US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Treznor]

Wrong. In Britain Our NHS started off like you envisage, but soon Labour had labelled it Our NHS and turned it into some kind of sacred cult-worship institution that nobody can reform in case they are savagely attacked for being "Against Our NHS". With each government more and more money had to be funnelled in and more and more non-jobs had to be created (Labour especially do this as it brings in voters who fear their jobs will be cut if the Tories get in) until it becomes a gargantuan £111 billion a year sacred white elephant. On the other hand, defence spending is now 30% of health spending.

I would say you realize, but know you don't I will start it off like this: if you paid attention, you would realize that the US pays twice as much per person for healthcare compared to the UK. And only a fraction of the populous is covered.

So it does. But the taxpayer doesn't pay it. And that fraction, even at the lowest estimates (75 million without proper healthcare), is 75%.

Of course the taxpayer is paying it. They're just not paying all of it in taxes. Do I care if my money goes through the government before it gets to my doctor, or a health insurance provider? No. All I care about is that I'm covered for what I need, and that I'm not paying more than I ought to. The only way to do that is to remove the profit motive, and for that I trust the government far more than I do profit-based health insurance companies.

[The_pantless_hero]

Wrong. In Britain Our NHS started off like you envisage, but soon Labour had labelled it Our NHS and turned it into some kind of sacred cult-worship institution that nobody can reform in case they are savagely attacked for being "Against Our NHS". With each government more and more money had to be funnelled in and more and more non-jobs had to be created (Labour especially do this as it brings in voters who fear their jobs will be cut if the Tories get in) until it becomes a gargantuan £111 billion a year sacred white elephant. On the other hand, defence spending is now 30% of health spending.

I would say you realize, but know you don't I will start it off like this: if you paid attention, you would realize that the US pays twice as much per person for healthcare compared to the UK. And only a fraction of the populous is covered.

So it does. But the taxpayer doesn't pay it, and the corporations spend the money on MRI scanners and up-to-date equipment, not on Integrated Whole Systems Care Pathway Managers. And that fraction, even at the lowest estimates (75 million without proper healthcare), is 75%.

I don't think you are replying to me, because when I say "the US pays" I mean the federal fucking government.

[Bluth Corporation]

Wrong. In Britain Our NHS started off like you envisage, but soon Labour had labelled it Our NHS and turned it into some kind of sacred cult-worship institution that nobody can reform in case they are savagely attacked for being "Against Our NHS". With each government more and more money had to be funnelled in and more and more non-jobs had to be created (Labour especially do this as it brings in voters who fear their jobs will be cut if the Tories get in) until it becomes a gargantuan £111 billion a year sacred white elephant. On the other hand, defence spending is now 30% of health spending.

I would say you realize, but know you don't I will start it off like this: if you paid attention, you would realize that the US pays twice as much per person for healthcare compared to the UK. And only a fraction of the populous is covered.

1: "populace"
2: So?

[Angleter]

I would say you realize, but know you don't I will start it off like this: if you paid attention, you would realize that the US pays twice as much per person for healthcare compared to the UK. And only a fraction of the populous is covered.

So it does. But the taxpayer doesn't pay it. And that fraction, even at the lowest estimates (75 million without proper healthcare), is 75%.

Of course the taxpayer is paying it. They're just not paying all of it in taxes. Do I care if my money goes through the government before it gets to my doctor, or a health insurance provider? No. All I care about is that I'm covered for what I need, and that I'm not paying more than I ought to. The only way to do that is to remove the profit motive, and for that I trust the government far more than I do profit-based health insurance companies.

You obviously haven't sampled the delights of NICE. They decide if drugs are cost-effective. In the US, if a company is against a certain drug, then another company seizes the opportunity to get more of the market share. The quality of care in the USA is better than in the UK. All Obama needs to do is to make sure that the 25% not currently receiving healthcare get it. The only intention of a State healthcare system is to keep costs down- with private care, they have to make sure care is of high quality else they will lose all customers and go bust. We bring in cheap East European cleaners just to keep costs down- no care for the quality of the cleaning, just for the price. In the US, if your hospital was in squalor, then you would go to another company- a better one. But with Our NHS, there is no other option, as if you go private you will pay both for the NHS and for your private care.

[The_pantless_hero]

Wrong. In Britain Our NHS started off like you envisage, but soon Labour had labelled it Our NHS and turned it into some kind of sacred cult-worship institution that nobody can reform in case they are savagely attacked for being "Against Our NHS". With each government more and more money had to be funnelled in and more and more non-jobs had to be created (Labour especially do this as it brings in voters who fear their jobs will be cut if the Tories get in) until it becomes a gargantuan £111 billion a year sacred white elephant. On the other hand, defence spending is now 30% of health spending.

