US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[The_pantless_hero]

Thank God that the public option might be removed. The so-called "public option" was just a trojan horse from the insurance companies that control the vast majority of the "healthcare debate."

..what? I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere...

The healthcare debate is being controlled by the insurance companies to a vast extent. Follow the money.

Which doesn't even remotely explain your previous conclusion.

[Georgetpwn]

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.

A bunch of idiots yelling at meetings is not "most people." Polls indicate most people want healthcare reform.

But most people don't want the shit that's in Congress right now.
Many actually want to keep their current healthcare.

[The_pantless_hero]

My plan for US healthcare is to continue as status quo, but with a state (not federal- keeps the South happy) fund to pay for procedures not covered under health insurance, and also to pay for the insurance of those who cannot afford it. By blending private quality and universiality the US healthcare system would be the best in the world.

So...basically...model after most of the public healthcare options found in every other industrialized nations in the world?

Public healthcare in most of Europe has gotten too big. In the US, you'd see only 30% of people at the most choosing the state-fund option. In Europe the level is at least 75%. I'm British, so I am largely unaware of the financial problems of the states, but I remember the days when if a government needs money, it raises taxes. Also, as a Briton, the only public healthcare system I am familiar with is 'Our NHS', which is almost a cult (see #welovethenhs on Twitter if you don't believe me). Trust me, you do NOT want an NHS.

I'm not a Socialist. In Britain they'd call me a 'Nasty Tory' on the 'Far Right' who's 'Probably a Racist too' because 'People Like That Are Usually Like That'.

Oh, so you are one of the right-wing punditry's favorite people - a self-righteous fool who would prefer a healthcare system that is means based and profits off your sickness?

[Angleter]

Silly British person, don't you know that raising taxes is obsolete in the modern world? When your government needs more money to provide services for its people, it has obviously gotten too big and the people who want those services are obviously parasites on the body politic, so the solution is to cut taxes and starve the beast. I thought every schoolchild knew that.

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

[The_pantless_hero]

Silly British person, don't you know that raising taxes is obsolete in the modern world? When your government needs more money to provide services for its people, it has obviously gotten too big and the people who want those services are obviously parasites on the body politic, so the solution is to cut taxes and starve the beast. I thought every schoolchild knew that.

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

I won't say stupid things about your government without doing research first if you don't say stupid things about our government first. Farnhamia was not making things up, despite the sarcastic tone.

[Aggicificicerous]

My plan for US healthcare is to continue as status quo, but with a state (not federal- keeps the South happy) fund to pay for procedures not covered under health insurance, and also to pay for the insurance of those who cannot afford it. By blending private quality and universiality the US healthcare system would be the best in the world.

So...basically...model after most of the public healthcare options found in every other industrialized nations in the world?

Public healthcare in most of Europe has gotten too big. In the US, you'd see only 30% of people at the most choosing the state-fund option. In Europe the level is at least 75%. I'm British, so I am largely unaware of the financial problems of the states, but I remember the days when if a government needs money, it raises taxes. Also, as a Briton, the only public healthcare system I am familiar with is 'Our NHS', which is almost a cult (see #welovethenhs on Twitter if you don't believe me). Trust me, you do NOT want an NHS.

I'm not a Socialist. In Britain they'd call me a 'Nasty Tory' on the 'Far Right' who's 'Probably a Racist too' because 'People Like That Are Usually Like That'.

Funny how the British government spends about 8% of its budget on healthcare. The USA spends about 16%.

Lousy socialists spending all that money on bloated government programs.

[Farnhamia]

Silly British person, don't you know that raising taxes is obsolete in the modern world? When your government needs more money to provide services for its people, it has obviously gotten too big and the people who want those services are obviously parasites on the body politic, so the solution is to cut taxes and starve the beast. I thought every schoolchild knew that.

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

It depends on whom you ask. If you ask on the right, the US government is a gigantic, bloated monstrosity that hasn't done anything right in over 200 years and it needs to be put down like a sick elephant. The left has been frightened by conservative successes in the last two decades so you won't find anyone saying that the government needs to be bigger, but you'll find people who will say that its priorities should be adjusted and funding moved around so that the citizens are served better, and waste should be eiminated, etc. No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Everyone here wants the best for everyone but mention paying for it and everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.

