Healthcare question for Americans.

[Muravyets]

I would make a gov't option for only the lower class the poor and If they wanted it they will get if they don't want they don't want it

and you will still have patient rights just the gov't will cover you that''s it

The US already has that. Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. It's the middle class who are being left with no options in the current privatized system, because the costs of care plus the complete lack of any regulation on how the insurance companies are allowed to run their shows is basically making us victims of a massive legalized scam and leaving us without access to necessary care.

Too poor to get health care, but not poor enough to qualify for the currently existing government plan. That is the hell we are in.

[SaintB]

I would make a gov't option for only the lower class the poor and If they wanted it they will get if they don't want they don't want it

and you will still have patient rights just the gov't will cover you that''s it

The US already has that. Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. It's the middle class who are being left with no options in the current privatized system, because the costs of care plus the complete lack of any regulation on how the insurance companies are allowed to run their shows is basically making us victims of a massive legalized scam and leaving us without access to necessary care.

Too poor to get health care, but not poor enough to qualify for the currently existing government plan. That is the hell we are in.

There is also the "Too poor to get Medicare" category.

[Muravyets]

I would make a gov't option for only the lower class the poor and If they wanted it they will get if they don't want they don't want it

and you will still have patient rights just the gov't will cover you that''s it

The US already has that. Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. It's the middle class who are being left with no options in the current privatized system, because the costs of care plus the complete lack of any regulation on how the insurance companies are allowed to run their shows is basically making us victims of a massive legalized scam and leaving us without access to necessary care.

Too poor to get health care, but not poor enough to qualify for the currently existing government plan. That is the hell we are in.

There is also the "Too poor to get Medicare" category.

Sorry, do you mean "too poor for MediCAID"? Or "too young for MediCARE"? Or is there an income "floor" for Medicare that I didn't know about (on account of I'm too young for Medicare)?

I admit that since I've never been eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare, I don't know what their costs or limitations are. I know they both charge something at least per month but I don't know how low they go.

[SaintB]

The US already has that. Medicaid. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the poor. It's the middle class who are being left with no options in the current privatized system, because the costs of care plus the complete lack of any regulation on how the insurance companies are allowed to run their shows is basically making us victims of a massive legalized scam and leaving us without access to necessary care.

Too poor to get health care, but not poor enough to qualify for the currently existing government plan. That is the hell we are in.

There is also the "Too poor to get Medicare" category.

Sorry, do you mean "too poor for MediCAID"? Or "too young for MediCARE"? Or is there an income "floor" for Medicare that I didn't know about (on account of I'm too young for Medicare)?

I admit that since I've never been eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare, I don't know what their costs or limitations are. I know they both charge something at least per month but I don't know how low they go.

I'm sorry, I typod, I meant MedicAID, there is a group that does not earn enough to pay the amount of taxes to qualify for MedicAID.

[Muravyets]

I'm sorry, I typod, I meant MedicAID, there is a group that does not earn enough to pay the amount of taxes to qualify for MedicAID.

Oh, right, I see. And that's the way it is with almost all US social programs. Contrary to rightwing belief, they are not actually free rides. In my opinion, that is a problem, but it does put the lie to the claim that the government just steals from good people (goodness measured by the size of their paychecks) to give to lazy deadbeats. Everybody has to pay their way, whether they really can or not.

[Tao Qin]

You've produced no evidence that universal healthcare "will ignore people's health conditions that they deem as minor". I'm not going to research your arguments for you. If you cannot back up the point, drop it.

You still yet have to "prove" your argument! So you drop it. But it's common sense; something that's extremely demanded, with lack of resources, lots of steps will be skipped. And it's been happening in countries with centralized health care.

Really? I'd say the NHS was just as well-staffed, well-paid and well-equipped as any other hospital.

You must be on crack then. Or your Government has a high tax rate, or your Government really doesn't spend that much on anything else.

Furthermore, I would assume that a lot of people become Doctors because they wanted to enter that profession; they're not going to ignore treatments and be inattentive just because they aren't being paid in gold-plated Ferraris and rainbows.

A lot of people want to be video game testers for a living, but it doesn't happen frequently.

I watch the news as well, which isn't just certain circumstances, and the NHS is working out fine for us.

