They're going to turn us socialist!!).

This is where I put out that the Pharm and Insurance companies would *not* be supporting this plan if they felt it lead to fully socialized care.

So, it's kind of hard for you ( I use this in the collection sense Mabus, because I haven't seen you beating the socialist drum @ all), to play both cards at the same time.

[CrystalTears]

It's truly tragic to me how much you want the government to solve the problems without trying to help figure out a way to do it without them.

[radamanthys]

Well, then if I were you I'd be looking at your Republican leaders to come up with some viable alternative, because those of us without some irrational fear of the "Government" are not going to sit around waiting on you all to get off your collective asses.

Or you can just rally people to make a lot of noise and hope it goes away on its own.

Viable?

I feel like there's a flaming bag of poo on the doorstop of our country, and democrats wanna stomp it out. Yea, it'll put out the fire, but we'll end up with shit everywhere.

Viable is the wrong choice of words for the democratic alternative.

[Gan]

...but as Gan and PB will tell you, there really is no problem and the "wheel" ain't broke.

I see you've taken your stupid pill again.

I'm on record many times during this debate as saying improvements are necessary to the healthcare issue. I'm just not in favor of a complete overhaul and a single payer universal system.

But thanks for the inaccurate overgeneralization and misinterpretation of what you 'think' I've said. You're as spot on as ever. /forehead.

[Gan]

It's truly tragic to me how much you want the government to solve the problems without trying to help figure out a way to do it without them.

You're speaking to someone who's never worked in the free market sector in his life (outside perhaps McDonalds). Why would he support anything but a Government solution when thats all that he's experienced in the army and now as a state dept. lackey.

[radamanthys]

You're speaking to someone who's never worked in the free market sector in his life (outside perhaps McDonalds). Why would he support anything but a Government solution when thats all that he's experienced in the army and now as a state dept. lackey.

His mother's milk was made from government cheese. He knows no other flavor.

[Fallen]

I don't really see how things got so complicated. If the government is willing to spend billions and billions on healthcare, can't they just do it by paygrade? Absolute poor people already are covered by the government, right? Why not simply offer money based on how much the family makes?

If you make 5k above the cutoff where the government pays for your healthcare, they will offer to pay X amount directly to the insurance company to help pay for you getting your OWN insurance. If you make 10k above, X+1, and so on and so on. Once you get high enough, you obviously get no assistance.

Have that all be 1 bit of legislation to fix the 48 BAJILLION UNINSURED PROBLEM.

Next attempt to pass another bit of legislation which works with the insurance industry to come up with a plan tailored to these poor and woring poor classes which keeps costs relatively flat. They wont be all that great of plans in terms of choice of doctors or extrainous services, but the costs will remain reasonable both for the government and for the poor. Throw in something for the government paying a larger amount for those who qualify as having a "pre-existing condition" so that insurance companies will take them on without eating a loss when sicko needs way more than the average person does in health care.

[Daniel]

It's truly tragic to me how much you want the government to solve the problems without trying to help figure out a way to do it without them.

Rofl. Please explain.

[Daniel]

I see you've taken your stupid pill again.

I'm on record many times during this debate as saying improvements are necessary to the healthcare issue. I'm just not in favor of a complete overhaul and a single payer universal system.

But thanks for the inaccurate overgeneralization and misinterpretation of what you 'think' I've said. You're as spot on as ever. /forehead.

The irony of this statement is astounding on so many levels.

[Keller]

If anyone believes the proposed changes will be good for health care consumers, ask yourself:

Why are the pharmaceutical and insurance companies spending over $140,000,000 to $200,000,000 (from estimates in various news websites and sources) to SUPPORT the bill?


Can someone please ask Mabus for a cite for his 140mm-200mm numbers and also a cite for the amounts those same lobbies, or parties related to those lobbies, are paying to lobby against it.

I'm genuinely curious.

[Daniel]

You're speaking to someone who's never worked in the free market sector in his life (outside perhaps McDonalds). Why would he support anything but a Government solution when thats all that he's experienced in the army and now as a state dept. lackey.

Actually you are talking to someone who has supported himself and his family for many years both in the public and "private sector".

When all else fails resort to ad hominen attacks, right Gan? You tried this several years ago and it flamed out horribly. Let's save ourselves the trouble.



His mother's milk was made from government cheese. He knows no other flavor.

You have a job yet? Come talk to me when you aren't still living off your mothers milk.

[CrystalTears]

Rofl. Please explain.
Meh. I don't see why I should have to explain why you think government control of the healthcare system is the answer. YOU explain it since it's so fucking awesome.

[Daniel]

Meh. I don't see why I should have to explain why you think government control of the healthcare system is the answer. YOU explain it since it's so fucking awesome.

Lol. I meant specifically why you think it's so "tragic".

[CrystalTears]

Lol. I meant specifically why you think it's so "tragic".
I. Don't. WANT. The. Government. To. Manage. MY. HEALTH. I'll deal with myself, I don't want anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't do with MY BODY.

Now if you want to say that the government should help subsidize and give money to insurance companies to ensure that every AMERICAN CITIZEN gets at least preventative healthcare, great. I have issues with eventually being reduced to only one choice... the government. On that vein, have insurance companies compete across the nation and not just within certain states so that I have more than a couple of options for healthcare, which will (I suspect) will bring the rates down through competition rather than having them high because "I have no other choice". No thanks. The less I have to depend on the government, the better.

[Parkbandit]

Could you please help me understand (pre-emptively asking you not to say something like, "I would never succeed in helping you understand X" or other such witty retorts) how Cap and Trade was "designed to redistribute wealth."

Also, was the redistribution of wealth a principal purpose? The principal purpose?


Cap and Trade is a step in the direction of a world authority... the ability for this world body to tax those countries for their pollution contribution.

I'm not for a world body taxing Americans in a disproportionate manner.. especially given that countries like China and India have already stated they will not be participating in such a program.

[Parkbandit]

Once again..



Saying Government is not the answer while providing absolutely no alternatives or options is hardly a "Solution". If you want to find the middle ground you have to be willing to engage in the issue, but as Gan and PB will tell you, there really is no problem and the "wheel" ain't broke.

Wait.. where did I say there really is no problem again? I think I've posted that reform is needed in healthcare in every topic it's brought up in.

Maybe you should stop doing what you always feel necessary.. fabricating someone else's position.. and just stick to the facts.

[Parkbandit]

Well, then if I were you I'd be looking at your Republican leaders to come up with some viable alternative, because those of us without some irrational fear of the "Government" are not going to sit around waiting on you all to get off your collective asses.

Or you can just rally people to make a lot of noise and hope it goes away on its own.


There have been numerous proposals by Republicans on how to fix the healthcare system. You simply don't agree with them, so you ignore them.

Here, I've linked just the latest one for you to continue to ignore:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary2p.pdf

And a WSJ editorial about it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

[Parkbandit]

It's truly tragic to me how much you want the government to solve the problems without trying to help figure out a way to do it without them.

He works for the Government.. this shouldn't surprise you.

[Keller]

Cap and Trade is a step in the direction of a world authority... the ability for this world body to tax those countries for their pollution contribution.

I'm not for a world body taxing Americans in a disproportionate manner.. especially given that countries like China and India have already stated they will not be participating in such a program.

Am I right to assume that you're saying cap and trade is NOT wealth redistribution?

It sounds an awful lot like you're saying it could, possibly, in the future, maybe, someday, be some form of inequitable taxation if there is a world taxing authority and firms in other countries do not participate, but (presumably) still get an economic benefit?

