How do people envision cutting medical cost?

[jgens]

That's such a straw man argument it's not even amusing. (This is a federal issue, not state. :P)

So you're alright with having a huge state bureaucracy and pushing huge amounts of funds through state programs, but whenever the federal government becomes involved it's suddenly unnecessary, extravagant, and overly selfish? What if states were to increase your taxes and provide universal healthcare coverage, would you be alright with it then? My point is that government is government and arguing that one branch of government shouldn't provide a service because it might be construed as selfish is silly.

 

[jgens]

It's called investments. They are proven to work and it's something that the layman can understand as useful.

Whether the layman can realize that it's an "investment" which might turn out to be useful is beside the point. Very few layman (and members of congress for that matter) will approve of a tax increase whose sole purpose would be to provide grant funds for scientific research.

 

[AverageJoe]

@jgens You're putting words in my mouth. I live in Massachusetts where we already have something similar to what Obama wants to install and for what it's cost the state has most assuredly not justified the ends.

--

My original point was this: If you're going to spend an insane amount of money, why not spend it on something that will return far more advancements in medicine, thus saving more lives and reducing health care cost overall?

Giving money away to help people. That is what the whole issue is about.
One side wants to be the humanitarian type and give money to people who can't afford stuff (which I have nothing against being humanitarian like) and the other side is saying that the system and the country as a whole is better off with people paying for things themselves.
I'm trying to make a third argument to find a central ground. If you're going to make such a large investment like what is planned, make a wise decision and try to reduce your losses.

Sure, scientific grants usually pay out at a slower rate, but you never know when you're going to find the next penicillin, MRI or DaVinci, and when you do, EVERYBODY benefits from the vast increase in technology.

So, again I ask, do you seriously believe that One thousand-billion dollars invested into science wouldn't be more effective than paying medical and insurance professionals' salaries?

 

[Proton Soup]

Because he obviously thinks trusts are good if they're controlled by government. This whole health care bill is the creation of a giant single trust run by government. And they want to force people to buy their product? Rockefeller would be sooooo jealous.

yes, a very large pie with a guaranteed percentage to the owners. old money ain't dumb. they'll probably figure out a way to come out with 15% tax free.

 

[jgens]

@jgens You're putting words in my mouth.

If I have put words in your mouth it was not my intention. I was simply confused why you implied that my post was a straw man agrument on the basis that the government funded services I named were paid for by state and not federal governments.

My original point was this: If you're going to spend an insane amount of money, why not spend it on something that will return far more advancements in medicine, thus saving more lives and reducing health care cost overall?

And again, the same could be said about the other services provided by the government. As an example with the state government, instead of pouring millions of dollars into emergency services and crime prevention and police forces, we could put that money towards scientific research about how to reduce crime rates. We'll learn more about crime, but at the same time, we do little to stop the existing issue.

One side wants to be the humanitarian type and give money to people who can't afford stuff (which I have nothing against being humanitarian like) and the other side is saying that the system and the country as a whole is better off with people paying for things themselves.
I'm trying to make a third argument to find a central ground. If you're going to make such a large investment like what is planned, make a wise decision and try to reduce your losses.

It's also important to note that your third option does not necessarily reduce your losses. For example, the money channeled into scientific research may not result in huge medical advances that significantly cut the cost of health insurance. And even if medical advances are made (which is more likely than not) how much does that actually offset our skyrocketing healthcare costs? Since 1982-1984, the cost of healthcare has almost quadrupled and something needs to be done soon to stop that trend.

Sure, scientific grants usually pay out at a slower rate, but you never know when you're going to find the next penicillin, MRI or DaVinci, and when you do, EVERYBODY benefits from the vast increase in technology.

I think that it's important to note that while these things do save lives, they also increase the cost of healthcare coverage dramatically. MRIs and other medical procedures are tremendously costly and researching more advanced technologies will not likely actually reduce the cost of healthcare.

So, again I ask, do you seriously believe that One thousand-billion dollars invested into science wouldn't be more effective than paying medical and insurance professionals' salaries?

I think that the question is to what end would investing one trillion dollars into science versus our healthcare system be more effective. Would funding scientific research result in more scientific gains? Absolutely! But what does it actually do to halt rising healthcare costs? Very little. Without reforming the nation's healthcare system, we'll still have problems with pre-existing condition clauses, outlandishly expensive mal-practice insurance, the doughnut hole, and not to mention (once again) the skyrocketing costs. So, would I like to invest a trillion dollars into science? Absolutely! But I have to ask myself, is that feasible? And the answer I always come up with is a resounding No.

