Healthcare reform

[Jenksismyhero]

I said this a while ago with regards to another bill. The GOP was raising a stink saying "we never had time to read this. You expect me to vote on a bill I havent read?"

• Those that voted no would STILL have voted no... even IF they had time to read the while thing.
• Most of the concepts and wording have been around for MONTHS! So any argument saying "We didn't have time to read it" is total grand standing B.S. You had time to know and read the basics.

 

Now, are there things in there that people might not have read? Absolutely. Did they REALLY intend on reading word for word the entire bill? Of course not.

 

That is an awful response lol. "Here's a contract. We've discussed the particulars verbally, so no need to review it!"

 

This form of legislating, be it Repub or Dem, is ridiculous. If you can't read the f'n bill, then it cleary is way too f'n big and complex.

[BigSqwert]

The heath care debate has been going on for a year now. I think 1 full year is enough time to read a bill but that's just me.

[Y2HH]

The heath care debate has been going on for a year now. I think 1 full year is enough time to read a bill but that's just me.

 

The bill was changed 500 times in that year, it's not remotely the same as it was when it started. So if you read it a year ago, its likely that most of it's not what you read.

[BigSqwert]

The bill was changed 500 times in that year, it's not remotely the same as it was when it started. So if you read it a year ago, its likely that most of it's not what you read.

How is this different than the other 100 million bills introduced since the U.S. Government started a couple of centuries ago?

[Jenksismyhero]

Anyone see this? About Medicare fraud. Hundreds of BILLIONS lost.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/amer...1133&page=1

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[BigSqwert]

Anyone see this? About Medicare fraud. Hundreds of BILLIONS lost.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/amer...1133&page=1

Makes me wonder why the GOP kept scaring people into think that this bill would take away people's Medicare.

[Pants Rowland]

The bill was changed 500 times in that year, it's not remotely the same as it was when it started. So if you read it a year ago, its likely that most of it's not what you read.

 

I frequently have to read through legal documents for work. They are usually no more than 100 pages, including exhibits. After the first iteration, there are always changes sent back to the other side in clean and blackline format. It goes back and forth like this so that both sides can quickly see the changes made and negotiate. Everyone has the technology to run a comparison test between the old file and the new to make sure nothing was snuck in to fool you. I assume that these capabilities are at the disposal of these congressmen.

 

It is one thing to debate the merits of the bill, but wake up people! Some of these arguments sound like the work of old people who don't understand the technology now available or worse yet, lazy kids who make up excuses because they don't want to do their homework. If a congressman doesn't have the ability to sit down and read these documents in a timely fashion, then what are we paying him/her to do?

[BigSqwert]

They're still figuring out all those tubes that the kids call the Internet.

[Jenksismyhero]

Makes me wonder why the GOP kept scaring people into think that this bill would take away people's Medicare.

 

Makes me wonder why we think another government program is going to SAVE us money.

[Pants Rowland]

Makes me wonder why we think another government program is going to SAVE us money.

 

Saving money is secondary to providing adequate coverage for the country. It is important to prevent wasteful spending, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that is the government's goal on every one of it's programs. We have a lot of waste in defense spending all in the name of protecting American lives. Aren't they protecting a lot of the same freeloaders and loafers that health care is going to prop up?

[bmags]

We are already paying for these people to get care in the most expensive way, i don't think it's out of the question that we can create ways to pay for them in less expensive ways.

 

Also, though medicare is expensive because of the explosion of enrollees, health care for them is way cheaper than otherwise. Way cheaper.

[Jenksismyhero]

Saving money is secondary to providing adequate coverage for the country. It is important to prevent wasteful spending, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that is the government's goal on every one of it's programs. We have a lot of waste in defense spending all in the name of protecting American lives. Aren't they protecting a lot of the same freeloaders and loafers that health care is going to prop up?

 

No disagreeing that there's a TON of waste in defense spending, but that's an apple to oranges comparison. Unless we form up private militias and weapon stockpiles, we can't protect ourselves as individuals. People can, on the other hand, get adequate health coverage.

[BigSqwert]

No disagreeing that there's a TON of waste in defense spending, but that's an apple to oranges comparison. Unless we form up private militias and weapon stockpiles, we can't protect ourselves as individuals. People can, on the other hand, get adequate health coverage.

They can? Then why are there tens of millions of people not covered?

[Jenksismyhero]

They can? Then why are there tens of millions of people not covered?

 

Laziness/failure to prioritize. You can get health insurance coverage, even with a pre-existing condition. Are you going to have to pay more than a perfectly fit, non-smoking 25 year old? Sure. But them's the breaks. Life isn't fair. Some people have to work harder than others.

[BigSqwert]

Case closed.

[bmags]

haha, ahh. Hilarious.

