Here is the story as heard on today's radio. I apologize for no link, but its just a silly story.
In Mehlville Mo, on the outskirts of St. Louis, the local Democratic congressman was having a town hall meeting.
Amongst the loud protesters was one man very much against "insurance for all" (no to mention those evil "Trial Lawyers"). He got into a fight with members of the service employees union.
He claims they started the fight. They claim he started the fight.
He was injured.
He is next seen in a wheel chair outside the union hall demanding to speak to the Union for compensation for his injuries.
The Union offices were closed on Sunday.
So he has a lawyer and is looking to sue.
But first he is asking donations.
He was laid off a couple of months ago and has no health insurance.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Without a link it is hard to validate the story.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I was wrong-as the follow up was on Saturday, not Sunday, but still the place was closed.
I was right that he doesn't have the insurance to pay his medical bills, but was protesting the need for insurance for all.
What I discovered was that he and his fellow protesters were protesting the Health Care bill, at a meeting about elderly rights.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There's always going to be a lot of irony surrounding Republican policies as long as they tap into an economic and social base that will actually vote for them despite the clear long and short term disadvantages, while they convince the same people out of the other side of their mouths that everyone can succeed in a system that actually requires a number of people to fail.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I was right that he doesn't have the insurance to pay his medical bills, but was protesting the need for insurance for all.
The article does not say that Gladney was protesting the need for insurance at all nor does it say that is what the protesters were protesting.
quote: Saturday's protest was organized by the Tea Party coalition, which fights what it calls reckless government spending and opposes the president's health care reform proposal. The coalition is one of dozens of opposition groups attacking the administration's health care plans.
Protesting what little we know of the current health insurance reform bills does not mean people are against health insurance reform in general.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: There's always going to be a lot of irony surrounding Republican policies as long as they tap into an economic and social base that will actually vote for them despite the clear long and short term disadvantages, while they convince the same people out of the other side of their mouths that everyone can succeed in a system that actually requires a number of people to fail.
As opposed to the Democrat polices that requires everyone to succeed? Which policies would those be?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Protesting what little we know of the current health insurance reform bills does not mean people are against health insurance reform in general.
While this is true, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Tea Party Coalition is ever going to come out in favor of an Obama policy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: As opposed to the Democrat polices that requires everyone to succeed? Which policies would those be?
Nowhere did I claim that opposition to such a philosophy requires adherence to diametrically opposite policies- nor is the opposition to a philosophy itself concomitant with the opposite approach. Of course, Republicans do like you to think that way, so I understand why you might be confused.
Be Kind. Read.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Protesting what little we know of the current health insurance reform bills does not mean people are against health insurance reform in general.
While this is true, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Tea Party Coalition is ever going to come out in favor of an Obama policy.
Also "what little we know," is a cop out and a half. These bills won't be voted on in secret. You have every right to call your congressperson and ask for details.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
sadly I can tell you, as someone who is heavily involved in helping make health care reform happen right now, there are few details to be had currently. and they keep changing.
it's quite frustrating.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. Calling to ask a congressperson won't do a lick of good, because congresspeople don't have a much firmer idea what the current bills (much less the final bills) look like. They're far too large and complex and rapidly changing for anyone to have a handle on more than a small part, even with a staff to back them up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There are also odd side-deals like so:
quote:Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
Considering that one of the reasons to go public is to save money by using the sheer purchasing power of one payer (or in the US case, one very large payer?) to cut down on drug costs, this is an interesting pre-emptive move.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: While this is true, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Tea Party Coalition is ever going to come out in favor of an Obama policy.
I think it would depend on what Obama's policies actually are and I believe there is a much greater chance of the Tea party Coalitions supporting Obama then say Moveon.org supporting anything Bush ever did.
quote: Also "what little we know," is a cop out and a half. These bills won't be voted on in secret. You have every right to call your congressperson and ask for details.
Most congressman have not read the bill. A few have even stated that they won't. Obama met with insurers and other in the medical industry in secret (he will not release the visitor's logs). The Senate version is not even done yet. The press is certainly not doing it's job of reading through the bill to determine what is in it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uhuh. A cop out and a half. Whining about the fact that congressmen aren't going to read the thing (that surprises you by the way??), and that the press is "not doing its job" makes you look like a punk.