And what news is that? Some biased, anti-capitalist propaganda? I'm sure it like to omit certain facts, like how a large majority that could afford private health care are probably getting screwed over.

You're obviously not, since anyone who had any experience of the NHS would not be spewing the blatant fallacies that you are.

This is just ignorant and baseless. Means absolutely nothing but steam. And I guess you've never heard of people flocking over from Canada or Cuba to pay for health care? No, probably not.

What a wonderful point.

Bad retort is bad.

You presume so much.

Oh wow. SOMEHOW. Just SOMEHOW, you don't?! God; spare me from this ignorant, closed-minded attitude! Gtfo your high horse! You're only making an ass of yourself.

So like any regular hospital, then?

No? Not really?

I'd rather be staring down from my "high horse" of logic than scrambling about in the dirt throwing mud at universal healthcare with little substance or evidence.

Throwing dirt? I'm explaining what the errors would be, at first glace of the system. And your answers? More presumptions and strawman-ing w/ a chip on your shoulder.

By that logic, you could say that Communism has never been tried out.

Well, yea.

So you admit to comparing the two things with the intent of slandering universal healthcare?

No. I made random comparisons with things that have "rapidly" spread throughout the world to show that it's rapid speed means nothing or about as much as they mean.

Democratic Socialists are entirely incomparable with Fascists and Communists.

Kay'. But their spread throughout the world was similar, kind of like AIDS, Islam, Christianity, anti-semitism, McDonald's, etc.

[Tao Qin]

Because our government is filled with morons who couldn't find their own ass with both hands.

You mean people like you, who moronically assume "capitalism failed" when it was the bureaucracy already micromanaging the economy from the start? Go away, please.

[Treznor]

You've produced no evidence that universal healthcare "will ignore people's health conditions that they deem as minor". I'm not going to research your arguments for you. If you cannot back up the point, drop it.

You still yet have to "prove" your argument! So you drop it. But it's common sense; something that's extremely demanded, with lack of resources, lots of steps will be skipped. And it's been happening in countries with centralized health care.

So, you don't have anything to back your claims, against all the metrics posted here and elsewhere that say socialized medicine is not only cheaper than the private healthcare provided in the US, but far more effective. But in your mind it's "common sense" that it doesn't work against all evidence.

Please forgive us for doubting your Rush-given common sense.

Really? I'd say the NHS was just as well-staffed, well-paid and well-equipped as any other hospital.

You must be on crack then. Or your Government has a high tax rate, or your Government really doesn't spend that much on anything else.

As someone who lived under NHS for three years, yes. Societies with NHS tend to have slightly higher tax rates. They also provide better care for the money, resulting in lower costs for everybody. I spent far less under the NHS system than I do under private healthcare, but that's me. Along with almost everybody else who has tried it. Browsing through these forums you'll find plenty of testimonials from people who have tried both private and public health care and preferred the public option, or at least found it no worse than private. The testimonials of "horror stories" under public health care tend to lean toward "I had a cousin" or somesuch.

Furthermore, I would assume that a lot of people become Doctors because they wanted to enter that profession; they're not going to ignore treatments and be inattentive just because they aren't being paid in gold-plated Ferraris and rainbows.

A lot of people want to be video game testers for a living, but it doesn't happen frequently.

Sadly, there's not nearly as much demand for video game testers. There's no lack of work for doctors.

I watch the news as well, which isn't just certain circumstances, and the NHS is working out fine for us.

And what news is that? Some biased, anti-capitalist propaganda? I'm sure it like to omit certain facts, like how a large majority that could afford private health care are probably getting screwed over.

Like the BBC, lately demonstrating far more journalistic integrity and fact-checking than pretty much every US-based news source?

You're obviously not, since anyone who had any experience of the NHS would not be spewing the blatant fallacies that you are.

This is just ignorant and baseless. Means absolutely nothing but steam. And I guess you've never heard of people flocking over from Canada or Cuba to pay for health care? No, probably not.

I've heard of it. Mostly people who want elective surgery and can afford the higher cost in the US. I also talk to people who go over to Canada for basic health care because even without NHS, it's cheaper out of pocket than to pay US doctors with insurance co-pay. I've heard of no one who comes to the USA for basic health care, which is far more effective at avoiding the need for catastrophic care.

You presume so much.

