Health Reforms

[psychocat]

I've been watching the debate in the US about adopting a British style health system, I'd be interested to hear others take on this.

The UK population has a higher life expectancy than the US.
I have had many reasons to be thankful to the system we have and I've always believed we would be a lot worse if we followed the US way.

Two comments I heard recently were.
The only time we Brits have a lower life expectancy than the Americans is when we're on military manouvers with them. ;)

And I heard that someone had used the argument that had Steven Hawkings been English then he would not be around.
Steven Hawkings is ENGLISH and says he would not be around WITHOUT the National Health Service.

[cptcannabis]

Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned physicist. The NHS would be foolish to let him die, but if he were a normal man with Lou Geirig's disease, I don't think his outlook would have been so sunny.

The problem with government provided healthcare is that it forever changes the relationship between the state and citizen. If you rely on the government for life and death matters, such as healthcare, you become beholden to your own government. And their way to decrease costs = rationing & blocking access to care. Since it's run by the government, there's no accountability. In Britain, they have a formula to decide whether you get healthcare. The procedure is divided by the years that you benefit, and if you don't meet that threshhold, you don't get the procedure. This will mean that many people with very serious health conditions will not get care. The seniors in America have picked up on this, and many of them are showing their great displeasure at the town hall meetings.

The real problem behind all of this is that our government in the U.S. and many other places think they know better than everyone else. Hillary Clinton has actually said that our money is not our own, it belongs to the government, and we are allowed a portion to live from. This kind of mentality demonstrates that our government can't be trusted to look out for our best interests.

[psychocat]

Hawking became ill at the age of 21 , long before his genius was recognised.

[cptcannabis]

Nevertheless, he would not be receiving such lavish care right now if he were not a world renowned physicist. He has people that live with him to take care of his medical needs and doctors on call. They don't do that for the average man.

[psychocat]

Nevertheless, he would not be receiving such lavish care right now if he were not a world renowned physicist. He has people that live with him to take care of his medical needs and doctors on call. They don't do that for the average man.


The really funny part of your argument is that it is nullified by Mr Hawking himself who on more than one occassion has stated "I would not be here but for the NHS".
You assume that our healthcare is rationed based on academic qualification which is frankly a complete load of bollocks !

[Ramulux]

The problem with government provided healthcare is that it forever changes the relationship between the state and citizen. If you rely on the government for life and death matters, such as healthcare, you become beholden to your own government. And their way to decrease costs = rationing & blocking access to care. Since it's run by the government, there's no accountability. In Britain, they have a formula to decide whether you get healthcare. The procedure is divided by the years that you benefit, and if you don't meet that threshhold, you don't get the procedure. This will mean that many people with very serious health conditions will not get care. The seniors in America have picked up on this, and many of them are showing their great displeasure at the town hall meetings.

The first thing you have to understand is that the current health care reform bill will not turn us into Great Britain. The bill seems to create a system more in line with the Netherlands where they still have a thriving private health care industry. If a public option is created, that does not mean that people are going to have to give up their current insurance and go on the public plan. If you are happy with your current insurance plan, a public option is not going to effect you in any way. All this bill will do is create an alternative "option" available to anyone who cannot afford private insurance.

Your anger at the health care rationing in England is ridiculous, when you simply think about how many millions of people the NHS provides care for every year. On a health care budget much smaller than ours, England is able to provide "basic" treatment to all their citizens. It may not be the greatest coverage in the world, but it is better than nothing, which is what many people would have if there were no NHS. Another thing to realize is that private insurance companies ration health care in the exact same way England and Canada do. The public option will not be able to cover all procedures in the same way private insurance companies are unable to. No one is claiming that the public option will give you amazing, world class care. It will simply allow you to visit the doctor or dentist without losing hundreds of dollars.

