US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626294/

Nah, they will never ration. They're not it in for the money. They will cover an additional 31 million people, shrink the deficit, lower wait times and improve quality. They are good like that.

I really don't consider that to be a valid criticism in this case. Real health care reform would save both lives and money. It wouldn't be a choice between the two. Other countries have proved that.

[Juristonia]

Universal coverage is a selling point. It's not the intent. You are a statistic to them.

Just like you're a statistic to the health insurance companies now.
I'd rather the government, who can be voted out and called out on their behaviour, oversees this stuff than some corporation that will do anything to make a profit.

[Western_shinma]

Because the government never considers cost. I mean, they are not running a business. They are not in it for the profit. Except.... this.

When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626294/

Nah, they will never ration. They're not it in for the money. They will cover an additional 31 million people, shrink the deficit, lower wait times and improve quality. They are good like that.

Yup. A hypothetical example proves your conclusion, alright. A hypothetical example where the final outcome was... 'may not be adopted'.

...in the same way that bananas fitting the human hand prove the existence of a benevolent interventionist god.

[Whole Conviction]

Because the government never considers cost. I mean, they are not running a business. They are not in it for the profit. Except.... this.

When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626294/

Nah, they will never ration. They're not it in for the money. They will cover an additional 31 million people, shrink the deficit, lower wait times and improve quality. They are good like that.

Well... of course they'll take financial efficiency into account. >.> Do you think insurance companies don't? It would be irreponsible of them to NOT take cost into account. What exactly are you saying here?

Keep in mind that insurance companies will deny you coverage if you cost them only a few THOUSAND dollars, unless they can find no legal reason to do so. They have gone so far as to cancel an entire line of coverage simply to get one person off their books (since local laws prevented them from cancelling the individual's coverage instead).

How would you propse things works? No money limit on any form of treatment or care? Would it be worth buying a billion dollar machine to save one person a year? Or could that money be better spent elsewhere?

[Whole Conviction]

Ah, I see... followed the link now. You clipped the part of the story that said the value had been lowered. (Lowered in July last year, I'll point out... damn that Obama!)

1) that figure has nothing to do with health care or provision.
2) what's your point anyway? One government department from the previous administration made it easier to relax environmental regulations. How does that relate to this debate? Or is it just 'Government is bad!' If so, I kindly ask for some more detail. Governments are large; they contain multitudes. Do you have any ideas of how health care could be better paid for?

[Ordo Mallus]

Universal coverage is a selling point. It's not the intent. You are a statistic to them.

Just like you're a statistic to the health insurance companies now.
I'd rather the government, who can be voted out and called out on their behaviour, oversees this stuff than some corporation that will do anything to make a profit.

i'd rather some corporation, who relys on the public and their willingness to spend a little extra to get quality care, than the government that will tax me no matter what and give me half assed medical care

[Gift-of-god]

i'd rather some corporation, who relys on the public and their willingness to spend a little extra to get quality care, than the government that will tax me no matter what and give me half assed medical care

The unfortunate thing is that, by removing the public option, the US government has now forced all USians to rely on corporations instead of the government.

And people naively assume that the free market always give more choice. Not this time, apparently.

[Milks Empire]

i'd rather some corporation, who relys on the public and their willingness to spend a little extra to get quality care, than the government that will tax me no matter what and give me half assed medical care

The unfortunate thing is that, by removing the public option, the US government has now forced all USians to rely on corporations instead of the government.
And people naively assume that the free market always give more choice. Not this time, apparently.

Markets should not be in this discussion because there's no viable alternative to the HMOs at this point. The only thing that changes if one switches to another one is where the payment is sent.

[Whole Conviction]

i'd rather some corporation, who relys on the public and their willingness to spend a little extra to get quality care, than the government that will tax me no matter what and give me half assed medical care

If that's true, why are the VA and Medicare so loved by the people who use them?

Here's the thing about financial incentives:
The VA and Medicare have financial incentive to provide good-quality care. Why? Because they have a long-term relationship with their clients. If they give half-arsed care now, they'll end up paying more in the long run.
Insurers have a financial incentive to deny you care and cut your cover. When they provide care for you, they are LOSING money. The government is too... but the difference is, as explained above, the government has incentive for you to be healthy due to a long-term relationship. Insurers can just cut you and make you someone else's problem.

Jesus, you've had people getting their cover cancelled because of pregnancy or teenage acneas pre-existing conditions!

I'm not saying GOVERNMENT IS GOOD TRUST THE COMPUTER. I'm saying that in the area of health care, government's best fiscal position is to keep you healthy, whereas insurance companies' best fiscal position is to leave you to die.

I know which one I'd rather.

