Health care bill stands

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwhouk

jwhouk

Essentially, by 2015 you're gonna have one more "deduction" from your paycheck if you don't currently have health insurance. That deduction will be the "tax" of not having health insurance.

Oh, and people in the medical community around the nation? Welcome to my world. I've been getting screwed by the government since February of 2011.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
The funny thing is that insurance is inherently socialist on it's own by definition. Right now (without the "obamacare" the young and healthy subsidize the old and infirm. Why? Why can't I get on a healthcare plan that doesn't pay for old people and sick people, the kinds of folks that drive up my costs? I'm not running a god damned charity.

Fuck them.

Right?
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Necronic said:
The funny thing is that insurance is inherently socialist on it's own by definition. Right now (without the "obamacare" the young and healthy subsidize the old and infirm. Why? Why can't I get on a healthcare plan that doesn't pay for old people and sick people, the kinds of folks that drive up my costs? I'm not running a god damned charity.

Fuck them.

Right?
Click to expand...

Yes, except the same applies to every other piece of tax, ever, everywhere. Why am I paying for putting down roads? I use the tram. Why do I have to pay for cultural stuff? I just sit in front of my tv. Why should I pay for the army? I don't care if Iraqis kill Kuwaiti by the hundreds. Why should I pay those greenhouse taxes? I don't care if the world goes to hell after my death. Why should I pay for NASA? I don't care if anyone ever goes to the moon. Why should I pay for schools? I don't have children. Why should I pay for [etc].

All taxes are ways of sharing costs of things that society, as a whole, needs. Individuals are paying for things they don't need/use/want, but on the other side, there's people paying for things you need/want, keeping it more affordable for you.

Yes, there's certianly a point of diminishing returns, and there's definitely things a government shouldn't be enforcing; things that're better off on the open market, and so on and so forth. Deciding which those are, is what most of politics is all about. Tax the poor, tax the rich, tax corporations, tax based on income, tax based on capital, tax flatly based on nothing at all, abolish the army to lower taxes, abolish health care to lower taxes, abolish all public schooling to lower taxes - it's all options, and they're all opinions (though not all of them intelligent ones). Saying this is evil because you're forced to pay for something you don't want in general, is either moronic, or reflecting a personal view of anarchism or extreme libertarianism (which are more or less the same anyway :p).

Anyway, it'll take time to sort out; going this sort of mixed public private route certainly holds dangers nobody can properly assess, for the simple reason that al lthe rest of the world knows it's silly - but whichever way it plays out (this system works, it's changed to a more tried system, whatever), I'm convinced that, IF it stands, the vast majority of Americans will benefit enormously from this. Anyone who's relatively poor and wants to abolish this or fight it, is shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Jay

Jay

As a Canadian I cannot imagine life without free healthcare.

Welcome to the 21st century bitches. Now shut up and enjoy the ride.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Jay said:
As a Canadian I cannot imagine life without free healthcare.

Welcome to the 21st century bitches. Now shut up and enjoy the ride.
Click to expand...
Except it isn't free. I don't know why every non-american on the internet seems to think we just implemented single payer.

It's simply now illegal not to buy health insurance, with the penalty being a tax that makes 70% of the costs of the program now be paid for by the middle class.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Once the system works, it WILL be cheaper for the majority. People's health WILL go measurably up.
Single payer or not (it would be even more effective, but nooo), you're all paying so all can receive. So you're paying to corporations instead of the government - that's just the American way, isn't it? :p

You're insured -> you get sick -> you go to a doctor and your insurance pays.
I'm covered by state health care -> I get sick -> I go to a doctor and the government pays.

Same principle. Yes, I still pay a small part of the medical costs (and get reimbursed for part of it later). Yes, there'll probably still be bits to pay for yourself. It'll be cheaper and/or free, depending on the way it's set up.
 
tegid

tegid

Because
1- The internet Most people are a bunch of uninformed assholes.
2- If they don't want to make the effort to understand what's going on, you may just assimilate it to what you have in your own contry.
3- Some non-american media are most probably explaining this wrong due to 1- and 2-
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
Once the system works, it WILL be cheaper for the majority. People's health WILL go measurably up.
Single payer or not (it would be even more effective, but nooo), you're all paying so all can receive. So you're paying to corporations instead of the government - that's just the American way, isn't it? :p

