quote:

As for the "gubmint eFFing up the healthcare system", the government isn't needed for that, it's effed itself up just fine thank you.

But it needs to be recognized that our healthcare system HAS been shaped by state and federal regulations. The system is a product, a result, of it's environment. For all the talk of 'reform', not one of the various proposals actually addresses it- it's just more regulation and a change in who pays for it. The underlying issues that drive costs ever upward remain unchanged. Fix the structural problems, the barriers to costs coming down, and you'd have plenty of money left over to take care of the uninsured.

Until I see a proposal that addresses the real problems in the system, I can't help but see this as a fantastic power grab by our government.

Something like 45 million Americans are uninsured so something major will have to happen to get them insured. The insurance companies are scared and I think the main thing upsetting people is that this would cause huge changes to something that everyone needs. People don't like change, but again this is a major issue that requires huge expenditures and change in government code. I don't think it's a power grab any more than the military or public highways or Medicare are, and again good luck getting anyone to agree to giving up Medicare, it's very effective and cheap. (though not for young(ish) people like me who are paying the bill)

Honestly if I was a Republican I would be jumping onto the bill just passed by Max Baucus--it's very moderate and has a lot of giveaways to insurance companies and doesn't have a public option and is completely paid for, but Republicans still won't vote for it because they don't want to give Dems a victory. If they voted for it, it would definitely pass and get put into law, and would prevent a more liberal bill with a public option from becoming law. It's very possible that the Dems will get a public option bill passed--the House definitely will vote for one, but several Dem senators are being kinda wussy for some reason (probably big insurance company checks to them) and trying to prevent a public option from being put in.

quote:

Tort reform alone would be the best starting point for the USofA.

Several states already have medical malpractice caps and it's done nothing to the cost of health care.

This is the second bit of flak I've received for my oversimplification. My problem is with the rhetoric that has been drilled into peoples' brains, ie: "Our healthcare system is broken."

Of course we should improve the healthcare system if we can, and we sure can. Begin with tort reform.

I found the Fact Sheet: America's Uninsured interesting. It concludes what Representative Mike Rogers from Michigan stated while addressing Congress over health care reform and the number of people not insured by health insurance. He also brings up very valid points about why government funded health care is dangerous.

For the record, we do need health care reform, just not on the backs of taxpayers.

quote:

Several states already have medical malpractice caps and it's done nothing to the cost of health care.

It has, however, done good things for the availability of doctors and certain types of health care in the states where it has been inacted.

Personally, I want to see no giveaways to the insurance companies, whatsoever. I was surprised to learn that the insurance industry is exempt from the anti-trust laws (the Obama administration is threatening to strip them of this status for, among other things, communicating the possible effects of the Obamacare proposal to it's customers). Level the playing field and let's see what happens to price.

Of course people don't like change, so why give them so much of it if there's another way? Surely the present attempts at 'reform' aren't the only way to address the issues at hand. I believe that there are many ways to address the various issues that don't involve another gargantuan, impersonal, unresponsive bureaucracy.

And Medicare isn't all that great. It's expensive, like you said, from our end, and I'm learning all kinds of new things about just how great it is as I go through the Medicare/Aid dance with my wife's grandmother. You would not believe the waste and bureaucratic incompetence. One thing that's surprising, is that the Medicaid people really, really want you to be poor, even if you're not. And they can fix that.

New ABC/Washington Post poll:

57 percent support one of the plan's most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76 percent if it's limited to those who can't get affordable private insurance.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingU...oll/Story?id=8863442

quote:

Originally posted by GoToAway:

quote:

Originally posted by mortoma:
This is not the way to get people who need health care to get it. It's not the government's job to provide care to people or otherwise be their nanny. That isn't what Jefferson, Madison, Paine and the other founders had in mind when they started this country.

You know what else they didn't have in mind? Economic imperialism and waging wars half a world away. They also wanted a clearly defined separation between church and state and wanted the supreme court to be apolitical.

I think it's funny when you people cite what the "founders" wanted when your dogma is centered around concepts that would appall them to the core. The day that I see you decry the recent actions of the Republican party and the Bush administration is the day that you earn the right to speak for them.

You don't pick and choose. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

You should not assume anything. I've come on record as not liking the Bush administration very much many times in this forum. So don't call anybody a hypocrit unless you get your fact straight and never assume anything.