Now, I do concede that this is simply my (perhaps uneducated) opinion and that there are certainly other valid ways of viewing this option. And moreover, if you do happen to have reputable data or statistics that support the conclusion that spending one trillion dollars on medical research will solve pre-existing condition issues, the doughnut hole, and the rising cost of healthcare more effectively than overhauling the nation's healthcare system, I'll be well on my way to chaning my mind!

Edit: I don't have hard evidence that suggests that overhauling our nation's healthcare system will be more effective than pouring one trillion dollars into medical research, so I do not expect you to change your mind or see this issue in the same light that I do.

 

[Al68]

My point is that government is government and arguing that one branch of government shouldn't provide a service because it might be construed as selfish is silly.

Yeah, the U.S. Constitution's obsession with federalism is completely pointless. It makes no difference whether each state makes its own law or if all the power is concentrated in one place. What's wrong with centralized power, anyway? It's not like an all powerful central government could ever become corrupt and a danger to individual liberty. Stupid constitution!

 

[jgens]

Yeah, the U.S. Constitution's obsession with federalism is completely pointless.

I'm not making an argument about what the Constitution does or does not say. My point is that it's still "extravagent" and "selfish" if a state delegates funds in the same way that the federal governemtn delegates funds. For AverageJoe's first post, it shouldn't matter whether that money is spent by the federal or state government because again, it's still "selfish".

On a more light-hearted note, it shouldn't matter what the Founding fathers wrote in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because we pick and choose what we want to follow anyway!

 

[Skyhunter]

On a more light-hearted note, it shouldn't matter what the Founding fathers wrote in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because we pick and choose what we want to follow anyway!

Hey! Thats just like the Bible.

 

[Skyhunter]

Japan only has 127m people as compared to the USA's 308m. I'd say we're not doing half bad as is.

When I say twice as much, I mean as a percent of GDP, not gross expenditure divided by population. If you were following the discussion you would have known that.

 

[Skyhunter]

I believe that bill is paying for itself,

Why would you believe that?

It is adding $400 billion to the deficit this decade. The Senate bill reduces the deficit by $130 billion.

The Republicans tried to participate but they were shut out of much of the debate.

Sure, that is why they had 161 amendments of the 721 they offered accepted.

Are they shut out now?
I hope so. They didn't vote for either bill, and won't vote for the final bill so their input is unnecessary.

They refused to participate in honest debate, instead they declared this to be their political issue, "Obama's Waterloo", and chose the political strategy of NO! If they don't want to participate fine. I say treat them like they treated the Democrats when they were in power.

There is no interest in the Republican party to do anything about healthcare, because if they do it will be a political win for the Democrats. They blew their chance for real reform with Medicare part B. Now they just want to obstruct any efforts by the Democrats because it is a political loss for them. Their strategy was dilute, delay, and dither until the mid-terms.

The public option was not a substitute for single-payer, it was to make the inroads for conversion to single-payer. It would be impossible to just write a bill to just "convert" the system to a formal single-payer system.

This is bizarre reasoning. Writing the bill would be easier than the actual implementation. What stands in the way is the insurance industry.

A public option was thus unacceptable to conservatives and moderate Democrats for two reasons:

1) It makes the way for single-payer

So if the best way to provide universal healthcare at a reasonable price is single payer... that is unacceptable why?

If an unsubsidized public insurance option can provide better health insurance than a private corporation... this is frightening to conservatives why?

2) We already have Medicare and Medicaid bankrupt. It would be utter insanity to think we could fund a brand new program and it too would not hemmorhage money.

Medicare and medicaid are not bankrupt.

Also the idea of using a public option to increase competition and choice is unnecessary, when there are other, much simpler ways to go about doing that.

Such as?

If the bill passes, the Democrats will likely get a form of single-payer healthcare, but by proxy. The bill is liked by the health insurance companies because, even though they are giving up a lot of control to the government, they are getting guaranteed profits by being turned into a form of utility.

That is an absurd assessment. You cannot have hundreds of payer and a single payer at the same time.

It is a smart move by the Democrats for getting their way, if you can't create single-payer or a public option, then do the next best thing, regulate the insurers to the degree that you have essentially government healthcare through a group of "private" insurers.

Requiring insurance companies insure everyone and return a higher percentage of premiums for healthcare, is hardly government run healthcare. It is health insurance reform. The reason the Dem's will win when this passes is because of the no pre-existing conditions and no cap on treatment.

The current healthcare system is among the best in the world, but it has a lot of inefficiencies that have been built up over the years that we need to reverse.

The current healthcare infrastructure is among the best in the world.

The system is arguably one of the worst.

 

[Nebula815]

Why would you believe that?

From what I understand (although haven't found a source yet) that it is paying for itself, and has come out costing less than was anticipated.

[quoteIt is adding $400 billion to the deficit this decade.[/quote]

Yes, but that is okay ultimately if the bill can pay for itself. The idea was it would do so via increasing competition between drug companies, which was still a gamble.