A single google search term led me to a dozen links, and a site that appears to update the bill as it is amended, adding the senate version later as it becomes available.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: sadly I can tell you, as someone who is heavily involved in helping make health care reform happen right now, there are few details to be had currently. and they keep changing.
it's quite frustrating.
I absolutely acknowledge that. That isn't a conspiracy. I think it's an unfortunate outcome of the timing with this bill. My point is only that whining and pointing fingers at the press is also equally useless.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
oh, agreed. just pointing out that getting accurate information can be quite difficult.
but I do think DarkKnight is being disingenuous. It's the very fact that everything with this bill is in flux right now with not many firm details that makes these health care reform protests so ridiculous. They are NOT protesting Obama's health care plan, they are by very definition protesting health care reform. or they are protesting falsehoods that are being propagated maliciously. in that case, they're just ignorant.
[ August 10, 2009, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe there is a much greater chance of the Tea party Coalitions supporting Obama then say Moveon.org supporting anything Bush ever did...
Heh. I have no idea what metric you'd use to measure that. Femtochances, where a snowball's chance in Hell is roughly equal to one millichance?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: oh, agreed. just pointing out that getting accurate information can be quite difficult.
but I do think DarkKnight is being disingenuous. It's the very fact that everything with this bill is in flux right now with not many firm details that makes these health care reform protests so ridiculous. They are NOT protesting Obama's health care plan, they are by very definition protesting health care reform. or they are protesting falsehoods that are being propagated maliciously. in that case, they're just ignorant.
Yeah, we're on the same page there.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Such condenscion, Orincoro. You are just too cute when you use all of your Really Big Words altogether like that. Then again, since you only listen to Pelosi I can see why you hold to the bigoted beliefs you have and enjoy speaking down to people from perfect perch amongst the stars. Be Kind. Open your mind. Why are Democrats shoving this bill, which others have pointed out is not being widely read, for passage so quickly? How is what I said a cop out and a half? I'm not the one voting for the bill. Please take your punk comments, shine them up really nicely.... TD, I used the same metric for measurement you did when you made your statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I used the same metric for measurement you did when you made your statement.
No, I doubt it. Honestly, I think you just threw out a knee-jerk "hey, your side did it, too!" sort of reaction, without stopping to evaluate whether the situations really were equivalent, who the "sides" actually are, etc. Lots of people are doing that, and it's a shame.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Such condenscion, Orincoro.
Thanks, I work on being concise, but I'll accept "condenscion," as a compliment.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: of your Really Big Words altogether like that.
You know, it's funny when you get all defensive and sarcastic when somebody utters a three syllable word at you. Don't put that insecurity on me- I have an OAD on hand, I use it often for reference, (although I never use words myself that I'm not already familiar with) and I'm not at all ashamed of the fact. If you have a question about a word I used, ask me. I routinely look up words that I don't see very often, and I find it beneficial. Perhaps this would help you as well. What won't help is whining about it, much less to a guy who, especially on political issues, is outmatched in vocabulary by at least 3 posters in this thread alone.
quote: Then again, since you only listen to Pelosi I can see why you hold to the bigoted beliefs you have and enjoy speaking down to people from perfect perch amongst the stars.
Point of fact, I never listen to Pelosi. That's not hyperbole, I just never read anything she has to say. Don't know why- maybe I should more often. Do you?
[ August 10, 2009, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: No, I doubt it.
I don't.
quote: Honestly, I think you just threw out a knee-jerk "hey, your side did it, too!" sort of reaction, without stopping to evaluate whether the situations really were equivalent, who the "sides" actually are, etc. Lots of people are doing that, and it's a shame.
Honestly I didn't. I did think of all the times I've heard here, especially from people like Lyrhawn, where conservations/republicans just stayed in lockstep with Bush and almost never went against anything he did. We just had 8 years of almost total Democratic opposition to everything that they could label as "Bush". Take NCLB for starters....Who wrote it? Who opposed it at first? Who grew to oppose it? Who takes the 'blame' for it? Making equivalences between MoveOn and the Tea Parties is a little unfair...Tea Parties are not back by Soros or some other billionaire despite the media's attempts to portray them that way. How about the man who started this whole thread? Is there any doubt if a black Obama health care supporter was roughed up by 'Republicans' this would be front page news? Calls of racism would be heard every day on CNN.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have been looking for a good discussion on health care.