I guess I would like to assume that if China or India do not participate in the program, they will also not receive any economic benefit from the program.

So I'm not sure I see that it could, possibly, in the future, maybe, someday, be some form of inequitable taxation -- because none of the proceeds would be redistributed to the counties that do not participate.

[Daniel]

There have been numerous proposals by Republicans on how to fix the healthcare system. You simply don't agree with them, so you ignore them.

Here, I've linked just the latest one for you to continue to ignore:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary2p.pdf

And a WSJ editorial about it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

I said Viable. These are not viable.

Let's take the gist of the plan, make government options available to the general public and then give them a tax credit of $2300 bucks to cover premiums.

Now let's look at these Government Options:

( http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/postalhmo2009.pdf)

As an aside, for those of clamoring on and on about a public option, please notice all the private companies that the Government funds for its own employees.

Now, let's take the lowest premium they have for a single person, $123 bi weekly. Facto that out to the entire year that's 2952 bucks.

That's a 600 difference betwen the two plans. That's fine, but then if I have any sort of chronic care, that doesn't include co pays, premiums and other out of pocket expenses.

So, while that may indeed be beneficial it's a far cry from fixing the system.

[Parkbandit]

Their viability is your opinion.. much like my opinion is that government run healthcare is not fixing the problem we currently have.. it's creating a far larger problem.

At least you conceed that the current Republican plan is beneficial.. something I don't believe the current Democrat plan is.

[Tsa`ah]

I. Don't. WANT. The. Government. To. Manage. MY. HEALTH. I'll deal with myself, I don't want anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't do with MY BODY.

Yet you're ok with the insurance companies doing it?


Now if you want to say that the government should help subsidize and give money to insurance companies to ensure that every AMERICAN CITIZEN gets at least preventative healthcare, great. I have issues with eventually being reduced to only one choice... the government. On that vein, have insurance companies compete across the nation and not just within certain states so that I have more than a couple of options for healthcare, which will (I suspect) will bring the rates down through competition rather than having them high because "I have no other choice". No thanks. The less I have to depend on the government, the better.

And we're running in circles again.

First it's the free market argument, but we don't want the government competing in this "free" market because the corporate healthcare sector will unable to compete eventually ... so it's not really a free market system that you want.

Second is the argument that you don't want the government controlling your healthcare, but you're just fine with corporations that put profits ahead of patients doing it. It's the worn out circle track of "taking healthcare decisions away from patients and doctors" .... decisions that weren't there in the first place.

Finally we circle back around to regulation. Either it's making costs go up or it's going to make costs go down. You people can't make up your mind ... meanwhile people that need coverage can't afford it and as a result tax paying citizens die from medical complications due to a "not on my dime" mentality.


There have been numerous proposals by Republicans on how to fix the healthcare system. You simply don't agree with them, so you ignore them.

Here, I've linked just the latest one for you to continue to ignore:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary2p.pdf

And a WSJ editorial about it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

Well, an AEI and Galen op-ed. I wish I could write myself six digit paychecks for a weeks worth of work from a tank I created and receive charitable contributions for.

But seriously, you call that proposal a solution? I agree with redirecting subsidies, but redirect them in a way that's going to work. The problem is that people can't afford healthcare coverage. A tax cut/credit for a quarter or less of what it's going to actually cost isn't going to do jack. The redirection of subsidy dollars isn't a redirect, it's just slightly detoured. The plan does nothing for costs, nothing for the uninsured that can't get insurance due to existing conditions .... it does absolutely nothing.

Healthcare and reform has to come from somewhere and there are three options available.

1.Regulate the industry.
2.Let government provide/compete in the industry.
3.Hope that corporate healthcare takes care of it on their own.

[Back]

Our police and fire fighters are badass. Our education could use a boost but still not bad considering.

Armed services are awesome. Sewer and water treatment rock. Roads are good for the most part.

Parks and recreation is no doubt a good thing.

Of course our Constitution is unparalleled by anything except perhaps the Magna Carta or Denmark's.


So, what exactly is your fear about healthcare? We've come so far and done so much. We've abolished slavery, ensured the rights to property and liberty, we have the freest speech in the world, are the most profitable, and do not wage war on anyone who does not attack us first (Iraq excluded but thats winding down now).

[CrystalTears]

I would need to see more regarding what the proposed plan actually provides that everyone would be getting (in layman's terms). If there are varying degrees of coverage based on their income, if everyone gets the same level of coverage, if people pay up to a certain income level and then stop, how much the government is footing for the premium bills, and so forth.

[Gan]

The irony of this statement is astounding on so many levels.

I think you need to revisit the def of irony...

[Gan]

Yet you're ok with the insurance companies doing it?

I am as long as I agree with my insurance company meetin the expectations that I agreed upon when selecting which company/plan I wanted to purchase. If not, I fire said company and shop around for the best available option. That's something that would be missing from a single pay government entity. No options to choose from WR2 plans or insurers. And no option to fire unsatisfactory performance and seek alternatives elsewhere. That's why I think a single pay system will not pass.

[CrystalTears]

I am as long as I agree with my insurance company meetin the expectations that I agreed upon when selecting which company/plan I wanted to purchase. If not, I fire said company and shop around for the best available option. That's something that would be missing from a single pay government entity. No options to choose from WR2 plans or insurers. And no option to fire unsatisfactory performance and seek alternatives elsewhere. That's why I think a single pay system will not pass.
Yeah I was starting to reply earlier that I would be without choice, which is what I have now, but felt it would fall on deaf ears. At this point I just want to know for sure what the reform consists of. I'm hearing too many different stories.

When an insurance company sucks, I (or my company) move onto another one with better service. Right now we've been complaining all year about the current insurance company's horrible reputation and our doctors dropping them. We're hoping it will cause our company to find seek insurance elsewhere.

[Parkbandit]

I am as long as I agree with my insurance company meetin the expectations that I agreed upon when selecting which company/plan I wanted to purchase. If not, I fire said company and shop around for the best available option. That's something that would be missing from a single pay government entity. No options to choose from WR2 plans or insurers. And no option to fire unsatisfactory performance and seek alternatives elsewhere. That's why I think a single pay system will not pass.

Imagine how many people would fire the IRS, Social Security, DMV, etc.. if it were an option...

[Latrinsorm]

I am as long as I agree with my insurance company meetin the expectations that I agreed upon when selecting which company/plan I wanted to purchase. If not, I fire said company and shop around for the best available option.I think we can agree that every insurance company is in the insurance business to make money (as opposed to nobly helping people be healthy). If yes, please continue. (If no, turn to page 13. Page 13: you have died!)
No options to choose from WR2 plans or insurers. And no option to fire unsatisfactory performance and seek alternatives elsewhere.You have the appearance of options. If you are of poor health, you will inevitably become dissatisfied with the performance of your insurance company, because none of them give a shit about how healthy you are. They will do everything in their power to increase their profits as much as possible. Thus, the invisible hand alters your prescriptions, denies coverage for your operations, etc.

There are no more and no less than two things that have been proven to alter the way companies do business: widespread bloody revolution and government intervention. Nobody thinks insurance companies are perfect and very few people want widespread bloody revolution. Government intervention is the most palatable of the unpalatable options the real world offers.
We're hoping it will cause our company to find seek insurance elsewhere.See what I mean? What power of choice do you really have if you've had to put up with this bullshit for a year? How many pills lost, how many utils wasted on suffering?