You are also not understanding that this issue is kind of more important than your personal political ideology. I am well aware that the existence of a public option is a massive step to the left of the political spectrum and if it passes it will be a massive blow to the way the American people view conservatism. Regardless of the political ramifications a public option will revolutionize this country quite literally. I am sure everybody knows someone with health problems who is unable to receive the treatment they need, because they do not have insurance. If these millions of people are suddenly able to visit the doctor and obtain medication, can you even imagine would it would be like having millions of sick people suddenly become healthy and ready to start contributing to society.

In the end,it all comes down to how you view America. Conservatives see a country where everybody looks out for themselves and the federal government does not exist. Liberals, however, understand the lessons taught to them by people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, which is that this country cannot survive unless we look out for one another. We are all Americans and regardless of your political or religious views, I want you to be able to go the doctor if you are sick. It is the year 2009 and people need to stop living in the dark ages. Socialized medicine works and if you don't think so go tell that to all the elderly people who are alive because of Medicare.

[cptcannabis]

Yes, let's just hand over all power to the government, since they're so altruistic, and they'll just decide what's best for us!

The concept that you can keep your doctor & insurance plan that Obama continuously underscores is a lie. Right on page 16 of the house bill, it says that all plans which are non-compliant with the government standard (which is all of them) have a deadline to get into compliance. If a person has to change anything in their policy due to a life event, change in coverage, etc. It then makes the plan uncompliant, and they have to move into the government option.

Another lie that the public is being forced-fed is the concept that people are being turned away for care. Doctors treat patients in spite of their ability to pay or their insurance coverage. People that walk into the emergency rooms get treated. Unlike in Britain, where there was a huge shortage in hospital beds for mothers to birth in. The government doesn't run anything well, save the IRS to take as much money from you as they can. The Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's Affairs healthcare are all broken systems. Don't kid yourself that they'll run the healthcare for every man, woman, and child any better.

Seniors will stand to lose quality of life under this nationalized healthcare. "Elective" procedures will become much harder to procure, since the national health board will just divide the cost by the years of benefit and decline to provide that treatment to seniors. Many people with steel hips, knees, and other operations to make them mobile will likely find themselves confined to wheelchairs. That doesn't lend to creating a more productive populace. Just a more sedentary one.

[McDanger]

The first thing you have to understand is that the current health care reform bill will not turn us into Great Britain. The bill seems to create a system more in line with the Netherlands where they still have a thriving private health care industry. If a public option is created, that does not mean that people are going to have to give up their current insurance and go on the public plan. If you are happy with your current insurance plan, a public option is not going to effect you in any way. All this bill will do is create an alternative "option" available to anyone who cannot afford private insurance.

Businesses will find it cheaper to pay the fine than the insurance premium, there goes your choice.

Your anger at the health care rationing in England is ridiculous, when you simply think about how many millions of people the NHS provides care for every year. On a health care budget much smaller than ours, England is able to provide "basic" treatment to all their citizens. It may not be the greatest coverage in the world, but it is better than nothing, which is what many people would have if there were no NHS. Another thing to realize is that private insurance companies ration health care in the exact same way England and Canada do. The public option will not be able to cover all procedures in the same way private insurance companies are unable to. No one is claiming that the public option will give you amazing, world class care. It will simply allow you to visit the doctor or dentist without losing hundreds of dollars.

Dental is not included. If you cannot pay "hundreds" of dollars for your health care, how will you pay the thousands of dollars for your public option. If you think it will be free you are the exact kind of idiot Obama is looking for.

You are also not understanding that this issue is kind of more important than your personal political ideology. I am well aware that the existence of a public option is a massive step to the left of the political spectrum and if it passes it will be a massive blow to the way the American people view conservatism. Regardless of the political ramifications a public option will revolutionize this country quite literally. I am sure everybody knows someone with health problems who is unable to receive the treatment they need, because they do not have insurance.

I don't. And these few (under 10 million) people could be covered for far less than the trillions that will be spent
.
If these millions of people are suddenly able to visit the doctor and obtain medication, can you even imagine would it would be like having millions of sick people suddenly become healthy and ready to start contributing to society.

Basic care as you call it is not denied now, Hospitals MUST treat.

