US Health Reform

[Steve_TPF]

Barak Obama is currently trying to reform US healthcare, with the following main objectives:

Originally Posted by Barack Obama.com

More Security and Stability
If You Have Health Insurance, the Obama Plan:

* Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
* Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age.
* Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
* Caps out-of-pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
* Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
* Protects Medicare for seniors.
* Eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs.


Quality, Affordable Choices
If You Don’t Have Insurance, the Obama Plan:

* Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
* Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
* Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
* Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
* Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created.

All of which sounds admirable. Critics of the plan say this:

Originally Posted by CNN.com

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
0:00 /2:07Health reform and you

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

(I have greatly abbreviated the objections to fit this post, follow the link to read them in full.)

Those sound like reasonable objections. Sure, the US health system needs fixing, but is this the way to go?

[shetlan]

I'd like to point out that CNN is hardly a place to look for arguments against Obama or his healthcare bill - a bill he admits to never having read before endorsing it.

I don't care about most of the healthcare debate "issues". Long story short, the government has no business telling me how to take care of myself. I don't want them telling me which lightbulbs I can use, what car I can buy, and I certainely don't want them telling me which meds I can take, which surgery I "need", or which tests I am "allowed" to have.

The simple fact is, this has NOTHING to do with helping people or making sure everyone has care. The entire point is to give the federal government more control over you - in this case, literally giving them the power over life and death.

Example: Sections 440 and 1904 (p.838) states that the appointed government employees will have the right to 1) spy on families to ensure that they are raising their children in a state approved fashion and 2) remove the children from the residence if they feel they aren't being raised properly (according to the state's standards).

This has nothing to do with Obama's "goals" - it's about controlling the population to give them more power.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by shetlan

I'd like to point out that CNN is hardly a place to look for arguments against Obama or his healthcare bill - a bill he admits to never having read before endorsing it.

Point taken, but I was after a quick for/against to get the discussion started. Feel free to correct CNN on anything they have wrong.

Originally Posted by shetlan

I don't care about most of the healthcare debate "issues". Long story short, the government has no business telling me how to take care of myself. I don't want them telling me which lightbulbs I can use, what car I can buy, and I certainely don't want them telling me which meds I can take, which surgery I "need", or which tests I am "allowed" to have.

Agreed, this proposal does seem to restrict choice. I have private health insurance - tailored to my needs regarding the kind of cover I require. I'm not sure I would have this option under Obama's proposal.

Originally Posted by shetlan

The simple fact is, this has NOTHING to do with helping people or making sure everyone has care. The entire point is to give the federal government more control over you - in this case, literally giving them the power over life and death.

Could you elaborate on that?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Example: Sections 440 and 1904 (p.838) states that the appointed government employees will have the right to 1) spy on families to ensure that they are raising their children in a state approved fashion and 2) remove the children from the residence if they feel they aren't being raised properly (according to the state's standards).

Don't you already have welfare/child protection agencies that do this? Australia does. Don't you think that someone should be looking out for vulnerable children?

Originally Posted by shetlan

This has nothing to do with Obama's "goals" - it's about controlling the population to give them more power.

Power how exactly?

[Hobbit Porn]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Agreed, this proposal does seem to restrict choice. I have private health insurance - tailored to my needs regarding the kind of cover I require. I'm not sure I would have this option under Obama's proposal.

I think the system we have here in Australia where people have a choice between choosing a private insurer or having no insurance and relying on the public system (medicare) is what the bill is trying to create in America.

Although, I'll admit I haven't bothered to look too deeply into it because there has been so much hysterical bullshit propaganda put out by both sides that I don't know what is reliable information about it.

Shetlan, you might be able to clarify if the following is correct.

- People will still have a choice of health insurance. However, if a person doesn't have private cover, they will be covered under the Government plan by default.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Point taken, but I was after a quick for/against to get the discussion started. Feel free to correct CNN on anything they have wrong.

CNN covered a few of the more mild and surface level issues, whereas people are actually "up in arms" about far more relevant questions.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Agreed, this proposal does seem to restrict choice. I have private health insurance - tailored to my needs regarding the kind of cover I require. I'm not sure I would have this option under Obama's proposal.

