Healthcare Suicide

[pan6467]

So here we are. A health care bill soon to be rammed through that the people don't like, Congress itself doesn't truly like but it's going to ram it through.

The Dems are committing political suicide if they pass it through Reconciliation and just by the bill itself. It's not a good solution, it sucks.

The GOP is committing suicide by not coming out with a better solution to the people. Granted they may not be able to put it on the floor for debate.

Now, if I were a GOP strategist, I"d have a proposal better than that being passed and show it to the people (personally, my choice would be sliding scale). I'd have every GOP out there showing the proposal and comparing it to what will be passed and talking about how the Dems aren't even listening to the people.

This would show to the people that the GOP sees the need and unlike now, is willing to attempt to find some change. Now, the GOP just yells about all the faults and while it is extremely flawed, they offer nothing else.

Eventually, and I believe this is what the Dems are doing, it starts looking like the GOP doesn't see a need for reform and doesn't care, they just are playing partisan politics. Which WILL hurt the GOP immensely.

I could foresee the Dems waiting until the heavy electoral races before they truly do anything. Everything else is scare tactics. During the races, the Dems come at the GOP about how they don't want ANY health care reform and it's over for the GOP.

Then, the Dems vote on this fucking horrendous bill and get it passed. Taxes go up, people want their care now and we'll see hospitals go broke, go private, and so on. It's going to be a mess and in 2 years 2012... the Dems that voted for it will be toast. BUT it will be law.

The people by and large want and realize we need some form of reform but they don't like this bill and the way it is being processed. The GOP is truly taking a huge gambit with not offering their own plan up. The Dems are just going with the wrong bill and doing the wrong things to get it passed.

Just my opinion and observation.... what is yours about this?

[Cimarron29414]

I'm not touching this other than to say that it is completely untrue that the GOP offered no alternatives. With all due respect, how could we start a discussion on this when such a fundamental point to your post is so inaccurate?

[filtherton]

I'd be more careful before claiming to know what "the people" think. I think that the Democrats are more fucked if they don't pass anything.

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm not touching this other than to say that it is completely untrue that the GOP offered no alternatives. With all due respect, how could we start a discussion on this when such a fundamental point to your post is so inaccurate?

Wasn't their alternative the "Let's start over so we can drag this out for another year" plan?

[Baraka_Guru]

I don't know if this goes as far as political suicide. Maybe this is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My opinion of this whole thing is skewed, as I'm writing this from a nation that's had health care in its current form for longer than I can remember. Its buildup predates me. Furthermore, the man credited for its development and inception is considered a national political hero.

Anyway, my view of what's going on south of the border is this: you're doing it wrong, but it's better than doing nothing — and the system can be reworked and rejigged after it's implemented.

I think the problem with most Americans is that they're too damned paranoid of socialism to actually develop and implement a workable system parallel to the systems in place in much of the developed world.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I think the problem with most Americans is that they're too damned paranoid of socialism to actually develop and implement a workable system parallel to the systems in place in much of the developed world.

This needs to be quoted 100x.

Yes, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. That said, the polling data does not reflect the idea that this is political suicide. People want health care reform passed. Lots of people have reservations about this reform, but the data consistently shows that people trust the Democrats over the Republicans on this subject, and that they'd rather have something passed than nothing.

[Derwood]

no one is committing political suicide on either side. some faces may change here or there, but the two parties can more or less do what they like with impunity

[dippin]

Yeah, people keep saying it's an unpopular bill, etc. etc.

The problem, however, is that most people are fucking clueless about what is on this watered down bill.

When asked about each provision on the bill, almost everything other than the mandated health insurance are overwhelmingly popular.

By the way, in many ways this bill is actually a lot like the one they republicans proposed as an alternative to Clinton's, which I suspect is strong indication that if the democrats gave in on everything (as opposed to almost everything like they just did), the GOP still wouldn't go along with it.

[roachboy]

Pollster.com: Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

the republican/insurance industry combined disinformation machineries has done considerable work in convincing people of all manner of nonsense about health care reform.

rasmussen polling results, which tend to run right:
53% Now Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports

but
Most support public option for health insurance, poll finds - washingtonpost.com

57% favor a public option.

i don't see data that supports the op contentions.

[Jinn]

Ever since I saw a mashup of "ramming down our throats" on The Daily Show, I can't help but notice it when someone uses it. It makes it very clear where they are getting their news from.

