Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[talisyn]

Here's what congress is doing to support free enterprise Panel Votes to End Insurance Antitrust Exemption (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted to repeal the insurance industry’s federal antitrust exemption in a move aimed at spurring competition and controlling the cost of premiums.

I love it when a plan comes together.

[Just_A_Guy]

Does this mean that it's no longer "privileged information" when I ask the hospital how much an upcoming procedure is going to cost me?

There is common ground on health care reform. The trouble is, no one trusts each other to stick to that common ground.

[FunkyTown]

Have you ever heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, he will eat a single meal. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime?" That's what we Conservatives are about. We want to help people, but we want to do it in a way that encourages them to return to self-sufficiency if at all possible. In fact, I'd say we have a GREATER moral obligation to help people to become self reliant than to simply throw money at them.

Have you ever heard the expression, "If you give a man a fire, he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

I'm wary of the whole Conservative label, since it's essentially meaningless. People with the Conservative label have done all sorts of things - Bush invaded Iraq and the national debt tripled under Reagan, for instance(Which isn't to say that those with a Liberal moniker are better: The stimulus plan was just a horrible idea despite most world governments using a stimulus plan of some kind). This leaves the whole question: What counts as being self-reliant?

Should a janitor have health care? He probably can't afford it for him and his family, but the world needs janitors. How about the Macdonald's worker? Same thing. There are lots of people who actually work who can not afford things like liver transplants, dental surgery or the like. Should they lose out?

Universal health care isn't a bad idea. It requires better implementation.

It requires addressing concerns like:

1) How do you limit creeping bureaucracy? The rules that applied 50 years ago will continue to weigh down these sorts of plans while jobs that should have been obsolete decades ago continue. It requires regular oversight and restructuring to prevent this and it needs a logical way of going about it so the rules don't become serpentine and impossible to understand.

2) How do you control costs? $70 for a couple of aspirin in the hospital should not be charged, yet many health care organizations can get away with this because, frankly, by the time you're in there, it's past the point of shopping around.

3) How do you encourage research and development? If the government implements price controls, research tends to stagnate. This isn't always the case, as the NHS in Britain have developed the ability to replace organs with 0% chance of organ rejection by the body as per:

Replacement body parts offer active old age for future pensioners | Society | guardian.co.uk

(They expect to have this technology by 2014).

If those three main concerns can be addressed, I think everyone would agree with a universal health care system. However, both sides seem to take polar opposites when, in fact, what they need to do is work on a plan that benefits all Americans instead of individual parties and constituents.

[unixknight]

If those three main concerns can be addressed, I think everyone would agree with a universal health care system. However, both sides seem to take polar opposites when, in fact, what they need to do is work on a plan that benefits all Americans instead of individual parties and constituents.

I don't agree, because any Universal Healthcare system would necessarily have to be run by the Government or it's not universal. Why? Because if it's provided by private industry it has to be purchased by the consumer.

I do agree with your comments on what's wrong with our current system, but I'd point out that #1 and #3 are really only problems in the hands of the Government. Private companies can't afford to lose too much efficiency to bureaucracy or they cease to be profitable. Innovation is encouraged under capitalism.

The soaring cost of healthcare IS a problem, but the solution isn't to scrap the system and hand it to the Government, nor is having the Government provide an "alternative" plan. Pharmaceuticals cost too much. Medical school costs too much. Malpractice insurance costs too much. Equipment costs too much. Why is it surprising, then, that medical care is stupidly expensive?

Mind you, we already have a sort of Universal healthcare in that people who can't afford it can get health care from programs funded at the state level. The way it works is that the state essentially pays for an HMO plan just as if it was coming from a job. (At least, that's how it worked in Maryland for my family when we couldn't afford to get coverage.)

[Guest]

1) How do you limit creeping bureaucracy? The rules that applied 50 years ago will continue to weigh down these sorts of plans while jobs that should have been obsolete decades ago continue. It requires regular oversight and restructuring to prevent this and it needs a logical way of going about it so the rules don't become serpentine and impossible to understand.

That right there, Funky, is the ONE REASON America cannot have Universal Healthcare at this time. The government has ZERO incentive to make things better - as evidenced by all government programs currently in the verge of bankruptcy. When you have government officials voted on by a politically naive populace, majority of which is educated by government, making things better is not a government concern. The only concern is how to make things sound on the next political campaign.

You have to have government accountability. It is currently lacking in American government because the political left and the political right are both corrupted. It will require a massive "wake up call" to the American population to bring voting people back to be political educated and away from partisanship - combat this notion that we should vote either republican or democrat because voting for anybody else will "waste your vote", regardless of whether reps or dems abide by your own principles. In the UK, they do not have 2 big parties and one or two stragglers. Any of the political powerhouses of the time can be toppled down by an independent.