You most certainly would not. Obama has said on several occasions that he's a proponent of the "single payer" system - which translates as "government only". I expand on this in my responce to Hobbit Porn.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Could you elaborate on that?

Sure.

1: Quality of Care
In every instance where government controls an industry, they screw it up (postal service, DMV, transit services, public works, etc). This leads to the obvious conclusion that government doesn't run things well. That being the case, one can hardly assume that a government controlled medical system would be run in a better fashion than the current US system - so why support it?

2: Numbers Game
There is a consistent claim by health reform proponents that there are 40million people in the US without medical coverage. You'll note that they do not say "40million US citizens" - as roughly 15million of these people are illegal immigrants.
Subtracting the illegals - only 8.2% of the population is without health insurance. This is essentially "full coverage" - why are we trying to reform the entire system to accomodate 8.2%?

3: The Real Reason
So, they know the care won't be of better quality, and they know that the vast majority are already covered. So what's the point of wrecking 91.8% of the population's coverage?

Simply, it allows the federal government to take over more of your life. Consider this: A private insurance company can alter your rates based on diet, health, and family history - a government in the same position could simply ban things it thought where bad for you ("We're paying for it afterall"). The simple point is, that it's simply more power than any government needs to have.

That aside, much of the "healthcare" bill had nothing to do with actual healthcare. One provision said a beurocrat would be able to limit the number of children per family - if they are paying for your kid's care, they get to decide how many you can have. Another provision talked about building parks and sidewalks - for which we already have two existing groups. It's not about healthcare, it's about a power grab.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Don't you already have welfare/child protection agencies that do this? Australia does. Don't you think that someone should be looking out for vulnerable children?

We already have SEVERAL of those organizations - most of them are ineffective at protecting abused or neglected children. On the other hand, private groups like Women and Children First, Safe Haven, Gateway, etc. have all had alot of success helping the abused and neglected.

Also, I'd like you to note the difference between an "abused" child and a child who "isn't being raised in a state approved fashion". What defines "state apporved fashion"? If your father is a loving and comapssionate but he's also a racist - can they take you away from him? The language in the bill suggests that they indeed can. If this is the case, then they could take your children from you if you disagree with any actions, descisions, or laws of the ruling body - hello totalitarian regime.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Power how exactly?

They choose your doctor, regulate your meds, decide how your children can be raised, how many you can have, what you can eat, etc.
If that level of control over your life isn't called "power" then I don't know what could be.

Originally Posted by Hobbit Porn

I think the system we have here in Australia where people have a choice between choosing a private insurer or having no insurance and relying on the public system (medicare) is what the bill is trying to create in America.

Although, I'll admit I haven't bothered to look too deeply into it because there has been so much hysterical bullshit propaganda put out by both sides that I don't know what is reliable information about it.

Shetlan, you might be able to clarify if the following is correct.

- People will still have a choice of health insurance. However, if a person doesn't have private cover, they will be covered under the Government plan by default.

No. That's what they've been "claiming" it said, but that isn't what it actually says. Keep in mind that the entire healthcare bill is a step toward the final goal of a completely government controlled medical system - as stated by Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama himself.

Now, the bill says that if you have insurance NOW then you can keep it; however, if you try to add other people to your coverage, alter your plan, switch carriers, change jobs, upgrade your plan, etc. - you automatically lose your private insurance and are now under the 'mandatory government plan'.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that's going to end - with everyone forced onto the government plan.

[CHEVY_454_POWER]

Shetlan pretty much nailed it. I am probably wrong, as I have not looked at the "reform" in depth. But I heard that you would be limited to how many times you could visit the emergency room.

Chevy

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by shetlan

1: Quality of Care
In every instance where government controls an industry, they screw it up (postal service, DMV, transit services, public works, etc). This leads to the obvious conclusion that government doesn't run things well. That being the case, one can hardly assume that a government controlled medical system would be run in a better fashion than the current US system - so why support it?

