A health care question... - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:18

More rude than "less than human?" Ok then. Eye of the beholder I guess.

In terms of the famous people whom you find uncivil, check out Keith Olberman or Michael Moore sometime if you want bipartisan examples of the style.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:25

Ok you keep harping on this point despite the fact that I backed down and apologized but I'll say it again...I'm sorry for using those phrases.

I would happily debate health care and the particulars but no one seems to want to do that.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:28

Jay, this ain't just about you, sorry if it seems that way. He asked for examples.

As far as harping, I'm sorry you see it as that given that I post about 1% as much as most people in this thread. I'll finish with this issue soon and be out of your hair.

Edited by Finnforest - March 24 2010 at 13:28

Easy Money View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10618

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:30

Finnforest wrote:

More rude than "less than human?" Ok then. Eye of the beholder I guess.In terms of the famous people whom you find uncivil, check out Keith Olberman or Michael Moore sometime if you want bipartisan examples of the style.

I'm no fan of Michael Moore at all, confronting the spokesman of the NRA in his own home about Colombine was a very low blow.

To repeat, all I said was that he was being rude and I used sarcasm to point that out. If you don't think he was being rude then we have different standards.

jampa17

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:32

Negoba wrote:

I get extremely angry with people rendering opinions about healthcare when they just don't understand the issues at all. Trying to patient with people yelling and screaming that the sky is orange when its blue is difficult.

Here is a fact:

Every proposed system of paying for health care involves pooling citizens money and then giving it out to those who need health care.

Here is an opinion:

This is at some level socialism no matter who the person managing the pool of money is.

We are arguing about a number of things:

1. Who will manage the pool of money

2. What rules will be placed on that management

3. Who qualifies to get the money for health care and when

Right now, the federal government manages the pool for some citizens, state governments manage the pool for some citizens, private organizations manage the pool for some, and some have no legitimized access to a pool but pull on a de facto pool when they receive free care at ERs and during hospitalizations because EMTALA requires that at least life-saving care is required.

My opinions:

1. Saying that increasing the proportion to which the federal government is managing the pool is the end of American freedom or is the equivalent to become the USSR or that it's totalitarianism is just crazy. Saying that you'd rather the balance move in another direction is a legitimate, debatable point.

2. Pretending that the free market will fix this problem is naive. Pretending the government will fix the problem may be just as naive, but we'll see soon I guess.

I loose track down in page 9 but seems like the debate has not progressed too much. Thanks Jay for making this post... I think there is the soul of the debate... the problem I find is that Americans (I mean U.S. citizens) tends to exagerate about policys that are somekind of socialist, which is false because just a little to the south there are policys like that in nations that are everything but socialists, but well... question...

who decided which persons are covered and which not? why a person cannot have a cover of insuranse?

Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Finnforest View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:39

Easy Money wrote:

I'm no fan of Michael Moore at all, confronting the spokesman of the NRA in his own home about Colombine was a very low blow.

To repeat, all I said was that he was being rude and I used sarcasm to point that out. If you don't think he was being rude then we have different standards.

I wouldn't say that necessarily, though its possible. I was just trying to point out the "selective offense" that gets taken at PA and that it happens more than occasionally.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: March 24 2010 at 13:51

The system developed on its own. Starting with an insurance model, which is reasonable when thinking in terms of catastrophic occurrences the private entities that manage the pools of money are now insurance companies.

Along the way health care insurance became part of the benefits that employers provided their workers. By having a group of insured persons, they were able to negotiate better rates. Over time this has become the norm. The vast majority of Americans who have private insurance get it through their employers. It is possible for an individual to buy insurance but it quite expensive. The worst plans out there are partial plans sold to indivduals trying to get something they can afford.

Since this has become the norm, regulations have placed on the insurance industry, but mainly to protect workers getting employer-based coverage. One of the most important is that if you are hired, you cannot be excluded from the group plan based on your health condition, and that you cannot be charged extra compared to the other workers. However, the employer's rate is based on the risk exposure of his entire group. So if he runs a small company of 15 employees, offers a health plan, and hires a worker who gets a family plan, but whose spouse has cancer, his subsequent premium could skyrocket. These rates become huge issues during collective bargaining disputes. If you have a certain number of employees, you must offer health coverage.

