Healthcare reform

[Balta1701]

If you want this country to survive, you have to get off of the government entitlements. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh, because that's the only way you know how to look at things. You've been suckered into the part of the population that says government is the only thing that can fix your way to anything that life throws at us as a country. At what point does it stop? That's what has made this country the most economically thriving country in the world was that the government generally stayed the hell out of the way until the last 70+ years (except Reagan - who only solved 65% of the problem and made the other 35% way worse). We WERE different, that is part of it. Liberals don't seem to want to admit that. They are always looking for the next entitlement or handout. Those rich f***ers can handle it! Evil bastards SHOULD pay the lower classes (redistribution of wealth is what we SHOULD be about). That thinking is so wrong. What the hell ever happened to making your own way?

 

Now with all that said, there ARE times when the government should step in. I understand helping people up from difficult issues, and the safety nets. But fix the damn problems with the existing infastructure before you create the biggest entitlement of them all - but hell no, we can't do that, because then the power of the government wouldn't be what it is becoming.

Really, you think that the government staying out of things the last 70+ years was what made this country great and it was Ronald Reagan who changed all that?

 

The way I look at it, the wave of deregulation started with Reagan, that wave of Reagan started dismantling the safety net that had been set up by FDR and Johnson, and consequently the middle class started to be destroyed, economic mobility declined, all the issues we have with crappy regulation from the weakness of the FDA to the repeated economic bubbles started hitting, and consequently by every measure economic performance the last 30 years has been below that of the previous 30 years when we were under the ruthless hand of the New Deal and Great Society.

 

I mean, if you wanted to try to argue that the last 30 years under the Conservative movement's domination was an improvement, then I could provide arguments against you. I'm just a bit baffled here.

[southsider2k5]

Which are, of course, 2 of the most wildly successful government programs ever, and the only reason either of them have any potential problems is the fact that Medicare isn't aggressive enough and thus it faces a large deficit once health care becomes 50% of our economy. But we've been over that.

 

You think enslaving generations into the dependency of the federal government? Ugh. There really isn't a point.

[Balta1701]

You think enslaving generations into the dependency of the federal government? Ugh. There really isn't a point.

While I don't understand this sentence...note the language being used here and how it is specifically designed to overwhelm logic. Enslaving? clearly this is evil and I don't actually need to consider the case.

[southsider2k5]

Seriously...this is just sad. You oppose every single effort to bring those costs under control and then rail about how they're unfunded liabilities. You oppose every effort to fund them and then scream about how bad they are. You rail against how much this plan costs when every single independent analysis says it cuts costs, saves the government money, and at least begins to bend the curve to cut into that giant future liability. You scream about that funding gap and then oppose adding things that would bring it under control, like a public option or hell Medicare-for-all. You scream about how inefficient the government system is and then ignore the fact that we pay 3x per capita what the average OECD country does for health care or blame it on the government while every other state where the government runs things it winds up costing vastly less. It's just flat out incoherent. You hate the plan, you hate government, and you refuse to accept any math, numbers, or statistics that say the government could ever do anything right. There's no logic, no argument, just anger.

 

And yes, they've been wildly successful. They've taken the segment of our population that was mired in poverty, the elderly, and given them decent lives. I'm going to steal this graph from the Hoover institution of all places to prove it. The 1960's-1970's trends here are the great society at work.

 

 

The problem is, just like the other great social utopias of history, it will collapse upon itself because a small portion of the population cannot completely and utter support a majority of a country. They can't be counted on to raise, feed, employ, care for, etc the vast majority of a population.

[southsider2k5]

While I don't understand this sentence...note the language being used here and how it is specifically designed to overwhelm logic. Enslaving? clearly this is evil and I don't actually need to consider the case.

 

Do people have a choice to be involved in medicare, medicade, social security, and now health insurance. I think the word is PERFECT.

[Balta1701]

The problem is, just like the other great social utopias of history, it will collapse upon itself because a small portion of the population cannot completely and utter support a majority of a country. They can't be counted on to raise, feed, employ, care for, etc the vast majority of a population.

Then we should stop dong everything possible to keep enriching that small minority like we have been the last 30 years, and work on rebuilding the majority (middle class) that we've been at war with since 1981.

[kapkomet]

Then we should stop dong everything possible to keep enriching that small minority like we have been the last 30 years, and work on rebuilding the majority (middle class) that we've been at war with since 1981.

 

 

LMAO. You just don't get it, nor will you ever.

[Balta1701]

Do people have a choice to be involved in medicare, medicade, social security, and now health insurance. I think the word is PERFECT.

Do people have a choice to pay for the military? Or to support the current police? Or to have their emails read by the government?

[southsider2k5]

Then we should stop dong everything possible to keep enriching that small minority like we have been the last 30 years, and work on rebuilding the majority (middle class) that we've been at war with since 1981.

