Universal Health care: What does it mean for us a citizens?
-
torbs;303903 wrote:
If around $940B is the down payment, what is the final price going to be, and what is the end goal?This is my fear...
Torbs, what's the cost of doing nothing to the system in place now though, and then passing the cost of the uninsured on to the government itself... and also what's the societal cost for letting those insured become sick and not contribute?
Obviously, I don't know what the actual numbers are, but its i tend agree that it is a risk, but one that could perhaps be justified if it plays out right.
ruthless351;303909 wrote:
I don't like how its going to be mandatory to have insurance by 2014 or pay a fine. My current job has such a shitty deal on insurance that i will be working just for coverage. A second job to pay the rest of the household bills. Correct me if i'm wrong please.I was reading the opinons in the paper last week a lady used food stamps to buy cigarettes got cash back and then bought a few lottery tickets. THATS where the tax payer money is going. Helping the lazy float through life on our dime. Anyone else read that section?
If you don't make enough money, you'll be issued a subsidy to offset the cost of this fine.
Also, you can't use food stamps and that shit for smokes and beer... but the welfare / unemployement system is an entirely different beast then health care reform.
StangerBanger96;303913 wrote:
What it means:Democrats are going to lose hardcore in midterm elections, and Obama is out after his first term. Republicans will repeal/legislate away most of the crap from this bill. (Hopefully)
There are also several lawyer groups and state Attorney Generals that have been waiting for it to pass so they can bring the Federal Gov. to court over the legality of the bill anyways. The Fed uses the commerce clause to prove the legality of the bill because nowhere in the Constitution does it allow the Feds to FORCE you to buy a service. They use the commerce clause to work their way around the lack of that wording, yet, health insurance cannot be bought across state lines...not very interstate.
I think the democrats know that this isn't an issue that really is going to determine future elections, its too closely divided for whatever reason. I'm 100% sure the GOP will use this as a campaigning issue, but I tend to think that what the Dems do in relation to the economy will be the determining factor.
Everything I've seen is that dems really want to move past this and focus on legistation relating to the economy as quickly as possible, specificly for the reasons you listed above.
-
Trafik Jamz;303917 wrote:
I'm not a fan of the healthcare reform that passed, however I don't think it is the doom/gloom that the Republicans are making it out to be either.Basically, by 2014 your employer will have to provide you with a healthcare plan or pay a penalty. I THINK there are provisions on basic coverage that must be included in the insurance they must offer. If they don't, you would be required to purchase your own insurance off of one of the exchanges/private market. If your income is such that you cannot afford a policy, there will be subsidies to help you along.
As for the lady buying cigs w/ her food stamps, I'm not sure how that is possible UNLESS the grocery store/convenience store keyed the cigarettes as food, and even then w/ the EBT system, there shouldn't be any money coming back to her to buy lotto tix. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did, there was a flaw on the part of the store and the individual, the system, though imperfect, has taken numerous measures to ensure that this doesn't happen so long as the retailers are honest.
I'd tend to agree with this, but I guess time will tell how it all works out.
Eurofan;303914 wrote:
940B is the amount of spending over 10 years, not just a down payment.You cant hold that 940 accurate... There is no way of really predicting how much this is going to cost.
I personally think congress is being naive about the cost of all of this....
Its just scary. Too much government....
Again, you have to attempt to calculate what the cost of health care would be for the 30+ million that is uninsured / underinsured.
Nothing in life has ever been free, since the dawn of time, health care shouldnt be any different..
Socialists will feed us sob stories all day about the soul who was dropped coverage in the midst of a cancer battle or someone who cant afford it to start, but where do we draw the line? Its a harsh world, there are always going to be horrible things happening.. Do we let our government take car of us and lean on them for our issues as persons??? When we stop pity?
This really isn't a socialist idea though man. Find another 1st world country that doesn't have a social health net. The issue of social welfare goes far beyond that of healthcare, and perhaps that needs to be addressed too.
Government is in place to protect us and keep order... We should never look at the government for free hand outs.
I have always been less than opinionated about political affairs that take place on a day-to-day basis, but this bothers me. It will destroy a large amount of power that the people have in this industry. Frankly, its a gateway to a realm of government control... and that simply scares the shit out of me.