[Beeth]

Fellow Leaders,
In my opinion the bill is not so bad for the reform aspect. I support that. You shouldn't have your coverage dropped because of your specific medical conditions, or any thing like that. Its just wrong. What I disagree with is the crazy spending that is put in this bill, which amounts to nearly a trillion dollars, and the "public option". With a 1.42 trillion dollar deficit we don't need to spend anymore. And besides there are a good number of private options already, and the best part is that you pay for it yourself. Keep government out of it! The public option by definition is "socialism", as it is redistribution of wealth. Some may say that's how medicare works. That is true, but I don't want to have to pay anymore taxes! In fact, if you ask me, we need to spend less on big government programs, all of them! No, I don't want to send grandma off to a death-panel, I never said that. All I want is not to pay anymore taxes than I have to!

[Whole Conviction]

Fellow Leaders,
In my opinion the bill is not so bad for the reform aspect. I support that. You shouldn't have your coverage dropped because of your specific medical conditions, or any thing like that. Its just wrong. What I disagree with is the crazy spending that is put in this bill, which amounts to nearly a trillion dollars, and the "public option". With a 1.42 trillion dollar deficit we don't need to spend anymore. And besides there are a good number of private options already, and the best part is that you pay for it yourself. Keep government out of it! The public option by definition is "socialism", as it is redistribution of wealth. Some may say that's how medicare works. That is true, but I don't want to have to pay anymore taxes! In fact, if you ask me, we need to spend less on big government programs, all of them! No, I don't want to send grandma off to a death-panel, I never said that. All I want is not to pay anymore taxes than I have to!

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill is, as promised, deficit-neutral. What it costs, it pays for with savings by cutting inefficiencies. So you won't pay any increased taxes to fund this.

Next!

[NeoYamato]

The Congressional Budget Office opens its mouth and I pull out the recorder. Five months later I play it back as the News adds up the debt in front of my eyes. I have a better idea, how about they kill those inefficiencies and not do the healthcare.

It couldn't hurt.

[Whole Conviction]

The Congressional Budget Office opens its mouth and I pull out the recorder. Five months later I play it back as the News adds up the debt in front of my eyes. I have a better idea, how about they kill those inefficiencies and not do the healthcare.

It couldn't hurt.

The current US health care system is the most inefficient in the world. You pay more per person for healthcare than single-payer, government-run systems... and most people get worse care. Some kind of reform is the only rational approach. What that reform looks like is open for debate -- I'm on the side of government-run health care, because I come from a country that has it, and I'm very happy with it. If we want private insurance, we can go for that, but we have competition with the government system there to keep costs down.

That's the key point -- cost control and competition. healthcare costs in the US have skyrocketed in the past ten years, well over the cost of provision, while quality has decreased. Why? Because there is no financial incentive to provide good care.

Reform is ESSENTIAL to cost control. Merely doing cost control is like bandaging cuts on a patient dying of a heart attack. You can't do one without the other, and a public option to compete with private industry is the best way of containing costs.

[The_pantless_hero]

The Congressional Budget Office opens its mouth and I pull out the recorder. Five months later I play it back as the News adds up the debt in front of my eyes. I have a better idea, how about they kill those inefficiencies and not do the healthcare.

It couldn't hurt.

The inefficiencies are inherent in the system

[Ordo Mallus]

... whereas insurance companies' best fiscal position is to leave you to die.

Yes, thats why I'm still alive. Both dont want you to die, just the Government will get money from you no matter what and profit doesn;'t matter to them because we are already 10 trillion in debt

[The_pantless_hero]

... whereas insurance companies' best fiscal position is to leave you to die.

Yes, thats why I'm still alive. Both dont want you to die, just the Government will get money from you no matter what and profit doesn;'t matter to them because we are already 10 trillion in debt

Way to miss the point. In the current system of healthcare, there is no incentive for either preventative care or curing of illnesses. There is no money in either, the money is in allowing then prolonging illness and then dropping you if you get too expensive. Private healthcare doesn't give a fuck about you. Especially the insurance sector. Their job is to pad their bottom line, not help you be healthy. The government's job is to not get voted the fuck out of office and to keep its own expenses down. Were the government responsible for everyone and reason applied to the industry, healthcare costs would go down.

[Whole Conviction]

... whereas insurance companies' best fiscal position is to leave you to die.

Yes, thats why I'm still alive. Both dont want you to die, just the Government will get money from you no matter what and profit doesn;'t matter to them because we are already 10 trillion in debt

You managed to get the insurance companies to pay out. Congratulations. I never said they NEVER paid out, I just said they hated paying out because it costs them money. They're not providing something that makes money for them when they provide it... they're providing something that LOSES money for them when they provide it.

I'm very glad you got care that saved your life. But there are 45 million uninsured int he US (those who don't earn enough to pay for insurance, but aren't eligible for medicaid) and at least that number underinsured (who think they're covered, but really.... they aren't).

I'm not exaggerating when I talk about people getting coverage cancelled due to non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions including acne or pregnancy. Or people whose ongoing treatment was too expensive, so the coverage simply got cut. Or, when laws were passed against that, an entire line of cover was cut.

Insurance companies Are Not Your Friend.