Go Obama! - Page 64 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-09-2009, 12:45 AM   #946
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
What is the saddest thing is that the Right (and that includes INDY and 2861 right here) seem to have no intention of even providing a reasonable alternative to Obama's plan. That's sad, because I have a lot of reservatons about the current plan, but the Right has simply dropped the ball on providing any alternative beyond "everything's fine the way it is."

You guys have completely abdicated your responsiblity as citizens of this country to get involved in this process in a reasonable and informed way.

Will these scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense actually be successful in blocking meaningful reform. I hope not--not because the Democrat's plan is a good one--but simply because the reasons being presented--the partisan crap that has been perpetuated right in this thread--for opposing it are ridiculous!
Not true at all. John McCain had a good plan, unfortunately he was a horrible salesman. Mitt Romney on the other hand had a terrible idea while governor of Massachusetts and that state's healthcare system is now falling apart. It's not a partisan attack it's a good ideas vs bad ideas attack.

Here's Indy's Healthcare bill.
1) Health insurance and healthcare are not the same thing.

Indy would eliminate all government mandates except one, catastrophic coverage must be provided and purchased by all adults. Let people shop anywhere in the nation for whichever type of insurance they want, be it comprehensive or low-cost, high-deductible coverage. Indy's plan would not require citizens to have coverage for in vitro fertilization, psychiatric care, gender-reassignment, chiropractic care or other less than life-or-death medical care unless they choose to pay for it.
Tax credits would apply if one doesn't get insurance through an employer. Health benefits would become taxable. HSAs (health savings accounts) would be encouraged under the Indy bill, they are outlawed under the House Democratic bill (wonder why?). The idea is to make health insurance like any other type of insurance, something you hope you DON'T need not something you try and use as often as you can.

A) This puts market forces back into insurance AND primary healthcare.
B) This gives patients MORE choices and actual portability while allowing more people to buy insurance that are now priced out of the system.

2) True tort reform. Not even addressed by the Democrats (wonder why?).

A) Lowers malpractice costs
B) Stops "cover-your-ass" tests and defensive medical practices.

I'm against the Democratic Bill because it contains NONE of this and in fact leads us in the exact opposite direction with more mandates, more government control of the markets and less options for consumers. In short, rationing under a government monopoly.

And if opponents of the bill are guilty of "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense," it's only in response to the crisis rhetoric of its supporters.

I come at this not as a partisan but as a healthcare provider and a conservative. Now, I don't pretend to have all the answers but nobody is telling me what to say or think either. Reform is badly needed but I'm looking for solutions. a cure if you will, not a retrogress.

(maybe it's time for a separate healthcare thread)
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 08:12 AM   #947
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 02:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
i put it to those in america, who disagree or agree with my opinion - if the point of government isn't to do the best for the people it supposedly governs, precisely what the fuck is the point of even having one?
that was the original point of government the founding fathers created. i dont think that's what we have today. i think it has become too big and looks after it's own interests, the corporations, the banks, and making money instead of the people.
__________________

__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 10:37 AM   #948
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

A) This puts market forces back into insurance AND primary healthcare.
B) This gives patients MORE choices and actual portability while allowing more people to buy insurance that are now priced out of the system.
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 01:17 PM   #949
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A HEART THAT IS BROKEN IS A HEART THAT IS OPEN
Posts: 4,954
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.

Exactly!!Bravo!

Also, why aren't care givers given incentives and rewards for prevention and keeping their patients healthy?
Let's see, could it be that it's not profitable if people are healthy and don't need drugs that the drug companies sell?

My experience; I changed my OBgyn after I went in for a check up because she had posters all over her walls inside her office and examining room, advertising birth control drugs by such and such drug company. It was so blatant and completely offensive to me that I changed doctors and now go to a Naturalpath physician who sees me like a whole human being, mind, body and soul not just a bag of symptoms that are dismissed with a perscription for a one size fits all drug.
I also find it interesting that Naturalpaths are not covered under most insurance policies. Hmmm. Connect the dots ...GREED is what this is all about, not people.
So sad.
__________________
Jeannieco is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 01:28 PM   #950
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.


You still have very treatable, very affordable treatments being denied for certain pre-existing conditions that just will not be covered under these "market driven" Republican packages.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 02:08 PM   #951
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Not true at all. John McCain had a good plan, unfortunately he was a horrible salesman. Mitt Romney on the other hand had a terrible idea while governor of Massachusetts and that state's healthcare system is now falling apart. It's not a partisan attack it's a good ideas vs bad ideas attack.

Here's Indy's Healthcare bill.
1) Health insurance and healthcare are not the same thing.