Oh wow. SOMEHOW. Just SOMEHOW, you don't?! God; spare me from this ignorant, closed-minded attitude! Gtfo your high horse! You're only making an ass of yourself.

Except that from what I can see, he's right. It's not his fault you're sensitive about it.

I'd rather be staring down from my "high horse" of logic than scrambling about in the dirt throwing mud at universal healthcare with little substance or evidence.

Throwing dirt? I'm explaining what the errors would be, at first glace of the system. And your answers? More presumptions and strawman-ing w/ a chip on your shoulder.[/quote]
You're explaining what you've been told the errors should be, even though real life performance doesn't bear this out. The only person making presumptions here is you.

Democratic Socialists are entirely incomparable with Fascists and Communists.

Kay'. But their spread throughout the world was similar, kind of like AIDS, Islam, Christianity, anti-semitism, McDonald's, etc.[/quote]
And so far most of them have higher standards of living than Capitalists, Fascists or Communists, along with better representation in their governments. What's your point?

[Gift-of-god]

You seem to be uninformed about the economics of health care. How are people without medical degrees able to assess for themselves the relative quality and costs of two different treatments for an illness or injury? Answer: they cannot as they are not medical proffessionals, and so they can't make intelligent consumer choices, thus causing market failure.

And what would originally cause an unexpected price increase in medical bills for someone who isn't a moron? There's a good chance it's Government related, such as printing off more money to make up for debt and making more regulations on the health care market. But I suppose you did "get me there"; preventing theft should be the job of the Government.

I have no idea how your post is a reply to mine.

and again, the proposal is not for government run health care but government run health insurance--like medicare. there is no reason that a person in the US wont have the same option of going outside the insurance system as they might do now. doctors wont be working for the government.

If you're discussing what's been proposed by Congress, you are absolutely wrong.

What's in front of Congress contains:

1. An agency to decide what treatments may be given and what may not - this applies to ALL medicine, no matter who pays.
2. Strict controls over what private insurance must pay for. You won't be free to choose your own options. You will buy ONLY what the government lets you choose.
3. Strict controls over the expansion or construction of medical facilities - this includes hospital rooms, laboratories, technological expansion like CT, MRI, etc, systems.
4. The strict regulation of who may own a hospital or other medical facility.

There's myriad other controls that apply to everyone and everything. The proposals from Congress are NOT "simple insurance plans", they are all a full takeover of the medical industry, in all aspects from wages to prices to ownership to career choices, to even mandating where interns may spend their time as interns.

So, I looked through the bill carefully. There is no evidence for these allegations. Sorry.

I will look at your criticisms in more detail:

1. This agency is the exchange, which will basically be a regualted market that enforces minimum standards. In that respect, the agency you speak of will demand that the insurance companies cover a certain minimum number of treatemnts as a basic package. However, there is no indication that this agency would have the power to outlaw treatments. It starts being described about page 8.

2. I don't see how this is different from your first allegation, so I will simply ask those interested to look up a bit.

3. Construction is only mentioned once in the entire bill, on page 954:

‘‘(f) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—An entity that
22 receives a grant under this section may not use funds pro-
23 vided through the grant—
24 ‘‘(1) to build or acquire real property or for
25 construction; or
...
1 ‘‘(2) for services or planning to the extent that
2 payment has been made, or can reasonably be ex-
3 pected to be made—
4 ‘‘(A) under any insurance policy;
5 ‘‘(B) under any Federal or State health
6 benefits program (including titles XIX and XXI
7 of the Social Security Act); or
8 ‘‘(C) by an entity which provides health
9 services on a prepaid basis.

Please note that this section discusses funds disbursed according to the Community Prevention and Wellness
Services Grants (starts on page 951). It does not regulate the exapansion or construction of medical facilities with moneys that are not part of the grant discussed in this section.

4. Hospitals are mentioned 224 times in this bill. The only one that even seemed to suggest what you calim is the following:

‘‘(i) REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY FOR RURAL PRO2
VIDER AND HOSPITAL OWNERSHIP EXCEPTIONS TO
3 SELF-REFERRAL PROHIBITION.—
4 ....
13 ‘‘(B) PROHIBITION ON PHYSICIAN OWNER-
14- SHIP OR INVESTMENT.—The percentage of the
15 total value of the ownership or investment in-
16 terests held in the hospital, or in an entity
17 whose assets include the hospital, by physician
18 owners or investors in the aggregate does not
19 exceed such percentage as of the date of enact-
20 ment of this subsection.