There are way too many Americans who do not vote on studied principle but by the illusion of what a government can do for "me" or what letter goes after the candidate's name. I really think it would do this country good to limit voters to those who can pass a political test, just like limiting those who can drive to people who can pass a driver's test. But then, that's just my opinion on the matter.

[Elphaba]

Mind you, we already have a sort of Universal healthcare in that people who can't afford it can get health care from programs funded at the state level.

The state-level health insurance, which is actually funded by both state and federal monies, is called Medicaid, and no, Medicaid is not universal healthcare.

From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all people with limited incomes and resources. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services for everyone. You must qualify for Medicaid. Low-income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds. (italics mine)

It is estimated that approximately six percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.

Because each state manages its respective Medicaid program, they each set their own guidelines regarding eligibility and services. The result is the same person could be eligible for Medicaid in one state but not in another.

According to the Health Research Group:

Although there are certain services that all states cover, there are more than 30 optional services that may be included in a state’s offerings. And some of these may be covered only when given by certain providers; have limitations in terms of populations covered, frequency, duration, and scope; require cost-sharing; or may be provided only under certain conditions.

Again, Medicaid is not universal healthcare.

(At least, that's how it worked in Maryland for my family when we couldn't afford to get coverage.)

So you took government-funded health insurance when you couldn't afford it but would deny other Americans the same? Edited October 22, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

. . . combat this notion that we should vote either republican or democrat because voting for anybody else will "waste your vote",

Realistically this is not just a notion--it is a fact, and I don't foresee this changing anytime in the near future. I think it is possible a third party could emerge, given many Americans' resentment of the two parties, but if it did I don't think it would be viable, as these people don't represent the majority of Americans.

I really think it would do this country good to limit voters to those who can pass a political test. . .

What "political" points would you include in the test? Edited October 22, 2009 by Elphaba

[talisyn]

This from a post I wrote on another forum in a debate, that I thought I'd share here.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, he will eat a single meal. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime?" That's what we Conservatives are about. We want to help people, but we want to do it in a way that encourages them to return to self-sufficiency if at all possible. In fact, I'd say we have a GREATER moral obligation to help people to become self reliant than to simply throw money at them.

Want to know why?

Imagine you have to rely on me for your food. Let's pretend that, for whatever reason, I am the source of your meals. You have to come to me 3 times a day or you go hungry. Am I really helping you? Sure, I'm giving you free food, but is this truly an act of charity?

Think about your answer for a second.

The answer is that it is NOT an act of charity. That's because as long as you rely on me for your food, I have POWER over you. I can CONTROL you. I can withhold food from you if you do not do what I want. I can dictate what you eat. I can dictate how often you eat. I can dictate how much you eat. I have power over you because I have made you dependent upon me.

On the other hand, we Conservatives believe in empowering YOU to make those decisions. We would rather teach you to fish, to farm, to cook, to gather, to harvest. Sure, we'll give you food in the meantime so that you won't starve, but you will learn to feed YOURSELF so that NOBODY may have power over you, even us. You alone will decide what you eat, when you eat, how much you eat, and you needn't submit to ANYONE in order to feed yourself.

Statists perfer the former. Conservatives prefer the latter.

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. but....I'm sorry, how does this help people who can't afford or are unable to get health insurance as things are right now?

[talisyn]

That right there, Funky, is the ONE REASON America cannot have Universal Healthcare at this time. The government has ZERO incentive to make things better - as evidenced by all government programs currently in the verge of bankruptcy. When you have government officials voted on by a politically naive populace, majority of which is educated by government, making things better is not a government concern. The only concern is how to make things sound on the next political campaign.

You have to have government accountability. It is currently lacking in American government because the political left and the political right are both corrupted. It will require a massive "wake up call" to the American population to bring voting people back to be political educated and away from partisanship - combat this notion that we should vote either republican or democrat because voting for anybody else will "waste your vote", regardless of whether reps or dems abide by your own principles. In the UK, they do not have 2 big parties and one or two stragglers. Any of the political powerhouses of the time can be toppled down by an independent.

There are way too many Americans who do not vote on studied principle but by the illusion of what a government can do for "me" or what letter goes after the candidate's name. I really think it would do this country good to limit voters to those who can pass a political test, just like limiting those who can drive to people who can pass a driver's test. But then, that's just my opinion on the matter.

Who would make the test? Why are they so special? Why are they more right than my uncle James? Or my aunt April? What qualifications are needed to disenfranchise part of the populace? Sorry, it just strikes me too much of Jim Crow lol

[Elphaba]

There are way too many Americans who do not vote on studied principle but by the illusion of what a government can do for "me" or what letter goes after the candidate's name.