Indy would eliminate all government mandates except one, catastrophic coverage must be provided and purchased by all adults. Let people shop anywhere in the nation for whichever type of insurance they want, be it comprehensive or low-cost, high-deductible coverage. Indy's plan would not require citizens to have coverage for in vitro fertilization, psychiatric care, gender-reassignment, chiropractic care or other less than life-or-death medical care unless they choose to pay for it.
Tax credits would apply if one doesn't get insurance through an employer. Health benefits would become taxable. HSAs (health savings accounts) would be encouraged under the Indy bill, they are outlawed under the House Democratic bill (wonder why?). The idea is to make health insurance like any other type of insurance, something you hope you DON'T need not something you try and use as often as you can.

A) This puts market forces back into insurance AND primary healthcare.
B) This gives patients MORE choices and actual portability while allowing more people to buy insurance that are now priced out of the system.

2) True tort reform. Not even addressed by the Democrats (wonder why?).

A) Lowers malpractice costs
B) Stops "cover-your-ass" tests and defensive medical practices.

I'm against the Democratic Bill because it contains NONE of this and in fact leads us in the exact opposite direction with more mandates, more government control of the markets and less options for consumers. In short, rationing under a government monopoly.

And if opponents of the bill are guilty of "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense," it's only in response to the crisis rhetoric of its supporters.

I come at this not as a partisan but as a healthcare provider and a conservative. Now, I don't pretend to have all the answers but nobody is telling me what to say or think either. Reform is badly needed but I'm looking for solutions. a cure if you will, not a retrogress.

(maybe it's time for a separate healthcare thread)
Thanks for proving me (somewhat) wrong, Indy. The crisis rhetoric is far less forceful, at least in my opinion, than the "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense." If you can give me an equivalent example of Democratic fearmongering, I'd welcome it.

That said, a couple of questions about your plan:

1. If your plan were put into place, my brother who takes medication for paranoid schizophrenia--what would happen to him? (I'll be honest and tell you I'm not sure how he gets his meds now--I know he gets social security but I don't know if he's paying out of pocket or has insurance or what).

2. Under your plan, would insurance companies still retain the right to deny any type of coverage to certain people? I have a friend who simply cannot buy insurance of any kind because of sports-related injury. No insurance company will take him.

3. What in your plan might result in a lowering of healthcare costs? Or is that important at all in your estimation?

4. What happens to those who can't afford any kind of health insurance? Would you keep Medicare and Medicaid around?

5. Tell me more about the benefits of taxing health benefits? I hate the idea of anything that doesn't reflect my actual income--cash in hand--being taxed.

I'd actually be interested in hearing from anyone, not just INDY on these questions. I have a lot to learn!
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 02:10 PM   #952
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.

There are certain things that should be and are inherintly governmental, and market forces should have no bearing (public safety, etc...) I think parts of healthcare should be -- emergency services, immunizations, disease control, etc... but at the same time, I'd like to see some competition amongst providers to keep improvements and innovations happening.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 02:19 PM   #953
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.
Whether you are talking computers, lobsters, tomatoes or healthcare -- markets are the most efficient way to direct resources to where they are most urgently needed. Profit rewards innovation, efficiency, excellence, customer service and just plain hard work.

Making healthcare a "right" rather than a good or service only invites shortages through less incentives and complacency through less motivation, blows demand sky-high while squeezing off supply all with the ultimate outcome of higher costs and rationing.

And why stop at healthcare if profit as an engine of inducement is inherently bad?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 02:49 PM   #954
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Whether you are talking computers, lobsters, tomatoes or healthcare -- markets are the most efficient way to direct resources to where they are most urgently needed. Profit rewards innovation, efficiency, excellence, customer service and just plain hard work.

Making healthcare a "right" rather than a good or service only invites shortages through less incentives and complacency through less motivation, blows demand sky-high while squeezing off supply all with the ultimate outcome of higher costs and rationing.

And why stop at healthcare if profit as an engine of inducement is inherently bad?


why is there the assumption that the engine of profit is inherently good?

healthcare isn't a service or a good, it's a need. like education. it's not like lobsters or computers, and the comparison belies a lack of understanding of the issue.

i can understand the profit motive when it comes to specific medical products, but not when it comes to providing insurance and coverage to people who have a *need* to be covered -- what you guys don't get is that lots of people want to have insurance, but because of preexisting conditions, they are *refused* coverage, or coverage is so expensive they can't afford it. that's the result of a profit-driven system, and then what happens is someone gets sick, or injured, and they are bankrupted by the costs because they were denied insurance from said profit driven companies.

the market simply isn't the best way to address coverage for people who aren't going to be terribly profitable to cover.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 02:51 PM   #955
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.


