MANDATORY health insurance

[BVS]

Except no one is doing that. I haven't heard one Republican calling for insurance reform and to tear down it's collectivism.

A champion for profit insurance companies is just championing the same exact thing but under big business rather than government, except that big business will deny a lot more.

It's something that's been brought up a thousand times and ignored 1001 times.

Maybe I'll try one more time, INDY, Bluer, etc why is ^^^^ this OK?

 

[INDY500]

Maybe I'll try one more time, INDY, Bluer, etc why is ^^^^ this OK?

You aren't listening then.

Reform I've talked about completely removes 3rd party payers for all but catastrophic care. Making healthcare insurance just like all other types of insurance you buy and HOPE YOU NEVER HAVE TO USE.

Crazy I know.

 

[BVS]

You aren't listening then.

Reform I've talked about completely removes 3rd party payers for all but catastrophic care. Making healthcare insurance just like all other types of insurance you buy and HOPE YOU NEVER HAVE TO USE.

Crazy I know.

First of all, you are the only one bringing this up, there are no Republicans out there speaking about alternatives.

Secondly all that "innovation and research" you say will be gone underneath Obama's plan will surely fade faster underneath yours...

 

[deep]

You aren't listening then.

Reform I've talked about completely removes 3rd party payers for all but catastrophic care. Making healthcare insurance just like all other types of insurance you buy and HOPE YOU NEVER HAVE TO USE.

Crazy I know.

I get that concept and I use to even suggest it.

Like homeowners insurance or auto insurance.


problem is the model does not hold up.


those insurances don't pay for home repairs/ upkeep or auto repair / upkeep


But imagine if there were comprehensive home insurance (annual cost $3500) provided by employers for about 2/3s of the people
and when they needed a toilet replaced (an item that cost about $200) the home insurance co. billed $1000 and paid the plumber $650 and kept $350.

and that if the people that did not have this special insurance needed a toilet replaced and were told it would cost $1000.

when they said that was too high, they were told they were stupid for not having the good insurance, that costs $3500 a year


and the answer was, we have the best paid plumbers on the planet. Our toilets are the best. No one designs better toilets. don't interfere with capitalism,


yes $1000 is a lot to pay for a toilet, and our plumbers earn 2 1/2 times the world average,
because we give a shit.

 

[anitram]

yes $1000 is a lot to pay for a toilet, and our plumbers earn 2 1/2 times the world average,
because we give a shit.

Loved it.

Senator Jim DeMint simplifies it for everyone:

I think health care is a privilege," he said. "I wouldn’t call it a right."

There you have it.

Rich people to the Mayo Clinic, poor people to bankruptcy court and/or the cemetery. What's not to like?

 

[INDY500]

First of all, you are the only one bringing this up, there are no Republicans out there speaking about alternatives.

Then you weren't listening to john McCain during the campaign last year.

Secondly all that "innovation and research" you say will be gone underneath Obama's plan will surely fade faster underneath yours...

Doesn't seem to be any lack of innovation in Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, veterinary medicine or other forms of care not traditionally covered by insurance and thus paid for out-of-pocket. They just keep getting better AND cheaper...because they have to. That is the way of competitive consumer-driven markets.

That is not the way of the rest of the health care system however, where cost is of little consequence once you're in the system and prohibitive to those outside the system.

 

[BVS]

Then you weren't listening to john McCain during the campaign last year.

Either his plan sucked, or he didn't communicate it well because I don't remember anything remotely intelligent coming out of his mouth about healthcare.

Doesn't seem to be any lack of innovation in Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, veterinary medicine or other forms of care not traditionally covered by insurance and thus paid for out-of-pocket. They just keep getting better AND cheaper...because they have to. That is the way of competitive consumer-driven markets.

But you've been shown before boob jobs are different from heart transplants and compound fractures. You have to understand that, don't you?

Your plan doesn't work because if a kid just out of college has his first job, wants to be productive then bam t-boned the second week of his new job, I don't think the $10 he's saved up is going to cover his broken femur. Plus your plan doesn't work for pre-existing conditions, long term care, people who need medicines for a lifetime... but it works well for boob jobs

 

[BoMac]

but it works well for boob jobs

Now, honestly, does anything else even matter?