Edit: I have heard that the decision by congress has neglected to reflect the will of the people, reason more to fear this thing...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/fox-news-poll-oppose-health-care-reform/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/favor-oppose-obama-healthcare-plan.aspxWhy do we as citizens have the say in something so radical. Granted, they are elected officials.. but whats keeping them from listening?
Foxnews :rolleyes:
-
How isnt it a socialist idea..???
The bill will rob the people who are fortunate enough to have the means to pay their own insurance and giving it to the less fortunate.
^Sure, not directly.. but you can be sure that the government doesn't have the means/wont pay for this entirely... Its going to come out of the pocket of all tax payers.
Its redistribution of wealth- A socialist ideal.
Haha, yeah... the second link was provided just for those who hate fox news. They are certainly biased, but non biased sources have cited that the majority of the nation is not in favor...
-
well i found some people who arent in favor
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=370668318969&ref=nf
-
This really isn't a socialist idea though man. Find another 1st world country that doesn't have a social health net. The issue of social welfare goes far beyond that of healthcare, and perhaps that needs to be addressed too.
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.
There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
-
thrash;303950 wrote:
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
+1
What ever happened to that?
-
I never claimed to know anything about bill. It was completed and posted online on Thursday, I doubt you or anyone else has actually read it.
All we can do is listen to the analysis from each side and try to determine what the truth is. Even when I hear the analysis from those promoting the bill, I don't like what I'm hearing.
amicheze;303931 wrote:
Dave, the creation of the health care exchange has always been one of the main purposes of the bill. If you haven't heard about that, I can't really see how you can know much about the bill at all.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;303953 wrote:
I never claimed to know anything about bill. It was completed and posted online on Thursday, I doubt you or anyone else has actually read it.All we can do is listen to the analysis from each side and try to determine what the truth is. Even when I hear the analysis from those promoting the bill, I don't like what I'm hearing.
/Thread.
-
thrash;303950 wrote:
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
This and now we are trying to become like the rest of the world. Why dont all the dems move to Europe or something and leave our country alone.
-
Eurofan;303942 wrote:
How isnt it a socialist idea..???The bill will rob the people who are fortunate enough to have the means to pay their own insurance and giving it to the less fortunate.
^Sure, not directly.. but you can be sure that the government doesn't have the means/wont pay for this entirely... Its going to come out of the pocket of all tax payers.
Its redistribution of wealth- A socialist ideal.
Haha, yeah... the second link was provided just for those who hate fox news. They are certainly biased, but non biased sources have cited that the majority of the nation is not in favor...
To address this one issue, I think you need to look into what is/isn't in the bill.
There is no "Public Option" from what I can tell, so no one is buying insurance from the government. Nor is it a "medicare-for-all" program.
The closest you can get to calling it that is when you look at subsidies to help people purchase insurance. The theory behind it is that if EVERYONE has health insurance, one of two things will happen:
[LIST=1]
[]Healthier people in the risk pool will make health insurance less of a risk and lower costs for everyone.
[]Everyone will get the medical attention they need w/o fear of being dropped from coverage because they are too sick. In theory if everyone is covered, diseases will be diagnosed at earlier, more treatable stages rather than later and more costly. I forget the exact numbers, but right now >60% of all bankruptcies happen due to medical costs, of them >80% actually have major medical insurance. This bill is aimed at helping prevent this. If bankruptcies were to drop ~50%, in theory that would mean that there would be less businesses/lending institutions having to "eat" that money, making banking and the economy more stable. Which is good for all involved.
[/LIST]
I'll agree that there is a bit of wealth distribution going on in the form of taxation of "Cadillac" policies (which incidentally many union members have....and they typically are far left). The other place it happens is on those making >$200,000 (single) or >$250,000 (family). THIS is the area where my biggest concern lies within this plan.It doesn't limit which insurance policies you can buy, it doesn't limit which doctors you can go to. Which is a good thing.
I'm not sure the "majority of americans" aren't in favor, I'd say the majority don't have any idea what is even being proposed.
-
DelSlow;303954 wrote:
/Thread.cue the kickass fox news breakdown with wicked awesome music and a graphic that would make jimmy carter's head explode.
-
24valvenotak;303962 wrote:
cue the kickass fox news breakdown with wicked awesome music and a graphic that would make jimmy carter's head explode.Carters head is so full of air already, it wouldn't take much to make that peanut-head's head explode. (pun intended)
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.