I would say you realize, but know you don't I will start it off like this: if you paid attention, you would realize that the US pays twice as much per person for healthcare compared to the UK. And only a fraction of the populous is covered.

1: "populace"
2: So?

1) ok
2) Are you fucking kidding?

[The_pantless_hero]

You obviously haven't sampled the delights of NICE. They decide if drugs are cost-effective.

And? Drugs and procedures that are not beneficially cost effective should not be used. An MRI is not a cost effective replacement for a mammogram for most people.

The quality of care in the USA is better than in the UK.

Based on what evidence?

All Obama needs to do is to make sure that the 25% not currently receiving healthcare get it.

If you want to ignore the effect of our current healthcare system design on US-based businesses' economic competitiveness, sure.

The only intention of a State healthcare system is to keep costs down- with private care,

Listen, you know jack shit about our government system, stop saying what the states should and could do until you do.

In the US, if your hospital was in squalor, then you would go to another company- a better one.

Only very large cities have multiple hospitals to realistically choose from. Small, rural places have few, if any hospital at all close by. And most of them are not-for-profit. Ie, not business owned.

[Georgetpwn]

can we stop the socialized healthcare is better and the socialized healthcare will fuck america up debate and focus on the topic at hand?

[Farnhamia]

I would say you realize, but know you don't I will start it off like this: if you paid attention, you would realize that the US pays twice as much per person for healthcare compared to the UK. And only a fraction of the populous is covered.

1: "populace"
2: So?

1) ok
2) Are you fucking kidding?

2) It's Bluth, Pantless, of course he's not kidding.

[Bluth Corporation]

The only intention of a State healthcare system is to keep costs down- with private care,

Listen, you know jack shit about our government system, stop saying what the states should and could do until you do.

He didn't say "states"; he said "State."

In genera, "State" means the government in general--in this case, the State is the Federal Government in particular.

It takes a historical understanding of the meaning of the word "state" and of Federalist thinking to understand why it was chosen for the political subdivisions of the United States; but in general, a "state" is a government that asserts sovereignty over a given area and engages in foreign relations with other states, maintains a military, etc.

[Bluth Corporation]

2) Are you fucking kidding?

Saying the word "fucking" every so often does not make you look cool, edgy, or badassed--it makes you look like a fool who thinks such attitudes are an acceptable substance for putting forth a valid argument.

[Space Libertines]

Which doesn't even remotely explain your previous conclusion.

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

[Fartsniffage]

I am now out of surgery and survived. When I,m out and not om my blackberry i'll past a full report.

[Tech-gnosis]

I think it's a good move. Railroading through the public option would have been an unmitigated political disaster whereas moving towards that system through a gradual series of reforms is far more likely to be successful. The simple truth is that whether for valid or invalid reasons most people didn't want this system and forcing it on them would have produced a backlash with seriously negative consequences in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

That's very debatable that incremental reforms will be more successful than more major reforms. For the most part when universal healthcare systems are set-up they tend to stay more of less the same with incremental tinkering. Also, incremental reform is much easier to roll back I would imagine than something more drastic. Plus, as others have said, the inability of the Democrats to make substantial reform will likely not play well with its base and independents who wished to see something done.

[Space Libertines]

Which doesn't even remotely explain your previous conclusion.

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Oh and to show how intelligent the debate has been, all I have to say is, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

[The_pantless_hero]

Which doesn't even remotely explain your previous conclusion.

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Your inane conspiracy theorizing fails to explain how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance industry.

[North Occidentia]

"Incremental reform" is the status quo. This is what most Republicans support.

I originally supported a system of Universal Healthcare Vouchers, and I still do. It's a great, effective middle-ground between government run and incremental reform that would provide universal coverage through private means and a dedicated VAT. Unfortunately, Congress has pretty much completely ignored it.

As far as I know, there are only three bills on the table: "Obamacare," the National Healthcare Act, and the Wyden-Bennett Act. It seems to me that Wyden-Bennett is the best option (besides UHVs) and "Obamacare" the worst. Wyden-Bennett "harnesses the Democratic desire to get everyone covered to the Republican interest in markets and consumer choice." http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Legislation/Healthy_Americans_Act.cfm Obama's plan only will cover 92% of those under 65. Not universal! (Correct me if I'm wrong on this, it seems to change every day)

Basically, as long as it's universal and covers pre-existing conditions, it will be better overall than our current system of incremental reform. I only really oppose single-payer and nationalized healthcare because they stagnate medical research, but they're still superior in every other way, besides the fact that Congress will never pass either of those.