Nuclear option is the same as reconciliation
Ramming down our throats
American people don't want this
Start new
Go back to the drawing board
Political suicide

People pick up these phrases without even realizing it, but end up telegraphing their sources (and subsequent ignorance) via their choice of words.

EDIT: Links..

"Ramming down our throats" / "Anchor Management" - jump to 2:00
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...hor-management

"Nuclear Option":

[Willravel]

Passing any kind of reform is the only thing that can save the Democratic party for the next election cycle. Once this gets passed, Democrats can hang their hats on being able to change things in Washington—even if the bill changes almost nothing compared to what it should have—and can run their campaigns on a continuation of "change". If the Democrats lose, it will be a political disaster of grand (I refuse to say "epic") proportions, and could lead to centrist Republicans making gains in November.

The funny part of this whole thing is how polling is being used by the obstructionists to somehow justify their abhorrent and disloyal behavior. "75% of Americans are agains ObamaCare". Really, Fox News? Did, as dippin point out, they actually read the bill? No? So the only source of theirs on information from this bill is from Fox News itself? Does your hand get cramped from all that circle-jerking?

If I were a GOP strategist, you know what I'd be doing right now? I'd be positioning my Senator or Congressman to step across the aisle and vote yes. I'd send him or her all over Fox News to interview with Beck and ORLY and Hannity and on to talk radio to talk with Limbaugh and such, touting about how my representative managed to get Republican ideas into the bill despite heavy resistance from the "leftist" Obama administration. I'd talk about Republican ideas like undercover fraud-spotters for Medicare, the $500m for tort reform, and the plan being budget neutral. I'd present my representative as a David, facing off against the Goliath of the Democratic majority and doing whatever needed to be done to legislate Republican principles. My rep would win in a landslide in his or her district or state and would no doubt pave the way for a presidential run in a few terms as a maverick or as bipartisan. Now would be the best time in the last 30 years to create a stand-out Republican persona.

But they won't do that because the insane far right thinks President Obama is the second coming of Hitler or some such nonsense, making compromise all but impossible to the ignorant cowards.

[flstf]

I think that once this bill passes and people realize that very little will change in the next 4 years or so there will be a lot of pressure to move things up. Also once people start (are required) to pay money to insurance companies many will insist on a public option.

Also I believe that after people start getting health care benefits, the chances of repealing it would be about the same as getting rid of social security.

[Idyllic]

If "ObamaCare" and its' system of hospitals and doctors, appointment making and force of vaccinations is anything like military health care, military health care being run be the government, so I would think they will be close, it isn't going to be at all what people think it will be.

The doctors will have more authority than before and if you don't follow their guidelines, well, in the military, it can look really bad not to conscientiously have your children vaccinated, regularly, they call you if you don't, and as for the lucid being proven insane and locking you up, I can see state run patty wagons on their way already.

When you do come in they question you about every decision you make, there is absolutely no continuity of care, and a lot of the doctors are outdated, don't read up on the new med stuff, because they all get paid the same, and very few of them will even remember who you are, just another body walking through the door.

Even the military has heard enough from it's own and allowed some of use to pick up Johns Hopkins, if we want.

Don't ever expect to get a same day appointment, unless you are active duty, or important to the government system itself. If you are truly lucky you will come across that one or two special doctors who are merely active to get their degree and then get out as soon as they can, into the real health care system, which I guess will only be available to the ultra rich after this.

Kids can get almost all free health care through their local health clinics, there is in place ways for people to get help that need it now, if they want it, it's already government run, and surprisingly most people don't like that now, I don't see how they will like it more when it is all government run.

If this happens, the gap between the rich and the poor will escalate. The sick will become sicker, the youth will stand a chance, but as a parents you better follow through because they will be tracking you. Our kids will grow up with a complete medical history available to anyone as they walk through that doctors door, and swipe their special personalized number, only the wealthy will be able to seek treatment without repercussions of any sort.

Doctors will be overwhelmed, under-payed and undereducated, just to get them out their working, older doctors will be kept on just to make you suffer with their out of date diagnoses, and if you think these health care people are going to go out of their way to be personal to the multitude of clients they will be inundated with, think again.

I agree their should be some plan in place that protects children and people under the age of 18 and over the age of 65, but other than that, your on your own. And yes, they will make decisions as to who is worth "fixing" and who isn't, if the American people are footing the bill and the government is in control of the money, you better hope your young when that hip goes out.

I love the military, blessed to be a part of it, blessed to have what they offered, can't wait to find a practitioner that I can pick for myself with trust in the doctor, not just because he/she is who is available, and who I get.