[The_pantless_hero]

No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Only when the politicians mentioned higher taxes.

[Georgetpwn]

No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Only when the politicians mentioned higher taxes.

dos Liberal propaganda have to be brought up?

[Angleter]

Public healthcare in most of Europe has gotten too big. In the US, you'd see only 30% of people at the most choosing the state-fund option. In Europe the level is at least 75%. I'm British, so I am largely unaware of the financial problems of the states, but I remember the days when if a government needs money, it raises taxes. Also, as a Briton, the only public healthcare system I am familiar with is 'Our NHS', which is almost a cult (see #welovethenhs on Twitter if you don't believe me). Trust me, you do NOT want an NHS.

I'm not a Socialist. In Britain they'd call me a 'Nasty Tory' on the 'Far Right' who's 'Probably a Racist too' because 'People Like That Are Usually Like That'.

Oh, so you are one of the right-wing punditry's favorite people - a self-righteous fool who would prefer a healthcare system that is means based and profits off your sickness?

I would prefer a healthcare system with for-profit incentive to provide better healthcare, WITH State support for those who cannot meet the prices of the companies.

When you have a monopoly or near monopoly like Our NHS, there is no mandate to improve services, and this consistently tells when people are forced to go to America to get treatment because Our NHS won't do it and the private sector is so marginalised and small it just cannot afford the treatment. We have a target in Britain for no A&E patient to wait more than FOUR HOURS to be seen- does the USA have that? Also in Britain, Our NHS has NICE, which decides if your life-extending drug is cost-effective and often decides that it is not. There is no option of paying for your drug through Our NHS, so you have to go private/to America.

[Treznor]

Silly British person, don't you know that raising taxes is obsolete in the modern world? When your government needs more money to provide services for its people, it has obviously gotten too big and the people who want those services are obviously parasites on the body politic, so the solution is to cut taxes and starve the beast. I thought every schoolchild knew that.

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

It depends on whom you ask. If you ask on the right, the US government is a gigantic, bloated monstrosity that hasn't done anything right in over 200 years and it needs to be put down like a sick elephant. The left has been frightened by conservative successes in the last two decades so you won't find anyone saying that the government needs to be bigger, but you'll find people who will say that its priorities should be adjusted and funding moved around so that the citizens are served better, and waste should be eiminated, etc. No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Everyone here wants the best for everyone but mention paying for it and everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.

I know you already know this, but I thought I'd make the point: paying for public health care would be cake. We take a fraction of the massive military spending and retask it to providing full health care for every citizen from birth to death. Paying off the debt from our military expenditures will require far more in taxes than any public health care system ever could.

[United Dependencies]

Silly British person, don't you know that raising taxes is obsolete in the modern world? When your government needs more money to provide services for its people, it has obviously gotten too big and the people who want those services are obviously parasites on the body politic, so the solution is to cut taxes and starve the beast. I thought every schoolchild knew that.

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

It depends on whom you ask. If you ask on the right, the US government is a gigantic, bloated monstrosity that hasn't done anything right in over 200 years and it needs to be put down like a sick elephant. The left has been frightened by conservative successes in the last two decades so you won't find anyone saying that the government needs to be bigger, but you'll find people who will say that its priorities should be adjusted and funding moved around so that the citizens are served better, and waste should be eiminated, etc. No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Everyone here wants the best for everyone but mention paying for it and everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.

Why do people not realize that the servicies they want cost money?

[Angleter]

No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Only when the politicians mentioned higher taxes.

I think that a sense of blaming the previous government not of your party for screwing up the state finances might save face.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Fuck. That's the most intelligent thing I can say at the moment. Just plain fuck.

[Farnhamia]

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

It depends on whom you ask. If you ask on the right, the US government is a gigantic, bloated monstrosity that hasn't done anything right in over 200 years and it needs to be put down like a sick elephant. The left has been frightened by conservative successes in the last two decades so you won't find anyone saying that the government needs to be bigger, but you'll find people who will say that its priorities should be adjusted and funding moved around so that the citizens are served better, and waste should be eiminated, etc. No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Everyone here wants the best for everyone but mention paying for it and everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.