In the end,it all comes down to how you view America. Conservatives see a country where everybody looks out for themselves and the federal government does not exist.
No we don't, WE SEE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Liberals, however, understand the lessons taught to them by people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, which is that this country cannot survive unless we look out for one another.
Please provide at least 1 quote to back up this assertion.
We are all Americans and regardless of your political or religious views, I want you to be able to go the doctor if you are sick. It is the year 2009 and people need to stop living in the dark ages. Socialized medicine works and if you don't think so go tell that to all the elderly people who are alive because of Medicare.
In the proposed bill Medicare will be cut by 500 million at the same time that there will be millions of new people added to the rolls.

[Ramulux]

Businesses will find it cheaper to pay the fine than the insurance premium, there goes your choice.

I do not really understand what you mean by this or what it has to do with the quote it is referencing.


Dental is not included. If you cannot pay "hundreds" of dollars for your health care, how will you pay the thousands of dollars for your public option. If you think it will be free you are the exact kind of idiot Obama is looking for.

You are right dental is not included, I did not mean to write that. However, I do not understand what you mean when you say I will have to pay thousands to get on the public plan. I am well aware that it is not completely free, but I know its not going to cost thousands of dollars.


I don't. And these few (under 10 million) people could be covered for far less than the trillions that will be spent.

First of all, there are at least 46.3 million uninsured in this country. That is more than the combined populations of 24 smaller states. So how do you propose we get these people covered?

It is also not going to cost trillions, it is going to cost $900 billion over the next 10 years, the majority of which will pay for itself by getting rid of wasteful medical related spending. That is also not including the billions that are going to be saved by simply putting the uninsured on an insurance plan so that they can receive preventive care and not cost the state thousands of dollars when they end up in the ER and cant pay for it and end up in debt.


Basic care as you call it is not denied now, Hospitals MUST treat.

Yeah, and then you go into debt. Over 60% of all the bankruptcies in America stem from medical bills. That is thousands of people who's lives are ruined because they got sick and could not afford insurance. No matter how you look at that statistic, it is fucked and at the very least a sign that something is not right with our current health care system. So yeah, nobody is going to drag you out of the ER your just going to have to spend years working to pay back the bills. I also never claimed that Emergency rooms denied people care.


No we don't, WE SEE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION

Right, because the founding fathers were psychics who could read the future and know everything that this country was going to go through for the next 220 years. It is called an amendment dude. Things change, the world evolves, and the American government needs to evolve with it. I am not gonna bash the constitution, because it is an amazing document, but it does not have all of the answers.

Do you think that people who are 18 should not be able to vote? Do you think you should be denied the right to vote if you cant pay a poll tax? Do you think the president should be able to run for as many terms as they want? If you said no to any of those things, you are against the constitution as it was originally framed. They are called amendments and they are what happen when our government realizes that the constitution is not perfect.


Please provide at least 1 quote to back up this assertion.

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."
Martin Luther king Jr.

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
Martin Luther king Jr.

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all
mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each
man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while
with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they
please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are
two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name
- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties,
called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Abraham lincoln

[DookJones]

As a recent recipient of a new kidney from my father, being on dialysis and being ill most of my life I know for a fact the health care system here isn't great, but when you look at the cold hard facts you have to recognize that Obama is half white... and we all know white people are not capable of great things, hopefully he can continue to hide his whiteness and we can continue on living in a country that provides fast, affordable healthcare that not only helps losers, but homosexuals too.

[McDanger]

I do not really understand what you mean by this or what it has to do with the quote it is referencing.

"If a public option is created, that does not mean that people are going to have to give up their current insurance and go on the public plan. If you are happy with your current insurance plan, a public option is not going to effect you in any way." If your employer stops providing coverage you WILL have to give up your current coverage.

You are right dental is not included, I did not mean to write that. However, I do not understand what you mean when you say I will have to pay thousands to get on the public plan. I am well aware that it is not completely free, but I know its not going to cost thousands of dollars.

you know this?????????You better have a talk with Max Baucus then. The fine for not buying insurance if your family income is 60k is set to be about $3600

First of all, there are at least 46.3 million uninsured in this country. That is more than the combined populations of 24 smaller states. So how do you propose we get these people covered?
I don't. 12 million illegals, 10 million people that are only temporarily uninsured due to job changes or other short term circumstances. Another 6 million that choose to not take the employer plan.