The Senate bill reduces the deficit by $130 billion.

No it won't. There is no way to increase coverage and increase spending and simultaneously shrink the deficit and no healthcare bill has ever shrank the deficit. There is no way to know how the bill will work ultimately, except that it likely will not at all do what people want. It is longer than War and Peace.

Sure, that is why they had 161 amendments of the 721 they offered accepted.

Are they shut out now?
I hope so. They didn't vote for either bill, and won't vote for the final bill so their input is unnecessary.

They refused to participate in honest debate, instead they declared this to be their political issue, "Obama's Waterloo", and chose the political strategy of NO! If they don't want to participate fine. I say treat them like they treated the Democrats when they were in power.

While the Republicans were not kind to the Democrats when in power, to say they have refused to participate in honest debate over this current bill is incorrect. And yes, it is a major political issue, because it is likely the all-time worst piece of legislation in this nation's history.

There is no interest in the Republican party to do anything about healthcare, because if they do it will be a political win for the Democrats.

No it won't. The Republicans expanded Medicare a large degree, but they turned into establishment corrupt politicians, which is why they didn't bother with enacting real change in healthcare.

But that doesn't mean the Democrat's alternative is something we should do.

They blew their chance for real reform with Medicare part B. Now they just want to obstruct any efforts by the Democrats because it is a political loss for them.

They are not "obstructing any efforts by the Democrats." You're making it sound as if the Democrats are recommending minor reforms to enact real change we can make here and there that will be effective and the meanie Republicans are obstructing every single one.

The Democrats are trying, in one massive bill, to change one-sixth of the economy. That is a terrible idea and it has nothing to do with helping people.

This is bizarre reasoning. Writing the bill would be easier than the actual implementation. What stands in the way is the insurance industry.

Yes, you do not just try to convert the whole thing to single-payer, you do it gradually.

So if the best way to provide universal healthcare at a reasonable price is single payer... that is unacceptable why?

It is not the best way to provide universal healthcare at a reasonable price, and it takes away freedom from the people. If government is "paying for your healthcare," then it gets to dictate things (right now for example, in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to the food industry and restaurants how much salt they can use). There is no reason why health insurance and healthcare cannot be handled mostly by the private sector. The current system is plagued by a group of inefficiencies that have been built up over the years.

Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems and are trillions in deficit as is.

If an unsubsidized public insurance option can provide better health insurance than a private corporation... this is frightening to conservatives why?

It wouldn't. It would be forced to be subsidized. Government would not be able to run a health insurance corporation at a profit.

Medicare and medicaid are not bankrupt.

As said, they're both trillions in deficit, so they are near it.

Such as?

Remove the law preventing people from being able to purchase health insurance across state lines, end the WWII-era price control that is the tax credit for employer-provided health insurance and add a corresponding cut in say the payroll tax so there is no net tax increase, allow small businesses to pool their risk, tort reform, states need to work to reform their mandates on health insurance companies (health insurance should cover catostrophic issues, like home and car insurance do, not things like marriage counseling, hair loss treatment, and so forth (it varies state-to-state), maybe remove the anti-trust law exemption the health insurance companies enjoy, etc...and do these one at a time so people can debate the merits and drawbacks of each one, and you get short, understandable legislation.

That is an absurd assessment. You cannot have hundreds of payer and a single payer at the same time.

You have a big trust formed that is controlled by the government.

Requiring insurance companies insure everyone and return a higher percentage of premiums for healthcare, is hardly government run healthcare. It is health insurance reform. The reason the Dem's will win when this passes is because of the no pre-existing conditions and no cap on treatment.

If people are required by law to purchase health insurance, it will be an infringement on human freedom as far as I am concerned (I think that requirement is in one of the versions, House or Senate), and the degree of control the government will exert over the health insurance companies, they will be essentially a quasi-arm of the government.

BTW, you cannot just "require" health insurance companies to cover everyone, not unless you are willing to subsidize them. They have to make a profit.

That is why programs like Medicare and Medicaid and even the Massachusettes universal care program and the one Tennessee tried all skyrocketed in cost far beyond what was projected.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...9/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/tenncare_lessons_for_modern_health_care_reform_97570.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046457087135327.html

Our states are policy laboratories. That is a big benefit we have over other nations. We have fifty policy laboratories in this nation. If something doesn't work on the state level, probably not a good idea to try it on the federal level. The states are microcosms of the nation.

If Massachusettes and Tennessee both tried universal care programs, and both ultimately did not accomplish their objectives, and cost far more than anticipated, and then Medicare and Medicaid also cost too much, and then California wanted a universal care program, but abandoned the plan because it would have bankrupted the state, why should anyone believe a MASSIVE bill as they are trying to pass now will somehow work the way they envision it?