And this is coming from an underinsured, welfare state-supporting liberal who worked on Obama's campaign.

[Tech-gnosis]

As far as I know, there are only three bills on the table: "Obamacare," the National Healthcare Act, and the Wyden-Bennett Act.

From what I have seen all three bills are called Obamacare.

[New Mitanni]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602248.html?wprss=rss_politics

Administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan

If this is the case, I may be willing to stop yelling at democrat congressmen.
The regulation may be a bit much for me, but so long as my right to not have insurance is protected I am happy.

I don't believe the Dark Lord is willingly going to give up on a government-run "option", since he is on record as advocating single-payer. I don't believe that thousand-page monstrosity will actually be purged of its socialist orientation.

The day Congress and the Obamunist regime come up with a plan that (a) increases portability, (b) allows interstate sales of health insurance policies, (c) prohibits any government-run option, and most importantly (d) includes substantial and significant tort reform, will be the day I consider supporting such a plan. Of course, with the Donkocrats in power, that will also be the day Satan hosts the Stanley Cup.

[Georgetpwn]

Which doesn't even remotely explain your previous conclusion.

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Your inane conspiracy theorizing fails to explain how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance industry.

Must everthing everyone else posts that is against Obamcare offend your belief in Obama as Jesus?

[Treznor]

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Your inane conspiracy theorizing fails to explain how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance industry.

Must everthing everyone else posts that is against Obamcare offend your belief in Obama as Jesus?

You're the only one suggesting it. And you still haven't explained how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance agency.

[Brewdomia]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602248.html?wprss=rss_politics

Administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan

If this is the case, I may be willing to stop yelling at democrat congressmen.
The regulation may be a bit much for me, but so long as my right to not have insurance is protected I am happy.

I don't believe the Dark Lord is willingly going to give up on a government-run "option", since he is on record as advocating single-payer. I don't believe that thousand-page monstrosity will actually be purged of its socialist orientation.

The day Congress and the Obamunist regime come up with a plan that (a) increases portability, (b) allows interstate sales of health insurance policies, (c) prohibits any government-run option, and most importantly (d) includes substantial and significant tort reform, will be the day I consider supporting such a plan. Of course, with the Donkocrats in power, that will also be the day Satan hosts the Stanley Cup.

Is this a joke? Are you seriously calling him the dark lord?

[The_pantless_hero]

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Your inane conspiracy theorizing fails to explain how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance industry.

Must everthing everyone else posts that is against Obamcare offend your belief in Obama as Jesus?

Don't you have a bridge to go live under?

And by the by: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12524

[Tiesabre]

In order to not make a new topic over the same thing:
Liberals complain over Obama concession

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_ ... e_overhaul


Holy crap Obama can't fucking win, he just can't. I'm sorry, but my hopes and dreams of any of the health care reform bills getting passed are pretty much over.

[The_pantless_hero]

In order to not make a new topic over the same thing:
Liberals complain over Obama concession

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_ ... e_overhaul


Holy crap Obama can't fucking win, he just can't. I'm sorry, but my hopes and dreams of any of the health care reform bills getting passed are pretty much over.

The bill was doomed the second the right-wing punditry managed to get the so called 'death-panel' section of the bill killed which solely required insurance and Medicare to cover end-of-lie talks that happen all the time. And I would support the progressive Democrats voting against any bill without a public option. If Obama wants to be a centrist to a fault, then he can suffer for it because the legislators and American citizens sure will.

[Treznor]

In order to not make a new topic over the same thing:
Liberals complain over Obama concession

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_ ... e_overhaul


Holy crap Obama can't fucking win, he just can't. I'm sorry, but my hopes and dreams of any of the health care reform bills getting passed are pretty much over.

I hate to tell you this, but it isn't news. We liberals (myself included) have been complaining over all the concessions Obama has been making. Okay, the first one with the Stimulus Bill had to be done to make the point that he was willing to play the bipartisan card the way he promised. But every single time Democrats hold out their hands to the GOP to do something together, they get bit.

We're tired of making concessions to people who are rude, obnoxious and willing to abuse the system to get their way. We're tired of seeing our leaders make concessions and even then not get any support from across the aisle. We're looking for leadership, not concessions.

The Republicans had control over government long enough to turn the nation against them. The Democrats need to start fulfilling the promises they made to take over those seats, and it's not going to happen by giving the GOP everything that got the GOP kicked out of the majority.