[CrystalTears]

See what I mean? What power of choice do you really have if you've had to put up with this bullshit for a year? How many pills lost, how many utils wasted on suffering?
They only do insurance reviews once a year. So people put up with the bad service and pay out of pocket and then complain to HR so that it can be changed. We're mostly bitter because we used to have Anthem and now we have Oxford. No one's lost anything, everyone is still getting care. We're not used to this lower level of service... i.e. doctor acceptance, getting a run down of the current deductible, access to online information, etc. And frankly, if they don't switch companies, we're resolved to pay out of pocket for my doctor until we can find something better. I honestly refuse to see someone else as she's been my doctor for the past 10 years. At least I have insurance for everything else.

But see, I have my issues with insurance companies from time to time, and I feel that insurance companies as a whole are a pain to deal with. However I still enjoy the fact that choice is there, either for me or my company.

[Daniel]

I am as long as I agree with my insurance company meetin the expectations that I agreed upon when selecting which company/plan I wanted to purchase. If not, I fire said company and shop around for the best available option. That's something that would be missing from a single pay government entity. No options to choose from WR2 plans or insurers. And no option to fire unsatisfactory performance and seek alternatives elsewhere. That's why I think a single pay system will not pass.


Yeah I was starting to reply earlier that I would be without choice, which is what I have now, but felt it would fall on deaf ears. At this point I just want to know for sure what the reform consists of. I'm hearing too many different stories.

When an insurance company sucks, I (or my company) move onto another one with better service. Right now we've been complaining all year about the current insurance company's horrible reputation and our doctors dropping them. We're hoping it will cause our company to find seek insurance elsewhere.


Imagine how many people would fire the IRS, Social Security, DMV, etc.. if it were an option...



Can one of you kind individuals point me to the provision of the current bill which dictates a single pay system? No, aspirational or off hand comments in or out of context do not count. I would like to see the exact provision in the bill (s) that you are referring to.

Thanks

[Daniel]

They only do insurance reviews once a year. So people put up with the bad service and pay out of pocket and then complain to HR so that it can be changed. We're mostly bitter because we used to have Anthem and now we have Oxford. No one's lost anything, everyone is still getting care. We're not used to this lower level of service... i.e. doctor acceptance, getting a run down of the current deductible, access to online information, etc. And frankly, if they don't switch companies, we're resolved to pay out of pocket for my doctor until we can find something better. I honestly refuse to see someone else as she's been my doctor for the past 10 years. At least I have insurance for everything else.

But see, I have my issues with insurance companies from time to time, and I feel that insurance companies as a whole are a pain to deal with. However I still enjoy the fact that choice is there, either for me or my company.

Doesn't sound like you have much of a choice at all.

In fact, I get more of a choice working for the Government through their system than you do. A much bigger choice.

[Mabus]

Can one of you kind individuals point me to the provision of the current bill which dictates a single pay system? No, aspirational or off hand comments in or out of context do not count. I would like to see the exact provision in the bill (s) that you are referring to.

Thanks
I know I can't.

I can point you toward areas that disallow re-importation of drugs, one that offers price reductions only on non-generic medications, and on a provision requiring mandatory coverage.

Those are a few provisions that bother me.

[Daniel]

I know I can't.

I can point you toward areas that disallow re-importation of drugs, one that offers price reductions only on non-generic medications, and on a provision requiring mandatory coverage.

Those are a few provisions that bother me.

I agree with the re-importation of drugs. I think that would be a great idea.

I'm not sure I disagree with the provision of mandatory coverage, what specifically do you take exception to?

[Mabus]

I'm not sure I disagree with the provision of mandatory coverage, what specifically do you take exception to?
The CBO has stated that insurance prices will continue to increase, even with the proposed bills.

Without a set price the citizens could face higher and higher premiums, or be fined for not having coverage. Those that receive subsidies from the government will also need higher payments and/or tax exceptions from the government as each increase happens.

There is also the (even though I hate to bring it up) "slippery slope" of requiring mandatory testing, eating habits, physical exercise, body-fat calculations, etc.

And while they may seem far fetched now, let's look into a future where the tax costs of the health system have risen so high that Congress is forced to react. Will they cut coverage, or will they impose "penalties" for not being within specified guidelines?

The "mandatory coverage" is also up to Constitutional question. What provision (Commerce Clause perhaps?) would allow the federal government to impose such a thing? If passed there will be many court challenges.

I am for insurance having a mandated "basic care plan" available that must be at not-for-profit prices. I am for allowing Medicare and Medicaid being able to negotiate drug prices. I am for re-importation if prices cannot be matched nationally. I am for an increase in non-profit public/private health wellness centers, and better education on health.

The current bill (I feel) addresses none of my concerns, and is being rushed through Congress without a fair hearing on all options. Instead we have diversionary tactics meant to keep us divided and arguing while the insurance and drug industries will be the main beneficiaries.

[Daniel]

The CBO has stated that insurance prices will continue to increase, even with the proposed bills.

Without a set price the citizens could face higher and higher premiums, or be fined for not having coverage. Those that receive subsidies from the government will also need higher payments and/or tax exceptions from the government as each increase happens.

There is also the (even though I hate to bring it up) "slippery slope" of requiring mandatory testing, eating habits, physical exercise, body-fat calculations, etc.

And while they may seem far fetched now, let's look into a future where the tax costs of the health system have risen so high that Congress is forced to react. Will they cut coverage, or will they impose "penalties" for not being within specified guidelines?

The "mandatory coverage" is also up to Constitutional question. What provision (Commerce Clause perhaps?) would allow the federal government to impose such a thing? If passed there will be many court challenges.

I am for insurance having a mandated "basic care plan" available that must be at not-for-profit prices. I am for allowing Medicare and Medicaid being able to negotiate drug prices. I am for re-importation if prices cannot be matched nationally. I am for an increase in non-profit public/private health wellness centers, and better education on health.

The current bill (I feel) addresses none of my concerns, and is being rushed through Congress without a fair hearing on all options. Instead we have diversionary tactics meant to keep us divided and arguing while the insurance and drug industries will be the main beneficiaries.

I think paramount to the notion of reducing costs is increased competition within the market. That should partly come from state to state competition, but in the end I think it may neccessitate some sort of public option which does allow for private companies to compete. Compete being the key word.

In regards to the issue of "Congress rationing Care". I don't see how you can link the two. If there is mandatory care, then Congress can not dictate what you can not have. They won't be able to "cut coverage" as they don't dicate what it is you want.

Let's take the concept of car insurance (which would probably be the precedent for any mandatory coverage..which touches on your constitutional issue). The state can say that everyone must have basic coverage for liability, but it's up to you whether or not you get comprehensive insurance or special insurance for your rims and sound system.

As is, when you say mandatory care, I'm envisioning a basic care plan that you support. If you have information that states otherwise, I'd be interesting to see it.

[Mabus]

I think paramount to the notion of reducing costs is increased competition within the market. That should partly come from state to state competition, but in the end I think it may neccessitate some sort of public option which does allow for private companies to compete. Compete being the key word.
I agree. Tort reform, purchasing across state lines, nationalizing pools and a host of other issues could aid in lowering costs, or at least keeping them from rising as fast as they are currently projected to rise.


In regards to the issue of "Congress rationing Care". I don't see how you can link the two. If there is mandatory care, then Congress can not dictate what you can not have. They won't be able to "cut coverage" as they don't dicate what it is you want.
I never spoke of "rationing care", perhaps I did not express my thoughts well. I believe it was a rhetorical question gone wrong. My apologies.