I remember somebody mentioning something about health care in Canada and how you are not given a choice as to which type of doctor you want to see, you will have to conform to get the help you need/want, or you will not get help at all.

Raise taxes, but fewer people will get the help that is already available to them now, they will just have to pay for it regardless, ask most affluent Canadians where they go when they really need expertise in medical treatment, it's typically not local, no offense.

I hope I'm wrong, but it all smells like anesthesia to me. Their is so much more as to what government funded health care is like, to the things they say to you and the way you are treated, like animals in a zoo, your just another body and unless your really physically broken and young, your just not a priority for care.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Now, if I were a GOP strategist, I"d have a proposal better than that being passed and show it to the people (personally, my choice would be sliding scale). I'd have every GOP out there showing the proposal and comparing it to what will be passed and talking about how the Dems aren't even listening to the people.

I've listened to most of the GOP health care proposals and they just can't seem to come up with a way to cover most of the uninsured and those with pre-conditions. The cost savings from tort reform and opening up state lines just don't get us there.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by Idyllic

I remember somebody mentioning something about health care in Canada and how you are not given a choice as to which type of doctor you want to see, you will have to conform to get the help you need/want, or you will not get help at all.

Never been told what doctor I will or won't see. I love how Americans with no experience in our system always use information that was initially wrong to try and make their point.

Raise taxes, but fewer people will get the help that is already available to them now, they will just have to pay for it regardless, ask most affluent Canadians where they go when they really need expertise in medical treatment, it's typically not local, no offense.

I hate when people say 'ask most' how many is 'most affluent Canadians'? 6? 126? 1026? Just saying ask most affluent Canadians where they go, doesn't mean 'most' do, and as I altready pointed out, how many is 'most'. Let me guess, you're going to use Danny Williams as an example.

As BG stated previously in this thread:

I think the problem with most Americans is that they're too damned paranoid of socialism to actually develop and implement a workable system parallel to the systems in place in much of the developed world.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Never been told what doctor I will or won't see. I love how Americans with no experience in our system always use information that was initially wrong to try and make their point right.

We also have extensive opinions on purple elephants in Africa.

[silent_jay]

It really is funny though, it's like some think you get sent to a proctologist if you have a head injury or something, simply because the ass doctor is avaliable at the time you came to emergency.

As for those purple elephants, I think I saw them in Ontario back when I was a teenager, or it could have just been the acid that made that happen haha.

[Willravel]

My current signature seems appropriate: "In order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand." (Eric Hoffer) It's the certainty that a universal system leads to socialism, communism, nazism, anarchism, hedonism, and antidisestablishmentarianism that makes their case so silly. Facts are either ignored or rationalized away in order to support a belief, a faith if you will.

[SecretMethod70]

Continuing along the theme of misinformation...

Originally Posted by Idyllic

If "ObamaCare" and its' system of hospitals and doctors, appointment making and force of vaccinations is anything like military health care, military health care being run be the government, so I would think they will be close, it isn't going to be at all what people think it will be.

If there's one thing the health care reform proposal won't be like, it's military health care. Even at the most liberal points of the debate, the focus has been on creating a system more like Canada's, not one more like Britain's. After a year of this I really shouldn't have to explain the difference, but I will (very generally) anyway: In Britain, the government provides the health care. In Canada, the government pays for the health care.

[Jinn]

I'm not even sure Idyllic's comment was worth responding too, seeing as how it's not actually anything like the current health care bill. The 'government run healthcare' you're railing against is soooooo 2009.

[Idyllic]

silent_jay here's some numbers: this was done 1994 and 1998 (5 years)

America’s Best Hospitals. Response from these institutions was low (eleven of twenty) and somewhat fragmentary. The numbers of Canadian patients seen in the prior year were generally very low: Six hospitals reported fifteen or fewer elective inpatients or outpatients; four hospitals reported 20–60 patients, and one hospital reported nearly 600 patients (90 percent outpatients and many related to proton beam radiation therapy for cancer).

State hospital discharge data: Over the five-year observation period from 1994 to 1998, 2,031 patients identified as Canadians were admitted to hospitals in Michigan; 1,689 to hospitals in New York State; and 825 to hospitals in Washington State.

During the same period, annual inpatient admissions to hospitals within the bordering provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia averaged about 1 million, 600,000, and 350,000, respectively.12 Thus, Canadian hospitalizations in the three U.S. states represented 2.3 per 1,000 total admissions in the three Canadian provinces. Furthermore, emergency/urgent admissions and admissions related to pregnancy and birth constituted about 80 percent of the stateside admissions.

