The Hyborian Tome [Hyborian War Repository]

I was wondering what your respective views on the whole health care system and proposed changes are.

I think no matter what system we have, someone is going to get fucked. Shit runs downhill. Or, maybe in this case, up to the middle class.

(07-19-2009 03:24 PM)King Cormac Wrote: [ -> ]I think no matter what system we have, someone is going to get fucked.

We live in an imperfect world, so we are unlikely to achieve a perfect health care system. However, that doesn't mean that the current system that we have cannot be improved upon or replaced by a different system, or both.

(07-19-2009 03:24 PM)King Cormac Wrote: [ -> ]Shit runs downhill. Or, maybe in this case, up to the middle class.

The current health care system isn't affordable for the middle class, either. It's an abomination of a system. It is a good example of how companies are allowed to profit off of human misery, while both the individual and the collective public interest get royally screwed.

Under the current system, non-government bureaucrats who are not accountable to the public, at all, are already making decisions to deny coverage and to deprive individuals of health care that is needed. The whole brouhaha about government bureaucrats deciding what doctor that you can see, etc., is such crap. A new system could provide for you to pick the doctor of your choice.

An under regulated Wall Street demonstrated quite vividly in recent history why regulation and government are not irrelevant to the public interest. The concept of a "free market" is not something that should be worshipped. Free markets can exist, without there being absolute free markets. Our history and experience have demonstrated that what we have now is simply a broken system - one broken in many different ways. Free markets and free enterprise have had their entire existence to provide to the American public a health care system that works, and which is affordable. They have failed. Why? Because "for profit" companies often get greedy. They deny coverage for bullshit reasons.

Furthermore, where preexisting illnesses are concerned, it may be that all preexisting illnesses cannot be covered, but many certainly could be. The current health care system and private companies have defaulted to fucking over individuals, families, and the broader pubic interest en masse.

We do not have fire departments providing fire coverage for only those that can afford it. We don't have a military that is there to protect and defend only those portions of the country and national populace that can afford it. Health care should properly be considered a part of the national infrastructure. It is as important to the common weal and public good as roads and bridges are.

Our government is entrusted with budgets far larger than what a national health care system (a good one) would cost us. Fear of the government or of hypothetical government bureaucrats makes a deficient basis whereupon to decide such life and death matters.

Republicans often brag about our military being the best in the world. It's run by the government.

Government doesn't have to "run" and to "control" every last aspect of a public health care system, but it should play a role, and not an inconsequential role, either. Just as the force of law is utilized to compel the average person to obey traffic laws, so, too, should the force of law be used to compel health care companies and insurance companies to act in a way that benefits and perpetuates the true public interests.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Puget Sound Power and Light Company versus the City of Seattle, Washington that government may engage in competition with business in the private sector, and it may levy taxes in support of competition. This as in the year 1934. That was 75 years ago.

Universal health care is not the brain child of either Barack Obama nor Bill Clinton. Theodore Roosevelt, one of the greatest Republican presidents in our nation's history (and whose image is on Mount Rushmore) called for national heath care and national health insurance. He was a visionary, in that sense, something that many Republican in Congress currently are not.

Congress already has power to control drug patents. It should wield that power more aggressively, to bring the cost of drugs down. The current health care system is not in current citizens' interests, nor in our posterity's interests. Our children and future generations deserve better than to inherit the current God-awful health care system that we have. A better system may cost money. It may involve taxes, or even raising taxes. So what? So did the national interstate system. So do many things.

If we have money for $2,000,000,000.00 per plane B-2 bombers, and if we have money to bomb the living Hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then we have money to improve our heath care system. National health care is a proper national interest of this country.

A bottle of aspirin costs a dollar or two, but another bottle of pills costs hundreds of dollars. That's bullshit! Corporate junkets are paid for at a high cost of human misery and lives lost under the current fucked up excuse for a health care system that we, as a nation, are saddled with.

Other, smaller, less wealthy countries have better and more innovative health care systems, in a number of ways, compared to our own. Why can't we? In reality, we can.