The current healthcare infrastructure is among the best in the world.

The system is arguably one of the worst.

I wouldn't say the system is one of the worst. Most Americans have healthcare, but there could be improvements made to the system definitely.

 

[jgens]

Since, these responses are getting longer and longer, and look like they may continue to do so into the foreseeable future, I'll repeat some advice I received here a while ago: When you're writing these responses, think Hemmingway, not Tolstoy.

Now, I'll just address one point

Yes, you do not just try to convert the whole thing to single-payer, you do it gradually.

I've seen a lot of claims floating around here that the healthcare reform bill just passed by both the House and Senate are somehow secretly part of the government's designs to take over the healthcare system. Now, along with these claims, I've noticed an accompanying lack of substantive evidence to support them, leading me to believe that these sort of claims and beliefs are little more than conspiracy theories.

I've also seen a lot of claims around here that the healthcare plan that Obama is pushing will force everyone under government healthcare, but I still fail to see a lack of substantive evidence that supports this. Here's an example of something that says differently.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Issues/health-Care

 

[Al68]

If an unsubsidized public insurance option can provide better health insurance than a private corporation... this is frightening to conservatives why?

Can you provide a link to any proposal for unsubsidized public insurance to compete with private companies? If Democrats wanted to compete with private insurance companies they would have done so long ago, since no law is needed for that. Obviously they have no desire whatsoever to do that ever.

Requiring insurance companies insure everyone and return a higher percentage of premiums for healthcare, is hardly government run healthcare.

It's not "government run healthcare" for the government to make the decisions? This is the kind of statement that completely precludes anything resembling honest debate.

They...chose the political strategy of NO!

When the issue is government exercising this kind of power to force people to buy the insurance industries most expensive version of their product against their will, NO is the only strategy for any decent politician.

 

[AverageJoe]

Holy crap you guys move fast.

@SkyHunter:
I apologize for missing the per capita thing, I guess I missed it.

@jgens:
It was a straw man because health care is not required to sustain civility whereas most of the things you picked do. It's comparing apples to oranges, just because it's publicly funded does not mean it's all the same thing.
Publicly funded health care vs scientific research grants, however, are in the same sphere.

As for things like MRIs and such increasing the cost, yes this is true, but it's better to be in debt than dead or unable to have the opportunity to repay said debt.
Costs being quadrupled, I'm sure is offset by the amount of lives saved to a degree, but shifting the bill to someone else really isn't reducing the cost of the bill at all.
If we are ever to rid ourselves of the need of such expensive equipment, newer stuff must first be invented. This is ultimately my point that I'm trying to articulate here. (which is what I thought the whole point of the thread was about, not debating whether or not we should pass the health care bill, but attempting to find other ways.)

About the loopholes, etc., I was under the impression that Tort Reform was intended to fix, or at least mend this problem. It seems to me that this is the kind of reform that people are looking for, not a health care revolution.
I sympathize with those people who are in a bind, being stuck with gigantic, unpayable bills, I really do, but demanding that burden on others is just as cruel as being stuck with the bill yourself. It's a harsh world and we need to find ways to make it better, not shifting blame and setting yokes.



-----

As for the Democrat vs. Republican crap, It's just that. They are all crap.
The majority of those in the parties don't represent me or anyone else I know, so why the hell should I represent them?
Unenrolled FTW.

 

[Skyhunter]

Can you provide a link to any proposal for unsubsidized public insurance to compete with private companies?

Read the House version of the bill. The public insurance plan would have to pay for itself from premium revenues and follow the same rules and regulations as a private company. The reason it is feared is because like electric cars, once people realize how much better it is, the private insurers would go out of business.

Basic healthcare should be universal single payer. Let the insurance companies have the premium plans.

If Democrats wanted to compete with private insurance companies they would have done so long ago, since no law is needed for that. Obviously they have no desire whatsoever to do that ever.

Excuse me. We are not talking about a company softball game. Please try and keep your responses below the threshold of absurd.

It's not "government run healthcare" for the government to make the decisions? This is the kind of statement that completely precludes anything resembling honest debate.

Then why are you making such absurd statements.

When the issue is government exercising this kind of power to force people to buy the insurance industries most expensive version of their product against their will, NO is the only strategy for any decent politician.

If you simply want to make hyperbolic and unrealistic claims, in order to progress your conspiracy theory, I will withdraw from this discussion with you.

 

[Skyhunter]

Holy crap you guys move fast.

@SkyHunter:
I apologize for missing the per capita thing, I guess I missed it.

No worries.