It certainly isn't here. Orincoro, your ad hominems add nothing and harm much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have been looking for a good discussion on health care.
:snort:
Quick question: do you know what an ad hominem is, and if you do, can you please do me the favor of pointing out where I have used them, and against whom? Because attacking a person's motives is not itself an ad hom, but rather an ad hom is an attack on motive in place of an attack on policy or position. I've been pretty clear in being almost entirely focused on motive- that is my intent.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like the idea of universal health care, but this effort is a mess. There isn't a single plan to even sell - depending on where you look, everyone loses. And there isn't money for this at all. There simply isn't - China is worried and our credit is getting shaky now. Spending another TRILLION dollars right now is a terrible, terrible idea.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, actually it may be a pretty good idea- but that all depends on who you ask. It is not a cut and dried "bad idea" to spend money right now- the overall economy is a lot more complex than your checking account.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro, do you not understand what that means? Do you need some help on the concept? It's a discussion where the main arguments do not consist of mocking the other side. I know it's radical, but maybe you could search around and stop talking until you understand the idea, and then practice and see if you can formulate an opinion that doesn't drip with lazy, misanthropic, ill-mannered contempt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, do you not understand what that means? Do you need some help on the concept? It's a discussion where the main arguments do not consist of mocking the other side. I know it's radical, but maybe you could search around and stop talking until you understand the idea, and then practice and see if you can formulate an opinion that drip with ill-mannered contempt.
God I'm loving this. It's like Hannibal Lecter giving a lecture on compassionate interpersonal tolerance... actually it's like *you* giving that lecture.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fail. Again.
Try again. Maybe take a deep breath this time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That's it, I'm turning this forum around and going home.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: That's it, I'm turning this forum around and going home.
If we don't stop at Dairy Queen, I'm peeing on Katharina.
DAIRY QUEEN! DAIRY QUEEN! DAIRY QUEEN!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Its been asked, "Why are the Democrats pushing to get this bill passed so quickly." It is implied that it must be a smoke screen for something sinister.
Instead the answer is simple. This bill is a compromise of many different organizations and groups. Such a compromise is hard to hold together. If it isn't done quickly somebody is going to back out eventually, causing the whole compromise to collapse, leaving us with a failing expensive system we have now.
A questions I want answered is why are the Republicans fighting this bill so strongly. The majority of the people in the country want to fix the health care system. Instead of switching to a socialist one-payer nationalized system that the left wants, President Obama and congress are working on just adjusting the insurance system--which is what conservatives have suggested previously.
(The same way that conservatives suggested and proved that cap & trade market solution to pollution would work, and are not calling it an evil leftist conspiracy.)
Many people, from Rush Limbaugh to several conservative congressmen have stated that they will fight ANY health plan put out by this administration, because they believe that if they win they can gain the initiative to win elections in the future. They are trying to Break Obama on this issue.
I understand the politics of that, and their desire to hand a defeat to the man who so soundly defeated them in the past. But why do they have to do that petty politics on something so important as my health care?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From DK: Then again, since you only listen to Pelosi I can see why you hold to the bigoted beliefs you have and enjoy speaking down to people from perfect perch amongst the stars.
Seriously? Pelosi? Congressional Democrats barely listen to her half the time, why would you think an average liberal would? I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, and I'd be surprised if there was a Democratic voting liberal here who even had a good opinion of her, let alone actually takes any form of marching orders from her.
Surely you can pick a better Democratic power figure than that to try and use if you're going to accuse Orincoro of simply regurgitating the party line.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I understand the politics of that, and their desire to hand a defeat to the man who so soundly defeated them in the past. But why do they have to do that petty politics on something so important as my health care?