This, as you can see, limits the percenatge of ownership interest only for those rural hospitals covered by this subsection.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

What really irks me about all of this health care reform nonsense is this. I'm 21 year old male, I don't smoke, abuse drugs and occasionally drink. I'm in good physical condition and am still a college student. I don't have health care insurance and do not care. The US government wants to tell me that I do not have that right and that I must purchase health insurance/ join some Universal Health Care Pool (and then meet certain requirements, checkups, screenings, etc.) or face legal consequences.

Does anyone on this thread actually think it's fair, that it is just, or that it is right to obligate a person under threat of law to have health care?

Questions to consider before answering:

Just because a person is in an accident and cannot pay for an operation out of pocket RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT, doesn't mean they cannot pay for it over a period of time. How many of you bought your last car by paying in full, in cash, at the dealership? Why could you not finance an operation?

Does society have an obligation to provide services to those who are refuse them (and are mentally competent)? Where do Christian Scientists and Scientologists fit into this health care mess? Will Jehovah's Witnesses be forced to accept blood transfusions?

Is a more socialistic model the only way to provide good health care for all who desire it? There were 49 million Medicaid participants in 2008 and about 35 million were covered by Medicare in 2008. This means 84 million Americans health care was administered by the US government, this means 38% of health care insurance was handled by the Federal Government (I'm excluding state and local, and also all government employees who receive health benefits as well) and 62% handled it privately. However, 15% percent don't have health coverage, thus ONE THIRD of all health care last year was handled by the government (84 million/ 255million w/ health care) and one two thirds privately. Can we honestly say that the private sector is incapable of providing health care when it already does not profit from a third of those it treats?

The government uses your tax money to pay for lots of programs you don't use.

[Sdaeriji]

Because our government is filled with morons who couldn't find their own ass with both hands.

You mean people like you, who moronically assume "capitalism failed" when it was the bureaucracy already micromanaging the economy from the start? Go away, please.

I swear to god, they should rename "No True Scotsman" to "No True Capitalism/Communism".

[Kaesekartoffeln]

Wrong. Libertarian socialist.

Well that's quite an oxymoron...

I'd like to see how you define 'libertarianism' and 'socialism' because the two are pretty incompatible.

I actually said the same thing, but deleted my post, since according to Wikipedia it actually does exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

[No true scotsman]

Because our government is filled with morons who couldn't find their own ass with both hands.

You mean people like you, who moronically assume "capitalism failed" when it was the bureaucracy already micromanaging the economy from the start? Go away, please.

I swear to god, they should rename "No True Scotsman" to "No True Capitalism/Communism".

What did I do?

[Greed and Death]

I swear to god, they should rename "No True Scotsman" to "No True Capitalism/Communism".

What did I do?

You flip flop between capitalism and communism.

[Ashmoria]

You mean people like you, who moronically assume "capitalism failed" when it was the bureaucracy already micromanaging the economy from the start? Go away, please.

I swear to god, they should rename "No True Scotsman" to "No True Capitalism/Communism".

What did I do?

if you were really a scotsman you would know.

[No true scotsman]

if you were really a scotsman you would know.

Ooh... good answer.

[Grave_n_idle]

Source. NOW.

LOL, you really are ignorant, aren't you?

The "source" is the published document from the House. I don't make ANY of this up, it's in there.

You can get a version of it at this URL: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Mind you, the legislation at last count was well past 1000 pages. If you have any interest in knowing the truth, you can use Google to find myriad "cliff's notes" summaries to tell you what features are found on what pages. The index at the top of the document is useful.

Okay. It took two days, but I've read it.

It doesn't say any of the things you said it says.


I can't wait for you to get back from your little vacation, so I can see what your next play will be.

[Milks Empire]

if you were really a scotsman you would know.

Ooh... good answer.

Are you wearing a kilt?

[Ashmoria]

Source. NOW.

LOL, you really are ignorant, aren't you?

The "source" is the published document from the House. I don't make ANY of this up, it's in there.