Congress will at some point have to deal with rising insurance costs. They will not cut (or ration) coverage (as they will likely find it politically unfeasible to do so). What they may do instead is impose taxes and penalties on individuals (or aspects of their lifestyles) that do not fall within publicly-acceptable criteria. This represents a large loss of individual liberty.


Let's take the concept of car insurance (which would probably be the precedent for any mandatory coverage..which touches on your constitutional issue). The state can say that everyone must have basic coverage for liability, but it's up to you whether or not you get comprehensive insurance or special insurance for your rims and sound system.
As you stated that is a state program, but it is not a federal program. Mandating that citizens buy coverage from private companies by the federal government may be unconstitutional.


As is, when you say mandatory care, I'm envisioning a basic care plan that you support. If you have information that states otherwise, I'd be interesting to see it.
There is no reason that the insurance companies cannot be required to offer a not-for-profit basic care option, especially if they are allowed to compete across state lines. This would be interstate commerce, and covered by the Commerce Clause.

Instead we will be forced to get private coverage (if above a certain, as currently unspecified, income threshold) and the costs will not be regulated. This will be a boon to the insurance companies, as they will gain tens of millions of new customers.

[CrystalTears]

Doesn't sound like you have much of a choice at all.Why? Because I had one bad year? Really? Pretty sure it would be the same whether I was getting the insurance through my company or not. A contract year is the same everywhere.


In fact, I get more of a choice working for the Government through their system than you do. A much bigger choice.Right. The one that isn't what we are using. I can see why you're all gung ho for the reform since it doesn't affect you at all. Or does it? Are they going to be taking away government benefits with this reform?

[Gan]

Can one of you kind individuals point me to the provision of the current bill which dictates a single pay system? No, aspirational or off hand comments in or out of context do not count. I would like to see the exact provision in the bill (s) that you are referring to.

Thanks

Which bill?

There are only 50 different versions floating around right now and nobody has a fucking clue which one will garner enough votes to pass.

But yea, lets all just STFU and let the Congressmen pass what they 'think' we want instead of hearing what we really want...

No thanks.

[Gan]

They only do insurance reviews once a year. So people put up with the bad service and pay out of pocket and then complain to HR so that it can be changed. We're mostly bitter because we used to have Anthem and now we have Oxford. No one's lost anything, everyone is still getting care. We're not used to this lower level of service... i.e. doctor acceptance, getting a run down of the current deductible, access to online information, etc. And frankly, if they don't switch companies, we're resolved to pay out of pocket for my doctor until we can find something better. I honestly refuse to see someone else as she's been my doctor for the past 10 years. At least I have insurance for everything else.

But see, I have my issues with insurance companies from time to time, and I feel that insurance companies as a whole are a pain to deal with. However I still enjoy the fact that choice is there, either for me or my company.

My employer has 3 different insurer companies as an offering with 5 plans total. Two high deductable PPO, two low deductable PPO, and one HMO.

If I do not like the one I'm currently on, I switch at the end of the year to what else is being offered.

I have options and I fucking love it.

[Daniel]

I never spoke of "rationing care", perhaps I did not express my thoughts well. I believe it was a rhetorical question gone wrong. My apologies.

Congress will at some point have to deal with rising insurance costs. They will not cut (or ration) coverage (as they will likely find it politically unfeasible to do so). What they may do instead is impose taxes and penalties on individuals (or aspects of their lifestyles) that do not fall within publicly-acceptable criteria. This represents a large loss of individual liberty.



I get the base issue but I'm still not clear on you mean when you say penaltis on aspects of their lifestyles?

Like fining someone if they are overweight?




There is no reason that the insurance companies cannot be required to offer a not-for-profit basic care option, especially if they are allowed to compete across state lines. This would be interstate commerce, and covered by the Commerce Clause.

Instead we will be forced to get private coverage (if above a certain, as currently unspecified, income threshold) and the costs will not be regulated. This will be a boon to the insurance companies, as they will gain tens of millions of new customers.

As far as I can tell, a Public Option is what is being floated. I agree that the current reforms without a public option does not make sense.

[Daniel]

Why? Because I had one bad year? Really? Pretty sure it would be the same whether I was getting the insurance through my company or not. A contract year is the same everywhere.


Because you can't actually choose. You have to lobby to get something changed from your company, which also has the ability to tell you to go fuck yourself, if it so chose.



Right. The one that isn't what we are using. I can see why you're all gung ho for the reform since it doesn't affect you at all. Or does it? Are they going to be taking away government benefits with this reform?

Who is "we"?

The Government is not saying that you have to use anything. Or can you show me the bill that says that?

and no. It won't effect me, as I'll still have my blue cross\ blue shield HMO.

[Daniel]

Which bill?

There are only 50 different versions floating around right now and nobody has a fucking clue which one will garner enough votes to pass.

But yea, lets all just STFU and let the Congressmen pass what they 'think' we want instead of hearing what we really want...

No thanks.

Yea, except that's not what I said and you're not saying what you want. You are saying what you DON'T want. Nevermind that no one is saying that that's what you'll get.

To be clear, I'm asking you to specify where they are proposing a single payer system.

If there are 50 bills then it shouldn't be hard to find one that does have it.

[Gan]

Yea, except that's not what I said and you're not saying what you want. You are saying what you DON'T want. Nevermind that no one is saying that that's what you'll get.

To be clear, I'm asking you to specify where they are proposing a single payer system.

If there are 50 bills then it shouldn't be hard to find one that does have it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676



The United States National Health Care Act, or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr676)), is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) by Representative John Conyers Jr. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/John_Conyers_Jr.), D-MI and Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) The bill had 86 cosponsors as of August 24, 2009.

The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Single-payer_health_care) system in the United States (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/United_States), the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)) and similar systems in other industrialized nations (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Industrialized_world).

H.R. 676 is expected to be be debated and voted upon by the House in September.[1] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-0) It will be considered as an alternative to H.R. 3200 (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/H.R._3200), the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

[Daniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676

Hmm.

I like how the source is a NYDaily news item in the Wikipedia entry.

Let's actually track the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00676:@@@L&summ2=m&

The last action taken was: 6/4/2003:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4974-4975)

Yea..

Wanna give that another shot?

[Parkbandit]

Can one of you kind individuals point me to the provision of the current bill which dictates a single pay system? No, aspirational or off hand comments in or out of context do not count. I would like to see the exact provision in the bill (s) that you are referring to.

Thanks

We've had this discussion already. I'm sorry if you cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel and can only understand that which is spoon fed to you.

But hey.. don't believe me.. believe your Chosen One:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

[TheRoseLady]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676

Gan,

You forgot to include the last paragraph:

The bill was first introduced in 2003,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676#cite_note-1) when it had 25 cosposonsors, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since.

This is nothing new.

[Mabus]

I get the base issue but I'm still not clear on you mean when you say penaltis on aspects of their lifestyles?

Like fining someone if they are overweight?
Sure.

Overweight, enjoys mountain climbing, drinks a soda, eats nachos, swims without waiting 2 hours, skipped a physical...

While just a hypothetical exercise it is likely that restrictions, penalties, additional taxes or other means will be used to lower government costs to health care eventually if the government subsidizes the care.

Smoking would be a good one. The majority of citizens hate smokers, tax them. Maybe alcohol next, to where if you have more then 2 drinks a month your out of pocket costs go up.