Why do people not realize that the servicies they want cost money?

I have no idea. It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. I do love my country but oh, I do want to slap her silly sometimes.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Why do people not realize that the servicies they want cost money?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity

[The_pantless_hero]

No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Only when the politicians mentioned higher taxes.

dos Liberal propaganda have to be brought up?

You really shouldn't post when drunk.

[Angleter]

I am myself against large government, and in the UK we have masses of bureaucracy in health, education, defence, transport, etc. and we also have vast numbers of morbidly obese scroungers who refuse to work and have 13 kids just to claim more in benefits than you can earn in a low-skilled job. We raise that money either through extortionate taxes or, preferrably, borrowing. The US states need to raise their taxes as they do not seem to have too big a government (correct me if I'm wrong) and they simply cannot afford their expenditure.

It depends on whom you ask. If you ask on the right, the US government is a gigantic, bloated monstrosity that hasn't done anything right in over 200 years and it needs to be put down like a sick elephant. The left has been frightened by conservative successes in the last two decades so you won't find anyone saying that the government needs to be bigger, but you'll find people who will say that its priorities should be adjusted and funding moved around so that the citizens are served better, and waste should be eiminated, etc. No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Everyone here wants the best for everyone but mention paying for it and everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.

I know you already know this, but I thought I'd make the point: paying for public health care would be cake. We take a fraction of the massive military spending and retask it to providing full health care for every citizen from birth to death. Paying off the debt from our military expenditures will require far more in taxes than any public health care system ever could.

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.

[The_pantless_hero]

Oh, so you are one of the right-wing punditry's favorite people - a self-righteous fool who would prefer a healthcare system that is means based and profits off your sickness?

I would prefer a healthcare system with for-profit incentive to provide better healthcare, WITH State support for those who cannot meet the prices of the companies.

So in summary, you know nothing about our healthcare system or our federalist government structure.

[Treznor]

I know you already know this, but I thought I'd make the point: paying for public health care would be cake. We take a fraction of the massive military spending and retask it to providing full health care for every citizen from birth to death. Paying off the debt from our military expenditures will require far more in taxes than any public health care system ever could.

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.

One that, somehow, manages to average less of Britain's GDP than the US spends on its private markets.

You know what? I've had a taste of both. Personally, I'm willing to give the public option a try. The private markets aren't really interested in helping me, just squeezing money out of me.

[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.

[Farnhamia]

It depends on whom you ask. If you ask on the right, the US government is a gigantic, bloated monstrosity that hasn't done anything right in over 200 years and it needs to be put down like a sick elephant. The left has been frightened by conservative successes in the last two decades so you won't find anyone saying that the government needs to be bigger, but you'll find people who will say that its priorities should be adjusted and funding moved around so that the citizens are served better, and waste should be eiminated, etc. No one, and I mean no one in elected office in the US today will use the words "We must increase taxes" for fear of being run out of town on a rail (a quaint custom not much used these days; I believe tar and feathers were also involved in some cases).

Everyone here wants the best for everyone but mention paying for it and everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.

I know you already know this, but I thought I'd make the point: paying for public health care would be cake. We take a fraction of the massive military spending and retask it to providing full health care for every citizen from birth to death. Paying off the debt from our military expenditures will require far more in taxes than any public health care system ever could.

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.

Let's see, we were - probably still are, or close - spending $240,000,000 a day in Iraq. Just under a billion dollars every four days. I think we could afford a paltry $184 billion a year (using $165 to the pound).

[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.

I think that's the point about this whole debate. Everybody gets covered. Including people that some would prefer not to be covered, because money is obviously more important than human lives. That means there's less money to go around for the people who really count: themselves.

Doesn't that just give you a good feeling about human nature?

[Angleter]

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%.

[Valipac]

So that Obama campaign office that hung the Che flag in their headquarters is back in the news.

http://lonestartimes.com/2009/08/13/oba ... lee-forum/