You can get a version of it at this URL: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Mind you, the legislation at last count was well past 1000 pages. If you have any interest in knowing the truth, you can use Google to find myriad "cliff's notes" summaries to tell you what features are found on what pages. The index at the top of the document is useful.

Okay. It took two days, but I've read it.

It doesn't say any of the things you said it says.


I can't wait for you to get back from your little vacation, so I can see what your next play will be.

*shudder* my numbshit brother sent me an email with the same stupid points that our vacationing friend posted here. its so disappointing to have a grown man whose wife and daughter are both nurses send out such ignorant talking points. i can only assume that his family wont talk to him about it at all and are glad that he has an email outlet so they dont hurt themselves rolling their eyes at him.

[Grave_n_idle]

*shudder* my numbshit brother sent me an email with the same stupid points that our vacationing friend posted here. its so disappointing to have a grown man whose wife and daughter are both nurses send out such ignorant talking points. i can only assume that his family wont talk to him about it at all and are glad that he has an email outlet so they dont hurt themselves rolling their eyes at him.

Ignorant talking points I don't actually mind - this is a step beyond.

This is deliberate fabrication. People making up lies to suit an agenda, because the facts don't sound as scary as they want them to be.


I don't blame the people who recycle the lies - although I wish they'd check their sources before they regurgitate. But there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to hold the original liars culpable for their lies. There doesn't even seem to be any desire to do so.

[Ashmoria]

*shudder* my numbshit brother sent me an email with the same stupid points that our vacationing friend posted here. its so disappointing to have a grown man whose wife and daughter are both nurses send out such ignorant talking points. i can only assume that his family wont talk to him about it at all and are glad that he has an email outlet so they dont hurt themselves rolling their eyes at him.

Ignorant talking points I don't actually mind - this is a step beyond.

This is deliberate fabrication. People making up lies to suit an agenda, because the facts don't sound as scary as they want them to be.


I don't blame the people who recycle the lies - although I wish they'd check their sources before they regurgitate. But there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to hold the original liars culpable for their lies. There doesn't even seem to be any desire to do so.

i dont mind SO much when its someone like my mother in law who doesnt really have the skills necessary to tell truth from lie in something like this. but for my brother who has a phd and is married to a nurse to not take a moment to check the facts on crap like this and send it out to other people, some of whom probably cant do it on their own, its just WRONG.

not that assholes who feel the need to torpedo this very necessary legislation with utter lies arent also to blame. there are valid criticisms that can be made of the various health care reform propositions. ignoring those in order to spread lies is enraging.

[Grave_n_idle]

i dont mind SO much when its someone like my mother in law who doesnt really have the skills necessary to tell truth from lie in something like this. but for my brother who has a phd and is married to a nurse to not take a moment to check the facts on crap like this and send it out to other people, some of whom probably cant do it on their own, its just WRONG.

This^^

People who DO have capability of knowing better, but CHOOSE to regurgitate for ideology... I personally think it's pretty sick.

[Sibirsky]

A separate study by the Cato Institute found that although Massachusetts politicians promised that the insurance mandate would reduce medical costs. They also estimated that health insurance premiums could drop by 25-40%. Instead…

* Premiums rose by 7.4% in 2007, 8-12% in 2008, and are expected to rise 9% this year
* This compares to an average nationwide increase of only 5.7% over the same period
* Annual health insurance costs for a family in Massachusetts average about $4,000 more than the national rate
* Health care spending has also increased in Massachusetts by 23% since the coverage mandate was enacted

[Treznor]

The Massachusetts solution was to simply require all people to buy health insurance, no matter what was offered. No price controls, no quality controls, just buy private health insurance or be fined. It doesn't include a public option, which is what has been demonstrated to reduce costs when the government gets involved in haggling prices. You know, that thing that the Bush administration made sure the government couldn't do for Medicaid?

[Sibirsky]

The Massachusetts solution was to simply require all people to buy health insurance, no matter what was offered. No price controls, no quality controls, just buy private health insurance or be fined. It doesn't include a public option, which is what has been demonstrated to reduce costs when the government gets involved in haggling prices. You know, that thing that the Bush administration made sure the government couldn't do for Medicaid?

Yes I am aware.

Why not a public option for car insurance? With fair pricing for everyone. You know the 4 time DUI offender that pays 5 times as much.. how fair is that?