As for things like MRIs and such increasing the cost, yes this is true, but it's better to be in debt than dead or unable to have the opportunity to repay said debt.
Costs being quadrupled, I'm sure is offset by the amount of lives saved to a degree, but shifting the bill to someone else really isn't reducing the cost of the bill at all.
If we are ever to rid ourselves of the need of such expensive equipment, newer stuff must first be invented. This is ultimately my point that I'm trying to articulate here. (which is what I thought the whole point of the thread was about, not debating whether or not we should pass the health care bill, but attempting to find other ways.)

It is the system and the diet of Americans that are the major contributors to the rising cost of healthcare. Changing the system will help some, but until and unless Americans are willing to change their lifestyle... healthcare costs will remain high.

I sympathize with those people who are in a bind, being stuck with gigantic, unpayable bills, I really do, but demanding that burden on others is just as cruel as being stuck with the bill yourself. It's a harsh world and we need to find ways to make it better, not shifting blame and setting yokes.

But the problem is that the burden is already distributed to the rest of us. The idea of reform is to make it more equitable.

I am 50 years old, and enjoy the health of a 25 year old because of lifestyle choices I have made. I share the burden others who have not chosen wisely and suffer chronic diseases. I pay for their mistake everytime I write a premium check, I am also paying for the insurance company to tell me how great they are on my TV, and one out of every $700 dollars goes to the CEO. I would much prefer to have a cheap public plan that does not pad the coffers of the insurance industry.

I am by no means alone in this, and that is the reason why the insurance industry spent more to fight reform than was spent in the presidential elections.

 

[AverageJoe]

I completely agree about lifestyles.

Evidently the decision is reduced to either padding the coffers of insurance CEOs who are responsible to keep the business afloat or the coffers of career politicians who are responsible to keep their power.
(a bit of sarcasm there :P)

The rationality of that perspective makes sense, but I think from the other facet people see things that the government has no incentive to reduce the expenditure cost which has shown to happen time and again, whereas the private insurance company does.
I know this is the case in Massachusetts, the public option has only (statistically) helped those who are already living off of welfare checks, and the majority of those people are simply lazy.

 

[Al68]

Can you provide a link to any proposal for unsubsidized public insurance to compete with private companies?

Read the House version of the bill. The public insurance plan would have to pay for itself from premium revenues and follow the same rules and regulations as a private company. The reason it is feared is because like electric cars, once people realize how much better it is, the private insurers would go out of business.

It creates a public option to "compete" with insurance plans that are part of the government "exchange". Yes, the companies that provide the policies are private companies, but the house plan forbids them from selling any policy that isn't a part of the government system, ie private insurance policies. The contents of the policy are controlled by government, not privately determined. I apologize for not making that clear.

The private companies involved would only be acting as participants in the government controlled system, and forbidden to sell private policies outside of the system. That's not competition.

If Democrats really thought they could offer a better deal, they would do so without trying to control the deals offered by private companies.

It's not "government run healthcare" for the government to make the decisions? This is the kind of statement that completely precludes anything resembling honest debate.

Then why are you making such absurd statements.

It's absurd to call it government run healthcare when government creates the system, spells out the content of any policy that is allowed in the system, and outlaws non-system policies? I think most people would consider that "government run", but it's a purely semantical argument.

When the issue is government exercising this kind of power to force people to buy the insurance industries most expensive version of their product against their will, NO is the only strategy for any decent politician.

If you simply want to make hyperbolic and unrealistic claims, in order to progress your conspiracy theory, I will withdraw from this discussion with you.

I'll admit to some hyperbole here, the policies in the proposed system may not be the "most expensive", and a tax penalty doesn't actually force anyone to buy it, since they can choose to pay the penalty instead (like I will). But I think anyone reading my post knew exactly what I was talking about.

After all of this, I still can't believe a Republican with a campaign strategy consisting primarily of "just say NO" to this would ever win the Senate seat held by a Kennedy for over half a century.

 

[mheslep]

So you're alright with having a huge state bureaucracy and pushing huge amounts of funds through state programs, but whenever the federal government becomes involved it's suddenly unnecessary, extravagant, and overly selfish? What if states were to increase your taxes and provide universal healthcare coverage, would you be alright with it then? My point is that government is government and arguing that one branch of government shouldn't provide a service because it might be construed as selfish is silly.

All government is not the same. Federal expenditures are far greater than the states; the two are not comparable. Also, a founding tenet of the country is federalism, based on the idea that the authority of the government should be kept as close as possible to the people to keep government responsive and in touch. It's a great idea, one of our best.

 

[WhoWee]

Medicare and medicaid are not bankrupt.

Please support this statement.

 

[Skyhunter]

Please support this statement.

I don't need to.

It is in response to the unsupported claim that they are.

