Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.

I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

... In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

Short-sighted, in my opinion, is asking a government who:

a) has a debt and deficits that are ungodly and will be for a long time
b) already has a program - social security - which is in dire need of repair
c) has a strong founding principle of individual responsibility over communal property

to suddenly take over a system that substantially works for the vast majority:
-51% is a majority,
-70 % would be a solid majority
-by your numbers 47million out of 300+million or 80% qualifies as a super majority
-90+ % using George Will's 20million, would qualify as a vast majority


Let's get our deficit down, debt down, Social Security stabilized, reduce our overseas military, and generally live within our means as a country. Once that is done, then let's talk about it. of course, if we did all those things, I am willing to bet that we would be able to find other ways to resolve this than looking to a federal bureaucracy.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR hierarchy of needs does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

Alright, I'll play along. I don't think that any of the needs on Maslow's chart has anything to do with the role of the Federal Government. IMO the government has a very limited role. So when you say "as compared to other things they spend money on", then I'd be happy to cut a majority of those things.

There are a dozen ways to cut spending in the military without limiting it. Stop outsourcing it to outside contractors. When I was in we cooked our own food, pumped our own fuel, provided our own security details, etc. A lot of those things are done by contractors now. You can also stop enlisting women, cut down on the myriad of uniforms and non-essential equipment, and lower the education requirments for the Army.

I'd also be cool with rolling up all of the spy agencies into two arms, the FBI and the CIA. One for domestic and the other for foreign investigation. Seeing how many secrets the Chinese have stolen, I don't see what good all of these agencies are doing.

Back to your orginal arguement. You seem to have a totally different opinion on what the role of the government is than I do. You want a Democracy with Socialist aspects and I want a Republic with Democratic principles. Don't get all upset either. When a government controls industry, and has its hand in every other aspect of your life that's socialism.

Just because we have the money to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. Please tell me where all of that money is. If we cut spending we also need to start paying back debt too.

The government has in the past checked people coming into this country for disease. That's a role they are obligated to serve. They don't check illegals because they chose not to stop them. That's playing politics with a nation's health. The Fed also puts on commercials about AIDS and smoking, both being for the most part people's stupid choices. When it comes to the real role of government the politicians just play politics with other people's lives and money (livelihood). Why do you trust those worms?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Alright, I'll play along. I don't think that any of the needs on Maslow's chart has anything to do with the role of the Federal Government. IMO the government has a very limited role. So when you say "as compared to other things they spend money on", then I'd be happy to cut a majority of those things.

There are a dozen ways to cut spending in the military without limiting it. Stop outsourcing it to outside contractors. When I was in we cooked our own food, pumped our own fuel, provided our own security details, etc. A lot of those things are done by contractors now. You can also stop enlisting women, cut down on the myriad of uniforms and non-essential equipment, and lower the education requirments for the Army.

I'd also be cool with rolling up all of the spy agencies into two arms, the FBI and the CIA. One for domestic and the other for foreign investigation. Seeing how many secrets the Chinese have stolen, I don't see what good all of these agencies are doing.

Back to your orginal arguement. You seem to have a totally different opinion on what the role of the government is than I do. You want a Democracy with Socialist aspects and I want a Republic with Democratic principles. Don't get all upset either. When a government controls industry, and has its hand in every other aspect of your life that's socialism.

Just because we have the money to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. Please tell me where all of that money is. If we cut spending we also need to start paying back debt too.

The government has in the past checked people coming into this country for disease. That's a role they are obligated to serve. They don't check illegals because they chose not to stop them. That's playing politics with a nation's health. The Fed also puts on commercials about AIDS and smoking, both being for the most part people's stupid choices. When it comes to the real role of government the politicians just play politics with other people's lives and money (livelihood). Why do you trust those worms?

Regarding Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, i was referring to it in a very broad sense related to basic needs that everyone has and the associated responsibility (in my view) of a government to provide for as many of those needs as possible within reason. Regarding your stance on illegal immigration and the "disease" they bring with them, remember that there are millions of tourists who come to this country every year without being scanned for illness excepting special circumstances.

I'm not sure how you can realistically state that public education regarding real threats (i.e. aids, smoking) vs. largely exaggerated threats (terror level is orange, no red, ok blue) is a bad thing.

Lastly, i'm not getting "all upset" as there's been nothing here to be upset about. It's a discussion, one which we differ on but I enjoy the conversation. It'd be boring otherwise. And you're right, i have no problem with some aspects of socialism. I've said it previously, a good idea is a good idea, regardless of where/whom it comes from.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR hierarchy of needs does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

Even if health care is a right why do we need to tear apart our current system to fix the problem for a small % that are uninsured? I'm self employeed and have to pay for my families health which is not cheap but thats what I have to provide as a husband and father for my family. I think we all agree that health ins. needs some reform I'm just do not feel the goverment is the solution. The programs they are currently running are a mess and I just see the cost going up not down if the goverment gets any more involved. Mandates by the goverment now make it tougher for people to obtain ins. in the private market today so they are adding to the problem.