It is also not going to cost trillions, it is going to cost $900 billion over the next 10 years, the majority of which will pay for itself by getting rid of wasteful medical related spending.

If you bet your life on this you will be dead. The Fed has NEVER been correct in ANY prediction of cost on anything. They have underestimated EVERY time

That is also not including the billions that are going to be saved by simply putting the uninsured on an insurance plan so that they can receive preventive care and not cost the state thousands of dollars when they end up in the ER and cant pay for it and end up in debt.

This has repeatedly been debunked. Preventive care does not save money since it is given to everybody and everybody would not come down with the illness.

Yeah, and then you go into debt. Over 60% of all the bankruptcies in America stem from medical bills. That is thousands of people who's lives are ruined because they got sick and could not afford insurance. No matter how you look at that statistic, it is fucked and at the very least a sign that something is not right with our current health care system. So yeah, nobody is going to drag you out of the ER your just going to have to spend years working to pay back the bills. I also never claimed that Emergency rooms denied people care.



Right, because the founding fathers were psychics who could read the future and know everything that this country was going to go through for the next 220 years. It is called an amendment dude.

Yes it is, I agree with you. But the Fed is not trying to amend the Constitution, they are trying to change it without an amendment.

Things change, the world evolves, and the American government needs to evolve with it. I am not gonna bash the constitution, because it is an amazing document, but it does not have all of the answers.

It has a mechanism spelled out specifically in the document to address this. It does have all the answers!!!!!

Do you think that people who are 18 should not be able to vote? Do you think you should be denied the right to vote if you cant pay a poll tax? Do you think the president should be able to run for as many terms as they want? If you said no to any of those things, you are against the constitution as it was originally framed. They are called amendments and they are what happen when our government realizes that the constitution is not perfect.

They do not just "happen", THERE IS A PROCESS SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Ask yourself why they do not follow that process?



"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."
Martin Luther king Jr.

Sounds like a mixing of church and state to me. And I am not sure I agree with it anyway.

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
Martin Luther king Jr.

This is a choice to be made by the individual, not forced upon him by some bureaucrat. That is tyranny.


"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all
mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each
man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while
with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they
please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are
two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name
- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties,
called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Abraham lincoln

I don't agree with Abe. When the Gov't forces somebody to give up the product of their labor (money) for the benefit of "other men", THAT IS NOT LIBERTY.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

.....this issue is kind of more important than your personal political ideology.one's ideology is more than a badge or banner that identifies you as being on one side or another. it is the determining factor in how you live your life and what you are willing to do for the society around you. what could be more important than how you live your life? a life of slavery, whether to another man or to the state, can never be preferred over a life of freedom. that difference is a matter of ideology, the same ideology you consider so unimportant.


In the end,it all comes down to how you view America. Conservatives see a country where everybody looks out for themselves and the federal government does not exist. Liberals, however, understand the lessons taught to them by people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, which is that this country cannot survive unless we look out for one another.so; it's rather obvious that you see the nation's compassion as flowing only from the bosom of the state. your view of american compassion as only a matter of how much we give to the government for their various do-nothing social programs is the typically narrow attitude ground into us by the liberal establishment and reinforced by a media determined to ignore the charity of the individual. last year's official tally of charitable donations was over $300 billion and that is only what is reported. that is an average of over $1,000 for each man, woman and child in the country. even as our economy came crashing down around us, we managed scrape together a higher percentage of our wealth than any other country on earth to just give away and i don't think all that giving was restricted to the liberal layabouts that love to lay claim to their compassionate attitude.

conservatives see a country where the individual is responsible for the betterment of society, where government's role is to protect the rights of its citizens so that they may be better able to build a greater society. liberals see a nation of sheep that must be forced to do what is right, where the desires of the many are empowered to infringe upon the liberty of the few.