Great question. I think the answer is too simple to be all that elegant: nobody running that opposition stands to lose anything if they succeed. As you said, they are pushing this as what Limbaugh termed "Obama's Waterloo," which implies total war against this administration; so it's not about issues, or about policies or ideologies, it's win/lose. They picked this issue largely because, I think, it is Obama and the reform agenda that is attempting to gain ground here- the worst thing that could come out of it for them is nothing, and from where the Republicans are sitting, they would never have made the attempt to improve the system anyway, so who cares? They're not going to now admit that reform is necessary, despite a failing current system. It's as if they've been handed a stack of chips to play with on credit they will never have to pay down, because this issue isn't national security, or constitutional rights, so they're not going to get hurt in the short term if our health care system gets worse and worse. That, and it's just too easy for rich commentators and legislators on a very favorable government health care plan not to care about the millions of people who are bound to get hurt- people who are destined by the very nature of the current system to be denied proper care. Republicans just don't want to talk about the losers, because in their book, anyone can become a winner (which is technically true in as far as it goes). The fact that their ideology, and the extension of that in their policies ensures that some people have to lose in order for others to win, and that that caveat actually goes a long way towards undermining the success of the entire system is just hand-waved away, because there are always success stories. Meanwhile the rotting underbelly of the whole beast infects the entire thing with terminal rot- but if you're riding up front, it's easy to ignore that.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, do you not understand what that means? Do you need some help on the concept? It's a discussion where the main arguments do not consist of mocking the other side. I know it's radical, but maybe you could search around and stop talking until you understand the idea, and then practice and see if you can formulate an opinion that drip with ill-mannered contempt.
God I'm loving this. It's like Hannibal Lecter giving a lecture on compassionate interpersonal tolerance... actually it's like *you* giving that lecture.
Orincoro, you are my Hatrack Bill O'Reilly.
So much of what you write is painfully blind simple-mindedness, but I can't help myself, I have to read it. And you're so touchy! It's like you know you're missing something, but can't help but get angry whenever someone inches towards whatever that something happens to be in that particular argument.
You kill me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wait, you really think Katharina would be the person to give me my shining moment of self-reflection?
Katharina?? Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Orincoro: I think you and Katharina are made for each other. suki desu ne? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Nejsem podělaný ještěrki.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tea Parties are not back by Soros or some other billionaire despite the media's attempts to portray them that way.
I can solemnly guarantee you that the Tea Parties are indeed backed by billionaires, or at least multiple millionaires.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think it is pretty official! Hatrack is the most dysfunctional forum I have anything to do with these days. Great job guysssssss
That said I did actually enjoy this:
quote:Such condenscion, Orincoro. You are just too cute when you use all of your Really Big Words altogether like that.
I mean, seriously
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A questions I want answered is why are the Republicans fighting this bill so strongly.
Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute and therefore one of the most prominent ideological directors of conservative policy through sinecure incentives, wrote a piece called Blocking Obama's Health Plan Is Key to the GOP's Survival. The idea is that if Obama gets universal health care passed, he will bring "reluctant voters" into the Democratic coalition because the program will become infinitely preferable to the prior situation in America and such a system will inexorably become as untouchable as Medicare/Medicaid, and thus Republicans must at all costs prevent that from happening, because if the program is allowed to pass, Americans will love it despite the fact the GOP told them they won't love it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have reservations about what's been floated about the new program, but the fear-mongering hysteria would be hilarious if I wasn't afraid people actually listen to that crap. Like Sarah Palin's Death Panel, or the IBD editorial which contained the horrible truth:
quote:People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Stephen Hawking is, of course, British...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, forgot to post that here too.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A questions I want answered is why are the Republicans fighting this bill so strongly.
Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute and therefore one of the most prominent ideological directors of conservative policy through sinecure incentives, wrote a piece called Blocking Obama's Health Plan Is Key to the GOP's Survival. The idea is that if Obama gets universal health care passed, he will bring "reluctant voters" into the Democratic coalition because the program will become infinitely preferable to the prior situation in America and such a system will inexorably become as untouchable as Medicare/Medicaid, and thus Republicans must at all costs prevent that from happening, because if the program is allowed to pass, Americans will love it despite the fact the GOP told them they won't love it.
"We can't have nice things..."
Or, more to the point, we can't have nice things if those nice things will make the Democratic Party look good.
Criminy, it's so petty! What ever happened to this idea that public servants were supposed to, I don't know, serve the public? Don't get me wrong, the Democrats have certainly done their share of foolishness and spite, but this is truly cutting off noses to spite faces.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
So, is it a plan that will benefit Americans in the long term, or is it not?
