YES THEY DID! Health Care Passed.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

I had thought of the Car Insurance rebuttal already.

The problem is nobody forces you to drive, or own a car. Its simply a case that you are mandated to have insurance if you make the Choice to own a vehicle.

See Post #56, Para 2: ;-P

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

See Post #56, Para 2: ;-P

NTM

SILENCE!

Eliot Rosewater

bonkey wrote: »

I'd also note that health insurance is mandatory here.

It sounds similar to the Dutch system that Fine Gael are promoting here in Ireland. It seems like a good idea - give the management of the industry to the private market while still keeping some checks on irresponsible behavior.

bonkey wrote: »

Of course...it should be remembered Swiss healthcare is expensive by anyone's standard

Why do you think that is?

I often hear people complaining about how health care is so expensive (insinuating that it shouldn't be), but its strikes me as a very costly industry. Are the high prices in Switzerland merely a reflection of the true cost of medicine?

Anonymous1987

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why do you think that is?

I often hear people complaining about how health care is so expensive (insinuating that it shouldn't be), but its strikes me as a very costly industry. Are the high prices in Switzerland merely a reflection of the true cost of medicine?

Excellent point. However there is scope for businesses to increase the cost to the consumer in name of quality treatment with "quality" being very hard to determine. I think the industry warrants extra scrutiny. For example it seems the healthcare bill will try and recoup its expenses by taxing industry however there is certainly scope for industry to pass this tax on the the final consumer.

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

You might have an argument on the getting sick bit, but there are still things you can do to minimize the risks. You can take the effort to exercise, you can avoid high-risk activities like smoking, you can diet correctly etc. You can make your own mind up if you think the chances of injury/illness to yourself warrant the expense, much as you can make the same gamble with house insurance in case a fire or earthquake destroys everything you own.
Where the vehicle accident is concerned, there are only three possibilities I can see: Your fault, the other guy's fault, or an equipment defect with the vehicle or road. The latter is extremely rare (Current debate about Toyota accelerators notwithstanding) and may generally be recouped through litigation when it does happen, the 'other guys fault' insurance is already mandated by law (and just for good measure I need to pay into an 'uninsured motorists' fund when I renew the registration on my vehicle), which, on a practical level, leaves 'you' as the only likely cause for an accident which isn't already covered by other means. If you think that you're a damned good driver then that's your decision to not cover yourself and save some money. If you overestimate your abilities to drive or maintain your vehicle, then you've nobody to blame for your impending bankruptcy than yourself.

NTM

So what happens to anyone without insurance and can't afford treatment?

Manic Moran

20Cent wrote: »

So what happens to anyone without insurance and can't afford treatment?

They go bankrupt, and the State taxpayer fields the excess.

NTM

bonkey

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why do you think that is?

I often hear people complaining about how health care is so expensive (insinuating that it shouldn't be), but its strikes me as a very costly industry. Are the high prices in Switzerland merely a reflection of the true cost of medicine?

Its a combination of factors.

In general, the service offered is generally of a high standard. Well equipped hospitals are the standard, not the exception. There are four "super hospitals" (Geneva, Bern, Basel, Zurich) which are equipped for almost anything and have all the really specialist stuff, but for humdrum affairs like MRI scans, hip replacement surgery, and so forth, the local hospital will be well equipped.

That level of quality costs.

Waiting lists are mostly an alien concept. That costs too.

To top it all off, Swiss salaries are high....and that really costs.

Healthcare costs, sure....and doing healthcare well, in a country with high costs of living to begin with, is really going to cost....but you know what...I'll pay it happily, and I don't begrudge (some of) my taxes going to pay for the unemployed and/or poor to have it too. I can think of a lot of worse ways in which governments have spent my taxes.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

They go bankrupt, and the State taxpayer fields the excess.

NTM

But then why not have car insurance optional on the same basis?

When someone causes 3rd party injury/damage, and doesn't have insurance....let them go bankrupt and let the State taxpayer pick up the excess.