2: Numbers Game
There is a consistent claim by health reform proponents that there are 40million people in the US without medical coverage. You'll note that they do not say "40million US citizens" - as roughly 15million of these people are illegal immigrants.
Subtracting the illegals - only 8.2% of the population is without health insurance. This is essentially "full coverage" - why are we trying to reform the entire system to accomodate 8.2%?

3: The Real Reason
So, they know the care won't be of better quality, and they know that the vast majority are already covered. So what's the point of wrecking 91.8% of the population's coverage?

1. Good point, though I've never figured out why a government-run organisation manages to be worse than a "for profit" version.

2. Agreed you shouldn't be stressing about health insurance for illegals.

3. None that I can see. Some of the stated goals, such as no denial of coverage, or not dropping cover because of pre-existing conditions sound fair, but they should be possible without forcing everyone on to a "one-size-fits-nobody" plan.

Originally Posted by shetlan

One provision said a beurocrat would be able to limit the number of children per family - if they are paying for your kid's care, they get to decide how many you can have. Another provision talked about building parks and sidewalks - for which we already have two existing groups. It's not about healthcare, it's about a power grab.

Agreed sidewalks have nothing to do with healthcare. But could you refer me to the section that lets them limit the number of children you can have?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Example: Sections 440 and 1904 (p.838) states that the appointed government employees will have the right to 1) spy on families to ensure that they are raising their children in a state approved fashion and 2) remove the children from the residence if they feel they aren't being raised properly (according to the state's standards).

I've looked through the section you cite, but all I found was:

Originally Posted by HR3200

‘‘SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES
11 WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EX12
PECTING CHILDREN.
13 ‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to im
14 prove the well-being, health, and development of children
15 by enabling the establishment and expansion of high qual
16 ity programs providing voluntary home visitation for fami
17 lies with young children and families expecting children.

Refers to voluntary visits. I couldn't find anything about "state approved fashion" either.

Originally Posted by shetlan

They choose your doctor, regulate your meds, decide how your children can be raised, how many you can have, what you can eat, etc.
If that level of control over your life isn't called "power" then I don't know what could be.

Not convinced they can decide how many children you can have. As for Medicine, food etc, they can already decide what you can have through the FDA. The state already has standards for the raising of children, I don't see how this substantially changes that.

I broadly agree that this plan has holes in it, but I think some of the above claims are over-stated.

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Example: Sections 440 and 1904 (p.838) states that the appointed government employees will have the right to 1) spy on families to ensure that they are raising their children in a state approved fashion and 2) remove the children from the residence if they feel they aren't being raised properly (according to the state's standards).

This sounds exactly like the Child Protective Services (CPS), which is already in place in many states. They reserve the "right to inspect" without a court order or warrant. The girl came home with a note from her teacher saying she smelled of "cat pee" (they do spray clothes, sometimes); and a CPS tried to come over that very afternoon...

[archleone]

Originally Posted by shetlan

The simple fact is, this has NOTHING to do with helping people or making sure everyone has care. The entire point is to give the federal government more control over you - in this case, literally giving them the power over life and death.

Is that any different than letting the insurance companies decide which procedures they'll cover?

Originally Posted by shetlan

1: Quality of Care
In every instance where government controls an industry, they screw it up (postal service, DMV, transit services, public works, etc). This leads to the obvious conclusion that government doesn't run things well. That being the case, one can hardly assume that a government controlled medical system would be run in a better fashion than the current US system - so why support it?

2: Numbers Game
There is a consistent claim by health reform proponents that there are 40million people in the US without medical coverage. You'll note that they do not say "40million US citizens" - as roughly 15million of these people are illegal immigrants.
Subtracting the illegals - only 8.2% of the population is without health insurance. This is essentially "full coverage" - why are we trying to reform the entire system to accomodate 8.2%?

3: The Real Reason
So, they know the care won't be of better quality, and they know that the vast majority are already covered. So what's the point of wrecking 91.8% of the population's coverage?

Simply, it allows the federal government to take over more of your life. Consider this: A private insurance company can alter your rates based on diet, health, and family history - a government in the same position could simply ban things it thought where bad for you ("We're paying for it afterall"). The simple point is, that it's simply more power than any government needs to have.