I'm not in favor of the Republican party as much as I used to be I admit I'm a lot happier and can breath easier when they are in power. I had to suffer through Carter, Clinton and now Obama. But I didn't like Bush or his father much at all. Anyone favoring amnesty for illegal aliens loses my support just on that issue alone. And the father Bush did nothing so great either. The economy stagnated under him him, that's why he was a one-termer.

quote:

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
New ABC/Washington Post poll:

57 percent support one of the plan's most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76 percent if it's limited to those who can't get affordable private insurance.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingU...oll/Story?id=8863442

What these 57% don't know is that the goal of the statists who want enforce this national health care initiative have repeatedly said they want private insurance, even by employers, to be completely squashed after a time. They want gov't run health care to be the only option, period. Obama himself has not come on the record as saying that ( he dare not ) but many of his supporters have.

They should do a poll based on the question of whether they would support private health care being totally eliminated and a total gov't control. It's not so much what left wingers like ABC news ask as far as poll questions, it's what they don't ask. They are pretty clever but they don't fool me. I'm very well schooled on tactics of the left.

But if they did a poll like that the percentage would go down a bunch!! Probably only about 20% would support that. Too bad they don't realize that's what's going to happen eventually.

quote:

Originally posted by mortoma:

quote:

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
New ABC/Washington Post poll:

57 percent support one of the plan's most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76 percent if it's limited to those who can't get affordable private insurance.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingU...oll/Story?id=8863442

What these 57% don't know is that the goal of the statists who want enforce this national health care initiative have repeatedly said they want private insurance, even by employers, to be completely squashed after a time. They want gov't run health care to be the only option, period.

Where the hell have you heard this? The only place I have heard this is from republican opposition, while the dems proposing the bill ALL say that the bill will not affect private insurance and the public option is only there to provide competition and to cover those not covered by private plans. Can you show me sources where the people behind the bill have said they want to kill off private insurance with this bill?

Im Canadian and have private insurance. It covers meds, glasses, physiotherapy ect ect. The public insurance covers surgery, hospital stays, general doc visits ect ect. Ive NEVER had a major waiting issue.

My dad was found unconscious bleeding out, the ambulance came brought him to the ER, he was in ICU for a couple of weeks, getting blood transfused, and later on, recovered. He never had one hospital bill. If someone in the States who was uninsured had this happen, I bet theyd have to remorgage their house to pay the bill. Even the insured can have treatments refused by the insurance company. Yes, public health insurance isnt perfect, but to me, the pros completely outweigh the cons.

Can someone explain to me how private insurance companies are supposed to "compete" with the federal government? Won't the government be the one making the rules? Seems like it wouldn't take long before their were no more insurance companies.

quote:

Originally posted by pwengland:
Can someone explain to me how private insurance companies are supposed to "compete" with the federal government? Won't the government be the one making the rules? Seems like it wouldn't take long before their were no more insurance companies.

Uhhhh they do in Britain and Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by Aimail101:

quote:

Originally posted by pwengland:
Can someone explain to me how private insurance companies are supposed to "compete" with the federal government? Won't the government be the one making the rules? Seems like it wouldn't take long before their were no more insurance companies.

Uhhhh they do in Britain and Europe.

Well, ok. I don,t live in Britain or Europe.
http://healthcare-economist.co...world-great-britain/
http://www.ess-europe.de/en/uk_health_insurance.htm

So if you want better quality care, you go with private insurance?

Where the hell have you heard this? The only place I have heard this is from republican opposition, while the dems proposing the bill ALL say that the bill will not affect private insurance and the public option is only there to provide competition and to cover those not covered by private plans. Can you show me sources where the people behind the bill have said they want to kill off private insurance with this bill?

Urufu, in the House version of the bill, companies who don't offer health insurance are required to pay an additional tax over what they currently pay. The additional amount is less than what costs to offer even a basic health care plan. So, even though no one has, or will, come out and say it, it appears that the House bill encourages companies to drop their health benefits.

Incidentally, this is exactly what happened when Tennessee instituted TennCare. Substantially more people enrolled in the state plan than were expected to, many of them people who had had private insurance through their employer. Employers found it cheaper to drop their private plans. I can see no reason why this wouldn't happen with a federal plan.

Insurance is one of the many benefits an employer uses to attract quality employees, I highly doubt that suddenly every company is going to drop their insurance. Some of the crappier employees will just because they don't give a crap, but people working for them most likely can't afford the healthcare being offered since the employee is already pinching pennies with disregard to the employee.

There are more reasons to keep a good quality private healthcare plan for your employees than just cause the gubment said you had to.