Elective admissions were a small proportion of total cases in all three states: 14 percent in Michigan; 20 percent in New York; and 17 percent in Washington.

Principal diagnostic categories: The distribution of diagnostic categories varied by the type of admission (emergency/urgent versus elective) and by state. Diseases of the circulatory system and injury and poisoning accounted for 37 percent of all cases in Michigan, 39 percent in New York State, and 50 percent in Washington State (50 percent, 23 percent, and 21 percent, respectively, of all cases within the elective admission category).

Within the circulatory system category, the most common principal discharge diagnoses in all three states were acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disorder, heart failure, and conduction disorders and arrhythmias. In New York State, admissions associated with digestive disorders (such as cholelithiasis, gastroenteritis/colitis, and appendicitis) represented 13 percent of emergency/urgent cases.

In Michigan, admissions associated with mental disorders (schizophrenic disorders, affective/depressive disorders, and substance abuse) represented 20 percent of emergency/urgent cases, and the number of cases within this category was much greater than in either New York or Washington. However, we were unable to obtain further details from ministry or state sources.

The remaining cases within the emergency/urgent category were distributed widely across principal diagnostic categories, and there was no consistent pattern across states. The distribution of elective cases across clinical categories was quite broad, with no consistent pattern across states.

You are right, not a high volume in comparison to those in the facilities in Canadian hospitals, however, most of those who came to American were, as I said, affluent and I would think a lot of these could be those who didn’t want to wait and had that money for immediate service.

'My heart, my choice,' Williams says, defending decision for U.S. heart surgery

By Tara Brautigam (CP) – Feb 22, 2010

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

I believe he would be considered affluent.

Private insurance policies: Limits imposed since the early 1990s on out-of-province payments by provincial payers have motivated more Canadians to obtain travelers’ insurance for emergency out-of-province medical care. For example, the number of individual policies sold to Canadians increased from 700,000 to 2,800,000 from 1992 to 1999.

I am not making the assumption that you would see a proctologist if you were looking for a psychiatrist. That would be ludicrous, but even in the governmental run military health care system, if your PCM (Primary Care Physician) is out. You get the next available doctor.

My first primary care physician was an internal specialist, told him all my symptoms, came back in a month and he was gone. I ended up with a new doctor, just out of school who specialized in respiratory diseases and was rotating for experience. I had to start all over, it was never properly documented in my chart, and I had a three hour wait to see this guy.

In the end I had to be referred for x-rays, 2 weeks, mammogram, 3 weeks, specialist who then sent me to a surgeon for the lump in my bosom, to a surgeon, duh, why the wait, it was over two months to see a surgeon for possible breast cancer, and instead of discussing a needle biopsy, oh no, she said we need to cut, and take out the mass and some fat tissue around it too.

After my surgery, I got an infection because the new surgeon, who I found out later had only a handful of surgeries under her belt, left the sterile strips on, never told me to remove them, even after I returned to her. I developed a severe infection which lead to permanent disfigurement, I’ll never forget laying on that table in just her exam room as she quietly covered her mistake and stuck a 2 inch needle into my beast to drain the infection, no Novocain but at that point the pain from the infections pressure was so bad the needle felt good, I have to say though watching my “ultra tough” husband almost hit the floor was hilarious, needless to say, I never saw her again. By the way, it was a cyst, a stinken stupid bubble of fluid that had she stuck the fuckin needle into the first time would have popped and gone away, she wanted to cut.

Don’t get me started on when they hit my femoral nerve during a routine hysterectomy that left me partially paralyzed in my left leg for 6 month, I was told, it’s just an angry nerve, oh, that makes it better, thanks for the walker. So much. And I will never forget what they did to my son during his surgery at thirteen month. Oh, my God, even today I want to hunt that nurse and those doctors down and throttle them.
I tell you this garbage, my whining you may say, because, and here's the killer, You have no recourse, can’t sue the government, and if you complain, it goes into your permanent file and rides at the top of your chart and even before you walk through that door your judged.

No Thanks, Obama. Been there, done that.

And go ahead, ask me about Tricare- the government funded insurance…. hahahahaha.

How different can it be, government run is government run. They may provide it, they may pay for it, but in the end it will be us who pays, twice.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Idyllic

[...] here's the killer, You have no recourse, can’t sue the government, and if you complain, it goes into your permanent file and rides at the top of your chart and even before you walk through that door your judged.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as malpractice here in Canada? Tell that to the lawyers here who make a living on such things. I don't think it's much different from other health care systems.