That aside, much of the "healthcare" bill had nothing to do with actual healthcare. One provision said a beurocrat would be able to limit the number of children per family - if they are paying for your kid's care, they get to decide how many you can have. Another provision talked about building parks and sidewalks - for which we already have two existing groups. It's not about healthcare, it's about a power grab.

1. No, they work but they are slow which is exactly what happens when something is not run for profit, but I guess your right it is so much better to run things quickly and efficently than to allow everyone to have health insurance that wont fuck you over and let you die. I have always been satisfied with the way that my local public libraries have been run and only rarely does my mail get displaced though it may not be as fast as ups or fedex and it is a hell of lot cheaper and the usps does well enough that ups and fedex don't completely dominate the postal system.

2. Cite your statistics please. I personally have no problem giving illegal immigrants use of the healthcare system, they are humans.

3. Ahh, so this is really just a way to try and kill and the poorest of the poor.

You do realize how legislation actually works right? And how a lot of politicians tack on unnecessary and absurd provisions just so that a piece of legislation will not pass so that next time election time the opponent can say they voted for this sidewalk bs or if didn't vote for it they can say they didn't vote for this piece of legislation that you, the voters, wanted.

[FerretBone]

In the Senate version of health care, it's either buy health insurance, or go to jail. "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty. It's on the Politico website.
Health-care markup is just beginning - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com


The only difference between UPS, FEDEX, and the post office, is the post office has long lines, shitty service from the employees, and, has been broke for sometime.
I’d be willing to bet if someone did a little research on how much it cost to operate the US post office, it will be scientifically higher than UPS or FEDEX.


House approves spending bill - David Rogers - POLITICO.com



The “death panels” provision is Section 1233 on HR 3200. Quote HR 3200.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3200IH.pdf

“The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.”

People who know more about health care than the law makers writing the bill, say that the elderly and ailing would be coerced into accepting minimal end of life care to reduce health care costs based on the Democratic bill in the House. Or basically pull the plug on grandma because they decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore

HR 3200 has been dropped from consideration "entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly”. -Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

My complaint is why was that kind of trash being considered in the first place?


archleone, "Is that any different than letting the insurance companies decide which procedures they'll cover?"

Yeah it is different, because if your dropped, then there are still hundreds of other health care providers to turn to. What happens if there is only one health care provider?

also, I do have a problem paying for someones health care when they put nothing into the pool. Why shouldnt I, After all, if they can't play by our rules then why should they have any of our benifits?

[archleone]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

In the Senate version of health care, it's either buy health insurance, or go to jail. "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty. It's on the Politico website.
Health-care markup is just beginning - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

House approves spending bill - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

So since I'm too poor to afford to buy health insurance they are going to fine me so that I can't get even buy groceries-hmm...that makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by ferretbone

The “death panels” provision is Section 1233 on HR 3200. Quote HR 3200.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3200IH.pdf

“The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.”

People who know more about health care than the law makers writing the bill, say that the elderly and ailing would be coerced into accepting minimal end of life care to reduce health care costs based on the Democratic bill in the House. Or basically pull the plug on grandma because they decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore

HR 3200 has been dropped from consideration "entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly”. -Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

My complaint is why was that kind of trash being considered in the first place?

They are not trying to cancel end of life procedures but rather get rid of unnecessary costly procedures. I think this quote from Richard Dooling explains it:

Well, before we have ventilators, an elderly person, let's say they're 90, they have pneumonia. If you read Sherwin Newland's "How We Die," it was a great description of this, used to take about three days because your lungs were filled up with fluid, you would slowly go to sleep. In the last two days, you would be unconscious, and then you would die.

Nowadays, you get pneumonia, you're 90 years old, and the question becomes, should we put you on a ventilator?

Now, I'm not saying nobody should go on a ventilator, but I'm saying when you do go on the ventilator and you don't get off, then it takes you three, four, five months to die. The whole time you're being stuck with needles, you're being turned, you're acquiring bedsores. You can't talk because you're intubated. The intubation tube goes in between your vocal chords into your trachea. And, of course, you feel like you're chocking the whole time, so you want to pull that tube out. So what do they do? They tie your hands down to make sure that you can't pull that tube out.