Also, if the taxpayer is already picking up the tab for any medical care that someone can't afford to pay, how does the new system change who ultimately pays the bill, other than limiting personal exposure (which isn't per se a bad thing).

Rather than Joe Q NoInsurance going backrupt, and every taxpayer paying the rest of his bill, Joe Q NowWithInsurance doesn't go bankrupt, and everyone else (via their mandatory health insurance) pays the rest of his bill anyway.

The net difference is the tradeoff of someone not going bankrupt (which inflicts its own costs, financially and socially) against how much of their bill they could have paid by being bankrupted.

Black Swan

Does health care reform still allow hospitals to charge $10 for one aspirin as they have in the past? (when you can buy a bottle of 100 aspirin a CVS drug store for 99 cents)

Manic Moran

Curses. Seems the computer ate my reply yesterday.

bonkey wrote: »

But then why not have car insurance optional on the same basis?

When someone causes 3rd party injury/damage, and doesn't have insurance....let them go bankrupt and let the State taxpayer pick up the excess.

For starters, I'm not sure the State's coffers could afford it. Apparently in 2005 (The most recent figures I could find in a hurry, I'm running on battery power here), California spent $7.4bn in covering uninsured medical expenses. And that's generally the 'By law lifesaving ER treatment cannot be refused just because the injured party has no insurance.' I'd hate to see what it would cost if the average car prang also got covered by the taxpayer.

There is a moral difference as well. In the case of the uninsured injuree, the people who suffer are the injuree (obviously) and the corporation, be it the hospital, State or whatever, which has to wait until the legal process is completed that they can get all the funds owed, the latter of which suffers few real-world hassles while they wait for their money. In the case of the uninsured motorist, there is a third party involved who is also suffering damage: If my car is pranged, I can't wait for the wonderful wheels of justice and bureaucracy to turn for months until I get the money I need to buy/repair the car so I can go back to work. Why should I be penalised in such a manner?

Also, if the taxpayer is already picking up the tab for any medical care that someone can't afford to pay, how does the new system change who ultimately pays the bill, other than limiting personal exposure (which isn't per se a bad thing).

It doesn't. Which is the problem. The solution is to have more people who can afford to have coverage, by cutting the costs of healthcare, not to have the taxpayer simply pay the same money by a different route. The government is out of money. Instead of re-labelling the expense to something more politically acceptable, try reducing the expense. Now everybody can receive Blue Lagoon's $10 aspirin. I'm thrilled.

NTM

Amerika

If this health care bill is so great, why did the Democrats who wrote the bill quitely insert, at the last moment, provisions that excluded themselves from the rules of the bill?

Ludo

Amerika wrote: »

If this health care bill is so great, why did the Democrats who wrote the bill quitely insert, at the last moment, provisions that excluded themselves from the rules of the bill?

What is this about? Haven't heard that one?

GuanYin

Amerika wrote: »

If this health care bill is so great, why did the Democrats who wrote the bill quitely insert, at the last moment, provisions that excluded themselves from the rules of the bill?

Please, enlighten us all with evidence that this is true.

metaoblivia

It is true to some extent, but the language used was actually introduced by a Republican, Tom Coburn.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_109/news/44605-1.html

simplistic2

A look at the future...

The Fix Is In

...while spending on Britain’s National Health Service had increased by 60% under the Labour government, its output had decreased by 4%. No doubt the spending of a Soviet-style organization like the NHS is more easily measurable than its output, but the former minister’s remark certainly accords with the experiences of many citizens, who see no dramatic improvement in the service as a result of such vastly increased outlays. On the contrary, while the service has taken on 400,000 new staff members—that is to say, one-fifth of all new jobs created in Britain during the period—continuity of medical care has been all but extinguished. Nobody now expects to see the same doctor on successive occasions, in the hospital or anywhere else. . . .
There is a possible explanation other than managerial inexperience for the waste, namely that the waste was intended and desired: indeed, that it was the principal object of the spending. Experience has long shown that further spending by state-monopoly suppliers of services (if services is quite the word I seek) benefits not the consumers but the providers. And they—ever more numerous—naturally vote for their own providers, the politicians. Thus the NHS has become an enormously expensive method of ballot-stuffing.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'd hate to see what it would cost if the average car prang also got covered by the taxpayer.