This is extremely offensive. You imply that people who voted as you did studied the issues, but people who voted otherwise did not. Or that people who voted for Obama did so because they believed the government would give them something they were too lazy to get for themselves.

That is a trite stereotype and it is hogwash.

I don't doubt that some people did as you say, but many millions did not--enough that your stereotype is not warranted.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Elphaba

[Guest]

What "political" points would you include in the test?

The same test immigrants have to take to become a US Citizen...

I had this crazy discussion with a 56 year old American about how voting for President should be majority vote instead of electoral college (Bush/Gore 2000). He keeps on insisting there is an Individual Right To Vote for the President. I mean, I'm Filipino citizen and I'm pointing basic facts to him about the American Constitution.

[Guest]

This is extremely offensive. You imply that people who voted as you did studied the issues, but people who voted otherwise did not. Or that people who voted for Obama did so because they believed the government would give them something they were too lazy to get for themselves.

That is a trite stereotype and it is hogwash.

I don't doubt that some people did as you say, but many millions did not--enough that your stereotype is not warranted.

I'm not American. But, I come from a political family with membership in the Assembly of the Philippines in the time of Marcos. I've been politically aware from the time of Martial Law to the Peaceful Edsa Revolution and up to the corruption in current Philippine government. Everything I said was made out of observation of the American election process.

Call it what you may. But keep partisanship out of it. You are the trite stereotype one here.

[Guest]

Who would make the test? Why are they so special? Why are they more right than my uncle James? Or my aunt April? What qualifications are needed to disenfranchise part of the populace? Sorry, it just strikes me too much of Jim Crow lol

If you don't know what a government is for, you have no business voting. There is a reason you require only 18+ people to vote. It is not to disenfranchise young teen-agers and children.

[Guest]

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. but....I'm sorry, how does this help people who can't afford or are unable to get health insurance as things are right now?

It doesn't. It just shows the difference between universal healthcare and private healthcare.

[talisyn]

I got all A's in school, especially in gov't and econ. I guess my vote is safe

Anatess, the electoral college has been a thorn in my side since I first heard about it in 1979 (wow that was a long time ago). I would have hoped the 2000 election put to rest the happy myth of 'one person-one vote' for president. Problem is the electoral college benefits parties, so the losing party one year is the winning party the next and nothing ever gets done.

[unixknight]

The state-level health insurance, which is actually funded by both state and federal monies, is called Medicaid, and no, Medicaid is not universal healthcare.

I never said Medicaid was universal healthcare. It fills a very specific need, and it's not for everybody.

From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: It is estimated that approximately six percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.

Do you know why that is?

Because each state manages its respective Medicaid program, they each set their own guidelines regarding eligibility and services. The result is the same person could be eligible for Medicaid in one state but not in another.

And?

Again, Medicaid is not universal healthcare.So you took government-funded health insurance when you couldn't afford it but would deny other Americans the same?

Please show me where I've said I would deny anybody healthcare who needed it. Quote me directly, please.

Thank you for clarifying your opinion. but....I'm sorry, how does this help people who can't afford or are unable to get health insurance as things are right now?

As I said in a subsequent post, healthcare in this country is far more expensive than it needs to be. THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. Socializing healthcare isn't the solution.

[talisyn]

If you don't know what a government is for, you have no business voting. There is a reason you require only 18+ people to vote. It is not to disenfranchise young teen-agers and children.

But what is a government for? Obviously people have different opinions. A huge amount of citizens think government should be small and out of the way for the betterment of everyone. An equally huge amount of citizens think it should be used as a tool for the betterment of everyone. Both sides are right, both sides have equal claim to the ballot box. This is why we have elections instead of kings.

[Guest]

I got all A's in school, especially in gov't and econ. I guess my vote is safe

Anatess, the electoral college has been a thorn in my side since I first heard about it in 1979 (wow that was a long time ago). I would have hoped the 2000 election put to rest the happy myth of 'one person-one vote' for president. Problem is the electoral college benefits parties, so the losing party one year is the winning party the next and nothing ever gets done.

Talisyn, I'm not sure I understand how an electoral college benefits parties. Can you expand on this a bit? Thanks, bro.

[Guest]

But what is a government for? Obviously people have different opinions. A huge amount of citizens think government should be small and out of the way for the betterment of everyone. An equally huge amount of citizens think it should be used as a tool for the betterment of everyone. Both sides are right, both sides have equal claim to the ballot box. This is why we have elections instead of kings.

And some people just have no clue. These are the ones that need to be educated first before casting a vote.