Over 65 are eligible for Medicare, a Federally administered insurance model. Permanently disabled persons sometimes also fall under this program. Certain poor people (mainly children, usually their mothers, and occasionally fathers) full under the combined State / Federal Medicaid program. This program actually offers good benefits, but pays very poorly to providers. Because of this, many providers refuse to accept these patients because they lose money seeing them. De Facto, this limits the options available to Medicaid patients.

Other groups also received some public benefits (including the elected officials). Veterans can receive care from a closed system of hospitals and doctors called the Veterans Administration. This is not an insurance model, but a directly administered plan. The care at the VA is extremely variable, but it is certainly never luxury care.

I think that is a fair description of what we have now.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:05

I was reminded today - anyone recall when Clinton pitched mandatory health insurance in the primaries and Obama slammed her for it? Good times.

Found this choice quote:

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Edited by Padraic - March 24 2010 at 14:18

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:11

I am not a fan of this particular manner of filling the gap. Very scotch tape over the leaks in the levy type of solution in my opinion.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:20

I have to say myself that it seems rather silly to me to say "we are going to cover 32 million more americans under the new health plan" simply by forcing people to buy private health insurance or pay a fine, whether they can afford the insurance or not. That's like saying we are going to end hunger in america by fining anyone who doesn't eat three meals a day.

I'm certainly for health reform, a single-payer system under which everyone is covered, but forcing people to buy something they cannot afford is not fixing the problem for the average working-class american. Surely we can do better.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:21

LOL

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:24

The Doctor wrote:

I have to say myself that it seems rather silly to me to say "we are going to cover 32 million more americans under the new health plan" simply by forcing people to buy private health insurance or pay a fine, whether they can afford the insurance or not. That's like saying we are going to end hunger in america by fining anyone who doesn't eat three meals a day.

My small sampling of "progressive" websites seems to suggest that they absolutely hate this bill.

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:26

That's the American way.

We've rescued thousands of families from poverty by lowering the poverty line. Approve

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:32

To be fair, while simultaneously mandating the insurance, the bill includes some regulation of prices, and significant subsidies for those who can't afford health care.

If the only goal was to close the coverage gap, I would have proposed doing what was already in place in Minnesota when I did residency. Medicaid was much more open than it is in Illinois, and individuals and families above the poverty line or whatever the full qualification level was could buy into the program on a sliding scale.

When people came to our clinic, we were fairly certain that some kind of coverage was available to them. We often had to provide social work time to get paperwork filled out for less educated folks, but very few were completely SOL.

Doing that Nationally certainly wouldn't have been free but it seems simpler and closer to the problem at hand that this bill.

Ultimately, I'm not a fan of the insurance model at all. But changing that is more than anyone is ready for right now.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:36

Negoba wrote:

To be fair, while simultaneously mandating the insurance, the bill includes some regulation of prices, and significant subsidies for those who can't afford health care.

Doing that Nationally certainly wouldn't have been free but it seems simpler and closer to the problem at hand that this bill.

Ultimately, I'm not a fan of the insurance model at all. But changing that is more than anyone is ready for right now.

So what will they do when the insurance companies say, "Screw this, we're selling hot dogs." -switch to a single payer model? I guess it all depends on which side's in power then. Ermm

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:36

I'll have to look more into the price regulation, but my problem with the mandate+subsidies is it doesn't really address cost. It's the university tuition model.

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:44

There's an ad at the top of the page that says "Obama Too Radical?" No damnit. He's not radical enough.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:44

Qboyy007 wrote:

The T wrote:

Qboyy007 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

manofmystery wrote:

The Democrats have managed to craft this in such a way that the upcoming election will occur after insurance companies will have to begin paying for all "preventative" medicine (colonoscopies, mammograms, etc) that their customers desire but before the resulting massive rate increases will be felt by said customers. This way they believe they can get by the election by saying, "look at all you are getting already" and then when the rates skyrocket in 2011, if they can retain power, they can say, "hey, look at how greedy these insurance companies are, we might as well just run everything ourselves". The whole point of this bill is to destroy private insurance so they can get to single-payer and completely control all health related decisions, which would be all decisions made by an individual as it can be easily claimed that eveything you do effects your health.