[Jenksismyhero]

I know right? People are stupid. They shouldn't take responsibility for themselves. Government should provide for all. Then we'd live in Utopia!

 

I'm not advocating that if you get sick and it puts you into bankruptcy that society shouldn't help out. But I challenge you to come up with an actual figure on how many people are in such a position. I'm guessing the number isn't very high (certainly not the 30-40 million uninsured). Do medical issues cause some severe difficulties in life? Absolutely. But so do a lot of things in life.

 

 

[Pants Rowland]

No disagreeing that there's a TON of waste in defense spending, but that's an apple to oranges comparison. Unless we form up private militias and weapon stockpiles, we can't protect ourselves as individuals. People can, on the other hand, get adequate health coverage.

 

I tend to disagree that it is apples to oranges. The stated goal of a lot of government programs is to protect the health and wealth being of the population. This includes things such as defense, health care, environmental protection, even education to an extent. Although addressing each of these items requires different expertise, the result should be the most people "covered" as possible. Further, by incorporating as many people as possible into such protections, there should be some buying power involved that helps keep per capita costs at a minimum.

 

By adding 30+ million people to the insured population and putting certain controls in place, we should be lowering a lot of cost and waste in the healthcare industry overall, even if it is accompanied by some inefficiencies and fraud. Inefficiencies and fraud are part of both the public (government) and private (insurance companies) sector. It is just a lot easier to cite the government for such maladies. The truth is that anyone covered right now is paying a voluntary tax in high premiums and such items as $15 aspirin tablets during their hospital stays.

[Jenksismyhero]

I tend to disagree that it is apples to oranges. The stated goal of a lot of government programs is to protect the health and wealth being of the population. This includes things such as defense, health care, environmental protection, even education to an extent. Although addressing each of these items requires different expertise, the result should be the most people "covered" as possible. Further, by incorporating as many people as possible into such protections, there should be some buying power involved that helps keep per capita costs at a minimum.

 

By adding 30+ million people to the insured population and putting certain controls in place, we should be lowering a lot of cost and waste in the healthcare industry overall, even if it is accompanied by some inefficiencies and fraud. Inefficiencies and fraud are part of both the public (government) and private (insurance companies) sector. It is just a lot easier to cite the government for such maladies. The truth is that anyone covered right now is paying a voluntary tax in high premiums and such items as $15 aspirin tablets during their hospital stays.

 

So what does this legislation do to solve this problem?

[mr_genius]

The cost of health care needs to be addressed. This is not going to work if the government starts getting charged $1,000 every time someone on the gov plan has a simple 15 minute visit to the doctor. The US cannot afford this unless there are legit cost lowering measures taken. The cost of health care itself has sky rocketed. Much faster than inflation.

 

Even if you cut out 100% of insurance company profits, the health care itself is still at the extreme level of price.

[mr_genius]

So what does this legislation do to solve this problem?

 

from what i can tell, nothing.

[NorthSideSox72]

The cost of health care needs to be addressed. This is not going to work if the government starts getting charged $1,000 every time someone on the gov plan has a simple 15 minute visit to the doctor. The US cannot afford this unless there are legit cost lowering measures taken. The cost of health care itself has sky rocketed. Much faster than inflation.

 

Even if you cut out 100% of insurance company profits, the health care itself is still at the extreme level of price.

Definitely true. While there may be some cost savings in encouraging preventative care, nothing in this bill (that I can see) addresses those costs of care. The bill was far too focused on the insurance companies, which addresses only part of the problem.

 

[bmags]

The cost of health care needs to be addressed. This is not going to work if the government starts getting charged $1,000 every time someone on the gov plan has a simple 15 minute visit to the doctor. The US cannot afford this unless there are legit cost lowering measures taken. The cost of health care itself has sky rocketed. Much faster than inflation.

 

Even if you cut out 100% of insurance company profits, the health care itself is still at the extreme level of price.

 

First, there is no gov't plan in this bill..

 

But second, this bill does take steps that people like rep. Ryan seem to love in that it's trying to make health care more of a market via transparency in pricing. We'll see if that works, I hope it does.

[mr_genius]

Definitely true. While there may be some cost savings in encouraging preventative care, nothing in this bill (that I can see) addresses those costs of care. The bill was far too focused on the insurance companies, which addresses only part of the problem.

 

what is their (insurance companies) profit margin on premiums? probably between 3%-5%. So ok, cut out let's say 4% of cost. That $1000 doctor visit is now only $960? and that's under the assumption that a non-profit insurance group is going to be as efficient as the for profit companies. So yea, I agree, it would seem like the larger issue of cost didn't get the focus it should have.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Confusing Facebook Comment of the day:

You thought healthcare was expensive before, wait till it's free!