You're insured -> you get sick -> you go to a doctor and your insurance pays.
I'm covered by state health care -> I get sick -> I go to a doctor and the government pays.
Click to expand...
After a 2 month waiting period.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
After a 2 month waiting period.
Click to expand...
Crappy, admittedly; still not much good for people on the lower end of the wage scale (who can't miss a couple of hundred dollars for a few months); needs finetuning but any attempt at, perhaps, making it more social would be shot down by a conservative/republican Congres and House. Also, it'd probably cost Obama the elections since "dirty commie" is still a lot easier to sell than "it'll save some people some money in a few years' time".
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
Crappy, admittedly; still not much good for people on the lower end of the wage scale (who can't miss a couple of hundred dollars for a few months); needs finetuning but any attempt at, perhaps, making it more social would be shot down by a conservative/republican Congres and House. Also, it'd probably cost Obama the elections since "dirty commie" is still a lot easier to sell than "it'll save some people some money in a few years' time".
Click to expand...
We'll see. They've been saving the RomneyCare card in reserve... after all, Romney's Massachusetts health care law was the blueprint from which ObamaCare was built. So objectively, it's really hard to take his repeal-and-replace rhetoric seriously when he implemented pretty much the exact same thing on a smaller scale, and refuses to say it was a mistake/bad idea.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
His argument has been that the two are not equivalent since RomneyCare is a state policy, which he feels is appropriate (as opposed to the federal scale of Obama's policy). To be honest I think this is a fair argument.

But yeah, when he steps up to the plate he HAS to have an alternative. Apparently there is some talk from his camp about a policy that does away with the employer based model we currently work with. I haven't heard many/any details on it except that Republicans that have heard it absolutely hate it.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Necronic said:
But yeah, when he steps up to the plate he HAS to have an alternative.
Click to expand...
That's the false narrative that has been shoved down our throats. We don't have to have a better idea to stop doing an idea that makes things worse than they were. Remember this entire debacle was precipitated on a lie (the "40 million without insurance" fib that took illegal aliens, the willfully uninsured and those already insured under SCHIP into account so the actual number was closer to 10 million, or 0.3 percent of americans). And that's just health insurance, not being "denied health care" which actually never happened - flocks of people were not dying in the streets of pneumonia in 2007. Were there problems with our system? Yes, but this does not solve them - this exacerbates them. And to say that "whoever wants to repeal obamacare best have an alternative solution" is like saying "whoever wants to repeal don't ask don't tell best have an alternative solution."
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

I wish people (including you, GB) could state their hypotheses as the predictions they are instead of as unsubstantiated facts. When you say something like "this does not solve them - this exacerbates them" you are claiming to know something that nobody could know. It is the problem with the media as well. Boldly assert and it sounds like the truth. The truth is, this is an experiment. It absolutely may fail, and spectacularly. It may do almost nothing. It may improve some things. Sure, it sounds like weaker language to say "may, might, or could" but it is honest and appropriate. By not hedging assertions of things you (not specifically GB, media, anybody) doesn't actually know, you mislead, and that doesn't aid the discussion, just your own agenda.
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

MindDetective said:
I wish people (including you, GB) could state their hypotheses as the predictions they are instead of as unsubstantiated facts. When you say something like "this does not solve them - this exacerbates them" you are claiming to know something that nobody could know. It is the problem with the media as well. Boldly assert and it sounds like the truth. The truth is, this is an experiment. It absolutely may fail, and spectacularly. It may do almost nothing. It may improve some things. Sure, it sounds like weaker language to say "may, might, or could" but it is honest and appropriate. By not hedging assertions of things you (not specifically GB, media, anybody) doesn't actually know, you mislead, and that doesn't aid the discussion, just your own agenda.
Click to expand...
Anything posted anywhere has an implied 'I believe' before it
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
GasBandit said:
That's the false narrative that has been shoved down our throats. We don't have to have a better idea to stop doing an idea that makes things worse than they were. Remember this entire debacle was precipitated on a lie (the "40 million without insurance" fib that took illegal aliens, the willfully uninsured and those already insured under SCHIP into account so the actual number was closer to 10 million, or 0.3 percent of americans). And that's just health insurance, not being "denied health care" which actually never happened - flocks of people were not dying in the streets of pneumonia in 2007. Were there problems with our system? Yes, but this does not solve them - this exacerbates them. And to say that "whoever wants to repeal obamacare best have an alternative solution" is like saying "whoever wants to repeal don't ask don't tell best have an alternative solution."
Click to expand...
The current system (ED: I mean the old system really) is so completely broken that I am seriously considering moving to Canade in the near future. I know I can get work there, and probably citizenship (eventually). While I don't think that Obama's solution makes things better, it has forced the issue, which is the major point and why I am happy with the legislation.

Right now returning to the old ways is no longer an acceptable solution, and would be political suicide for a candidate because it would literally threaten the lives of constituents to do so. The current solution is also untennable because it's simply too expensive to be sustainable. But don't act like the old ways were sustainable either. Right now things appear to be that way because the baby boomers are still working/kind of young.