 

Which is fine with me. Dismantle it all.

 

We don't need to work on rebuilding anyone. That is the problem with the mentality that has been forced upon us. It has lead to us rebuilding countries, economies, banks, health care, retirement, and pretty much everything under the sun.

 

It is a disaster.

[Balta1701]

Which is fine with me. Dismantle it all.

 

We don't need to work on rebuilding anyone. That is the problem with the mentality that has been forced upon us. It has lead to us rebuilding countries, economies, banks, health care, retirement, and pretty much everything under the sun.

 

It is a disaster.

And every time we yank out the supports, every time we tell someone "You're ok on your own without rules!" we wind up with another version of AIG.

 

The reason we want to do this is not that we're wanting to destroy this country or stifle innovation. We believe that you make it a lot more likely that people will succeed if failure doesn't ruin their life, if they have a chance to recover. We don't think that a person should lose their health care because their business went under, we don't think that people should work until they're 90 because their financial advisor overinvested in AIG, we don't think that it's ok to tell someone that because their parents are poor they can't get an education, etc. We're not trying to destroy capitalism whether you believe it or not. The rest of the world has learned the lesson, and we knew the lesson a few years ago...capitalism is stronger if people don't lose everything when they take a risk.

 

There's no reason why our citizens should be dying because they can't afford health care. If that's the thing I don't get, I hope I never do.

[southsider2k5]

And every time we yank out the supports, every time we tell someone "You're ok on your own without rules!" we wind up with another version of AIG.

 

The reason we want to do this is not that we're wanting to destroy this country or stifle innovation. We believe that you make it a lot more likely that people will succeed if failure doesn't ruin their life, if they have a chance to recover. We don't think that a person should lose their health care because their business went under, we don't think that people should work until they're 90 because their financial advisor overinvested in AIG, we don't think that it's ok to tell someone that because their parents are poor they can't get an education, etc. We're not trying to destroy capitalism whether you believe it or not. The rest of the world has learned the lesson, and we knew the lesson a few years ago...capitalism is stronger if people don't lose everything when they take a risk.

 

There's no reason why our citizens should be dying because they can't afford health care. If that's the thing I don't get, I hope I never do.

 

The problem is capitalism dies if no one is left to take a risk. Once you take too much from the class of people that makes the economy go, the entire pyramid collapses. Then you have nothing.

[EvilMonkey]

You know, Florida has an insurance co-op for hurricane insurance. Was originally priced higher than what the private companies were offfering so it would be a last resort option only, but soon after, many of the major carriers just stopped offering it in Florida all together, and now costs had risen beyond any projection they ever had.

 

Can the governemnt just try to fix an existing program first, and prove to the country that they actually knwo what they are doing? How about fixing medicare first. Fox the fraud, fix the spending, fix the funding, fix it all. make that program work right, then maybe i can listen to the talk about nationalizing health care without wanting to move out of the country.

 

And as for this particular line, "we don't think that people should work until they're 90 because their financial advisor overinvested in AIG", if that person was drooling at the to-good-to-be-true profits said advisor promised them, and didn't have enough sense in their stupid brains to think twice about letting them do that, then i don't give a s*** about them. They gambled, and lost. Not my problem.

[Balta1701]

You know, Florida has an insurance co-op for hurricane insurance. Was originally priced higher than what the private companies were offfering so it would be a last resort option only, but soon after, many of the major carriers just stopped offering it in Florida all together, and now costs had risen beyond any projection they ever had.

Which is of course exactly why we didn't want the co-ops, we wanted a legit strong public insurance option, or better yet just opening up Medicare for everyoen.

[Y2HH]

Which is of course exactly why we didn't want the co-ops, we wanted a legit strong public insurance option, or better yet just opening up Medicare for everyoen.

 

Right. Because that's economically feasible...in fantasy land.

 

I honestly can't wait for all of these "benefits" to start kicking in on people -- and the taxes, fees, and other unforeseen nonsense that goes on to skim as much money from everyone as possible. Then the overdue and "accidental" fines people will undoubtedly receive for not having insurance...when they actually have it, then having to fight that for 2 years, amongst a myriad of other issues I can't even begin to think of yet.

 

It's going to be fun to watch the complaints I'm sure to see in 5 years time.

 

Hey, you wanted reform -- and now you're going to get it...whether it's good or not.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[Texsox]

Somewhere between our government sucks at everything and can't solve any problems and the government is perfect and can solve all problems is reality. One of the clearest areas that government can help involves scale. When the problem is best handled with scale, that is where the government can, and should, be involved. So a national defense instead of each state having a militia makes sense. Same with health care. Bigger insurance groups survive better than smaller groups. Spreading the risk over a wider area works better than individual. The market tells us that with rates. I believe in America and Americans and know we can make this work.