[headshake]

You are right dental is not included, I did not mean to write that. However, I do not understand what you mean when you say I will have to pay thousands to get on the public plan. I am well aware that it is not completely free, but I know its not going to cost thousands of dollars.

how do you figure it's not going to cost you thousands of dollars? what do you think your tax money is going to? so besides paying for yourself you'll be paying for others.


First of all, there are at least 46.3 million uninsured in this country. That is more than the combined populations of 24 smaller states. So how do you propose we get these people covered?

where did you come up with this 46.3 million people? i've heard closer to 30 million and that's a high estimate. most think it's closer to 20 million. regardless of the actual number how many of those CHOOSE NOT to have insurance?

how many of those in that estimate are illegal immigrants? i know for one that i am NOT going to pay for illegal immigrants health care.

do you also not think about the fact that we only keep about 70% of our income and the rest is paid into taxes? you are okay with this? perhaps if they let us keep all of our wages they we could afford insurance?

the current bill alters the tax code so that if you don't have insurance they can fine you and put you in jail. this is the same IRS that owes back taxes. that doesn't sound like choice to me.


It is also not going to cost trillions, it is going to cost $900 billion over the next 10 years, the majority of which will pay for itself by getting rid of wasteful medical related spending. That is also not including the billions that are going to be saved by simply putting the uninsured on an insurance plan so that they can receive preventive care and not cost the state thousands of dollars when they end up in the ER and cant pay for it and end up in debt.

who exaclty is gonna get rid of wasteful spending? the govt? they've done a good job of that up to this point. how can you put so much faith into a govt that obviously can't run shit right. our national budget is $4 Trillion and we are taking in $2.5 Trillion. and obama said it would be that way for at least the next four years.


Yeah, and then you go into debt. Over 60% of all the bankruptcies in America stem from medical bills. That is thousands of people who's lives are ruined because they got sick and could not afford insurance. No matter how you look at that statistic, it is fucked and at the very least a sign that something is not right with our current health care system. So yeah, nobody is going to drag you out of the ER your just going to have to spend years working to pay back the bills. I also never claimed that Emergency rooms denied people care.

so why hasn't the govt stepped in before? they could have regulated the industry long ago. why now? the insurance companies have been fucking people over for years. dropping people when they get sick. refusing to pay. the govt sat idly by and let this happen because why? because those companies lobby millions if not billions.

why does america pay the most in the world for prescription medications?

they wave a bill in front of your face and you jump at it.

do you want to govt to have real-time access to your bank account? you are okay with this?


Right, because the founding fathers were psychics who could read the future and know everything that this country was going to go through for the next 220 years. It is called an amendment dude. Things change, the world evolves, and the American government needs to evolve with it. I am not gonna bash the constitution, because it is an amazing document, but it does not have all of the answers.

how many amendments have we had in since the constitution?

there are 27. once which abolishes slavery. one that gave rights to women. one that allows them to collect a federal income tax. one that was for prohibition and one that repealed that amendment. there are no fewer than six that have to due with the legal process. (perhaps part of the problem in this country is that we are too litigious?)

perhaps part of the problems is that we are one of only a few countries that ELECTS judges. how much sense does that make? who do you suppose the judges back? oh yeah, the companies that donate to their campaigns?

i'd say overall that constitution is a solid document and our forefathers were smarter then than we are today. they wrote the constitution in such an open ended fashion because they KNEW it wasn't perfect and that this country would, in fact, go though growing pains if you will.



Do you think that people who are 18 should not be able to vote? Do you think you should be denied the right to vote if you cant pay a poll tax? Do you think the president should be able to run for as many terms as they want? If you said no to any of those things, you are against the constitution as it was originally framed. They are called amendments and they are what happen when our government realizes that the constitution is not perfect.

you don't have to love your govt, you just have to love you country. i think you'll find that american's are finally getting tired of having the wool pulled over their eyes.

again, if the health care bill was all that it was cracked up to be it would have been passed in august. it's not and it didn't.

it's our RIGHT and DUTIY as the people to hold the govt accountable for it's actions. check the quote it my sig from the declaration of independence. it basically states that those that have the ability to change something have the RESPONSIBILITY to change it. and if we have a govt it place that no longer works for the people it is OUR job to throw off that govt and put a new govt in place for our future security.