But when they retire, and when they start gobbling up medical resources at the same rate per capita as their parents did, the entire system will be under a major threat. The old system would have collapsed under this with all of the youth/gen x/etc subsidizing the healthcare of the boomers, watching their premiums (and medicaire related taxes) skyrocket. Then there's the problem that so many of the young generation simply can't find work in this forever recession. The full effects of that haven't entirely been felt yet since they can still sit on their parents health insurance, but obviously that's not a permanent solution either.

A huge part of the problem is that "Free Market" concepts simply do not apply to a value discussion involving living or dying. The value equation breaks down. Yet the politics of economics is a hammer and every problem looks like a nail.

And I don't know what the solution is either. I'll be honest. I know what some of the solution should be, like forcing price regulation into the Insurance company - Hospital pricing structure/price negotiations, and eliminating the ridiculously granular itemized payment system that health services have, and (this is a huge one) forcing Doctors to appreciate that understanding cost of services IS PART OF THEIR JOB. Or simply rolling medicaire/medicaid/SCHIP/Obamacare into a single logical package instead of creating a spiderweb of overlapping and conflicting legislation.)
 
Adam

Adam

It's a shame that there's no precedent for mandating that people buy insurance in the US at the federal level. I've heard several arguments made that this is identical to the concept behind car insurance however that's set state by state.

Necronic said:
forcing Doctors to appreciate that understanding cost of services IS PART OF THEIR JOB.
Click to expand...
Doctors simply aren't that bright.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
I'll repeat my statement that, when viewed as a tax, there is absolutely nothing new about it and there are oodles of precedents. The federal government has given tax breaks/credits for certain actions taken by individuals throughout history. This is EXACTLY the same thing, except that no one wants to couch it as a new universal tax with potential breaks/credits because it sounds a LOT worse politically.
 
D

Dubyamn

blotsfan said:
Alright, that makes sense. I still don't see why prices would go down though.
Click to expand...
Prices go up because when poor people get sick they go to the emergency room where they can't be turned away. The Hospital will do whatever steps are nessesary in order to save their lives at a rather high cost. Then when it comes time for the bill the person shrugs their shoulders and goes "I can't afford this" and the hospital is going to have to eat that bill. Now the hospital isn't just going to take that lying down janitors need to be paid to clean up the puke/blood of that person, the doctor and nurses need to be compensated for their time, linens need to be switched out, so they then pass those costs on to those people who can afford to pay mainly us with health insurance.

If everybody pays into the system you'll no longer be paying for the healthcare that a complete stranger used up but couldn't pay for.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Saying you are going to move to Canada - or any other industrialized "first-world" country - because of the government run health care is just plain stupid. You realize all of those places already have it, right? That's like moving to Mexico because too many people in your neighborhood speak Spanish.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Now, we should caveat the statement that prices will go down with this:

For a while, they are going to go up. In the short term this system is going to increase costs to insurance companies by a fair amount, specifically the pre-existing conditions clause. Over time though it's likely you will see hospital costs decrease which will have a significant ripple effect. Then there's the national healthcare database which will definitely have a downward pressure on prices.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Dave said:
Saying you are going to move to Canada - or any other industrialized "first-world" country - because of the government run health care is just plain stupid. You realize all of those places already have it, right? That's like moving to Mexico because too many people in your neighborhood speak Spanish.
Click to expand...
Mate, I'm saying I'm moving to canada FOR the universal healthcare.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Are you talking about that movie where he talks about the success that is Cuba's health care system, by ignoring facts like infant mortality rates and access to healthcare? People need to get it into their heads that Michael Moore hasn't been a documentarist in years. He's an entertainer with a political message that gave up journalistic ethics for advocacy years ago because in his mind the ends justify the means.

I still like some of his movie appearances though, particularly in Team America.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
You know what pisses me off more than anything else?

This:





+

(survival rates)



HOW IS THIS TRUE?

HOW ARE WE SPENDING MORE BUT GETTING NO IMPROVEMENTS?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Oh yeah, and while that first chart is ALL SPENDING per capita, we ALSO SPEND MORE PUBLIC MONEY on healthcare per capita than most socialist countries.

HOW IS THIS TRUE?

HOW DO WE SPEND MORE PUBLIC FUNDS ON HEALTHCARE PER CAPITA THAN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS?

HOW?

This is why I want to move to Canada (whose per capita public funding of healthcare is ~60% of what america's is per capita), meaning that if we were to, overnight, switch to their system (identically, obviously a thought experiment), OUR TAXES WOULD GO DOWN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top