Why so many Republicans in Congress are willing to be pure obstructionists to have a better system is inane. They are more interested in their political adversaries failing, than in our nation having a national health care system that is, by and large, affordable. May the remainder of their political careers be cursed for such fucking stupidity!

should the force of law be used to compel health care companies and insurance companies to act in a way that benefits and perpetuates the true public interests? How is it in your guys?


________________________
Medical insurance

The problem with the current view on reform is that the focus remains on forcing the populace to get coverage instead of using the might of regulatory control to cut the out of control pricing policies of major drug companies and health providers.

The proposed revision now being driven about the capitol is modeled after the system used in my home state of MA. While it's true that just about 90% of people here now have coverage of some sort, it has done absolutely nothing to control costs involved with health and well being. In fact, I have just received word from my employer(whom I get my health insurance through) that my personal cost will be increasing on my policies. Go figure.....

Using a tax penalty to punish the so called lolly gaggers, is a flawed way to go about reform. By assessing people half the cost of what the government feels you would have paid for coverage for not getting any, is ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that those who get fined still are not covered. Instead they will either pay for coverage in lieu of something else, or be fined again the following year until they comply. As a guy that has been to the doctor twice in 14 years this is a bit absurd. Not to mention I already pay other taxes for my society labeled "Unhealthy lifestyle choices" by way of taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, seat-belt surcharges, etc., etc....

This system of fines will only serve to put further behind those who for one reason or another feel they can't afford to cover themselves. Add to that the way the tax laws are written, wording in the constitution, and the government's manipulation of these laws to institute what amounts to yet another form of taxation, it comes (at least in my opinion) very close to being illegal, if it is not in FACT unconstitutional already.

My guess is that just like when MA started mandatory car insurance coverage, we will end up with the same empty promises. It was proposed that providers would lower their charges in trade for the added customers now forced to purchase the policies. Provider companies lowered initial cost for like 3 years. Since that time the price of car insurance has gone steadily upwards. I'd be willing to bet the same will/is happening now with health care coverages. I wonder what everyone thinks now ?

It is my opinion that this type of plan, without a comprehensive regulatory schedule related to the actual and associated costs of health care, is both fundamentally backwards in it's thinking, and a written invitation for national price increases that could/will break the bank of any system put in place by the government so as to make it unsustainable. If that were to happen, I'm sure we would all see another hit to working families while the government enforces pricing on only the direct cost to the underprivileged plans that it itself provides.

I see no way for the US to solve the problem of the uninsured without first tackling the bigger problem of pricing policies, and costs. "Major Reform" does not begin to describe what is needed.

Yet I fear, with governments propensity to protect big business at the price of working men and women in the middle classes, we are in for more of the same old, same old.

Welcome to MA, America...., hope you enjoy our thinking.....

I haven't used Massachusetts as THE example to follow, where health care is concerned. But, how Massachusetts approached health care reform, previously, is certainly valid to consider, when trying to figure out what to do or not do, as well as demonstrating that the states cannot simply be assumed to be able to do a better job than the Federal government, where health care reform is concerned.

If the lesson that we draw from - and adhere to - is to not enact health care reform, simply because the folks in Massachusetts bungled it (if one wants to describe what Massachusetts has done that way), then what we will end up with is an unsustainable approach to health care.

It is likely that Congress will pass some type of health care reform bill, whatever the details of it (good or bad) might be. Obama will likely then sign it. The Democrats will then tout the end product as progress, as at least a step in the right direction. Republicans will denounce it, no matter what it looks like. Even the best parts of it will be denounced by Republicans as having been done the wrong way.

As the economy begins to improve further, and as the unemployment rate begins to decrease, public anger will begin to be soothed away. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats will tout both a better economy and improved health care. Not perfect health care (the Republicans were the ones trying to sabotage it, remember?), but definitely some improvements that will be widely acknowledged as such by the public at large.

The Republicans could have co-opted the issue, and taken the lead on it, but they have been focusing upon sabotaging it and trying to bring about Obama's Waterloo - which they simply are in no position to do. Obama inherited the economy and health care problems. He didn't create nor invent them. He also inherited a couple of wars, and a foreign policy and alliances in shambles.

Experience has more than amply demonstrated that we cannot rely upon the for-profit health care industry to fix health care. The problems have worsened over time, not lessened. Other countries do a better job for more people, with less money, proportionally speaking. Why can't we? We could, of course. Maybe someday, we will.