-shake

[McDanger]

The latest quote from the messiah

Mr. Obama said legalizing illegal immigrants is a way to take the sting out of the entire issue.

[headshake]

The latest quote from the messiah

Mr. Obama said legalizing illegal immigrants is a way to take the sting out of the entire issue.

well he can't take that and shove it right up his ass! i don't understand how we are just handing out invitations to the party. what about all the emigrants that come before them that EARNED it? why would he just wave his hand and make them legal? there is no repercussions for the billions of dollars that leave our economy every year? a lot of those people don't care about this country, they just care that it's better than theirs. isn't the money that they already get enough? hell, i can't qualify for govt programs, but they get all of it and they just keep on popping out kids. then their husbands work under the table, so no taxes are paid. and i can't get a job. then americans have the audacity to say that they are jobs that americans don't want. wrong, the fact of the matter is that the business owners would be forced to pay acceptable wages. they can't get away with low-balling people.

sorry for the rant! this shit just really pisses me off. i have nothing against emigrants that do it the RIGHT way, and come here to become AMERICANS! if you come here, you are an american first and foremost, not a mexican-american, african-american or anything else! we don't call white people european-americans. once you decide that, your loyalties lie to america (our country and no where eles. don't get this confused with our govt. i don't condone our govt in any way, shape or form. again, if your (insert emigrants country here) is so great then go the fuck back! we should buy them a one-way ticket and that's the ONLY money that illegals should EVER GET!

and by the way, in texas, where i live white people are the MINORITY! do we get any special privileges or treatments? any "equal opportunity"? yeah right!


-shake

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i don't understand how we are just handing out invitations to the party.don't be so naive, an amnesty program has always been a part of the obama/democratic agenda. how the hell do you think these bastards managed to get such a huge chunk of the hispanic vote? an agreement between this administration and the mexican government has always been in place, even before we voted this fool into the white house, and they know that they'll soon have to live up to their end of the bargain. despite the fact that handing citizenship to illegal immigrants is the one topic against which the american people stand united, our government will still hammer an amnesty bill through whether we like it or not. poverty is the liberal establishment's greatest ally and the thought of twenty million more ignorant and impoverished voters under their thumb has them drooling like pedophiles at a nursery school. our economy being in the toilet gave them a little breathing room after the election, but not a day goes by that they aren't fine tuning another amnesty bill to give them a little more power and the rest of us a little less of everything.

[Trip06]

british style of health system.
like where you gotta wait 8 months for keemo therapy when your termanly ill, because its rationed and your on the bottom of a list.

Obama can bite a big one.

[JayJayW]

Nothing will change, I havent noticed a change since Carter Theres always rumors that stuff will change but nothing ever does. I say this because the point in my life where I remember who the president was start with him.

[Islandborn]

The Democrats have already lost this debate pretty bad over the past 6 months. They will pay dearly in 14 months.

Tort Reform

Remove Fed Laws and open up all the states to all the insurance companies

Stay out of our lives

[Islandborn]

I voted for Obama and I made a huge mistake. I will admit that right now....so I aplogize. It's been one screw up after another.

[boaz]

i forgive you, hell i voted for Bill Clinton in '92 :eek: what a fuckup that was. i will apologize today for that vote, too. :jointsmile:

[Islandborn]

I have "friends" who would never speak to me again if they heard me say i was turning on Obama. I was a big suporter of his. What a fraud it turns out. Another tax and spend liberal of my parents generation. I learned a valuble lesson from " Change we can believe in". What a crock of shit.

[boaz]

^ live and learn, eh? i, for one, will never vote dem again at the national level. They are all bat shit crazy. repubs, too, for that matter.

[GoldenBoy812]

I believe it is beneficial to help identify the problems with our health care system.