If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you try to sit,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.

© George Harrison

[Mabus]

The bill was first introduced in 2003,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676#cite_note-1) when it had 25 cosposonsors, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since.
Is this where I accuse you of plagiarizing Wikipedia?
:loser:

[Parkbandit]

Is this where I accuse you of plagiarizing Wikipedia?
:loser:

Pretty sure she cited it.. as evidenced by the link in her post.

[Mabus]

Pretty sure she cited it.. as evidenced by the link in her post.
It was a joke...

[TheRoseLady]

Is this where I accuse you of plagiarizing Wikipedia?
:loser:

:lol: You win.

[Mabus]

:lol: You win.
At least you got it.
;)

[CrystalTears]

My employer has 3 different insurer companies as an offering with 5 plans total. Two high deductable PPO, two low deductable PPO, and one HMO.

If I do not like the one I'm currently on, I switch at the end of the year to what else is being offered.

I have options and I fucking love it.
That's pretty cool.

My company is not small, but not large and it was hit hard with this economy because we're in the DMV/car industry so cuts were made goddamnit. So I really don't begrudge my company for making cuts and trying something a little cheaper for the sake of maintaining an insurance they can continue chipping in for the deductible. At least I still have my fucking job! I honestly can't complain for the most part, since we have pretty good benefits all things considered.

However just because my company offers insurance doesn't mean I have to take it. We can step out and get our own if we wanted to. I'm just resenting the responses that I don't have a choice just because I chose to go with my company's choice. Again, there is still a choice involved.

Obama has been saying for a while now that he's aiming for a single payer system eventually. Just because it may not start there doesn't mean it won't end there. And frankly I don't want it to go in that direction.

[Tsa`ah]

I am as long as I agree with my insurance company meetin the expectations that I agreed upon when selecting which company/plan I wanted to purchase. If not, I fire said company and shop around for the best available option. That's something that would be missing from a single pay government entity. No options to choose from WR2 plans or insurers. And no option to fire unsatisfactory performance and seek alternatives elsewhere. That's why I think a single pay system will not pass.

Except in a majority of cases you still have no choice. It's up to your employer and they must weigh the needs and health of their employees against the needs and health of their bottom line. You have the option of opting out of employer coverage and getting your own ... but the cost of doing so is prohibitive to a majority of citizens.


When an insurance company sucks, I (or my company) move onto another one with better service. Right now we've been complaining all year about the current insurance company's horrible reputation and our doctors dropping them. We're hoping it will cause our company to find seek insurance elsewhere.

Yet you are claiming a choice in the absence of any choice. It's not yours to make ... it's your employer's and still ultimately your provider's.


My employer has 3 different insurer companies as an offering with 5 plans total. Two high deductable PPO, two low deductable PPO, and one HMO.

This is the exception, not the rule. While it is a "good for you" moment, your situation isn't indicative of the majority of workers with employer based health insurance.

[Gan]

Hmm.

I like how the source is a NYDaily news item in the Wikipedia entry.

Let's actually track the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00676:@@@L&summ2=m&

The last action taken was: 6/4/2003:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H4974-4975)

Yea..

Wanna give that another shot?

So you're saying its not expected to be debated or voted upon in September? How's that crystal ball coming? Can you pull out a few lottery numbers from your ass while you're at it? Here, dont take my word for it... (I'm sorry this has resulted in you looking like a fool ONCE AGAIN).

You can even check out Conyer's website (sponsor of bill)
http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue_id=063b74a4-19b9-b4b1-126b-f67f60e05f8c

Just because there's no current action yet does not mean there isnt going to be.



Single Payer Gets A Vote (Updated)

July 31, 2009


Anthony Weiner is about to be the new hero of the progressive crowd after getting a promise from Nancy Pelosi to debate — and vote — on a single-payer plan to solve health care reform.
Weiner got that promise after he agreed to withdraw an amendment to essentially create Medicare for the whole nation in the Energy and Commerce Committee health care markup session this evening.
The Brooklyn-Queens Rep. looked a little surprised when Chairman Henry Waxman said Pelosi would allow that vote, and made Waxman repeat the deal to be sure it was clear and on the record.
It’s an especially big deal for advocates of a single health care system — who see it as cheaper and simpler than the complicated measure being drawn up — because they have been complaining that they have not even been able to get an airing of their position.
And having the vote of the floor of the House will force members to declare a position, and bring much more attention to the idea.


Update: Weiner, who high-fived Tammy Baldwin after getting the deal, crows in a quick press release:
“It’s a Better Plan and now it’s on Center Stage,” says Weiner


Washington, DC - Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee announced today that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to give Single-Payer an up or down vote when healthcare reform is considered before year’s end.


Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Co-Chair of the Middle Class Caucus and member of the Energy & Commerce Committee who led the effort with Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA); Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY); Rep. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL); Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL); and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), released the following statement:


“Single-payer is a better plan and now it is on center stage. Americans have a clear choice. Their Member of Congress will have a simpler, less expensive and smarter bill to choose. I am thrilled that the Speaker is giving us that choice.”



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/07/single-payer-gets-a-vote.html#ixzz0PLVvqoC1 (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/07/single-payer-gets-a-vote.html#ixzz0PLVvqoC1)



Gan,

You forgot to include the last paragraph:

The bill was first introduced in 2003,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._676#cite_note-1) when it had 25 cosposonsors, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since.

This is nothing new.
Actually, I didnt forget it. I left it out so someone could bring up the topic so I could respond with.... wait for it...

Its new when we have a President calling for a single pay healthcare system and a majority congress pushing for it as well. Its very fucking new.

[Gan]

Except in a majority of cases you still have no choice. It's up to your employer and they must weigh the needs and health of their employees against the needs and health of their bottom line. You have the option of opting out of employer coverage and getting your own ... but the cost of doing so is prohibitive to a majority of citizens.
I.have.a.choice.to.decide.to.choose.another.insura nce.company.because.my.employer.offers.more.than.o ne.insurer.to.its.employees.
Not to mention I can always go outside my company or choose my wife's healthacare coverage. I HAVE FUCKING CHOICES!
And because I have choices does not mean that I should be required to give them up because others do not. Especially when I work my ass off to have those choices.

[Parkbandit]

Except in a majority of cases you still have no choice. It's up to your employer and they must weigh the needs and health of their employees against the needs and health of their bottom line. You have the option of opting out of employer coverage and getting your own ... but the cost of doing so is prohibitive to a majority of citizens.



Actually, the costs are not that prohibitive. The coverage might not be as good or cover everything under the sun, but there are choices we can make under the current system.

[TheRoseLady]

Its new when we have a President calling for a single pay healthcare system and a majority congress pushing for it as well. Its very fucking new.

Can you provide some sort of citations that support your notion that Obama and the majority of Congress are pushing for single payer?

[Tsa`ah]

I.have.a.choice.to.decide.to.choose.another.insura nce.company.because.my.employer.offers.more.than.o ne.insurer.to.its.employees.
Not to mention I can always go outside my company or choose my wife's healthacare coverage. I HAVE FUCKING CHOICES!
And because I have choices does not mean that I should be required to give them up because others do not. Especially when I work my ass off to have those choices.

And you stopped quoting what would have made your entire response irrelevant.


Actually, the costs are not that prohibitive. The coverage might not be as good or cover everything under the sun, but there are choices we can make under the current system.

Care to show us some examples?

[Tsa`ah]

Can you provide some sort of citations that support your notion that Obama and the majority of Congress are pushing for single payer?