Mitt Romney recently said. "This Republican worked to reform health care in my own state. Not every feature of our plan is perfect, but the lesson it teaches is this: You can get everyone insured, without breaking the bank and without a government option. There is no government option in my Massachusetts reform. The right answer for health care is not more government, it is less government."

While I am not a Mitt Romney fan, by any means, he seems to spend more time focusing upon criticizing Obama, than he does on elaborating on the imperfections in how Massachusetts did things. He then unilaterally declares that the right answer for health acre is not more government, it is less government. That's simply absurd.

Less government in health care issues translates into more for-profit health care. That's the reality of it. One of the reasons that we form a government is to enable us to do certain things as a society that we, as individuals, cannot achieve as individuals. We do not live in the days of the Founding Fathers. You are simply never going to have a small Federal government when the population of the Federal Republic exceeds three hundred million people. For all of the lip service by Republicans about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers, it is worth noting that the Constitution does not guarantee us small government.

It does, however, guarantee us a Republican form of government (not Republican Party form of government, either). So, we really are not going to devolve into a socialist state, at the Federal level or at the state level, simply because the Federal government takes a more active role in health care. Republican politicians busy demonizing Obama and trying to sabotage health care reform don't like to point those things out to people, though. Why? Because, if they did, then it would make their sabotage schemes less likely to succeed. People would not be as quick to fear greater involvement by their Federal government in health care, then. The Republican Party wants Obama to fail on health care reform. Then, they can blame Obama and the Democrats in Congress for failing the American people on an issue of such importance. What they want is for Obama and the Democrats to end up in a classic Catch-22 situation, politically speaking.

What the Republicans are touting is not health care, but profit-care. They want to preserve profits for the for-profit health care industry. You can do that, of course, but it comes at a price. Ironically, human life has the least value, where the Republican Party is concerned, when the issue under discussion is health care. Talk about abortion, or our way of life when fighting terrorism or the supposed threats posed by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc., and the Republicans will willingly spend money like it is water flowing over Niagara Falls. Republican politicians are very inconsistent on the value of life, that way.

The Republican politicians who drag out the Founding Fathers, when it is convenient to them, don't mind funding humongous standing armies, which our Founding Fathers pointedly did not favor, as a whole. Things change, they would tell you, and likewise, things change in other areas, too (the area of health care being but one of them). Our Founding Fathers did not labor to give us a government that was inert and impotent. It is not by mere chance and sheer coincidence that our Federal government has both survived the test of time, and increased in size and in power. It was designed that way. It wasn't simply designed to leave us stuck in the past. Our Republic was intended to prosper and to grow and to endure.

If the grand object was small government, then we wouldn't have a Republican form of government to begin with, because by its inherent nature, a Republican form of government is designed in such a way that power is divided - and consequently, it comes at a sharp and notable price in efficiency.

We live in an oft disputatious society. In essence, we tend to disagree about anything and everything. Just as our Founding Fathers had to contend with something called the multiplicity of interests, so, too, do current generations of Americans and current politicians contend with the multiplicity of interests. The so called "special interests" that you hear about on the news are only a portion of the interests that collectively total the multiplicity of interests.

The "rancor" of the public debate on health care is no accident. The public is more widely informed these days, than at any point in history. People access information more frequently than ever before, if and when they want to. The public debate on issues is not likely to, thus, become less heated, going forward in time. Politicians need to grasp and appreciate this fact.

Health care is driven by need. The current status quo on health care is unsustainable over the long run. In due time, reality will intervene, and hard choices will have to be made. The trend favors a greater government role in health care. Reality favors it, as well.

Health care is often framed in the context of whether it should be a right or not. When abortion is discussed, it is often Republicans who want to assert that there should be a right to life. A right to life, but no right to health care to preserve and to extend that very same life? That's a mixed bag, at best.

From my own perspective, health care needs to be considered a core component of a modern society's infrastructure, just as access to information should be a core component of a modern society's infrastructure. Republicans like to frame and limit the concept of infrastructure as being about roads and bridges. There's nothing wrong with building roads and bridges, per se, but modern society is a bit more complex than that.