Oh, right, health care. Uh... carry on.

 

[Irvine511]

Doesn't seem to be any lack of innovation in Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, veterinary medicine or other forms of care not traditionally covered by insurance and thus paid for out-of-pocket. They just keep getting better AND cheaper...because they have to.

what do all these things have in common, INDY?

 

[BVS]

what do all these things have in common, INDY?

This really is the ultimate in bubble thinking isn't it?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

so...i can't get free lipo, even if i live in socialist canada? but what about my thunder thighs!

 

[BoMac]

No. Sorry. Here in Canuckistan, surgeries considered cosmetic - like breast implants and laser eye surgery - are paid for out of pocket, while a triple bypass is performed by a fellow comrade, and paid for by the motherland.

 

[BVS]

On the other hand, I would give considerate thought to boycotting a product of theirs called Same-Sex Marriage Double Banana & Nut Vanilla Custard.

You must have like ESPN or something:


Ben & Jerry's "Hubby Hubby" celebrates gay marriage

 

[INDY500]

You must have like ESPN or something:


Ben & Jerry's "Hubby Hubby" celebrates gay marriage

Liberals are nothing if not predictable.

I like my name more though.

 

[Irvine511]

Liberals are nothing if not predictable.

I like my name more though.

i like how B&J showcased the diversity that exists in the gay community by showing gays who don't have 6% bodyfat.

 

[Bluer White]

Big speech: Obama wants control of health debate - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will deliver a major prime-time health care address to Congress next week, opening an urgent autumn push to gain control of the debate that has been slipping from his grasp under withering Republican-led attacks.

Scheduling of the speech next Wednesday night, just a day after lawmakers return from their August recess, underscores the determination of the White House to confront critics of Obama's overhaul proposals and to buck up supporters who have been thrown on the defensive. Allies have been urging the president to be more specific about his plans and to take a greater role in the debate, and aides have signaled he will do that in the address to a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.

 

[maycocksean]

Big speech: Obama wants control of health debate - Yahoo! News

I heard on NPR today that he's very likely to throw the "public option" under the bus next week.

I personally think that's a vital component to balanced health care reform, but I guess he wants to pass something and feels it won't make it out of Congress with a public option attached. The insurance companies will be very happy. . .this is the kind of "reform" they wanted.

 

[maycocksean]

You aren't listening then.

Reform I've talked about completely removes 3rd party payers for all but catastrophic care. Making healthcare insurance just like all other types of insurance you buy and HOPE YOU NEVER HAVE TO USE.

Crazy I know.

I've actually come around to agreeing, at least partially with this idea.

Is there any kind of organized alternative bill being sponsored by the Repubs or is it just a lot of naysaying?

 

[anitram]

I've actually come around to agreeing, at least partially with this idea.

What makes utterly no sense to me about this idea is the arbitrary "catastrophic care" designation. First of all, what's catastrophic? Are we going to have death panels deciding that? Is an accident that leaves you in a coma going to result in catastrophic care while you are in the ICU for 3 months but then the multi-million dollar coverage ceases when you're shipped off to some form of rehab for the better part of a decade or maybe the rest of your life?

Second, that doesn't in any way address people who have chronic, very expensive healthcare needs that are not catastrophic. What do you about somebody who has, for example, a genetic disorder (I use this one because I have on) which can be managed effectively over the course of a lifetime, but at a cost? Juvenile diabetes?

I actually find this entire debate to be astounding, and actually chalk it up to being one of those things that I will never, ever understand about American culture. And I've actually lived in the US as opposed to most of the rest of the world, but there you have it anyway.

 

[BVS]

Great post.

In all honesty the reason we haven't had a reform in healthcare is laziness, status quo, and the strength of insurance company lobbists.

And now that we finally have a "debate" occuring we get "socialists", comparing healthcare to boob jobs, and big business brother is good. Seriously folks? You're tea bagging with these types of arguments?

Where is the real debate? It's embarassing.

 

[INDY500]

I've actually come around to agreeing, at least partially with this idea.