Obama has stated that single payer is the way to go and what he wants. He has not suggested that private insurance can't exist along with a single payer system.

[Gan]

Can you provide some sort of citations that support your notion that Obama and the majority of Congress are pushing for single payer?

Obama:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/


Pelosi:
http://pubrecord.org/politics/3105/pelosi-allow-floor-single-payer/

Reid:
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/letters-to-congress/harry-reid-on-single-payer/

There you go.

[Parkbandit]

Can you provide some sort of citations that support your notion that Obama and the majority of Congress are pushing for single payer?

There is a video link I've posted a number of times in this and other threads. You can hear it for yourself.

I don't want to sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist.. but in order to bring about a single payer system, the government has to get their foot in the door. That's being done now. Like Obama has stated, it won't be immediate, but the transformation to a single payer system is likely over a period of 5-10 years.

If that is a system that you want.. then hey, let's talk about it. But if you want to remain naive about the intentions of our Government after being presented with facts, then there's not much more we can discuss.

[Parkbandit]

And you stopped quoting what would have made your entire response irrelevant.



Care to show us some examples?


Seriously? How can someone be so "smart" with google in one post and then can't figure it out in the next post.

I have gone through the purchasing of my own insurance for myself, my wife and 2 kids for the past 4 years. Look on any of the big insurance company websites.. there's a plethora of different plans you can buy depending upon your coverage and the amount of money you wish to pay.

I'm paying less now for my insurance than I was when I was with Hilton.. and Hilton was picking up 25%. Of course, I don't have that suicide hotline available to me anymore.. or the drug dependency hotline.. or the gambling addiction hotline...

[TheRoseLady]

If that is a system that you want.. then hey, let's talk about it. But if you want to remain naive about the intentions of our Government after being presented with facts, then there's not much more we can discuss.

I think you of all people would know that a single payer system would be shooting myself in the foot, you know my profession, plus I don't think that it's a good idea.

I do know from first hand experience that reform is needed on many levels. I honestly had not heard that there was any *serious* consideration being given to any single payer system. I know that there are several different proposals out there, but I can't picture a single payer system ever making it to the top.

I just spent some time on kff.org getting a better understanding of where these plans are coming from and how people could conjure up this big fear of the "socialist healthcare plan". Obama did indeed say that he thought universal healthcare was a good idea, but doesn't appear to asserting that today.

I found 12 proposals of varying quality and depth that are "out there". Four are by HoR, three are various Senators, 1 is Obama's plan, 1 is from former Majority leaders, 1 Senate Finance committee and the last two appear to be the most comprehensive plans, Senate HELP Committee "Affordable Health Choices Act" aka The Kennedy Plan, and the House Tri-Committee "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" HR 3200.

Of the two leading plans, neither are universal healthcare.

We can speculate all day long about what our government is "really" doing, but really it's nothing more than reading tea leaves and coffee grinds. :hug2:

[TheRoseLady]

Of course, I don't have that suicide hotline available to me anymore.. or the drug dependency hotline.. or the gambling addiction hotline...

That explains a lot. ;)

[Parkbandit]

I think you of all people would know that a single payer system would be shooting myself in the foot, you know my profession, plus I don't think that it's a good idea.

I do know from first hand experience that reform is needed on many levels. I honestly had not heard that there was any *serious* consideration being given to any single payer system. I know that there are several different proposals out there, but I can't picture a single payer system ever making it to the top.

I just spent some time on kff.org getting a better understanding of where these plans are coming from and how people could conjure up this big fear of the "socialist healthcare plan". Obama did indeed say that he thought universal healthcare was a good idea, but doesn't appear to asserting that today.

I found 12 proposals of varying quality and depth that are "out there". Four are by HoR, three are various Senators, 1 is Obama's plan, 1 is from former Majority leaders, 1 Senate Finance committee and the last two appear to be the most comprehensive plans, Senate HELP Committee "Affordable Health Choices Act" aka The Kennedy Plan, and the House Tri-Committee "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" HR 3200.

Of the two leading plans, neither are universal healthcare.

We can speculate all day long about what our government is "really" doing, but really it's nothing more than reading tea leaves and coffee grinds. :hug2:

If you seriously don't want a single payer system in the US, then you just need to take a look at the facts and what the liberals have been pushing for since the early 60's. It was rejected then, and they know it'll be rejected now. The only way to bring about a single payer system is to sneak it in... and once it's here, it'll be far too late to change it.

[Daniel]

If you seriously don't want a single payer system in the US, then you just need to take a look at the facts and what the liberals have been pushing for since the early 60's. It was rejected then, and they know it'll be rejected now. The only way to bring about a single payer system is to sneak it in... and once it's here, it'll be far too late to change it.

But you don't want to be involved in any conspiracy theories or anything.

[Tsa`ah]

Seriously? How can someone be so "smart" with google in one post and then can't figure it out in the next post.

I have gone through the purchasing of my own insurance for myself, my wife and 2 kids for the past 4 years. Look on any of the big insurance company websites.. there's a plethora of different plans you can buy depending upon your coverage and the amount of money you wish to pay.

I'm paying less now for my insurance than I was when I was with Hilton.. and Hilton was picking up 25%. Of course, I don't have that suicide hotline available to me anymore.. or the drug dependency hotline.. or the gambling addiction hotline...

Actually the request was to demonstrate ... aka back up the claim ... that anyone can afford healthcare. As such it is your responsibility to toss up a list of providers and premiums.

I can wait.

[Gan]

But you don't want to be involved in any conspiracy theories or anything.

Just like you refuse to believe that a single pay system is not on the agenda...

How are those blinders fitting?

[Daniel]

Just like you refuse to believe that a single pay system is not on the agenda...

How are those blinders fitting?

You've yet to show the line in the current health bill calling for it.

Bravo on finding a bill that some rep put forward in 2003. Not quite the same as the "Agenda".

[Gan]

I think you of all people would know that a single payer system would be shooting myself in the foot, you know my profession, plus I don't think that it's a good idea.

I do know from first hand experience that reform is needed on many levels. I honestly had not heard that there was any *serious* consideration being given to any single payer system. I know that there are several different proposals out there, but I can't picture a single payer system ever making it to the top.

I just spent some time on kff.org getting a better understanding of where these plans are coming from and how people could conjure up this big fear of the "socialist healthcare plan". Obama did indeed say that he thought universal healthcare was a good idea, but doesn't appear to asserting that today.

I found 12 proposals of varying quality and depth that are "out there". Four are by HoR, three are various Senators, 1 is Obama's plan, 1 is from former Majority leaders, 1 Senate Finance committee and the last two appear to be the most comprehensive plans, Senate HELP Committee "Affordable Health Choices Act" aka The Kennedy Plan, and the House Tri-Committee "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" HR 3200.

Of the two leading plans, neither are universal healthcare.

We can speculate all day long about what our government is "really" doing, but really it's nothing more than reading tea leaves and coffee grinds. :hug2:

Can you share that link? I'm not getting anything with www.kkf.org (http://www.kkf.org) or any relevant google results to point to the site.

Thanks.

Edit:
I did find something interesting on Conyers site that has some comparison information but it doesnt appear inclusive of all the proposed plans.
http://conyers.house.gov/_files/SidebySideComparisonofMajorHealthCareProposals.pdf

[Daniel]

Can you share that link? I'm not getting anything with www.kkf.org (http://www.kkf.org) or any relevant google results to point to the site.