Bankruptcy -- a federal law Whereby a person's assets are turned over to a trustee and used to pay off outstanding debts; this usually occurs when someone owes more than they have the ability to repay.

another definition...

bankruptcy -- the legal process in which a person or firm declares inability to pay debts. Any available assets are liquidated and the proceeds are distributed to creditors. A person or firm may be declared bankrupt under one of several chapters of the federal bankruptcy code: Chapter 7, which covers liquidation of the doubter's assets; Chapter 11, which covers reorganization of bankrupt businesses; or Chapter 13, which covers work-outs of debts by individuals. Upon a court declaration of bankruptcy, a person or firm surrenders assets to a court-appointed trustee, and is relieved from the payment of previous debts.

another definition...

Bankruptcy -- The condition of a legal entity that does not have the financial means to pay their incurred debts as they come due. In the U.S. this status is established through legal procedures involving a petition by the bankrupt or by its creditors.

None of those conditions exist for Medicare or Medicaid.

 

[Skyhunter]

It creates a public option to "compete" with insurance plans that are part of the government "exchange". Yes, the companies that provide the policies are private companies, but the house plan forbids them from selling any policy that isn't a part of the government system, ie private insurance policies. The contents of the policy are controlled by government, not privately determined. I apologize for not making that clear.

I understood the corollary you were making. I see from your further explanation, part of your confusion.

There is already an exchange like the one you describe. It is the one all federal employees choose their plans from. If a company wants to compete in that exchange, they must meet the minimum requirements. No exclusions for preexisting conditions, no cap on care, etc. The national exchange will allow any insurance company to participate, provided they meet the minimum requirements. The Public option would be like the baseline policy in the exchange. And since it provides incentive for medicare and medicaid providers to also accept the public plan. It will work so well that in order to compete insurance companies would have to get creative and offer something better than basic insurance.

I don't know if the House version will work this way. I'm sure I have not kept up with all the changes It but my point is that it is nothing like what you are describing.

The private companies involved would only be acting as participants in the government controlled system, and forbidden to sell private policies outside of the system. That's not competition.

That is patently false. Participation in the exchange is voluntary. The individual mandates are going to increase the risk pool and put a lot of money into the industry. If a company wants to compete for this, they must follow the rules. Establishing the and enforcing the rules is the governments job. Since healthcare like food (IMO) is not a privilege, then having the choice of a public provider is a no brainer to me.

Why should I be forced to give my money to a private entity?

If Democrats really thought they could offer a better deal, they would do so without trying to control the deals offered by private companies.It's absurd to call it government run healthcare when government creates the system, spells out the content of any policy that is allowed in the system, and outlaws non-system policies? I think most people would consider that "government run", but it's a purely semantical argument.
I'll admit to some hyperbole here, the policies in the proposed system may not be the "most expensive", and a tax penalty doesn't actually force anyone to buy it, since they can choose to pay the penalty instead (like I will). But I think anyone reading my post knew exactly what I was talking about.

Healthcare will still be privately delivered, even with a single payer system.

The Democrats are doing their job. (albeit poorly) They are using the legislative process to enact legislation to address the problem of healthcare consuming 1/6 of our GDP. Republicans decided from the very beginning to fight any reform. They inflamed their base with talk of death panels and the government killing Grandma. Now they claim they were shut out of the process.

After all of this, I still can't believe a Republican with a campaign strategy consisting primarily of "just say NO" to this would ever win the Senate seat held by a Kennedy for over half a century.

I think you are mischaracterizing Brown's campaign strategy, and since MA has universal coverage... I don't think healthcare reform was the top issue.

 

[mheslep]

Republicans decided from the very beginning to fight any reform...

No, the Republican legislators opposed the Democratic plans for reform; they repeatedly proposed many of their own, some of them in form of actual draft bills.

...Now they claim they were shut out of the process.

They were, still are.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is a message for the Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMlPE1lV_5Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMlPE1lV_5Y&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Whatever happens with healthcare they're going to own it.

 

[Al68]

I understood the corollary you were making. I see from your further explanation, part of your confusion.

How am I confused, then?

The private companies involved would only be acting as participants in the government controlled system, and forbidden to sell private policies outside of the system. That's not competition.

That is patently false. Participation in the exchange is voluntary.

My statement is true. Non-system insurance policies would be outlawed. Have you read the bill? Voluntary? What definition of voluntary would that be?

Establishing the and enforcing the rules is the governments job.

So, now you admit you think it's government's job to "establish the rules" for my personal health care? That certainly precludes the use of the word "private".

Why should I be forced to give my money to a private entity?

You shouldn't be. I'm not the one advocating any such thing.

Healthcare will still be privately delivered, even with a single payer system.

Privately delivered? Seriously?

The house bill version linked on the Speaker's web page is exactly the way I described. Participation isn't voluntary by any normal definition.

But fortunately this assault on liberty isn't going to happen now, from the way it looks.

 

[mheslep]

Privately delivered? Seriously?