Just as we subsidize the building of roads and bridges with tax dollars (even to the point of being 100% tax funded in many instances), so, too, do we need to recognize that subsidizing health care is simply necessary to modern society. It's important. It matters. We need to do it, and we should do it. Accordingly, government has a role. It is not the for-profit private sector that determines the public interests. That's never been the case, and it is not the case, now.

The amount of money spent on health care in this nation is huge. Thus, the health care reform that we need is huge, also. The for-profit health care industry has more than amply demonstrated, over a period of many decades, what kind of health care system that it will give to us, if profit is what drives the system. The end result that they have given us is unsustainable. Thus, the end result is a failure, not a success.

If health care is limited to only those that can afford it, and profit is a more important consideration than care of health, then what you will end up with will be a disaster. You cannot achieve unity of the body politic under such a scenario. Why? Because peoples lives matter to them, even if they don't matter to politicians of the hour, whatever their political party affiliation. The Republican Party frets over a single life, when it comes to the abortion debate, but are quite content to allow millions of lives to not have health care coverage, in the health care debate. Inconsistent and hypocritical bastards, they be.

Rather than lay claim to the heritage of Teddy Roosevelts, one of the greatest Republican presidents of our nation's history, the current incarnation of Republican politicians have ceded the moral high ground on health care to their Democratic opponents. In due time, the Republican party will suffer the consequences of their failures, where this is concerned. And they thought that the last election cycle went bad. Let them learn the hard way, though. They're Hell bent on doing so, anyway.

(09-29-2009 08:22 PM)GrimFinger Wrote: [ -> ]It is likely that Congress will pass some type of health care reform bill, whatever the details of it (good or bad) might be. Obama will likely then sign it. The Democrats will then tout the end product as progress, as at least a step in the right direction. Republicans will denounce it, no matter what it looks like. Even the best parts of it will be denounced by Republicans as having been done the wrong way.

As the economy begins to improve further, and as the unemployment rate begins to decrease, public anger will begin to be soothed away. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats will tout both a better economy and improved health care. Not perfect health care (the Republicans were the ones trying to sabotage it, remember?), but definitely some improvements that will be widely acknowledged as such by the public at large.

The Republicans could have co-opted the issue, and taken the lead on it, but they have been focusing upon sabotaging it and trying to bring about Obama's Waterloo - which they simply are in no position to do. Obama inherited the economy and health care problems. He didn't create nor invent them. He also inherited a couple of wars, and a foreign policy and alliances in shambles.

OK, so it seems that the House has passed the healthcare reform bill.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8579322.stm

Instead of health care reform becoming Obama's Waterloo, the Republican Party has laid the groundwork for their own obstructionism to be used against them in the next campaign cycle. Republicans could have co-opted the issue, but they preferred to botch their ill-conceived and misguided political resurrection of Waterloo. This time around, Napoleon won, it seems. Whose brilliant idea was this whole Obama's Waterloo scheme, again?

Will Republican politicians learn from the error of their ways? Not likely. They're too busy obstructing to be bothered with providing actual leadership on the issue of health care reform. What the incompetent Republican "master strategists" did manage to achieve and to accomplish, where their "health care reform through obstructionism" strategy is concerned, was to further disturb the national tranquility.

Nevermind that health care isn't actually a liberal nor a conservative issue. If supposed Republican "conservatives" think that a fetus is sacred, why don't they want to fund health care for fully developed human beings - and to not skimp in the process, and without it being a bureaucratic nightmare?

If comprehensive health care reform automatically equates too bigger government (which doesn't actually have to be the case, but can be), and "conservatives" oppose bigger government, then that seems to be a rather odd stance, since a stronger military can just as easily lead to bigger government, as well - not to mention lead to a military-industrial complex.

Wasn't Dwight Eisenhower a Republican? Was he a "conservative" or a "liberal?" I wonder what he would think of the health-insurance complex that plays so prominent a role in our nation, today? Here's a reminder of what good old Ike said about the military-industrial complex:

http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

If Eisenhower was correct, when he said, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together," I cannot help but to wonder how our citizenry can compel the huge health-insurance machinery of modern day health care to mesh properly, so that both security and liberty may prosper, together, in this area of our national life, as well.