Thanks.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/index.html

[Gan]

Obama:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/


Pelosi:
http://pubrecord.org/politics/3105/pelosi-allow-floor-single-payer/

Reid:
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/letters-to-congress/harry-reid-on-single-payer/

There you go.


So you're saying its not expected to be debated or voted upon in September? How's that crystal ball coming? Can you pull out a few lottery numbers from your ass while you're at it? Here, dont take my word for it... (I'm sorry this has resulted in you looking like a fool ONCE AGAIN).

You can even check out Conyer's website (sponsor of bill)
http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue_id=063b74a4-19b9-b4b1-126b-f67f60e05f8c

Just because there's no current action yet does not mean there isnt going to be.






You've yet to show the line in the current health bill calling for it.

Bravo on finding a bill that some rep put forward in 2003. Not quite the same as the "Agenda".

FAIL

[Daniel]

FAIL

Let's see.

A speech from 2003.

An unsubstantiated claim that a bill wuold be allowed to be voted on for other political concessions (not the same as including on the Agenda)

And a letter entitled "On Single Reform" with absolutely nothing in it to allude to single payer.

In fact it says
Amid our health care crisis, however, I believe there are opportunities for members of Congress, the President and his Administration, the private sector, and other stakeholders to work together for the benefit of the American people

Googling Reid and single payer does not mean he has said Single payer is on the Agenda.


Is that really all you have?

Wait. Wait. How's that go?

"Fail"?

[Gan]

Blinders.

You have them.

[Daniel]

Can I borrow your tinfoil hat to complete the set?

[Parkbandit]

OK Daniel. You win.

Let me ask you a simple question though.. do you want a single payer system in this country?

[Gan]

How can Daniel win when his origional point was to question the existance of single payer legislation? It exists and has been given the green light to be reintroduced in the House by Pelosi.

[Parkbandit]

How can Daniel win when his origional point was to question the existance of single payer legislation? It exists and has been given the green light to be reintroduced in the House by Pelosi.


SHHHHHHHH!

Just let him answer the simple question.

Jackass!

[Daniel]

OK Daniel. You win.

Let me ask you a simple question though.. do you want a single payer system in this country?

No. I would not prefer only one medical system in the United States. I would like for more accountability for medical insurance companies and more competition through a public option of health provision.

[Parkbandit]

No. I would not prefer only one medical system in the United States. I would like for more accountability for medical insurance companies and more competition through a public option of health provision.

Thanks for the honest answer.

Do you believe that competition through Government is the best way to go though? Sounds much like our Government's idea about mortgages.. ala Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

[Daniel]

Thanks for the honest answer.

Do you believe that competition through Government is the best way to go though? Sounds much like our Government's idea about mortgages.. ala Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

I believe that the best way to go is a combination of initatives intended to spur competition, vice simply letting things go as they are. It is obvious that the market as currently constructed does not produce enough incentive to make healthcare accessible to everybody. I don't think any one inititive would be enough to get the effect that I feel we need (Basic, affordable health care for all Americans).

In the end, I would support a Government option in conjunction with other inititives such as allowing competition across state lines or tax credits . I would not support a government option by itself, nor would I support small scale inititives that only partly address the issue.

[Parkbandit]

I believe that the best way to go is a combination of initatives intended to spur competition, vice simply letting things go as they are. It is obvious that the market as currently constructed does not produce enough incentive to make healthcare accessible to everybody. I don't think any one inititive would be enough to get the effect that I feel we need (Basic, affordable health care for all Americans).

In the end, I would support a Government option in conjunction with other inititives such as allowing competition across state lines or tax credits . I would not support a government option by itself, nor would I support small scale inititives that only partly address the issue.

Problem is... people view healthcare insurance as not an insurance policy at all.. but a system that they pay into each month and hope they recoup their "investment" from. When many people have a slight sniffle, what do they do.. run to a doctor. When they have a slight pain in their leg, off to the doctor. And why not! "I PAID FOR IT!"

Who buys car insurance for things like oil changes, tire pressure, windshield wiper fluid, etc..? That's right.. idiots. Then why do we pay for our health insurance like this? Insurance is to mitigate risk.. not take care of every slight illness you might experience. If people paid for their own doctor's visits, paid for their own prescriptions, paid for their own simple tests.. insurance would be more "affordable".

Imagine how much car insurance would be if you covered everything and anything...

[Daniel]

Problem is... people view healthcare insurance as not an insurance policy at all.. but a system that they pay into each month and hope they recoup their "investment" from. When many people have a slight sniffle, what do they do.. run to a doctor. When they have a slight pain in their leg, off to the doctor. And why not! "I PAID FOR IT!"

Who buys car insurance for things like oil changes, tire pressure, windshield wiper fluid, etc..? That's right.. idiots. Then why do we pay for our health insurance like this? Insurance is to mitigate risk.. not take care of every slight illness you might experience. If people paid for their own doctor's visits, paid for their own prescriptions, paid for their own simple tests.. insurance would be more "affordable".

Imagine how much car insurance would be if you covered everything and anything...

I'm honestly failing to see your point.

Car's and people are two entirely different things. I mean who would offer insurance that gave you a lump sum payment when your car died? (like life insurance).

[TheRoseLady]

Can you share that link? I'm not getting anything with www.kkf.org (http://www.kkf.org) or any relevant google results to point to the site.

Thanks.

Edit:
I did find something interesting on Conyers site that has some comparison information but it doesnt appear inclusive of all the proposed plans.
http://conyers.house.gov/_files/SidebySideComparisonofMajorHealthCareProposals.pdf ,

Sorry, it was KFF.org http://healthreform.kff.org/

[Gan]

,

Sorry, it was KFF.org http://healthreform.kff.org/

Thank you! :)

I will enjoy browsing the site this weekend.

Knowlege is power.

[Parkbandit]

I'm honestly failing to see your point.

Car's and people are two entirely different things. I mean who would offer insurance that gave you a lump sum payment when your car died? (like life insurance).

Coincidently, this was on 20/20 tonight.. which is what I was talking about:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=8409962

[Tsa`ah]

Coincidently, this was on 20/20 tonight.. which is what I was talking about:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=8409962

1. People like to throw around the Rand HIE as some sort of "proof" that cost sharing is effective. They're not likely to tell you that a hefty number of study participants dropped out of the study because they couldn't afford the healthcare costs assigned to their bracket.

The studies show that people who bore a greater burden of costs made use of healthcare. Those who stand behind the study would like you to believe that these people "shopped" around for better prices or took a more active role in their health. You could also say that people refrained from healthcare services because they couldn't afford it. It's a 27 year old study based in a market that doesn't even compare to today.

2. He uses Lasiks as an example of declining costs. There are a few problems with that, the first being that there are no hard figures to support the claim. Second it's not a necessity. Third, providing there are no complications, once you're done ... you're done. The market isn't exactly prone to saturation, but it's close.

You can't compare lasiks to any medical practice except maybe cosmetic surgery ... but even that's a stretch.

3. High deductible shit healthcare coverage. See 1.

I'd almost swear Stossel was the recipient of some brain damage when that wrestler bitch slapped him ... but he was on and off before that event.