Is there any kind of organized alternative bill being sponsored by the Repubs or is it just a lot of naysaying?

Good question, I'm sure for now they're quite content to allow the Democrats to bicker amongst themselves. Next year they will have to craft some type of alternative. People do want reform, but not at the cost of larger government, larger debt, less personal liberty and ultimately lower quality care.

 

[anitram]

People do want reform, but not at the cost of larger government, larger debt, less personal liberty and ultimately lower quality care.

Yeah, sure seems like they're telling the CNN Pollsters that they won't tolerate a public option:

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?

Favor - 55%
Oppose - 41%
No opinion - 4%

 

[anitram]

http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e550264071883301157139a9f6970b-300wi

Nope, the Americans simply won't tolerate a public option!

 

[Irvine511]

What do you about somebody who has, for example, a genetic disorder (I use this one because I have on) which can be managed effectively over the course of a lifetime, but at a cost? Juvenile diabetes?

you go back to school and better yourself so you can make more money. simple.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

A debate in the US on something completely domestic like healthcare would, obviously, not normally make the news here, but this one is, always articles of the “WTF?!?” variety. Amazing that the US of all countries does not have such a system already, staggering that there’s such a large opposition to it, and then of course the utterly bizarre, lunatic level arguments being raised against it and about Obama for pushing for it. A lot of charges against systems like ours (or the UK) are right, it’s definitely not perfect, but f*ck, Obama would have better luck tomorrow pushing an across the board gun ban alongside a Bible burning day in the US than anyone here would have in ditching our Medicare system.

 

[BoMac]

Good question, I'm sure for now they're quite content to allow the Democrats to bicker amongst themselves. Next year they will have to craft some type of alternative. People do want reform, but not at the cost of larger government, larger debt, less personal liberty and ultimately lower quality care.

Our government is not larger because of our subsidized health care.

Prior to the economic meltdown, the government has been balancing the books and generating surpluses for years and paying down the debt as a result.

How is there less personal liberty? We have our choice of doctors, are free to see whom we choose, can go to any hospital that we like. And our level of care is excellent.

Again, is our system perfect? By no means, and there are problems. But the same can be said for any system in the world.

 

[Irvine511]

and then of course the utterly bizarre, lunatic level arguments being raised against it and about Obama for pushing for it.

most of which are purely political, since the GOP has absolutely nothing to offer on this other than opposition with the intention of harming Obama politically. granted, he's done a poor job, but the idiocy of things like "death panels" simply don't belong in any sort of adult-level discussion.

we're fine with torture, but GOD FORBID a poor person has health insurance.

 

[Irvine511]

larger debt

the bill on Obama's plan is actually a bit cheaper than the Iraq debacle.

and Republicans have absolutely no credibility whatsoever when it comes to debt.

remember, "deficits don't matter."

 

[INDY500]

What makes utterly no sense to me about this idea is the arbitrary "catastrophic care" designation. First of all, what's catastrophic?

Basically anything over your deductible. you pay for flu shots, you pay for stitches when you slice your thumb and should you suffer a heart attack or some other catastrophic illness you would pay up to your deductible. Like other insurance lower deductible = higher premiums. health insurance prevents what fire insurance does... total loss.

Are we going to have death panels deciding that? Is an accident that leaves you in a coma going to result in catastrophic care while you are in the ICU for 3 months but then the multi-million dollar coverage ceases when you're shipped off to some form of rehab for the better part of a decade or maybe the rest of your life?

The responsible person would have short and long term disability insurance.

Second, that doesn't in any way address people who have chronic, very expensive healthcare needs that are not catastrophic. What do you about somebody who has, for example, a genetic disorder (I use this one because I have on) which can be managed effectively over the course of a lifetime, but at a cost? Juvenile diabetes?

I should think premiums would be adjusted (within restrictions), up or down, according to health and age. Again, just like car insurance being higher for young males than other segments of the population.

I actually find this entire debate to be astounding, and actually chalk it up to being one of those things that I will never, ever understand about American culture. And I've actually lived in the US as opposed to most of the rest of the world, but there you have it anyway.

I feel the same way about curling.

 

[BVS]

INDY you're truly living in a bubble with those ideas