Actually yes, in single payer the medical practitioners do not explicitly work for the government. However, since the government pays the bills for everyone in the system, the government can set prices and methods throughout the system. It therefore by and large acts and behaves as an employer.

 

[Nebula815]

The Canadian system I believe is one where government pays for, sets prices, etc...but the practitioners are private. The British system is one where the government owns and operates everything (hospitals are government-owned, doctors are government doctors, etc...). The military's VA system is also socialized medicine.

 

[Al68]

The Canadian system I believe is one where government pays for, sets prices, etc...but the practitioners are private.

This is obviously a very different definition of "private" than I would use. I would use the word "private" to mean free from government involvement.

I don't even think that would meet the criteria for "quasi-private".

 

[Skyhunter]

How am I confused, then?My statement is true. Non-system insurance policies would be outlawed. Have you read the bill? Voluntary? What definition of voluntary would that be?

Your confusion stems from a basic misconception.

There are already laws regulating the insurance and health industries.. If you read the bill, you realize that it is 2000 pages of amendments to existing law.

Like this:

(2) REDUCTION IN PERMITTED PREEXISTING
CONDITION LIMITATION PERIOD.—Section
9801(a)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘12
months’’ and inserting ‘‘3 months’’, and by striking
‘‘18 months’’ and inserting ‘‘9 months’’.

So, now you admit you think it's government's job to "establish the rules" for my personal health care? That certainly precludes the use of the word "private".

The government has already established the rules. And the system under those established rules is not working. Time for the government to change the rules.

Your argument is typical of the rhetoric coming from the republican party. That is one of the many lines of evidence that lead me to the conclusion that Republicans only want to obstruct for political gain, instead of governing. The 101 filibusters is another solid line of evidence.

Republican leadership brought us to the brink of disaster. Anything good for America while DEmocrats are in power, is politically bad for Republicans. Their strategy is clear, obstruct the Democrats from enacting any serious reforms until they get their power back. That is the primary difference I see in todays politicians. Democrats are willing to compromise. Republicans are not, and like Grover Norquist said: "Bi-partisanship is like date rape."

I'm not the one advocating any such thing.

I never said you were. I was asking why we should have a personal mandate without a public option.

In the Senate version, that is what would happen, and unlike driving a car... I may someday need healthcare. Why should I be forced to buy, but denied the choice of a public health plan?

The house bill version linked on the Speaker's web page is exactly the way I described. Participation isn't voluntary by any normal definition.

Since you are so familiar with the bill... why not give us the page and line numbers of the section that forces insurance and healthcare providers to participate.

But fortunately this assault on liberty isn't going to happen now, from the way it looks.

LOL

 

[Al68]

Your confusion stems from a basic misconception.

There are already laws regulating the insurance and health industries..

Yes, there are. The type of insurance policy I want is already illegal. Again, where is my confusion or misconception? You seem to be mistaking my opposition to increased government control with an ignorance of existing government control.

Do you think it's a "misconception" or "confusion" to oppose a law because it has similarities with previously enacted laws that I also opposed?

Your argument is typical of the rhetoric coming from the republican party. That is one of the many lines of evidence that lead me to the conclusion that Republicans only want to obstruct for political gain, instead of governing.

I don't really care what the motives of Republicans are at this point. They have historically failed to protect economic liberty in this country. But in this case, they have succeeded so far. Even if your hateful accusations about their motives for doing so are true.

And it's quite a coincidence that every time a politician actually takes my side against infringements on liberty, they are accused of having bad motives. Yeah, coincidence.

But ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies and irrelevant to the issue anyway.

I was asking why we should have a personal mandate without a public option.

We shouldn't.

Why should I be forced to buy, but denied the choice of a public health plan?

You shouldn't.

Since you are so familiar with the bill... why not give us the page and line numbers of the section that forces insurance and healthcare providers to participate.

LOL. By "participation isn't voluntary", I was referring to individuals, not insurance companies. That's section 501. That's what I thought you were referring to in the above two questions as if I were advocating such a thing.

What I said about insurance companies was that they would be "forbidden to sell private policies outside of the system". That's section 202.

But fortunately this assault on liberty isn't going to happen now, from the way it looks.

LOL

I'll take that to mean that you have no respect for the reason many of us oppose this kind of law. Or that you're shocked or can't believe that the reason could be something other than being "for the rich" or some other hateful delusion typical of Democrats.

Dismissing arguments in favor of individual liberty won't make them go away. Neither will hatefully misrepresenting them.

 

[Skyhunter]

I get it.

You are generally hostile to any government involvement in healthcare or any other industry. You are therefore susceptible to the "government takeover argument."

But to quote James Wilson: "Civil liberty is natural liberty itself, divested only of that part, which, placed in the government, produces more good and happiness to the community than if it had remained in the individual."