Medicare - Dieing
SS - Dieing
Medicaid - Dieing
Healthcare - Soon to FollowCan anyone think of something that the government has gotten involved in that has operated better since government involvement?
BUT, everything that the government does not regulate to death actually improves over time and costs drop as well. Interesting isn't it? Plastic surgeries are usually the example that are used...insurance doesn't cover them so people have to pay out of pocket for their cosmetic surgeries. What have cosmetic surgery prices done? DROPPED. Government doesn't regulate products like TV's and such, and how much did LCD's cost 10 years ago? I think I remember seeing them at best buy for ~8-$10,000! Now you can buy a BETTER tv for $500-$1000. Things they don't get involved in get better and cheaper. Things they get involved in get costly, bloated, inefficient, and expensive.
Anyone seen what is happening with Greece?
-
StangerBanger96;303966 wrote:
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.The main reason for that is because to the there is no accountability. Yeah, technically there is probably some government group in charge of keeping tabs on the 4 things you listed, but since it's someone else's money they are keeping tabs on, there is no incentive to really keep an eye on things. Keeping tabs on OUR OWN MONEY is the only way to make sure that the person keeping tabs on the money, is really keeping tabs on the money.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
StangerBanger96;303966 wrote:
BUT, everything that the government does not regulate to death actually improves over time and costs drop as well. Interesting isn't it? Plastic surgeries are usually the example that are used...insurance doesn't cover them so people have to pay out of pocket for their cosmetic surgeries. What have cosmetic surgery prices done? DROPPED. Government doesn't regulate products like TV's and such, and how much did LCD's cost 10 years ago? I think I remember seeing them at best buy for ~8-$10,000! Now you can buy a BETTER tv for $500-$1000. Things they don't get involved in get better and cheaper. Things they get involved in get costly, bloated, inefficient, and expensive.Improved technology, cheaper materials and means of production, among other innovations, certainly have nothing to do with the quality of televisions improving and their prices also dropping. The only reason you can get a new HDTV for cheap is because the government hasn't tried to regulate them.
-
StangerBanger96;303966 wrote:
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.Medicare - Dieing
SS - Dieing
Medicaid - Dieing
Healthcare - Soon to FollowCan anyone think of something that the government has gotten involved in that has operated better since government involvement?
I don't disagree with most of this. But what I'm saying (for the sake of argument) is that nothing really changes as far as your coverage and your doctors under this plan, other than you are less likely to lose your insurance due to getting sick/losing your job. It does provide a mechanism for those who do not have/qualify for insurance to get coverage and get tax incentives to have coverage (subsidies). See point #2 in my previous post for more info.
I will throw this out there though: Lasik is covered under MANY insurance plans now, at least to some degree. When it was just something people paid for out of pocket the cost was >$2000/eye, presently you can get it done for under $900/eye....and this is since insurance was involved. BTW, plastic surgery still has guidelines they have to follow (and corrective plastic surgery is often covered under insurance as well), so they are regulated as well.
I personally don't think that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. We have a very good one, but to call it the best is a stretch in my mind. Infant mortality was brought up in this thread as a basis for judging how good the system is (and the overall health of a country). By that measure (according to 2009 data) the US has the 46th best healthcare system. Barely in the top 20%.
(I love a good political argument)
-
Trafik Jamz;303975 wrote:
I personally don't think that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. We have a very good one, but to call it the best is a stretch in my mind. Infant mortality was brought up in this thread as a basis for judging how good the system is (and the overall health of a country). By that measure (according to 2009 data) the US has the 46th best healthcare system. Barely in the top 20%.The HBR (harvard business review, the place i often see this data attributed to) data is comparing apples and oranges. In Europe, if a baby is born prematurely, and dies, they don't count that as "infant mortality", they count it as stillbirth or miscarraige.
In the US, once it's 20 weeks old, it's a baby, and they'll try to save it no matter how poor you are. Because capitalism is so fucking bad-ass, these babies are surviving more often than not.
There are some other issues that come into play here, including racial makeup of the US population [there are socio-physiological differences here w.r.t. mortality]
That said, why is "infant mortality" the goal post? I don't frankly care how well you and your baby does. I mean, good luck and all that, and i hope things work out, but as long as I can get the best care possible, that's what I'm after, and that's going to be found here in the US.
I'd be curious to know where you'd rather take your wife to have a baby than here.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login