Or to be more specific, will the bill as passed benefit Americans in the long term, or will the costs outweigh the benefits?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
a more detailed article from Think Progress in regards to the OP. It also contains links to various other sources dealing with different aspects of the story.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "We can't have nice things..."
Or, more to the point, we can't have nice things if those nice things will make the Democratic Party look good.
The goal right now is to try to evoke as much anger over the prospect of UHC so that the republicans can enact some measure of control over the 'bipartisan' solution.
The goal of that is to enact just enough control to water down the program to something that works as badly as they can make it work, so that they can hope that it fails or remains unpopular enough that they can cut back on support or funding in the future, then use the unsatisfactory performance of a sabotaged system to justify its revokal and enshrine the 'proven' notion that UHC is terrible after all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "We can't have nice things..."
Or, more to the point, we can't have nice things if those nice things will make the Democratic Party look good.
The goal right now is to try to evoke as much anger over the prospect of UHC so that the republicans can enact some measure of control over the 'bipartisan' solution.
The goal of that is to enact just enough control to water down the program to something that works as badly as they can make it work, so that they can hope that it fails or remains unpopular enough that they can cut back on support or funding in the future, then use the unsatisfactory performance of a sabotaged system to justify its revokal and enshrine the 'proven' notion that UHC is terrible after all.
All this ascribing of motives. If you were doing it to a Hatracker it would be contributing to the dysfunction of the board
There may be some Republicans who see this as a primarily political issue; it makes sense that many of the political Republicans (those responsible for the long term health of the party) view it in those terms. Just as many political Democrats viewed Bush's myriad mistakes as political opportunities. Cynicism is the coin of the realm in political circles.
But I personally (and many other Republicans I know) have serious ideological issues with the proposed bills. I think the promises of cost-cutting and "bending the curve" have all been oversold and under delivered (and the CBO backs this up). I think past experience with Medicare and Social Security, and the current financial viability of those entitlements, should give us significant pause before instituting another massive federally-administered entitlement. I think cross-national health expenditure comparisons lack an understanding of underlying cultural dimension of health care spending. I think Obama's promise (or was it; after its initial affirmation of the deal, the White House is now apparently denying it) to Billy Tauzin (one of the lobbyists who negotiated the deal) not to review Medicare expenditures (with possible savings of around $200 billion) in exchange for an $80 billion concession, and a public endorsement of the health care reform initiative was dishonest, cynical, and a bad decision (both financially, and because he couldn't back it up; at least one of the current bills includes a congressional review of pharmaceutical payouts under Medicare, which is what caused Tauzin to go public with the details of the deal). I think claiming everybody needs to have some "skin in the game" and then turning a blind eye to out-of-control growth in malpractice awards, and consequently malpractice insurance, is dishonest. I think the whole process has been handled with an incredible amount of ineptitude and a lack of understanding about the true concerns of most people.
And I'm probably one of the most sympathetic Republicans you will find on the issue of health care reform. I think it's scandalous that we don't provide health insurance to the most vulnerable in our country. I think it's a great idea to encourage people to seek low cost preventative measures rather than force them into a situation of chronic (over)use of emergency rooms. I think there's a moral imperative to protect and provide for all citizens, especially given the dramatic increase in wealth in our country over the last couple of decades. So I'm on board with health care reform; just not the out-of-touch proposals coming from Washington.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: So, is it a plan that will benefit Americans in the long term, or is it not?
Or to be more specific, will the bill as passed benefit Americans in the long term, or will the costs outweigh the benefits?
It would be difficult to envision a plan that would in its totality be more expensive in the longer term than the current one- especially if you want to factor in the costs in economic losses caused by a generally substandard level of care.
