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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