How different can it be, government run is government run. They may provide it, they may pay for it, but in the end it will be us who pays, twice.

Isn't health care in the U.S. currently more costly per capita than in Canada?

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by Idyllic

I believe he would be considered affluent.

I already mentioned him, all Canadians on the forum knew Danny Williams name was coming up.

I am not making the assumption that you would see a proctologist if you were looking for a psychiatrist. That would be ludicrous, but even in the governmental run military health care system, if your PCM (Primary Care Physician) is out. You get the next available doctor.

Well what would you like them to do? Send you home until your doc is around? Then watch the complaints then, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, either way you'll complain.

You are right, not a high volume in comparison to those in the facilities in Canadian hospitals, however, most of those who came to American were, as I said, affluent and I would think a lot of these could be those who didn’t want to wait and had that money for immediate service.

Where does it say 'most' are affluent? You seem to think saying 'most were' makes it so, but really it doesn't, you showed Danny Williams, thats it, and we all knew that was going to be mentioned. You use vague words like 'most', 'alot', and think that's how it is, it's like making a comment about 'most Americans', I could say it, but even I know it isn't true, as I don't know a think about most Americans.

Again you have zero experience with our system, yet think you know it inside and out, it's quite comical really.

[SecretMethod70]

Baraka: yes, nearly double.

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003


Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003


The costs are also increasing faster than any other major country, relative to GDP, and has been for the past 30 years...

Percentage Point Change in Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1980 to 2003; 1990 to 2003

[Idyllic]

Hi Baraka_Guru, no I'm not suggesting that, re: litigation, I wouldn't know. But as you said your health care system has been in place for a long time, long enough for people to stand up to your government and demand certain regulations. I am just afraid that it will take 100 years before this is all worked out and it is scary to think that in 20 to 25 years, I probably won't get that hip replacement.

I would like to see Americans a little less intimidated by this reform, before it is pushed through, that's really all, and considering all I have seen, and I'm talking about the venerable WRAMC, soon to be the WRNMC. It's really scary. Just the cafeteria is like a war zone of broken solders who are fighting so hard, and still seem to be just a number at the foot of their beds. I know the people who work at Walter Reed are trying, I've meet a lot of great people, but the system, it's scary, they are overworked, overwhelmed and under payed. If the government can't even handle these deserving people as well as they should be, what does that leave me to expect for the average Joe.

SecretMethod70, I would like to say we cost so much because we are just so damned good, but as posted before, nay. I don't know why we are so much more expensive, that doesn't change the matter of this Bill. I still think privatizing and competition are key to less expensive health care, the government can control those rotten pharmaceutical companies though, or else let Canada come in and help us out there.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm not touching this other than to say that it is completely untrue that the GOP offered no alternatives. With all due respect, how could we start a discussion on this when such a fundamental point to your post is so inaccurate?

Then that's the problem, isn't it? What was their alternative and why haven't they been pushing it more.

I don't think my OP was fundamentally inaccurate if the GOP isn't doing anything to talk about and educate the people on their alternative. All I hear is how they oppose and have people ready to fight the constitutionality of the bill if it is passed through reconciliation.

Cimarron, I am not trying to bash the GOP. I just think they are committing political suicide by NOT pushing their alternative.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'd be more careful before claiming to know what "the people" think. I think that the Democrats are more fucked if they don't pass anything.

I just stated my opinion and what my observations are from talking to friends and people I know. My OP is nothing more than that.

As for the Dems being fucked if they don't pass it. If the polls are right, I think it's the complete opposite, especially when the taxes go up, people are being told what they can and cannot eat or do (via taxation), and so on. And if people have to wait 4 years for this to take effect...lol.... yeah.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I don't know if this goes as far as political suicide. Maybe this is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My opinion of this whole thing is skewed, as I'm writing this from a nation that's had health care in its current form for longer than I can remember. Its buildup predates me. Furthermore, the man credited for its development and inception is considered a national political hero.

Anyway, my view of what's going on south of the border is this: you're doing it wrong, but it's better than doing nothing — and the system can be reworked and rejigged after it's implemented.

I think the problem with most Americans is that they're too damned paranoid of socialism to actually develop and implement a workable system parallel to the systems in place in much of the developed world.

Perhaps. But I would rather wait and find a workable solution that is actually put out for people to read and a Congress that is allowed to debate and take the time to find answers, than be ramrodded and "we'll change it as we go".