I don't support the individual mandate. In my opinion, healthcare should be single payer, and it should be payed for with a tax on the wealth produced by our nation. If someone is sick or injured, they should receive care without fear or worry about financial ruin. Providers are free to compete for patients, insurance companies can sell enhanced plans for those wanting vanity and elite care.

I would argue that healthcare should not be a for profit industry. Life and death decisions should not be made by insurance companies concerned over their bottom lines.

I don't know what kind of illegal policy you want to purchase. but if it is one from a company that would rather deny your claim than suffer a quarterly loss... Well, if not the government... Who you going to call?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't know what kind of illegal policy you want to purchase. but if it is one from a company that would rather deny your claim than suffer a quarterly loss... Well, if not the government... Who you going to call?

Why buy a policy at all? I wouldn't, if not for the current structure of tax law. Health *insurance* is a poor way to provide health *care*.

I'm not automatically opposed to catastrophic insurance -- though I'm not presently interested -- but the current system has much of the inefficiency of a public plan (thanks to regulation and paperwork), all the rent-seeking of an oligopoly, and even more distortion than the moral hazard would suggest (thanks to aforementioned tax policy).

 

[Al68]

I don't support the individual mandate. In my opinion, healthcare should be single payer, and it should be payed for with a tax on the wealth produced by our nation. If someone is sick or injured, they should receive care without fear or worry about financial ruin. Providers are free to compete for patients, insurance companies can sell enhanced plans for those wanting vanity and elite care.

I would argue that healthcare should not be a for profit industry.

I won't bother making a case against single-payer, since that's not on the table in the U.S., anyway. And it looks like we agree on what I consider to be the most oppressive part of this plan, the mandate to buy. And the plan's supporters pretty much say the rest of the plan is unworkable without the mandate.

For the rest, we just fundamentally disagree on the legitimate role of government in society.

I don't know what kind of illegal policy you want to purchase

The type of insurance policy I buy is high-deductible, major medical insurance-only. Basically, similar to car insurance, it only covers major unexpected medical expenses, and has a large deductible. No coverage for routine medical costs, etc.

This type of policy is relatively very cheap, even for a top-rated and trustworthy plan, since it is only insurance, not a comprehensive (Cadillac) health plan that amounts to paying a "middleman" to pay for routine physicals and other expected medical costs in addition to "insurance".

This type of policy would be outlawed under the house bill.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those comprehensive health plans. I'm just saying government shouldn't force me to buy one, or outlaw the alternatives.

but if it is one from a company that would rather deny your claim than suffer a quarterly loss... Well, if not the government... Who you going to call?

LOL. I don't buy the kind of insurance where those decisions are made after the fact. The policy is in writing and covers what the policy says it covers, period.

If you're referring to fraud or default by the insurance company, I don't know anyone who thinks fraud or contract default should be legalized, so I assume we agree on that one, too.

 

[mheslep]

[...] I wouldn't, if not for the current structure of tax law. Health *insurance* is a poor way to provide health *care*.

[...]
but the current system has much of the inefficiency of a public plan (thanks to regulation and paperwork), all the rent-seeking of an oligopoly, and even more distortion than the moral hazard would suggest (thanks to aforementioned tax policy).

Yes. Per Milton Friedman in this debate a few years ago, commenting on the pitfalls of the huge third party payer systems brought on by the current tax policy:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10764

MF: We have the worst of all of all worlds on that score. [third party system]

RK: I couldn't agree with you more. We have the worst mix of government and private, I could not agree with you more.

MF: We ought to have much more private or much more government.

RK: Well, to the extent that government is involved at all it ought to be doing a better job than its doing now. I am entirely in agreement.

MF: But there is no formula for doing it. Every area where the government gets involved, whether its education, whether its medicine. If government were to take over the industry of running retail grocery stores, that would be a major problem. The post office is a problem. And if Medicare and Medicaid had never been passed, it may well be, probably would be, that expenditure on health would have gone up, maybe to seven, eight, nine percent of GDP, because as we get to be a richer country, it's a product that people want to have more of. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact there's nothing wrong with medical spending being 20 percent of national income.

 

[rewebster]

I personally think its about money. The republicans know their base hates even the hint of any additional taxes, and the R's yell that loudly; but, that's only part of it.

Normally some bills have some D's and some R's voting differently; but I think one of the MAIN reasons why the R's vote so solidly together: They get more money from those institutions IF and only IF they all (the R's) vote the same.

The money from the lobbyists has to be split among ALL the R's--and the longer they keep the bill from being passed WHILE still keeping alive to a certain extent (re-set/re-start the bill), the more money that the lobbyists will pay money to the R's to stop the bill. The people who want and need the bill passed are the poor; they don't have money to hire lobbyists.