Ever hear of something called the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways? Or, as it is more commonly referred to, the Interstate Highway System. It was named for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed its formation. It is the largest highway system in the world, and the largest public works project in history. Wouldn't that be a good example of how we, as a nation, have undertaken dealing with a very large problem through an infrastructure outlook? Or, should the Interstate system simply be considered as more big government? Do we have less liberty as a people, because of this huge infrastructure undertaking? Are we less secure, as a people, because of this instance of bigger government?

If the Republican politicians hate big government so much, then why is the entire history of their political party's existence replete with instances of huge spending and big government undertakings? Was Ike a R.I.N.O. - Republican In Name Only?

The Republican Party did not exist at the time of our nation's founding, so none of our Founding Fathers were Republicans, in that sense. The current strain of the Republican Party can't seem to recall its own actual roots and history. This leads to such political implosions as the seeking of Obama's Waterloo, and finding only failure on their part, instead. Can you say "fucking morons?" True to form, though, they have reaped exactly what they have sown. They sewed seeds of failure, by trying like Hell to make Obama fail, that they lost track of what was truly important. Their priorities became skewered, and America awakes to the House passing its health care reform bill - but simultaneously, America still isn't a Socialist state. Is it a miracle? Or was it merely overblown and intentionally misleading propaganda from a political party and typical politicians desperate to regain reins of power in the nation's capital?

The current strain of the Republican Party managed to delay the inevitable - reform of the current disgraceful health care system. They could have been instrumental in gaining pivotal improvements to the reform that the bill encompasses, but instead, they busied themselves daily with worshiping at the political Altar of Obstructionism. I wonder who people like my old acquaintance and friend, JD, think that the Republican politicians were really trying to look out for on this one? It's not like the Republicans weren't trying to bribe the people at large with tax dollars? It's not like they, themselves, were not offering to shift wealth. Such brazen hypocrites these whores of politics have been during this entire Republican Party charade. Can you say "fucking idiots?"

Demonizing the cost of comprehensive health care reform won't fix anything, much less fix what ails the health care system and industry in this nation.

Take a close look, again, at the chart found in BBC link, above. In the footnote of that chart, it states, "The US spends about $2.2tn a year on its system - which includes private, federal or employer schemes."

OK, so we spend $2.2 trillion dollars, or thereabouts, on our health care "system" per year, currently. The bill in question, once the Senate passes it, and once the President signs it into law, would cost around $940 billion dollars over a ten year period. If the bill had not passed, then we would still be spending $22 trillion dollars in that ten yea period - assuming that no costs increased anywhere in the "system." The figures that I quote in this instance come from the article, itself, and the $22 trillion dollar figure I come up with by multiplying the $2.2 trillion dollar per year figure provided in the article, itself, by ten (since the $940 billion cost of the bill is the cost stretched out over a period of ten years).

If you break it down and average it out over the ten year period, $940 billion dollars amounts to $94 billion dollars per year for each of those ten years in question. Republicans have been arguing that we can't afford that. Really? Personally, I think that it is nothing short of sheer nonsense for anyone to suggest that we, as a nation, cannot afford $94 billion dollars per year to reform health care in this nation of over 300 million people. How much money did the Republicans authorize in spending bills, during the times that they have controlled both houses of Congress? One Hell of a lot more money than $94 billions per year. They just prefer to transfer wealth to other things, that's all.

The Republicans wanted a showdown on health care reform, and they got it - except they got it months before the next election. The economy will gradually improve, anger generated via Republican obstructionist tactics will subside, some reform elements will begin to be grasped and appreciated more, and the groundwork has been laid to improve upon what came before (aka, this time around). In a nutshell, Republicans botched it, big time, and it will likely bite them in the ass again on election day, going forward. Democratic politicians seem to prefer to commit individual political suicide, whereas Republican politicians seem to prefer to commit collective suicide. Silly politicians!

What are the Republicans' chances of rolling back the changes that will be implemented by this health care bill, even if they gained control of both houses of Congress, come election day? Personally, I would say that there chances are somewhere between zero and none. Obama would veto such a repeal, and Republicans have no hope of gaining enough seats to override such a Presidential veto on this issue.