[KLHJ2]

I am going to address this from a completely different perspective. I believe that there is an equal necessity for both a private choice of health care and a Government provided universal healthcare.

Do we not have a universal public education system that provides a means for all people to be afforded the same educational opportunities for the masses? How many of us would actually be educated right now if only those that could afford to send their kids off to school to get an education were educated? Granted the Public school systems may not be the best, but at least they are something.

I believe that just like public education there must be some form of health care provided for every citizen. This health care should be run by the state and local governments just like public education is. If you can afford better, then by all means go buy yourself something better, but lets not deprive those of a necessity. Health care is a necessity and more so than education as far as I'm concerned.

If you truly believe that this is an extreme act of socialism then withdrawl your kids from their public schools.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Angry

I am going to address this from a completely different perspective. I believe that there is an equal necessity for both a private choice of health care and a Government provided universal healthcare.

Do we not have a universal public education system that provides a means for all people to be afforded the same educational opportunities for the masses? How many of us would actually be educated right now if only those that could afford to send their kids off to school to get an education were educated? Granted the Public school systems may not be the best, but at least they are something.

I believe that just like public education there must be some form of health care provided for every citizen. This health care should be run by the state and local governments just like public education is. If you can afford better, then by all means go buy yourself something better, but lets not deprive those of a necessity. Health care is a necessity and more so than education as far as I'm concerned.

If you truly believe that this is an extreme act of socialism then withdrawl your kids from their public schools.

Good post. There should be choice, and both should be available. I'm sure the logistics of implementing this kind of system would be complex, but cut and dry, I agree with you here.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Angry

Do we not have a universal public education system that provides a means for all people to be afforded the same educational opportunities for the masses?

No we do not. Public education is a state/local responsibility (as it should be). Approximately 6% of public school funding comes from the Fed.

I believe that just like public education there must be some form of health care provided for every citizen. This health care should be run by the state and local governments just like public education is. If you can afford better, then by all means go buy yourself something better, but lets not deprive those of a necessity.

If a state wishes to provide free health care for its citizens, by all means go ahead. As long as that state is only taking a minimal percentage of financial support (under 6%) from the Fed to fund this and the program doesn't overlap with programs that already exist (Medicare/Medicaid). Also when the state goes belly up (CA) the Feds don't bail the state out unless the state reduces programs/services and pays the Fed back with interest in under 10 years.

This isn't about access to health care for everyone, there are plenty of avenues for people to get health care. This debate is about expanding the federal government's control into peoples lives. The last two times since 1900 that the left had supermajority control of the federal government we came away with social programs that are threatening to bankrupt the country (FDR - New Deal, L. Johnson - Great Society, Medicare/Medicaid). What Obama and the left in Congress are attempting to jam through (Univ. Health Care, Env Reforms, gov't takeover of GM, etc.) will push the government much closer to insolvency or the need to institute massive tax increases on all Americans. Everything has a price. Either monetarily or with freedoms lost.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my family's access to quality & timely health care or the financial independence of future generations to provide health care under a massive, ineffiecent government bureacracy to under 10% of the population. Why should I make those sacrifices when this 10% currently isn't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to provide health care to themselves or their families. Health care options are readily available in the private sector for those willing to work for them.

P.S. No one supporting Obama Care has provided an effective response to my point about CER, or are folks on the left OK with this?

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post564312

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

P.S. No one supporting Obama Care has provided an effective response to my point about CER, or are folks on the left OK with this?

Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.

It will be even tougher when the goverment has to ration care because of cost spiralling out of control.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by firstdown

It will be even tougher when the goverment has to ration care because of cost spiralling out of control.

All the Obama Care has to do too fix this is raise the taxes on the rich some more.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

It will be even tougher when the goverment has to ration care because of cost spiralling out of control.

How long after this do you think we start eating each other? Just curious...

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.

Obviously if someone wants to spend $$$ on a treatment that is expensive and won't work no insurer private or gov't will cover it. And yes, the CER concept is used in private healthcare, but not to deny coverage of normal procedures. If a procedure isn't covered "in-network" on a plan there is the option of going "out-of-network" to get the procedure but with less of a percentage covered. CER boards are used in many countries with socialized medicine to deny certain treatments or to deny treatment to individuals based on age or other factors. I don't want a gov't bureacrat between me and my doctor or other medical professional. When I'm a bit older, I don't want some GS-9 deciding whether I'm able to get an MRI, or heart valve replacement, or other treatment in a timely manner. I just had my gall bladder taken out, not a big deal but over $30K without insurance, cost me about $ 2K. Whenever I ate anything I was in severe pain for 3-4 hours. If I had to wait for this surgery for two weeks or 1 month, that would've been absurd.