So, if you're going to that situation without having some end-of-life counseling, which everyone is hysterically referring to now as a death panel, you go in there with no information, it's basically too late. You're in no condition to express your wishes, which may be, please, just get these machines out of here and let me go to sleep.

Originally Posted by ferretbone

archleone, "Is that any different than letting the insurance companies decide which procedures they'll cover?"

Yeah it is different, because if your dropped, then there are still hundreds of other health care providers to turn to. What happens if there is only one health care provider?

With a private insurance company if it is a preexisting condition then you wouldn't be able to get health insurance from another company.
If it is the government who is providing the healthcare then if it is a necessary procedure they shouldn't ever turn your down.

Originally Posted by ferretbone

also, I do have a problem paying for someones health care when they put nothing into the pool. Why shouldnt I, After all, if they can't play by our rules then why should they have any of our benifits?

Let them become citizens, let them pay into the pool and let them use health care.

[FerretBone]

To your first statement I completely agree.

I don't get why this is in the bill. The only thing I can come up with is, they are forcing everyone to buy into this health care like states have done with those yearly emissions/safety inspections. They force us to pay for the inspections $39.00 in TX. But if you don’t have your truck inspected every year, then it’s a large fine. This fine being a guaranty tax on millions who choose not to pay for health care.

Or as you noted, many opponents of a large bill will load it down with amendments
so that it's much harder to pass once those amendments come to light. A heavy fine for anyone who refuses to go along, is a good way to kill a bill in this form.

The Death panels, It doesn’t matter any more because it has been pulled from the House bill. But, if it was still attached, with that langue, it was likely to be abused.

Originally Posted by archleone

“With a private insurance company if it is a preexisting condition then you wouldn't be able to get health insurance from another company.
If it is the government who is providing the healthcare then if it is a necessary procedure they shouldn't ever turn your down”

That’s not true man. If I had a DUI, then I would get dropped from my coverage. But I could easily pick up a new policy from some other company. Granted I would likely pay more, but I could do it in less than a day. I see ads every day that will except preexisting conditions for folks.

Originally Posted by archleone

“Let them become citizens, let them pay into the pool and let them use health care.”

Brother it’s not that easy. This topic should be a whole new thread. Because I can see this over running Steve’s goal of discussing, and debating, health care as a whole.

Real quickly though.

1. It is easy to become a citizen in the US, legally, if illegal immigrants gave a shit they would have done it already. And I’m speaking of the illegal immigrants already here without criminal records. The “new citizens”. It’s really not hard to become a legal citizen.

2. These “new citizens” don’t work for a pay check, that can be taxed. They work for cash, while on welfare, and usually collecting other Gov’t funds at the same time.

3. I’m sorry bro, that I’m not sorry.
I do not want to pay for health care, for millions of people who break the law, (and are generally a drain on the economy for years). I also do not want to pay for any one elses health care. Every one has their own problems. I have problems too. But What kind of leach would I be If I excepted the rest of America to spend money on me for any reason.

America has become, fat, lazy, and expecting of a hand out. The more hand outs we get, the fattier, lazier, and more dependent we become.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by archleone

So since I'm too poor to afford to buy health insurance they are going to fine me so that I can't get even buy groceries-hmm...that makes perfect sense.

Actually, no. From Ferret's link:

Originally Posted by POLITICO.com

Baucus looked for the backing of Snowe and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) by cutting in half the penalty on individuals who do not buy insurance — from $3,800 to $1,900 for a family earning about $66,000 or more per year.

So unless you earn around that amount (the threshold is probably lower for individuals), it doesn't apply to you.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

The Death panels, It doesn’t matter any more because it has been pulled from the House bill. But, if it was still attached, with that langue, it was likely to be abused.

From HR300 Sec. 1233:

A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
(Is signed by a medical practitioner etc.)
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
(Is uniquely identifiable and standardised.)
"The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items— ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems; ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting; ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.