I can also say this from personal experience. Our female house guest who is on medicaid was able to have her tubes tied (primarily mandated to), and has since had 3 infections due to the hospital and doctors not taking time and effort to make sure the job has been done right. The treatment she got before was next to nothing, the treatment during was shoddy at best and since has been horrendous.

My wife, who had good insurance when she got hers tied, received great medical care BEFORE DURING and AFTER.

Both were treated at the same hospital.

The lesson I learned is that private insurance made a huge difference. Medicaid and taxpayers paying paid far more for the shoddy treatment than we did for my wife's. IF this is an example of the future of medical treatment... FUCK THAT.

However, we need to overhaul and change this so that ALL PEOPLE GET THE SAME MEDICAL CARE regardless of ability to pay or not. I do not see it in this bill that will be passed with "reconciliation". Nor, are the GOP proposing anything that is worthy to even discuss.

If the Dems want to make Health Care their legacy, than do so with a bill that BETTERS the system and HELPS EVERYONE EQUALLY. Don't just pass something to pass something and say "we changed it". Because "we changed it" could mean nothing more than "we made it worse".

[SecretMethod70]

Yup, the Dem bill sucks, it just sucks less than what we have now, and sucks MUCH less than the non-existent alternative that the Republicans haven't proposed. But, you know why it sucks and isn't as good as it could be? Give you a clue...

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I think the problem with most Americans is that they're too damned paranoid of socialism to actually develop and implement a workable system parallel to the systems in place in much of the developed world.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Yup, the Dem bill sucks, it just sucks less than what we have now, and sucks MUCH less than the non-existent alternative that the Republicans haven't proposed. But, you know why it sucks and isn't as good as it could be? Give you a clue...

That may be true. But the Dems are truly f'ing themselves. "We changed the system, by making it worse and raising taxes on what you eat and do" DOES NOT NOR WILL EVER equal "we studied the systems overseas, looked at what works here and developed a plan that we believe will work for EVERYONE, and the best part is it will not cost anymore than you already pay, and give you the same treatment you'd get with private insurance. We maximized out of pocket to below 15% of your income, we implemented ways to make sure if you get sick, your family won't lose everything because of bills."

It's just sad that even Dems ramming it through know it is a horrendous bill, but believe they can change it once it's passed. THAT WON'T HAPPEN. They should take their time and make sure the bill they pass is THE BEST BILL POSSIBLE. They are refusing to do that for sake of "we changed it", and the vast majority of them and the president, don't even know what all is in the bill. And as for public knowledge.... that's laughable. If it were the best they could do and it was something they were truly proud of then why not allow debate, why not let the people read it, why not stand up proudly and say "WE DID THIS"?

Instead, they slink and ram rod and make excuses.... to me that's pathetic and tells me they KNOW they can do better for the people but REFUSE TO.

[robot_parade]

So what's so bad about this bill, exactly? It isn't nearly what I wanted, or what progressives wanted, but it's still way better than the status quo. As far as I can tell, the Republican party has no alternative at all - their entire strategy and goal is to obstruct.

Here's the good stuff in the current bill:

o Subsidies to buy health insurance for lower income people
o Insurance exchanges which *may* lubricate the market a little bit.
o No more recission, exclusion for pre-existing conditions, or lifetime limits.
o Insurance must cover preventative care.
o No more medicare 'donut hole'
o Medicaid for 'pretty much' all of the poor.

Some stuff I'm not comfortable with:
o Individual mandate
o No employer mandate

I'd have preferred single payer, or at least 'public option' - although I have serious doubts about the viability of the public option idea.

Failing that, I think we should just get rid of the employer-based system (or rather, the incentives for it), and let people shop for their own insurance. If we're going to be all 'free market', have an actual market.

[Charlatan]

I think it needs to be underscored again. In Britain the government runs health care. In Canada the government pays for healthcare. It makes a HUGE difference.

In Canada, it is doctors that make the call on what treatment I need. Not an insurance company. Not the government. If I don't like the diagnosis from the doctor I am seeing, I can go see another doctor. The only thing the government decides is what they are going to cover. What they do cover is offered universally.

As for "affluent" types heading out of the country... Stats that I have seen suggest that this practice occurs with people who do not want to wait for elective or non-emergency surgeries. For example, a knee replacement surgery might take 3 to 6 months before it can be scheduled. Someone who has the money and doesn't want to wait, will go elsewhere. There are issues in the Canadian system with access to MRI and CT scans in more remote areas. Either they need to travel to access the equipment or they have to wait to get access to something that is increasingly local. This is a problem shared by remote places in the US as well.