At the same time as I don't want to pick on just the point that reinforces the need for reform, I think we should be cognizant of the universal cost to us of not reforming as well. I mean, theoretically you could devise a system that delivers the same standard of care we receive today (as an average), and put that system in the black with ultra-efficient planning and low overhead, torte reform and whatever else might work, and despite all that, the sheer loss of productivity caused by a depressed standard of care would represent, if not a loss, then at least a huge missed opportunity for growth. But maybe I'm foolishly optimistic in hoping that both aims could be achieved- a system that is in the black on paper, as well as a benefit to society. I'm rather suspicious of either side claiming that one of those aims is impossible to achieve, especially considering that there are so many obvious areas for improvement, and a lot of ways they can be improved, plus dozens of examples of how health care is, if not done perfectly, at least clearly done better, with a superior average outcome. That said, I'm more optimistic about a system that may be in the red, that provides a better standard of care, with fewer outliers, than I am about one that is nevertheless in the red, with hugely inconsistent standards.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Stephen Hawking is, of course, British...
I guess I couldn't really fault somebody for such an assumption if they had no familiarity whatsoever with Hawking's actual career, and were only acquainted with his fame in the form of appearances on the Simpsons, and his household name status on the short list of the Great Great Scientists, ie: Newton, Einstein, Hawking. That, and there aren't that many people (myself included) who have ever heard his natural speaking voice. He lost his ability to speak, even his ability to speak clearly, before he got the kind of fame he has had in the last twenty years.
Now if you've ever actually cracked any of his books, you'd know just from his sense of humor that he's British, but he does go on about his Lucasian professorship at Trinity College, his friendships in England, etc. He's just about as Oxbridge a guy as you're likely to find anywhere.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think cross-national health expenditure comparisons lack an understanding of underlying cultural dimension of health care spending.
I'm curious as to you what you mean by this. Are you saying that Americans are culturally averse to or unfit for the types of systems often used as examples? Or are you just saying that the political atmosphere in America is not fit to undertake such a system in its present form? I'm quite interested in your response because I've heard things like this before, but never with a lot of justification. One thing I have heard, which I do subscribe to, is that it was easier for places like France and the UK to enact social medicine systems because of the effects of WWII on the relationship between the public and the government- some might say the government was in a better position to assert control over the people, but the converse is equally valid- people were more familiar with, and therefore more trusting of and enthusiastic about government involvement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Stephen Hawking is, of course, British...
I guess I couldn't really fault somebody for such an assumption
Yes, but if you're going to hang your argument on it, 90 seconds on Wikipedia ought to be the MINIMUM spent double-checking it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm against universal health care on multiple principals. It has nothing to do with wanting the dems to fail. If anything, a success on this might swell them with confidence and get them to address the issue I actually agree with them on (instead of sweeping us under the rug.)
However, giving the government more power over our lives is a mistake. It will cost more and do less than they say (it always does with government). And anything you gain from the government comes with strings. This will be a tool for social engineering.
And if you think you won't be paying for it because you already have health insurance, you're sorely mistaken. Even if it's not in this bill, they'll realize they don't have enough money and you'll end up paying for your health care (through reduced salary) and other people's health care (through higher taxes) weather you can afford it or not.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
But Pixiest, first, you are not a conservative Republican. You are a Libertarian, and they do have issues with health care. They have issues with all government programs, so that is to be expected. You also behave with more decorum and self control than these Town Hall Busters.
Still, I hope you realize that you already are paying for other peoples health care, and in a very un-economical way.
Right now insurance companies work by charging healthy people premiums that they pay out when others get sick.
But that is only for those who have health insurance. Many young healthy people can not afford the high cost of health care, and many small businesses--the largest employers in the country, can no longer afford to pay any portion of their young healthy people's health care.
The result is delayed and more expensive care, given on emergency basis. The cost of that care is "eaten" by the hospitals and staff that are forced to administer it. They pass those costs to the rest of "us" by way of hiked fees when you are in the hospital.
Hence you pay for a $10 aspirin in the hospital to cover the cost of the dialysis needed by the diabetes patient who lost his insurance when his employer quit offering it, and who could have gotten by with some insulin, but couldn't afford it on his own so he tried to skip it for a day or two, which became a month or so.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Mauve: Health insurance is about spreading risk. Yes, when I buy my health care I'm paying for sick people. Sick people that previously paid for other sick people. That's what health insurance is for. If I don't like this, I don't have to buy it.
If government health passes, I will be paying for sick people on my health insurance AND sick people covered by the federal government. Sick people that possibly paid in nothing. I will be paying twice for the same coverage.