[Clove]

1. People like to throw around the Rand HIE as some sort of "proof" that cost sharing is effective. They're not likely to tell you that a hefty number of study participants dropped out of the study because they couldn't afford the healthcare costs assigned to their bracket.
Joseph P. Newhouse (and the others) addressed this criticism in detail. See their argument below:


In a prior article in this journal, John Nyman argues that the effect on health care use and spending found in the RAND Health Insurance Experiment is an artifact of greater voluntary attrition in the cost-sharing plans relative to the free care plan. Specifically, he speculates that those in the cost-sharing plans, when faced with a hospitalization, withdrew. His argument is implausible because (1) families facing a hospitalization would be worse off financially by withdrawing; (2) a large number of observational studies find a similar effect of cost sharing on use; (3) those who left did not differ in their utilization prior to leaving; (4) if there had been no attrition and cost sharing did not reduce hospitalization rates, each adult in each family that withdrew would have had to have been hospitalized once each year for the duration of time they would otherwise have been in the experiment, an implausibly high rate; (5) there are benign explanations for the higher attrition in the cost-sharing plans. Finally, we obtained follow-up health-status data on the great majority of those who left prematurely. We found the health-status findings were insensitive to the inclusion of the attrition cases.

People discussing the Rand HIE aren't likely to mention the attritions because they don't impact the findings of the study as much as critics would like to insinuate.

[Daniel]

Is there where I say that since there are questionable aspects of the study that the entire thing and its conclusions are automaticly "complete bullshit"?

[Daniel]

Coincidently, this was on 20/20 tonight.. which is what I was talking about:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=8409962

Yea. It's a shame that not everyone has the ability to drop 5000 grand on healthcare everytime they get sick\hurt. It's also a shame that sometimes they don't have the ability or the desire to actually shop around.

it's one thing to shop around for Lasik, an elective surgery, It's another thing entirely if you're dealing with traction and just need some assistance.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. It's a shame that not everyone has the ability to drop 5000 grand on healthcare everytime they get sick\hurt. It's also a shame that sometimes they don't have the ability or the desire to actually shop around.

it's one thing to shop around for Lasik, an elective surgery, It's another thing entirely if you're dealing with traction and just need some assistance.

Holy Hyperbole Batman!!

If you get sick/hurt, you don't pay "5000 grand" (which is what.. 5 million?). You have a higher deductible, this is true.. but your regular doctor visits won't cost as much as they do now... and even if they did, they would never approach the 5 grand area. If they did, you would rely on your insurance to cover it.

[Clove]

Is there where I say that since there are questionable aspects of the study that the entire thing and its conclusions are automaticly "complete bullshit"?
No, this is where you say that Tsa'ah should understand the criticism he's making (and the arguments for and against it) before he tosses it out.

[Clove]

We've had an HSA and a high-deductible health insurance policy for the past 3 years. We use a variety of services and prescriptions, including surgeries in patient and out all un-elective. Last year my wife had a procedure her surgeon referred to as the "Volkswagen Surgery" because it costs about as much as a new Volkswagen. We pay approximately 4k per capita per year for health care. Not 5k every time we need an important service.

[Warriorbird]

Do you have any chronic conditions? Are you on any recurring medications?

[Gan]

,

Sorry, it was KFF.org http://healthreform.kff.org/


I did find something interesting on Conyers site that has some comparison information but it doesnt appear inclusive of all the proposed plans.
http://conyers.house.gov/_files/SidebySideComparisonofMajorHealthCareProposals.pdf

The side by side proposal I pointed out on Conyers site is the same side by side comparison of the two Congressional authorizing committee proposals listed on the Kaiser site you gave me the link to. ;)

I'm looking over the .pdf with all the proposals, which was not on Conyers site. Interesting stuff.

After some reading, it appears that any reference to a single-pay national healthcare system on Obama's websites have been removed. If thats his true aim then I'm in agreement with his other intentions. Especially the part where he discusses expanding the risk pools which would in effect lower premiums across the board. That and the pre-existing condition issue has been my major issue with current insurance practices.

That being said, there still remains the intentions of Congress of a single-pay system as evidenced by statements made by Pelosi, Reid, and the bill authored by Conyers. This I do not support for reasons already explained.

Its getting difficult to believe who and what now. Could that be intentional?

[Daniel]

Holy Hyperbole Batman!!

If you get sick/hurt, you don't pay "5000 grand" (which is what.. 5 million?). You have a higher deductible, this is true.. but your regular doctor visits won't cost as much as they do now... and even if they did, they would never approach the 5 grand area. If they did, you would rely on your insurance to cover it.

Lol you know what I meant.

Anyway, the point is that it's hard to extrapolate lower costs for doctors visits and other common procedures from an elective surgery like lasik.

You probably shouldn't go without a mammogram if you can avoid it, but you can definitely get through life without a surgery to fix your eyes.

[Parkbandit]

Lol you know what I meant.

Anyway, the point is that it's hard to extrapolate lower costs for doctors visits and other common procedures from an elective surgery like lasik.

You probably shouldn't go without a mammogram if you can avoid it, but you can definitely get through life without a surgery to fix your eyes.

I know what you meant.. you meant $5,000.. which is still utter bullshit and the worst case of a hyperbolic argument I have ever heard in my entire life.

[Parkbandit]

Do you have any chronic conditions? Are you on any recurring medications?

Those individuals who have chronic conditions should have an insurance policy that best suits them. I don't happen to have any, so I should (and do) select an insurance policy that best suits my lifestyle, health and age.

[Daniel]

I know what you meant.. you meant $5,000.. which is still utter bullshit and the worst case of a hyperbolic argument I have ever heard in my entire life.

Irony.

Hyperbolic much?

[Parkbandit]

Irony.

Hyperbolic much?

It clearly went WAY over your head. L2sarcasm.

[Clove]

Do you have any chronic conditions? Are you on any recurring medications?Yes. And yes.

[Clove]

Lol you know what I meant.

Anyway, the point is that it's hard to extrapolate lower costs for doctors visits and other common procedures from an elective surgery like lasik.Very true, lasik is a poor example. It's also extremely difficult at the consumer level to compare costs of many medical services. Never-the-less, my approximate annual costs per capita for health care with a high-deductible insurance plan is about 4k.

[Parkbandit]

Very true, lasik is a poor example. It's also extremely difficult at the consumer level to compare costs of many medical services. Never-the-less, my approximate annual costs per capita for health care with a high-deductible insurance plan is about 4k.

Mine is about the same.. and that's with a wife with a chronic condition and has to take recurring medicine. If she didn't have this precondition, where we needed to up her coverage and lower her deductible, then we would be paying about $2,200 per year.

[Daniel]

Very true, lasik is a poor example. It's also extremely difficult at the consumer level to compare costs of many medical services. Never-the-less, my approximate annual costs per capita for health care with a high-deductible insurance plan is about 4k.

Which is a part of the reason why I don't totally get the rationale for this to work for people who are on the edge of getting by as is. It's dependent upon you getting information which A) Is not very accessible and B) is not easy to understand (I wouldn't know square 1 about medical options or chronic care and I'd rather not have to learn the hard way) and C) people are not always in the position to really haggle\ make tough decisions.

[Tsa`ah]

Joseph P. Newhouse (and the others) addressed this criticism in detail. See their argument below:



People discussing the Rand HIE aren't likely to mention the attritions because they don't impact the findings of the study as much as critics would like to insinuate.

Of course Newhouse is going to defend his study. But he only addresses the attrition and hospitalization concerns raised by Nyman. Nyman isn't the only critic of the study, far from it.

[Keller]

Jay and Silent Bob are terrible, one-note jokes that only stoners laugh at. They're fucking clown shoes. If they were real, I'd beat the shit out of them for being so stupid.