Who is they and what decision do they want to control?

To get back to the upcomming election though: The Republicans are going to make gains but it will be interesting to see how large the gains are. I don't believe the rage over the process used to get this bill through will die down and moreover, I don't think this is the last thing the Democrats will try to jam through using Chicago politics before the upcoming election.

I keep hearing this "dirty politics" thing when in fact both parties have been doing business this way for decades. I'm not saying it's good, but this line of criticism seems a little strange. Especially when the fact that a real vote was forces is getting called "dirty politics." I'm sorry but voting is the way this works folks.

To think the American people will be any more receptive to any Cap and Trade or Amnesty bills that will likely be flung upon them would be foolish.

The true questions next year will be: Do the Republicans have the collective stomach to actually stand up for this nation's founding prinicpals once they are in the majority? And how much will they be able to do anyway with Obama still in office for at least another year?

Sadly, I think the behavior of the leadership in Israel and Iran and the response of the combination of a Republican (or near even) Congress with Obama in place will be a huge determining factor for the 2012 election. And I have no idea who that will favor. This is a big deal now, but 2 years is a long time.

It seems to me that there is still a strong possibility that this bill is stuck down via Judicial Review as it clearly violates the commerce claus of the Constitution.

Violating the Constitution didn't stop the Bush administration or many others before them from enacting various policies. I frankly doubt this will happen but we'll see.

Random Bush hate, I love it when people talk out of their ass. If you want to make bullsh*t excuses at least use something original.

And what are you? A random Bush worshipper? Can you at least give any idea or comment more useful than that? Do you have anything to say that is new or at least that you came up with yourself? If you want to make bullsh*t comments, at least, well, Comment

I disagree with you therefore I must LOVE BUSH. You're smart.

You couldn't make a thoughtful comment even if your life was at stake, could you?

You brand Jay as Bush hater for accusing his administration of something. Then you call me "smart" because I, using your third-grade logic, concluded that you must be a Bush lover. I'm just using your words the other way around.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:47

@Rob, that will depend on a lot of things. I was told by an insurance agent that prior to about 10 years ago, the model for insurance companies was that all of their profit came from investing the pool of money. They just wanted to break even on the premiums vs. payouts. When interest rates plummetted (I know that's probably missssspeelleled) that was no longer viable and so they started wanting a margin from the pool itself. I don't know how much of the pool now goes to administration, and I don't know if it's even available. But the economics is very complex.

@Padraic - you're exactly right. The amount of money getting pulled from the pool is excessive, and either already is or will soon be greater than the economy can bear. But that is true no matter who is managing the pool. Whether private, public, or private with the government making more and more rules for them.

Edited by Negoba - March 24 2010 at 14:48

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: March 24 2010 at 14:56

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I guess that by itself is really out of context. Its just a line of his that's always stuck out to me. In an age when profits and those who make them are demonized I think its always refreshing to reflect on the importance of profit especially as a means of allocating capital.

The quote comes from here, this 1920 publication: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D05E5DA1639E133A2575BC2A9679D946195D6CF

I read it. It's coherent. But what I fail to see is how health care should also fall in this "for profit" spirit. It demands skills, of course. But is there a proper "capitalist" that puts the others to work here? The only capitalist in the health care industry, to give it that name, is the Insurance companies, who are the only ones making a real profit (the doctors have a good standard of living, but nothing compared to the shareholders and ceo's of the Insurance companies). I fail to see health care as a "business", that's all. Of course, for other fields, for other things in economical life, profit is necessary. I'm not a communist please. I'm just a free-market socialist... Wink

Anyway, we should also cut another phrase from Coolidge's words: "they [evil forces](...) claim (...)the denial that man have any obligations toward each other"... In that text the least I see is an apologetic view of heartless individualism....