and i think this Supply Side Jesus attitude is almost uniquely American in it's blind adherence to a magical "free hand" of the market place.

markets are magic?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 02:53 PM   #956
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post


You still have very treatable, very affordable treatments being denied for certain pre-existing conditions that just will not be covered under these "market driven" Republican packages.


i am very healthy, but i had an accident that has given me a pre-existing condition, one that has caused my premiums to go up and one that could, in theory, deny me coverage if i had to change policies or plans.

i don't suppose i present all that much of a profit motive to an insurance company.

likewise, i know people who have tested HIV+ and have had their coverage revoked.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 03:23 PM   #957
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.
True but not entirely. Alot of the research is happening in the University hospitals, and a lot, I mean A LOT of the product developments in big pharma and device companies are counter intuitive and extremely destructiveto healthcare.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
but at the same time, I'd like to see some competition amongst providers to keep improvements and innovations happening.
The problem is, that even now this isn't happening. Yes they are competing, but they are also working as one in order to keep profits up. For example: the orthopedic industry developers lobbied with congress and insurance companies to negotiate the "retail" price of a certain device. The device is $5000, so insurance companies all pay this price, now of course the device costs no where near that ammount but you have to factor in reps, r&d, etc... still no where near that price. So the patient can't "shop around" for every competitor is the same price, nor can the insurance companies. So soon the private sector of insurance is going to be all one anyways and dictating the prices of everything, therefore they won't be able to compete much and it's all going to cost the same with them running healthcare.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 06:15 PM   #958
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.
I wasn't talking about pharmaceutical R&D. In "socialist" Canada, drugs are not covered except for low-income individuals. Most people have private drug plans, whether through their employers, their colleges/universities, or privately. The government plays a larger role in regulating the costs of pharmaceuticals, which is why it is lower here, and you are free to argue that this reduces the incentive for innovation, but you are free not to regulate that in the US in the same way if you wish.

We are talking about people's basic access to healthcare, to a primary physician, and even to relatively routine procedures that in your country can bankrupt a family, which happens nowhere else in the world. I am not sure why you are equating this to innovation and R&D.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 06:52 PM   #959
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 02:11 AM
^I really don't understand the reasoning behind people's reticence to a public health care system. As Irvine said just a few posts above, health care isn't a commodity or a product to be bought and sold. It's a basic human right. I was having a pretty heated debate with one of my best friends a few weeks ago about health care. He doesn't believe there's anything wrong with the current system and, doesn't understand why I'm so adamant about having a universal health care plan. One of his biggest arguments was, "If we have universal health care, the government will get to decide who gets care." He gave an example of cancer patients possibly having to go on a waiting list for chemotherapy because the government would have to approve every treatment. That's obviously totally false and (apparently learned from a right-wing wack job website) It's a terrible argument for the simple fact that insurance companies, in essence, do the exact same thing right now. Every doctor's visit, test, treatment, etc. have to go through insurance bureaucracy where it's decided what and how much will be covered by the insurance. His other argument was the old "Health Care as capitalism," argument which is just as ludicrous in my opinion. I fail to see how the current private health system drives innovation and research. Trying to make health care a profit driven business is what has ruined more people's financial lives; probably much more than have been saved by its supposed benefits. What good is the latest multiple sclerosis treatment, for example, if insurance companies have driven costs up so much patients can't afford it? What good is the latest diabetes drug if your company, desperate to cut costs, takes away your health care plan? The bottom line is, we need a basic public health care plan for every person in this country.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 08:08 PM   #960
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,661
Local Time: 02:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
We are talking about people's basic access to healthcare, to a primary physician, and even to relatively routine procedures that in your country can bankrupt a family, which happens nowhere else in the world. I am not sure why you are equating this to innovation and R&D.
Here's my two cents on this issue, and then I'm out because I don't feel like getting into a never-ending argument:

Is there a health-care system in the world that doesn't have problems? Absolutely not. There is no fail-safe system in anything in life, in my opinion, as nothing in life is perfect because we, as humans, are nowhere near perfect.

And I include the Canadian system in that. That being said, however, given the context of the current health-care debate in the U.S. and Palin's use of the term "death panel", I'd like to share a story from someone I met last week.

At a barbeque last weekend, I met a young man in his 20s, and as is often the case with me, the conversation turned to sports. He mentioned the fact that he can no longer play anything over fear of getting a head injury because he recently had a brain tumour removed.

Long story short: in February he had a seizure and was admitted to hospital where the tumour was discovered. Within a day or two he had brain surgery to remove the tumour, and has been in recovery ever since. He received world-class care in an expeditious manner, a procedure that would have bankrupted him if he had no insurance in the U.S.

He's now back at work, thankfully, and doing well. No "death panel" there.
__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com