Once a government run insurance program is in place with less benefits and no profit motive, it will drive the costs of private insurance up to be unaffordable or will bring service levels way down. Let's say a family of four with both parents working is bringing in $ 80K / yr. They go with the gov't program as the private insurance will likely go to over $ 1K per month. Their child needs a procedure, recommended by their doctor, which the government will not authorize because it doesn't meet the recommendations of the CER board. The procedure costs $ 40K....yeah I've got a problem with that. When currently that same family is paying about $ 300-500 per month for much better and timely coverage that will allow that procedure.

Again, our health care system isn't perfect, but it's the best in the world. Why do people come here from countries with socialized medicine to get procedures done? We need to fix some things but not put another massive government program in place. If you want to provide vouchers or tax credits for low income families that can't afford health insurance that can be discussed, but the Kennedy/Wrangle/Obama vision is flat out wrong and will be extremely destructive to our healthcare system and the federal budget.

EDIT: As a small business owner, if I'm forced to provide health care benefits to my employees (or pay a fine), who will wind up paying for it. My customers will, I'll have to raise prices. That could actually result in a reduction in monthly revenue if people don't want to pay higher prices and force me into the red. Or, I'll have to cut my staff down to an absolute minimum, that will be at least 2-3 jobs lost. Obama can count those in his jobs saved/created numbers. We're a small family owned restaurant, under 20 employees. Other restaurants like mine will be in the same position, some will close and you'll have more of the chain restaurants to visit (oh joy). But Obama is supposed to be for the little guys right?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Obviously if someone wants to spend $$$ on a treatment that is expensive and won't work no insurer private or gov't will cover it. And yes, the CER concept is used in private healthcare, but not to deny coverage of normal procedures. If a procedure isn't covered "in-network" on a plan there is the option of going "out-of-network" to get the procedure but with less of a percentage covered. CER boards are used in many countries with socialized medicine to deny certain treatments or to deny treatment to individuals based on age or other factors. I don't want a gov't bureacrat between me and my doctor or other medical professional. When I'm a bit older, I don't want some GS-9 deciding whether I'm able to get an MRI, or heart valve replacement, or other treatment in a timely manner. I just had my gall bladder taken out, not a big deal but over $30K without insurance, cost me about $ 2K. Whenever I ate anything I was in severe pain for 3-4 hours. If I had to wait for this surgery for two weeks or 1 month, that would've been absurd.

Once a government run insurance program is in place with less benefits and no profit motive, it will drive the costs of private insurance up to be unaffordable or will bring service levels way down. Let's say a family of four with both parents working is bringing in $ 80K / yr. They go with the gov't program as the private insurance will likely go to over $ 1K per month. Their child needs a procedure, recommended by their doctor, which the government will not authorize because it doesn't meet the recommendations of the CER board. The procedure costs $ 40K....yeah I've got a problem with that. When currently that same family is paying about $ 300-500 per month for much better and timely coverage that will allow that procedure.

Again, our health care system isn't perfect, but it's the best in the world. Why do people come here from countries with socialized medicine to get procedures done? We need to fix some things but not put another massive government program in place. If you want to provide vouchers or tax credits for low income families that can't afford health insurance that can be discussed, but the Kennedy/Wrangle/Obama vision is flat out wrong and will be extremely destructive to our healthcare system and the federal budget.

EDIT: As a small business owner, if I'm forced to provide health care benefits to my employees (or pay a fine), who will wind up paying for it. My customers will, I'll have to raise prices. That could actually result in a reduction in monthly revenue if people don't want to pay higher prices and force me into the red. Or, I'll have to cut my staff down to an absolute minimum, that will be at least 2-3 jobs lost. Obama can count those in his jobs saved/created numbers. We're a small family owned restaurant, under 20 employees. Other restaurants like mine will be in the same position, some will close and you'll have more of the chain restaurants to visit (oh joy). But Obama is supposed to be for the little guys right?

Very good post. Admittedly, I'm not very well versed on health care, but your case study helps shed some light for me. I'm fortunate enough to be in perfect health, and I have no problem paying my $160/month premium to Blue Cross/Blue Sheild. It's easy for a 30 year old non-smoker with no history of health issues to find great coverage at an affordable price. I don't have kids yet, and aside from the occasional physical, I have had no reason to visit a doctor pretty much ever.

Of all the major issues, domestic and international, I would say health care is the one I have given the least amount of attention. That's going to change.