EDIT: Okay, here's a perfect example. This guy - Erap Estrada - was a huge action hero in the Philippines. His movies are always with this theme - he gets beat up in the beginning and then in the end he triumphs and becomes hero to save the day! He was a really really good actor. So then, Ronald Reagan became President. So Estrada rode on that in his campaign! So, these people in the Philippines who are politically naive, they thought, hey, Erap Estrada is a hero! So, they became sympathetic. The more the opponent beat up Erap, the more the politically naive (who normally wouldn't bother to vote) come down in droves to the precinct to cast their vote and become part of the conclusion of the "movie" for Erap to become the hero to save the day! They seem to not realize that the government is not a movie or something. We had, what 5 years or so of Estrada as President where he emptied the coffers of the Republic. He finally got impeached. We're still in recovery - I mean, it wasn't so long after Marcos got ousted that we had to go through that.

I was very happy when another action actor - gosh, I can't remember his name, help me here Bini - tried to run for President and lost resoundingly. It showed the improved maturity of the voting public. But that came at a price. My brother's wife helped in voter's education in the remote regions of the country. The Philippine Congress is still riddled with basketball players, actors, and other celebrities who have no clue how to run a country - they got elected through their celebrity status. We are hoping this will change - slowly but surely. Manny Pacquiao (boxing guy) tried to run for Congress and lost. Big sign of improvement. Manny is an awesome guy but he can't even keep his boxing contracts straight let alone Congressional Bills.

Edited October 22, 2009 by anatess

[unixknight]

Talisyn, I'm not sure I understand how an electoral college benefits parties. Can you expand on this a bit? Thanks, bro.

If I may...

The Electoral College can be seen as benefiting parties because of the way congressional districts are defined. You see this happen all the time where the boundaries of specific districts are changed on order to manipulate the demographics of who is voting and who is in the majority in the district. This would also impact the electoral votes.

[Guest]

If I may...

The Electoral College can be seen as benefiting parties because of the way congressional districts are defined. You see this happen all the time where the boundaries of specific districts are changed on order to manipulate the demographics of who is voting and who is in the majority in the district. This would also impact the electoral votes.

Yes, but the States control that. A State can legally say, we're not holding Presidential elections. The Governor will pick who will go to the electoral college. So, if the demographics are adjusted by the States, then that's how the States want it to be. And people can vote to change that at the State level if they don't like it. Right?

[unixknight]

Yes, but the States control that. A State can legally say, we're not holding Presidential elections. The Governor will pick who will go to the electoral college. So, if the demographics are adjusted by the States, then that's how the States want it to be. And people can vote to change that at the State level if they don't like it. Right?

Not necessarily. My understanding (and I'm sure this varies from state to state) the districts are defined by an election committee. There have been several examples of this happening over the last few years where said committee defines the boundaries along partisan lines to boost the chances of their candidate winning an election.

Both sides do this.

[Guest]

Not necessarily. My understanding (and I'm sure this varies from state to state) the districts are defined by an election committee. There have been several examples of this happening over the last few years where said committee defines the boundaries along partisan lines to boost the chances of their candidate winning an election.

Both sides do this.

We do have Corrine Brown's district here in Florida that is like that. It's wierd if you look at her boundaries - it doesn't make sense how it is shaped except for just like you said - drawing it around a certain partisanship. And she keeps getting elected into Congress no matter how much of a dingbat she comes out as. I'm sure there are others too just in Florida from all sides of the aisle. I still think it's better than majority vote though. I think it is necessary that State interests are properly represented.

[unixknight]

We do have Corrine Brown's district here in Florida that is like that. It's wierd if you look at her boundaries - it doesn't make sense how it is shaped except for just like you said - drawing it around a certain partisanship. And she keeps getting elected into Congress no matter how much of a dingbat she comes out as. I'm sure there are others too just in Florida from all sides of the aisle. I still think it's better than majority vote though. I think it is necessary that State interests are properly represented.

I agree. I have no problem with the Electoral system, but I do with there were safeguards to prevent this sort of manipulation.

[Elphaba]

I'm not American. But, I come from a political family with membership in the Assembly of the Philippines in the time of Marcos. I've been politically aware from the time of Martial Law to the Peaceful Edsa Revolution and up to the corruption in current Philippine government. Everything I said was made out of observation of the American election process.

I never said you weren't politically savvy. But millions of American voters are just as politically savvy as you, and they completely disagree with you.

You are the trite stereotype one here.

Exactly my point.

You have stereotyped me, those who share my opinions, and those who disagree with you, as being uninformed, lazy and selfish.

You have the right to do so, but it doesn't mean you are correct. You're not.