I am always amused by the misinformation that floats around in the US when it comes to the Canadian system. Especially when it comes from folks like Idyllic who otherwise appear to be well informed and reasonable.

The best anecdote I can provide is the example of my father in law. He is what one would consider affluent (not massively so but he has no worries when it comes to finances). A few years ago he had some heart problems and had to get a valve replaced. He was diagnosed on a Thursday and was in recovery by the following Monday night. Urgent is urgent and is treated appropriately. He paid $0 for this treatment.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by robot_parade

So what's so bad about this bill, exactly? It isn't nearly what I wanted, or what progressives wanted, but it's still way better than the status quo. As far as I can tell, the Republican party has no alternative at all - their entire strategy and goal is to obstruct.

Here's the good stuff in the current bill:

o Subsidies to buy health insurance for lower income people
o Insurance exchanges which *may* lubricate the market a little bit.
o No more recission, exclusion for pre-existing conditions, or lifetime limits.
o Insurance must cover preventative care.
o No more medicare 'donut hole'
o Medicaid for 'pretty much' all of the poor.

Some stuff I'm not comfortable with:
o Individual mandate
o No employer mandate

I'd have preferred single payer, or at least 'public option' - although I have serious doubts about the viability of the public option idea.

Failing that, I think we should just get rid of the employer-based system (or rather, the incentives for it), and let people shop for their own insurance. If we're going to be all 'free market', have an actual market.

I truly dislike the individual mandate, I think threatening people with fines and imprisonment is going too far.

From what I see and have heard of the bill it is too much fucking legislation, red tape, threats, taxes and disorganized to truly do anything but screw up the system even more.

Your last line I agree wholeheartedly with, basically because I do not see anyone proposing what I believe to be the best feasible option and that is sliding scale with a maximum out of pocket. Get rid of employer based and have a full free market for insurance. It's better than what is offered.

GOP scare tactics aside, i just see this being a mess and the Dems regretting it in years to come. I also see this as an end to many many freedoms we enjoy and a health care system even with all its faults still the greatest in the world. people from all over the world (even from countries with universal health care) come to our great hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic.

Does something need to be done? Yes.

Is this the right bill to do it? NO, even some who are voting for it say that... so they are bribed, threatened (if you believe some Reps.), and coerced into it, thinking they will be able to "fix it" once passed. I find that a scary way of doing business.

It's like a car company saying "let's outsource our gas and brake systems and if something happens we'll "fix" it AFTER there are serious accidents and deaths caused by it."

We can get better. Our Congress can do better. Our President should demand better.... but instead everyone will get mediocre with the belief after needless deaths, threats, a government working to keep costs down so they tax freedoms into a cost prohibitive status for some (which IMHO is a loss of freedom), red tape and a system that will be a mess.

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by pan6467

a health care system even with all its faults still the greatest in the world. people from all over the world (even from countries with universal health care) come to our great hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic.

another common catchphrase in this debate.

the quality of health care provided in this country is arguably the best in the world. that's not what the bill is about. it's about access to the health care.

people from other countries aren't coming to America because their insurance systems are bad

[Baraka_Guru]

And a reminder, too: as good as the U.S. system might be, it's damned expensive.

It's all about access at this point.

[aceventura3]

Here is what I want to know. I currently have a high deductible non-group plan, with an HSA, I turn 50 this year, and my wife has a pre-existing condition that has been excluded under our current policy. When can I cancel my current policy, go into one of the exchanges to get the same coverage Congress gets, at a lower cost, and get coverage for my wife's pre-existing condition. I am at an age where I need some of you young healthy people to help me out a bit, and I promise to cut back on the Big Mac's.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Derwood

another common catchphrase in this debate.

the quality of health care provided in this country is arguably the best in the world. that's not what the bill is about. it's about access to the health care.

people from other countries aren't coming to America because their insurance systems are bad

I agree, having the best and the people being able to receive it are 2 different things and people should be able to receive it regardless of their ability to pay.

However, my point was that this bill is NOT doing that. IMHO< this bill WILL widen the gap between classes and the lower classes will receive medical treatment less than what they can today.

I don't think we should lower our standards on medical treatment, but raise them and in doing so find ways to make that health care affordable to ALL, with as little governmental influence as possible.