Do you think the $10 Asprins will stop? Malpractice isn't capped. They still have to pay the winners of the medical mistake lottery. That money comes from somewhere. They could cut the salaries of doctors (likely) but that will result in fewer doctors who want to take on the $300,000 dollar debt required to attend medical school.
(grr.. gotta end this post here.. work calls)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dark Knight- the home visitation programs- are those not voluntary? Many places have such programs offered on a voluntary basis and they have excellent results. While I was pregnant, I was offered similar programs and chose not to utilize them, so it is hard for me to feel threatened by their existence. I did, unasked for, receive a packet of information by mail from the state which I would describe as "knowledge of age-appropriate ...development." I did not find a packet in the mail intrusive though, since I still had the choice of reading or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You've hit on my problem with the present proposals, Pixiest. Right I pay for my own insurance and for Medicare. With this, I will pay for my own insurance, for Medicare, AND for the insurance of other people who are NOT paying for their own insurance.
I do want socialized medicine, but I want it as a single entity - not this scattershot breaking up of it all where I end up paying for three and some pay for none.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right now, I pay for my own insurance and Medicare and my health care costs more because hopsitals provide emergency care for those too poor to pay for it (though many will go bankrupt trying to pay for it) and some part of my tax dollars goes to subsidize Medicaid.
I would be happy to pay more so that people who can't afford it can get decent (and preventative) health care. Since I am not in a high income tax bracket, though, I am not likely to have to.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Boots: So because you are willing, everyone else should be willing as well?
(btw, I hate it when we disagree)
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Another anecdote with accompanying survey results. $10 apirin is a quaint term but there are far greater costs being billed.
How does this survey alter your views?
ETA: While the amounts were a bit staggering, the overall concept comes as no surprise to me. I work in a teaching hospital, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Disagreement between friends is not the end of the world.
My tax money goes to a lot of things that I don't particulalry like either - and some things that I adamantly oppose. That is part of the deal with democracy.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:On a private conference call, a group of top Tea Party and conservative organizers offered a surprisingly frank description of their goal, according to a source on the call: Completely blocking any kind of bipartisan compromise, and completely preventing any type of health care reform bill at all from ever becoming law.
maybe this isn't the goal of each and every protester(that would be an unfair characterization), but this is where the information, organization, and drive is coming from.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Health insurance is about spreading risk. Yes, when I buy my health care I'm paying for sick people. Sick people that previously paid for other sick people. That's what health insurance is for. If I don't like this, I don't have to buy it.
Pixiest, part of Mauve's point was that the health insurance often ISN'T paid for by the sick people. Poor people don't get the preventative care which is much cheaper (but still expensive for their standards). Instead they wait until their problems reach crisis levels, then get treatment for free at an emergency clinic, which passes the bill onto insurance companies that pass it on to you - at a more expensive rate than your taxes would have been if universal preventative care had been available.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Is this there thread where people can have rational discussion of H.R. 3200 (the Health Care Reform Bill)? Or is this not it? Or is it the "Am I a Democrat" thread, or one of the others? I'm not sure I've found a rational discussion yet...
I've been wading through the 1,000+ page proposed House Bill, rather than take information only from news/internet/hearsay, etc. Trying to keep my mind open to the possibilities, and trying to find out what it really says.
I agree there can be improvements made in the current health care system. I'm trying to see if this is a good repair/improvement.
The main thing I'm stumbling with as I read through it are things like this:
quote: (i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).
(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.
(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.
(this is from a section on Grace Period Exceptions for Limited Benefits Plans, outlining just which plans this particular part applies to)
As you see, part "iii" basically gives carte blanc to the Commissioner (any other limited benefits he may specify). Yet the "Commissioner" is not even created yet (that's on page 141 - the creation of a Health Choice Commissioner). And there are a lot of generalities like this that said "Commissioner" will decide later, after they appoint him/her.
There is also a lot of language like the first point in the quote above -- always referring back to previous legislation ( Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).) So I will also have to read through each and every one of thoselegislative bills to see what, exactly IS described in section 3001a, yadda yadda.
It all seem very ambiguous to me at this point, but I'm plugging through it. Anyone else reading it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And what's even better is, that's only one of the bills. The Senate has a version, too, and that's ignoring all the potential amendments under consideration
And no, I'm not reading it. Reading it thoroughly enough to know what would happen would take several weeks of dedicated scrutiny for someone already expert in health care law, and by the time one was done it would be changed, and quite possibly passed. I do not have that sort of time to spare.