 

I believe we can create a better system. I also think we need to keep an eye on what helps small business. Most groups plans cost over $500 per month for family coverage, actually closer to $800. That is $4 per hour based on a 40 hour week. That is getting dangerously close to minimum wage. Imagine working 40 just to pay insurance. Imagine being a small business and trying to offer that to employees earning $10 an hour ($20K/year)

 

Fix health care, make working for small business a viable option, reduce dependence on the multinational companies that outsource over seas, makes a lot of sense to me.

And are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars unfunded mandates?

[Texsox]

Right. Because that's economically feasible...in fantasy land.

 

I honestly can't wait for all of these "benefits" to start kicking in on people -- and the taxes, fees, and other unforeseen nonsense that goes on to skim as much money from everyone as possible. Then the overdue and "accidental" fines people will undoubtedly receive for not having insurance...when they actually have it, then having to fight that for 2 years, amongst a myriad of other issues I can't even begin to think of yet.

 

It's going to be fun to watch the complaints I'm sure to see in 5 years time.

 

Hey, you wanted reform -- and now you're going to get it...whether it's good or not.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

I have been noticing for the past couple of years how one side wants the other side to fail so they can say "I told you so!". Dems want Reps to fail, Reps want Dems to fail. What does that say about this country and what political parties have done? I think ol' George Washington was correct when he warned the country about the dangers of political parties.

 

Too bad the us versus them mentality replaced the "I don't agree with this, but I sure hope it works, for all our sakes".

[Jenksismyhero]

We believe that you make it a lot more likely that people will succeed if failure doesn't ruin their life, if they have a chance to recover.

 

Agreed to a certain extent. What get's me about the hardline capitalists is that such an idea is the only reason our economic system works. If there was no bankruptcy protection, there'd be no great economy.

 

Having said that...

 

We don't think that a person should lose their health care because their business went under

 

No, but that doesn't mean that the government should pay for that person to be covered. There are PLENTY of affordable individual health care plans out there for people to buy.

 

we don't think that people should work until they're 90 because their financial advisor overinvested in AIG

 

Social security should be enough right? And agree with Alpha, if you've got 99% of your investment funds in something so risky then it's your fault for losing it in the first place. And if you're young enough, history has shown that despite the massive hit those funds might have taken recently, it'll come back eventually.

 

we don't think that it's ok to tell someone that because their parents are poor they can't get an education, etc.

 

No, instead we say "here's all the f'n money in the world to go to school with and heck, you don't even have to pay it back like those other shlubs in the world whose parents are only slightly more succesful than yours." Oh, and also here's all the food you'll need, and a home for free, and ....

 

We're not trying to destroy capitalism whether you believe it or not. The rest of the world has learned the lesson, and we knew the lesson a few years ago...capitalism is stronger if people don't lose everything when they take a risk.

 

Then why can't we have this requirement before extended healthcare to the 30-40 million people that simply do nothing but demand coverage? How many people are really in this category of "i tried something, risked a lot, and failed." 1 million? 2 million?

 

There's no reason why our citizens should be dying because they can't afford health care.

 

No, they shouldn't, and more often then not they don't. Everyone can go to a hospital and recieve emergency care. The poor and old in this country already recieve free healthcare. So who exactly are we extending this universal health coverage to? I'm fine with the government creating a SMALL fund to ASSIST those people who require SERIOUS health care but can not afford coverage because of reasons WHICH ARE NOT THEIR OWN. Not the people that refuse to look for jobs, not the people that decide to have 4 kids before they're 25, but people that have genuinely been screwed in their lives.

[Y2HH]

I have been noticing for the past couple of years how one side wants the other side to fail so they can say "I told you so!". Dems want Reps to fail, Reps want Dems to fail. What does that say about this country and what political parties have done? I think ol' George Washington was correct when he warned the country about the dangers of political parties.

 

Too bad the us versus them mentality replaced the "I don't agree with this, but I sure hope it works, for all our sakes".

 

To be absolutely honest, since everyone has a stake in America's health care, myself and my family included, I'd prefer it was Utopian and everything was perfect. Now, back to reality, where it's not and never will be Utopian, this is what we will be dealing with. This bill is bad, it was bad with the public options, and it's bad without the public options...it's being rushed, it's being written, rewritten, updated, edited, reedited, and I'm sure there are huge pieces that contradict other pieces. New policies, new fines, new disasters waiting to happen...and they will happen.

 

It's politics. And I was hoping more people would see that it's nothing more than politics when they basically "gave it away" that all it was, was politics from the start. What do I mean? I mean the in your face deal they made with Big Pharma, once heralded as the worlds greatest and most powerful villain, now standing tall behind Obama, laughing their asses off as the dollars just roll on in. Our Govt REJECTED importing safe foreign drugs and cited safety as the reason for doing so, when it had nothing to do with safety. They did it because of the political deal they made with pharma...plain and simple, for a measly 80billion dollars.