A subset of taxpayers are already covering the cost of these "prangs"...those who actually pay for insurance.

It wouldn't actually cost any more...it would just change the distribution of who's paying teh bill. It might additionally involve a change in how the monies are collected (taxes instead of insurance payments), but that's about it.

There is a moral difference as well.
...
If my car is pranged, I can't wait for the wonderful wheels of justice and bureaucracy to turn for months until I get the money I need to buy/repair the car so I can go back to work. Why should I be penalised in such a manner?

Shouldn't this moral factor also apply to healthcare?

If the struggling-to-get-by person falls ill through no fault of their own, is it morally right that they be driven into penury or indeed bankruptcy as a result?

Isn't there, in effect, a financial "watershed" in such a system, where once you're above it, you can additionally be protected against being driven into bankruptcy through no fault of your own. Reward the richer by protecting them against losing it all, whilst telling the poorer that because they are poor they get to lose everything. How is that moral?

It doesn't. Which is the problem. The solution is to have more people who can afford to have coverage, by cutting the costs of healthcare, not to have the taxpayer simply pay the same money by a different route.

I would argue that a proper solution can only be reached by first dealing with inclusion and then dealing with cost.

If Obama, or anyone, managed to make healtchare less expensive, then more people would be included. Suggest then that the system be expanded to cover those who still couldn't afford it, and I would be of the opinion that opposition would be far, far greater.

By dealing with inclusion first, the basic (and moral) aim of inclusion is dealt with....and everyone has a vested interest in costs being brought under control. Do it the other way around, and anyone who can afford healthcare (which is now an expanded group) have a vested interest in denying inclusion to anyone else.

The government is out of money.

With respect, the US government has been out of money for a long time...but that hasn't stopped them spending it hand over fist.

Now everybody can receive Blue Lagoon's $10 aspirin. I'm thrilled.

And when the government turn around and point out that this is a problem....they'll have a basis to argue from. Before the legislation was passed, it was someone else's problem....the problem of those who could afford healthcare. By assuming responsibility for a large number of people, the government have given themselves a very good reason to be able to stick their oar in.

It was the wonderful free market which gave you your $10 aspirin. Over here, it was regulation via government involvement which led to the health insurers mandating the use of generics over such products.

You have to start somewhere. I think giving people healthcare is a pretty good place to start.

Amerika

GuanYin wrote: »

Please, enlighten us all with evidence that this is true.

I heard it on the radio (WABC) yesterday that it was reported in Politico. Here is the link which pretty much resembles the other one listed previously.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34900.html

jank

So the bill is to be sent back to the house for a second vote sometime tonight. A few lines had to be taken out of the bill but very minor by all accounts. Then its done........ ZZZZZ!

What next well best summed up by Yousef Munayyer.
http://www.politico.com/arena/

This is the end of the health care debate….for now. Partly because this president is likely to move on to other issues and partly because we are all pretty sick of it (No pun intended). If the debate arises again in the future it will be because the legislation we just passed doesn’t significantly reduce health care costs even though millions will be covered.

Making a big fuss out of losing this one is an ineffective strategy for Republicans. Playing to the base and enraging those segments of the right who have been on display recently maybe successful tactics for trying to stall and delay passage but won’t win back congressional seats en masse. The sooner Republicans realize this and make a legitimate case for deficit reduction that doesn’t compromise necessary government programs in this weak economy the sooner they will be taken seriously by America’s center.

The “Armageddon-Socialist-Nazism” nonsense will not cut it.

Speaking of "Armageddon-Socialist-Nazism” nonsense, seems there has been a spate of attacks on Democrats this week and more will follow when they go home for the weekend.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35044.html

Amerika

Told you so! Didn’t take long, now did it? Cost of over $1 Trillion, and still leaving 37 million uninsured. Hmmmmm.