With good/service that is so inelastically demanded, such as health care, the markets pricing mechanism creates a considerable amount of unintended consequences.

Think about it; if you were an insurance company, would you be willing to ascribe to a policy of insuring the most risky demographic in the US, AKA the elderly? Of course not, and rightfully so. It is estimated that Americans will spend more than 2/3 of their total health care costs during their last year of life, and around 1/2 during their last month of life. Suffice to say, it would not be profitable for an insurance company to cover this type of demographic. Therefore, the government has agreed to supplement the elderly for this failure in the market mechanism.

Next we have those with pre existing conditions. A private insurance company would be insane to offer insurance to this particular demographic, because the odds are, on the aggregate, the liabilities will far outweigh the revenue gained from adding them to their customer base. And yet... we have yet to offer a governmental supplement to make up for the dead weight loss incorporated in the health care market.

While it is possibly true that a young strapping man as myself will not get sick, or injured, the odds are that if i were to forgo insurance, and were to get seriously injured or ill, i would be up to my ears in medical bills. Being the rational economic agent i am, i would not find it logical to attempt to pay off tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands in hospital bills, and therefore stick it to the hospitals.

This type of behavior puts considerable cost pressures on hospitals. Combine this with the use of Emergency Rooms acting as primary physician care for those without health insurance, and we can begin to see how costs are being "spread" throughout the system. Many of these illnesses could have been more easily and more cost effectively treated prior to the visit to the ER.

The solution is simple. Create a public option that allows anyone who demands it to be able to obtain it. In doing so, there must be serious legislation enacted that allows private insurance companies the right to deny coverage to anyone they see fit. For the most part, this will be the obese, smokers, elderly (already covered :) ) those with pre-existing conditions, or even those who do not pay their premiums in an orderly fashion.

This allows the private sector to do what it does best, and reduces the burden from its risk pool, which has led to the double digit increases in health care costs. It also provides a competitive edge to the consumer. If insurance companies push too many people off their plan, without due diligence, then they will be forced to raise their premiums. A competitive company will attempt to keep as many profitable candidates in the pool without tarnishing its reputation, or putting long run costs out of tune (thereby forcing them to jack up rates).

Those who do not have insurance will then be able to obtain it, and hospitals will no longer be forced to foot the bill, or make financial decisions that can cost the lives of many sick Americans, as they are so regretfully forced to do on a daily, if not hourly basis.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with my premise to debate me with the facts. But be warned in advance, i will employ the most cutting edge economic literature and statistics to support my assertions.

[Islandborn]

Axlerod and cronies shoulda hired you to blabber for a Govt. run healthcare system, you woulda done alot better than they did with Obama and Pelosi

[Islandborn]

1) Tort Reform

2) Remove federal laws and open all the states to all the insurance companies

3) stay outta the way. Govt. isnt the solution, clearly its the problem

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I believe it is beneficial to help identify the problems with our health care system.....your simple solution to the dilemma denies the truth of what insurance really is. it is an investment in your future health, a gamble that the price of your accumulated premiums will be less than the cost of treatment for some catastrophic illness in the future. it is not a discount on medical treatment or a charity for the indigent. just as medicine is a business, dependent on profit for growth and advances, so is medical insurance. for there to be any rational reform in the health care industries we must distance the business of insurance from the business of the actual care, just as auto insurance is from the automotive industry and home owner's insurance is from home construction, and deal with each independently. for too long these separate industries have fed off of each other, each trying to outdo the other in corruption and graft, and the end result has been outrageous prices for medical care and a series of loopholes and inequities in insurance coverage. the lion's share of the blame for these problems lies at the feet of the most corrupt player in this game, a government comprised of self-serving animals that unevenly applies restrictions and uses the graft generated by the interference of those tasked to oversee the field to fill political war chests.