So it gives you the right to have a "terminal care" plan in which you state what (if any) treatment you want to receive when you're too far gone to indicate your wishes. I don't see a problem there - it's your choice. Be damned if I'm going to spend 5 months dying, strapped to a bed with a tube in my throat.

It was Sarah Palin who started the Death Panels hype. Since she didn't know that Africa is a continent, not a country (among other things), I don't put much stock in her interpretation of this bill. Yes, there is always the possibility that people could be pressured to sign DNR's, but if they don't have the option of choosing their own level of care, then either the family decides (while grandma is in a coma), or hospitals insist on prolonging the life - or rather the death - of every patient. See "ventilator" above.

[FerretBone]

I'm not ignoring ya Steve, I had to go to jury duty. After work, school, and my nights out at the bar, it just doesn’t leave much time for the internet.
Ironically my jury duty is in Dallas county, but I live in in a near by county. But I don’t want to tell the Dallas county courts that I’m ineligible and live in another county. Because I’m a registered Democrat in Dallas. That I use as a free pass to infiltrate, anti gun advocate meetings, and democratic type community meetings. So I have to play ball with this jury duty crap. I’d like to attend an ACORN meeting, but they don’t have many of those here in TX. I have to know my enemies, and what they are planning. I’m an idiot with to much time, and, I’m aware of that.

Anyways.


If health care is free, the demand for health care will rise while supply will stays about the same. At some point there will have to be rationing of health care by some panel, or person. Like, Canada, and the United Kingdom. More times than not, older folks will be effected by these rationing decisions. Not the younger guys. These panels, or person (run by the Gov’t) will determine who has the greatest potential to live the longest and most productive lives after the treatment. Death Panels will be there in some form for the inevitable rationing. Even without the end of life counseling.


Think about it, a government panel charged with the job to cut costs. One man needs expensive surgery. To keep or do their jobs the panel will have to cut costs. The chances that they will recommend no surgery for that man will be high.


“The death panel reference is not to the end of life counseling. Sarah Palin made it quite clear that she refered to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s scheme for rationing, characterized in a 2009 Lancet article that he co-authored with two other physicians. Called “Principles for allocation of scare medical interventions,” the paper describes a “complete lives system” that takes into consideration a person’s age, the “investment” put into their lives, and their future “usefulness” to society as factors to determine who should receive care.

Governor Palin’s remarks was to educate the public concerning key players and designers of Obama’s health care reform that they might otherwise have never known about, as for instance, chief of staff Dr. Emanuel a close advisor for Obama on health care.”

The ideology of Dr. Emanuel is scary. And he is the advisor for Obamas health care. I think the stakes are to high to risk ignoring any langue in this bill. If it sounds shady, then it very well could be.

[FerretBone]

I should note, this is happing now. In some form, the doctor, or an insurance board. HR 3200 was pulled out, but even with out HR 3200, on a Gov't run plan I think the above will still be the outcome.

We can have the Gov't "panels", or the private companies "panels." I really do not know which is better. But, I do know, I don't have to pay taxes for every person in America when they meet the private companies panels.

I don't have an answer to any of this. But the ones I dont have to pay for in the form of taxes I like a lot more.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

“The death panel reference is not to the end of life counseling. Sarah Palin made it quite clear that she refered to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s scheme for rationing, characterized in a 2009 Lancet article that he co-authored with two other physicians. Called “Principles for allocation of scare medical interventions,” the paper describes a “complete lives system” that takes into consideration a person’s age, the “investment” put into their lives, and their future “usefulness” to society as factors to determine who should receive care.

Yeah, that was mentioned at the bottom of the article I linked, but the bulk of it was about the end-of-life counseling, so I thought that was her main concern. My mistake, thanks for the correction.

Cost/benefit plans always look bad on paper - it's the pinto problem again. Life vs economics. But what makes you think these decisions aren't being made already? I don't hear anyone singing the praises of the US health system - you can be sure someone's missing out.