Take a good look at our educational system. We had the best, no one could come close. The federal government got involved and now our schools are bankrupt and we are barely in the top 10 if at all. Our drop out rates are higher, our teen pregnancies, teen violence and so on. there are many factors but IMHO the past shows me the more the Federal government got involved the worse the education system became.

Another idea for health care, give every state so much money and allow them to figure ways to distribute it into the health system fairly. That way if say Ohio uses the money and makes health care a sliding scale and maximizes lifetime expenses while Michigan just uses the money to pay for the poor and has to continually find new tax monies... we can find what works and what doesn't and work out a national system. I don't believe just putting a national system in and expecting it to work and grow will either work nor grow. They did that to education, put forth a national standard and look what we have, bankrupt schools. Do we really want a bankrupt health care system?

[Rekna]

If the American health care is so good and Canada's is so bad then why did Sarah Palin's family go to Canada for health care?

Everyone who I have talked to that have been through the Canadian or English health care systems rave about it.

Also I find it curious that no one is pointing out that the CBO predicts this bill will SAVE 1.2 TRILLION dollars over the next 20 years.

So we cover more people, we get better care, and it costs less. Why are people against this?

In my opinion if we don't pass this bill we should cancel medicare and watch all those crones scramble as they are upset that the government isn't providing them health care when they just railed against government health care for the last year.

[Derwood]

I don't get why you think this will widen the gap, pan

[Cimarron29414]

Originally Posted by Rekna

...we should cancel medicare...

I didn't realize that was an option. Okay.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Derwood

I don't get why you think this will widen the gap, pan

Because we will have "private hospitals" and the best doctors that will only cater to the rich. Imagine a hospital like Cleveland Clinic deciding the new system isn't worth the effort and they go private, serving only those that have private insurance.

It'll end up more negative than the system is already. What is the government going to tell the Cleveland Clinic (and I use it ONLY as an example because it is in my backyard), that they HAVE to care for ANYONE walking in their doors? If that's the case, the very good hospitals are going to be very overwhelmed and unable by sheer volume unable to keep the service they are known for.

The disparity will grow for that reason. It will have no choice but to.

[dippin]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Because we will have "private hospitals" and the best doctors that will only cater to the rich. Imagine a hospital like Cleveland Clinic deciding the new system isn't worth the effort and they go private, serving only those that have private insurance.

It'll end up more negative than the system is already. What is the government going to tell the Cleveland Clinic (and I use it ONLY as an example because it is in my backyard), that they HAVE to care for ANYONE walking in their doors? If that's the case, the very good hospitals are going to be very overwhelmed and unable by sheer volume unable to keep the service they are known for.

The disparity will grow for that reason. It will have no choice but to.

There is no public option in this bill, so everyone will still have "private insurance."

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dippin

There is no public option in this bill, so everyone will still have "private insurance."

A small percentage of those 30+ million currently uninsured would become eligible for Medicaid.

But the vast majority, most of those working for small businesses would be able to purchase affordable insurance through the Insurance Exchange that would be created.....from the same private insurance companies that serve the large group (employer-based) market.

Pan....I really dont understand at all your point that this "bill WILL widen the gap between classes and the lower classes will receive medical treatment less than what they can today."

How does providing affordable, accessible private insurance TO 30+ million working people widen the gap?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by robot_parade

So what's so bad about this bill, exactly? It isn't nearly what I wanted, or what progressives wanted, but it's still way better than the status quo. As far as I can tell, the Republican party has no alternative at all - their entire strategy and goal is to obstruct.

Here's the good stuff in the current bill:

o Subsidies to buy health insurance for lower income people
o Insurance exchanges which *may* lubricate the market a little bit.
o No more recission, exclusion for pre-existing conditions, or lifetime limits.
o Insurance must cover preventative care.
o No more medicare 'donut hole'
o Medicaid for 'pretty much' all of the poor.

Some stuff I'm not comfortable with:
o Individual mandate
o No employer mandate

I'd have preferred single payer, or at least 'public option' - although I have serious doubts about the viability of the public option idea.

Failing that, I think we should just get rid of the employer-based system (or rather, the incentives for it), and let people shop for their own insurance. If we're going to be all 'free market', have an actual market.

IMO, the "good stuff" is very good stuff and represents significant reform that, over time, will impact most Americans in a positive way by providing more extensive coverage and financial security (no more going bankrupt over a medical crisis).

The conundrum is that you cant get this good stuff w/o the bad stuff.....increasing the size of the pool through individual mandates.

I too would prefer a single payer system and dumping the employer-based system....but pragmatism prevails.