the notion that a state controlled public option can be a self-sustaining answer to the dilemma is nothing more than a bald faced lie. any profit that may emerge during flush times will be immediately funneled into the pet projects of petty bureaucrats and, without the investment of private backers to ride out the unexpected, the onus for any shortfall lies firmly with the american taxpayer. the immediate pool for a state run insurance consists of those without the means to purchase coverage from private sources, so their premiums must be minimal and their coverage, as a consequence, must be minimal as well. this leaves us with the same problem we have now, the poor refusing to pay for medical services that their insurance does not cover. the problem is magnified by the fact that, aside from the normal costs of existence, they must also pay for an insurance that does not meet their needs. government subsidizing of those premiums still places the tax burden on the wealthy and the middle class, so once again we have the american taxpayer footing the bill for another corrupt state run charity.

that is what this whole thing is about, now isn't it? another mandatory charity to help line the pockets of washington's criminal element, our unresponsive representatives, and steal a bit more of the people's self-determination. another way to make politicians appear as if they really care about those they represent, while they consolidate their power over the destiny of this nation and decimate the control of the individual over his own life. the answers that government gives us only serve to erase a bit more of the personal responsibility we should take over our own actions and increase its hold over the social, economic and ethical life of this country.

to hell with your statistics and economic theory. the truth of the matter is there for anyone to see, anyone that cares to question the motives of the liberal establishment. government always takes the easy way out. what it cannot control it either destroys or takes over. in this case their agenda is clear, to take over a major segment of our economy by destroying much of the private sector's access to profit and taxing the hell out of the rest of it.

[Islandborn]

[quote=delusionsofNORMALity]your simple solution to the dilemma denies the truth of what insurance really is. it is an investment in your future health, a gamble that the price of your accumulated premiums will be less than the cost of treatment for some catastrophic illness in the future. it is not a discount on medical treatment or a charity for the indigent. just as medicine is a business, dependent on profit for growth and advances, so is medical insurance. for there to be any rational reform in the health care industries we must distance the business of insurance from the business of the actual care, just as auto insurance is from the automotive industry and home owner's insurance is from home construction, and deal with each independently. for too long these separate industries have fed off of each other, each trying to outdo the other in corruption and graft, and the end result has been outrageous prices for medical care and a series of loopholes and inequities in insurance coverage. the lion's share of the blame for these problems lies at the feet of the most corrupt player in this game, a government comprised of self-serving animals that unevenly applies restrictions and uses the graft generated by the interference of those tasked to oversee the field to fill political war chests.

the notion that a state controlled public option can be a self-sustaining answer to the dilemma is nothing more than a bald faced lie. any profit that may emerge during flush times will be immediately funneled into the pet projects of petty bureaucrats and, without the investment of private backers to ride out the unexpected, the onus for any shortfall lies firmly with the american taxpayer. the immediate pool for a state run insurance consists of those without the means to purchase coverage from private sources, so their premiums must be minimal and their coverage, as a consequence, must be minimal as well. this leaves us with the same problem we have now, the poor refusing to pay for medical services that their insurance does not cover. the problem is magnified by the fact that, aside from the normal costs of existence, they must also pay for an insurance that does not meet their needs. government subsidizing of those premiums still places the tax burden on the wealthy and the middle class, so once again we have the american taxpayer footing the bill for another corrupt state run charity.

that is what this whole thing is about, now isn't it? another mandatory charity to help line the pockets of washington's criminal element, our unresponsive representatives, and steal a bit more of the people's self-determination. another way to make politicians appear as if they really care about those they represent, while they consolidate their power over the destiny of this nation and decimate the control of the individual over his own life. the answers that government gives us only serve to erase a bit more of the personal responsibility we should take over our own actions and increase its hold over the social, economic and ethical life of this country.

to hell with your statistics and economic theory. the truth of the matter is there for anyone to see, anyone that cares to question the motives of the liberal establishment. government always takes the easy way out. what it cannot control it either destroys or takes over. in this case their agenda is clear, to take over a major segment of our economy by destroying much of the private sector's access to profit and taxing the hell out of the rest of it.[/QUOTE

This about sums up my feelings. Cant help but feel trapped in the middle by these 2 parties. Something has gotta give soon. What will that be? F--k I dont know.....but something has gotta give.