In a perfect world, everyone would get full treatment. In reality, the money just isn't there. Choices have to be made, and most of those are going to be economic rationalism. I agree with you that the elderly are going to miss out most - unless they're well-insured or well-off. With limited funds available, the more you spend on the elderly the less you spend on the young - who are the ones generating tax income that feeds the system. See where this is going? The more you prioritise the elderly the faster the system breaks down.

I'm not suggesting that we start pulling the plug on anyone over 60, just pointing out the cold hard facts. I'm sure we all agree that this is an unpalatable situation, but unless the funding situation improves, what else can be done? What's Palin's alternative?

It's also worth pointing out that not all

[FerretBone]

Before we go any further in this discussion, I would like to make a prediction about the current health care bill.

1. First the $1,900 to $3,000 dollar fine proposal will be pulled or dropped from the bill.
2. Then, the entire bill it’s self will fail to pass. The bill in it’s current form is dead.
3. Then a completely new bill will be wrote, obviously it will not have the public option. It will be a watered down, blank piece of paper from the Democrats in an attempt
to save their face.

Basically, whatever bill that happens to pass, will fail to do anything obama attended the bill to do back in early 2009.

Patented 2009 - Congressman Ferretbone (Insert evil grinning smiley face here)

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

I'm not suggesting that we start pulling the plug on anyone over 60, just pointing out the cold hard facts. I'm sure we all agree that this is an unpalatable situation, but unless the funding situation improves, what else can be done? What's Palin's alternative?

I really do not know what Sarah’s is proposing on this issue. I have mixed feelings about Sarah. I like her core beliefs, but I do not like seeing her involved in social issues like the health care. (if health care can even be labeled “social“) I’m glade she’s trying to shoot down some of these ideals like health care. But she leaves a very (churchy) Christian philosophy taste in my mouth about her political
Views.
I don’t like churchy Christian ideas that are set in place to run our county.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

In a perfect world, everyone would get full treatment. In reality, the money just isn't there. Choices have to be made, and most of those are going to be economic rationalism. I agree with you that the elderly are going to miss out most - unless they're well-insured or well-off. With limited funds available, the more you spend on the elderly the less you spend on the young - who are the ones generating tax income that feeds the system. See where this is going? The more you prioritise the elderly the faster the system breaks down.

I’m not able to put up much of a debate about this because I truly agree. I don’t have any realistic, constructive ideals on what to do about those issues. But I don’t believe any Politian does either.

[Steve_TPF]

I'm inclined to think that the US would have more money for healthcare if it wasn't spending so much money on Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a place to start.

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

I'm inclined to think that the US would have more money for healthcare if it wasn't spending so much money on Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a place to start.

Exactly!
England had its best economy, ever during WWII--all were employed. After the war, where did the money go? To health care. Everybody on this thread should see "Sicko" by (Ugh!) Michael Moore. There is a very good cartoon on it, too, I need to find. Anarchology - Index has already beat this to death.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Exactly!
England had its best economy, ever during WWII--all were employed. After the war, where did the money go? To health care. Everybody on this thread should see "Sicko" by (Ugh!) Michael Moore. There is a very good cartoon on it, too, I need to find.

My favorite part of sicko is when that idiot decides it would be a good idea to do a hand stand, then attempt to walk using his arms across a street. He hurts his shoulder and falls over. Next we see him go the hospital to receive treatment on the tax payers dime. My question is why would tax payers want to pay for idiots who get hurt that that guy? What a joke.






I think we are done in Iraq. We’ve done as much as we can for them. In Afghan Obama is not serious about doing anything to prevent terrorism. So why stay, and why kid ourselves by sending more troops.

The ROE has changed. We have to call for approval before returning fire, its now mandatory to break contact in any engagement were the emery is firing at troops from a home or building. And my favorite, absolutly no engagements when civilians are present. That’s kinda hard in cities and towns.

I say America should pull all troops out of other countries. Not just Afghan and Iraq. (2 billion a week in Iraq) Stop funding the UN, and giving foreign aid to other countries up to ($15 billion in four years).Then close our boarders.

We could give that money back through tax returns, those who pay taxes can have as much health care as they wish. Problem solved.