The U.S. health care is largely modelled after the current Canadian system, with a few select differences.
I've experienced government-sponsored health care first hand, I can say for certain:

The North American population is living longer than ever before. The most significant users of this type of health care are the elderly, and the poor. Neither of these groups have/are/can contribute to pay for the medical services they receive. The tax burden is on the "haves" to pay for the "have nots", all controlled by a central power. Sounds a lot like communism.

If you need to go to a clinic, book an entire day off (read: lost wages). The waiting times are 3-5 hours, even with an appointment. It's worse on Saturdays. Doctors will only see a patient for at most 15 minutes and discuss one ailment PER VISIT. Most will not give refills on any prescription without a visit, even by phone or email.

It becomes a quota-driven profession lacking all sense of compassion and humanity.

I am currently waiting to see a specialist. My appointment was booked last week for late June. Need surgery? If it's not life-threatening, chances are you won't get in until it becomes life-threatening. But then, you'll convalesce longer and that allows health care professionals to claim more money from the system.

In short, I would prefer to have a system more like the American one, where people who can afford insurance have it.

I have quite a few problems, both with elements of the plan, and the way in which it was driven through. my biggest gripe is the language that deals with abortions. It's one thing to have government sponsored programs to deal with health and quite another for that government to attach provisions that exclude some treatments based on their view of morality.

The idea that those that get the coverage subsidised by the government can not get an abortion while on this type of plan is both ridiculous, and in my opinion evil.

While I respect the base thought behind such pro-life decisions, this type of funding limit affects only the lower class of people. The poor. What it amounts to is; Once again, the rich can do as they wish with little interference while the poor are subjagated to someone elses higher standard of morality.

This part of the bill is a huge mistake. Most unwanted pregnancies that result in a birth tend to lead to things like child abuse, abandonment & a rise in the amounts of people needing public assistance. All of these things result in a much higher cost and strain upon the government as time goes on. Not to mention the stress and quality of life of those forced into a position of parenthood that they are ill equipt to handle.

I'm not in favor of abortion, but at the same time I see the need for it, and respect the right of women to choose. A parent not prepared for the job is less likely to provide guidance and morality to these children. The result of this practice has been a steady decline of American civility; Higher numbers of people who need services to survive; A growing number of children who live with the feeling of hopelessness everyday; Rising crime rates...., etc, etc...

In a country that touts it's equality, fairness and justice for all, I find things like this to be biased at the least. It would be nice if those too poor, financially and moraly, to raise a family in a manner befitting society would just practice abstinence. That is noble, but also an unrealistic hope.

As for the manner in which this legislation was pushed through, all I can say is; It seems the change most thought they had voted for was not at all the change they're due to get. It will be politics as usual. Those in power will continue to force upon the nation their agenda whether or not the people as a whole want it. Deals will be made, promises will be given and We The People will be left to suffer the consequence. Transparency will go only as far as the politicians want you to see. I have no faith that we shall ever see an honest politician working soley for the betterment of the nation.

The same path used so often by Bush and decried by Democrats as dirty and unjust are now the same tactics used by Dems to get this HCR pushed through.

Tools of the devil are still tools of the devil no matter who uses them.

The only change I see is buisiness as usual controled by a differing party.

So, how long until the Insurance Company Bail-Out ?
How do you write Quadramegazillion ?

(03-23-2010 08:20 PM)Ryan Wrote: [ -> ]The U.S. health care is largely modelled after the current Canadian system, with a few select differences.

Which means that there's plenty of room for improvement.

(03-23-2010 08:20 PM)Ryan Wrote: [ -> ]I've experienced government-sponsored health care first hand, I can say for certain:

You've experienced one type of government-sponsored health care. That doesn't mean that there aren't better types, or that there can't be much better types.

(03-23-2010 08:20 PM)Ryan Wrote: [ -> ]In short, I would prefer to have a system more like the American one, where people who can afford insurance have it.

And for those who can't afford it?

There's no wall between Canada and the United States. If you can afford health insurance, and if you crave a system like the American health care system, then why not come and get treated here?