 

So, what do we end up with?

 

They partially reformed the way insurance works...I think.

 

They did nothing to stop hospitals from running business as usual, charging arbitrary unlisted rates for who knows what and why.

 

They did nothing to curb drug costs or increase price competition in the drug industry.

 

I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be happy with here...and it has nothing to do with wanting the dems to fail. I can care less who succeeds in this, so long as it's actually beneficial to the people.

[Y2HH]

My problem with all of this is that I thought "comprehensive reform" -- a buzz word used far too often in Washington -- meant they'd overhaul the way health care is handled from the individual, to the hospitals, the doctors, surgeons, nurses, etc...to the drug manufacturers creating affordable drugs and to the insurance industry to prevent them from playing the games they play. Basically, I thought it meant from the ground up.

 

Instead what we got wasn't comprehensive at all...we got some reforms against private insurance...and nothing else.

 

Again, I just don't get why I'm supposed to be happy with it.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

You know the thing that absolutely amazes me? The reason why we're even discussing "reimporting safe drugs from overseas" is that the pro-business faction who passed the drug company bailout bill in 2003 refused to consider that an option.

 

Don't waste time reimporting drugs. We're a bigger purchaser than any overseas government or insurance company anyway, just stop using Medicare as a drug company handout and negotiate ourselves.

[Y2HH]

You know the thing that absolutely amazes me? The reason why we're even discussing "reimporting safe drugs from overseas" is that the pro-business faction who passed the drug company bailout bill in 2003 refused to consider that an option.

 

Don't waste time reimporting drugs. We're a bigger purchaser than any overseas government or insurance company anyway, just stop using Medicare as a drug company handout and negotiate ourselves.

 

Right, so instead we just give them another free pass an call it reformed! Hey, personally, I made money off of it -- I own BMY, MRK, and PFE stock...but you know what, I'd easily give it all back if they did something to keep drug prices affordable. They didn't. Instead, they attacked insurance companies and now we all act as if they were the only problem child in the health care industry.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Right, so instead we just give them another free pass an call it reformed! Hey, personally, I made money off of it -- I own BMY, MRK, and PFE stock...but you know what, I'd easily give it all back if they did something to keep drug prices affordable. They didn't. Instead, they attacked insurance companies and now we all act as if they were the only problem child in the health care industry.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with you here...it's another part of the bill that could be a lot better, and probably will be at some point in the near future. But this is a "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument to me. Hell of a lot better to fix the individual insurance market now and fix the drug market later than to fix neither of them now and wait on the Republicans to fix it down the road.

[Y2HH]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with you here...it's another part of the bill that could be a lot better, and probably will be at some point in the near future. But this is a "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument to me. Hell of a lot better to fix the individual insurance market now and fix the drug market later than to fix neither of them now and wait on the Republicans to fix it down the road.

 

The problem is this is a pretty unique opportunity to change things -- but the fact is they're not going after the drug companies because they cut a back room deal with them...and you know it.

 

Every US drug stock is way up or rebounding big time because of this. They're that much closer to another 40,000,000 customers. And the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is a terrible argument. This isn't even "good", let alone the mention of "perfect".

 

EDIT:

 

Hey, whaddya know, Pfizer just increased it's dividend 12.5% after cutting it by 50% months ago to buy up Weyth. Must be some good news for drug companies on the horizon!

Edited December 21, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I'd be more than happy to take on the drug companies too, as would most Dems. But considering how close-run this vote already has been...the political realities say it just can't be done all at once. If we didn't have to get 60 votes, it might well have been do-able over the Filibuster. I'd love a perfect bill, but Joe Lieberman and the 40 Republcians and Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh don't want one.

[southsider2k5]

Somewhere between our government sucks at everything and can't solve any problems and the government is perfect and can solve all problems is reality. One of the clearest areas that government can help involves scale. When the problem is best handled with scale, that is where the government can, and should, be involved. So a national defense instead of each state having a militia makes sense. Same with health care. Bigger insurance groups survive better than smaller groups. Spreading the risk over a wider area works better than individual. The market tells us that with rates. I believe in America and Americans and know we can make this work.

 

I believe we can create a better system. I also think we need to keep an eye on what helps small business. Most groups plans cost over $500 per month for family coverage, actually closer to $800. That is $4 per hour based on a 40 hour week. That is getting dangerously close to minimum wage. Imagine working 40 just to pay insurance. Imagine being a small business and trying to offer that to employees earning $10 an hour ($20K/year)

 

Fix health care, make working for small business a viable option, reduce dependence on the multinational companies that outsource over seas, makes a lot of sense to me.

And are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars unfunded mandates?

 

You do realize by heaping more and more costs on to the classes that actually hire people in this country the government is going to force more jobs out of the country, not less.