I can assure you that not a single member of Congress will read the bill in its entirety prior to passage .
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Does no one else see a problem with this approach to government?
How can something that no one bothers to read be a good bill?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: If government health passes, I will be paying for sick people on my health insurance AND sick people covered by the federal government. Sick people that possibly paid in nothing. I will be paying twice for the same coverage.
Pixiest, if you are insured, you are already paying for all the uninsured, and you are paying more than you would have to otherwise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, from that link to the chuck norris misinformation:
stay classy, townhall.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Pixiest and Kat, one of your complaints is that you will end up paying your insurance, Medicare, and for those who haven't bought insurance.
Yet one of the aims of the bill is to make sure everyone buys insurance. This will make insurance available, and paid for, by those millions of people who can afford it, but can't get it now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If taxes go up to pay for this, but my Medicare tax isn't lowered and my own insurance premiums don't go down, then it costs me more for the same or less.
That's not acceptable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Kat, the idea in itself is not to simply increase the amount of money you or anyone will personally have to be paying. The hope, and I fully acknowledge a lack of a guarantee, is that we pass a system that will have a net positive effect on average expenditures, which will in turn lower the amount of money spent through medicare, and also lower the amount of money you will need to be paying in premiums as well. Whatever short term effect this may have on you personally, at least be aware that the goal is not to simply increase the amount of money paid into the system, nor to defer larger obligations on people like you. Sadly, there is almost no way of doing any kind of reform without having this happen to some people in the short term- I think the metric of success will be in how short term the problems will be. I'm for a massive single-payer government administered plan, which would shake out a bit differently, but the sad fact of the real situation is that there's just no way that we're ever going to improve anything without inconveniencing some people. That indeed sucks, but I hope you have some place in your thoughts for the people that reform could really help. I know you're not against saving people's lives in all of this, and it's undeniable that the current system has been letting a lot of people down in a big way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
AFAIK, it really wouldn't be the same, since the public plan would be prevented from rejecting people.
So in the unfortunate but fairly common event that you lose your existing health coverage for a variety of reasons such as losing your job or your insurance decides to perform a rescission on you, you'd still have some form of health-care insurance rather than none.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I want a single payer situation. I think what is now called Medicare should be expanded to everybody - it is appalling that we do have and pay for socialized medicine, but only for old people.
This proposal is a total mess.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed, its a "uniquely American" mess Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sadly true.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I find it unlikely that reform will cause our overall care to worsen. I agree that ideally legislative efforts should be broken into smaller insightful bills but political compromise and the balancing act required makes it difficult. I'm reminded of the half dozen spending referendums I vote on each election. The public can choose to spend way outside its budget because differing majorities want each initiative.
I want to see more done on educating physicians about cost effective care. Just because your physician wants to order test A or procedure B, doesn't mean there's evidence supporting that decision. There are national guidelines that aren't followed (US Preventative Task Force if you're interested). The AMA and medical schools should be doing their part in focusing on this.
There are a lot of issues with spending too little in some areas (primary care access, some hospital stays), and too much (unfounded testing, "disposition" hospital stays of months or years). There is a lot of reform to be had.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I posted in here last night right before I left work for the day, and forgot to check back until now.
What I'm looking for in reading the bills is trying to confirm/dismiss one major stipulation that I have heard that concerns me: While it is true that even now, under my regular insurance, my insurance company can "limit" my care, based on what they are willing to pay for, there is still always the option for me (at this time) to either go out and find different insurance that will cover what I want (if I can pay their premiums) or the option to private-pay (like if I can go out and raise $20,000 for an operation myself that insurance doesn't cover.)
I have heard that the health reform bills do not allow this option. If you are under their plan, you can NOT go out and private-pay for anything, under penalty of law. I would like to find if that is true before I decide one way or another. That is somehow very disturbing to me, even though I probably would never use that option. It it just the idea that there ARE not other options that would concern me. What will the rich people do? Fly to other countries for work their plan will not pay?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am confident no such provision will be included. I would simply ask someone stating its existence authoritatively to point at the provision in question.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)