So does anybody still believe “If you have health care, you can keep your health care. If you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. We're not going to-- tell that you've got to switch one way or the other. But like Federal employees, you will suddenly have a menu of options that you can take a look at. And we think that the forces of competition, good information, consumers are going be making good choices, all that is going help drive down costs, give people better quality, and allow more people to get coverage.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23784.html

Mr. Incognito

Why are you posting a link to an Article written in June 2009 and is referring to a hypothetical bill that had not existed at that time and says

Could
May
Might

Seriously, that's a piss poor attempt.

Amerika

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Why are you posting a link to an Article written in June 2009 and is referring to a hypothetical bill that had not existed at that time and says

Could
May
Might

Seriously, that's a piss poor attempt.

Ooops. The article I just read about the increased cost estimates from the CBO came from a conservative website. I didn’t want it to just turn into another series of ad hominem attacks, so I tried to pick a neutral site. Obviously I picked the wrong one (again ).

Here.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

Flamed Diving

jank wrote: »

Look up Oxymoron.

Just flicking through this thread, and I would be interested in how describing Josef Stalin as a fascist and communist would be an oxymoron?

Indeed, how any system of totalitarian wealth distribution could not be described as such?

I have predicted some of your initial feelings, and rest assured that I am aware that not all collectivist regimes are necessarily totalitarian.

I realise this is an off-topic post, which is why I promise not to respond to your... response.

Cheers.

jank

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just flicking through this thread, and I would be interested in how describing Josef Stalin as a fascist and communist would be an oxymoron?

Indeed, how any system of totalitarian wealth distribution could not be described as such?

I have predicted some of your initial feelings, and rest assured that I am aware that not all collectivist regimes are necessarily totalitarian.

I realise this is an off-topic post, which is why I promise not to respond to your... response.

Cheers.

May I direct you to this thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055899697

I am curious though on your need to post when you already said that you weren't going to respond to my....response. Talk about a waste of a bandwidth.

Overheal

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66378076&postcount=59

Amerika

Nancy Pelosi famously said in regards to ObamaCare: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Well, the “you can find out what is in it” is now beginning to trickle through, and that fog looks to be more like a bog (without the controversy).
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi famously said in regards to ObamaCare: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Well, the “you can find out what is in it” is now beginning to trickle through, and that fog looks to be more like a bog (without the controversy).
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI

What were you doing when the Republicans were in power? Just curious if you were so eager to condemn their massive increases in public spending and the overall size of the State.

Overheal

Yes I know I for one fully supported the making of what I am sure must be a whole NSA section or two of people who sit around a computer listening to couples have phone sex in the name of liberty :rolleyes:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/theyre-listening-in-on-your-phone-sex

So I can see how Republicans might be a little distressed that a government agency get set up to regulate healthcare, etc.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

What were you doing when the Republicans were in power? Just curious if you were so eager to condemn their massive increases in public spending and the overall size of the State.

Other than defense spending, I was against most of the spending that happened during Bush’s administration. I wish there was some source to show what Bush’s budget proposals looked like when they were sent to Congress, and then show what came out of Congress after they added to it. I hear the amounts added to the budget by Congress were mind boggling. Curiosity satisfied?

Overheal wrote: »

So I can see how Republicans might be a little distressed that a government agency get set up to regulate healthcare, etc.

Did you even read the article. It’s not "a" (as in one), but 160 new government agencies responsible for control, that the bill created.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Did you even read the article. It’s not "a" (as in one), but 160 new government agencies responsible for control, that the bill created.

And it doesnt really break down those organizations. Is that 3 agencies per State, plus 10 for Federal? Is it 160 agencies where one crosses, the Ts and one dots the Is? Far to vague in that article to really get scared about.

Thats the only article I could find when i tried to run a search for 160 agencies and health care. So I'm left to conclude that either the New York Post is a revolutionary pioneer in journalism, or their fluffing the number.

Lirange

Daddy done raise his girl right?

Or I guess that would be mamma Bush. Well I reckon the gene pool is not unsalvageable. The Bush women were pinko libs all along long. Who knew?