Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[brokenhalo]

GOP senators emerged Monday to warn that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, and warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

amazing. "we don't work to help the american people. we work to obstruct the democrats." what an absolute ass....

[Ex-Cyber]

GOP senators emerged Monday to warn that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, and warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

Right, because that whole "bipartisanship" thing was going so very well before this bill was proposed.

[Domino]

GOP senators emerged Monday to warn that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, and warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

amazing. "we don't work to help the american people. we work to obstruct the democrats." what an absolute ass....

Dude, it wasn't like the Donkey's will listen to the Elephants in the first place. That's why the Donkey are always the jackasses.

At least my congressman didn't vote for this BS.

[JoshF]

But Domino, aren't you forgetting THE ELEPHANT in the room? An elephant never forgets a friend.

Right, because that whole "bipartisanship" thing was going so very well before this bill was proposed.

Yeah, the Republicans smugly combed their hair with their hand when Obama reached out for a shake, but it'd be naive not to realize most of the reason why he wanted a "bipartisan" climate was to pin his right wing (no, he's a socialist duuuuur!) or incrementalist policies on the Republicans/Blue Doggy Doggs after promising the moon to progressives during the campaign.

[Drum]

GOP senators emerged Monday to warn that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, and warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

amazing. "we don't work to help the american people. we work to obstruct the democrats." what an absolute ass....

Dude, it wasn't like the Donkey's will listen to the Elephants in the first place. That's why the Donkey are always the jackasses.

At least my congressman didn't vote for this BS.

ugh

[Ganelon]

I'm guessing that most of the people who have actually needed major treatment are in that 10%... it's pretty easy to be satisfied with a service when you don't actually rely on it.

I don't doubt that, but I do doubt that they couldn't afford to pay for their own health care insurance (not broad, encompassing plans but for the very basic plans). At least 5% of the currently uninsured is employed and should have the money for their own health care insurance if they bothered. 10% are unemployed but even if we assume the vast majority of them lack health insurance (and that the groups of people are the same, discounting those under Medicare or uninsured students), how many of them have critical illnesses? Half? A quarter? A tenth?

Even when I was living in poverty as a child (a family of 3 living off a stipend of $1000/month), my parents still bought the bare minimal health insurance for me just in case I got into an accident. We never had to use it but it was good to have something there in case. So I have little sympathy for folks with ailments who really need major treatment (but not life-threatening, since hospitals would have to accept you anyway) and didn't bother insuring for that possible scenario. But whatever, now they're getting a second chance while people who have led a healthy, active lifestyle who didn't need insurance will be obligated to pay for it against their will.

It's also worth pointing out that some people are going insane imagining that the new legislation will somehow magically strip away their insurance (as I pointed out two posts ago - those comments were from a real-life "conversation" I had a week or so ago).

It will strip service in that doctors will see you for a shorter time or after a longer wait. When you add a bunch of demand into existing supply, you can't avoid that. Massachusetts has been a great example of the dysfunctionality this type of reform may cause in the US. I think the bit about destroying everyone's existing insurance has just come out of a general lack of understanding about what the bill does (although I'd be surprised if more than a dozen people in the world have thoroughly read the full bill, manager's amendment, and reconciliation bill).

Taking away an American's ability to sue? You might as well take away their hands.

Probably so. There needs to be better guidelines too. Maybe a faster sweep through appeals for nonsensical tort cases.

Anyway, I've lived in China before. Health care there is actually pretty good in urban areas but the lines are long (unless you have connections) and it's completely out of budget, which wouldn't work in a democratic government. Otherwise, follow the Scandinavian model and have ludicrous taxes? Not in the US please. As for people currently under mandated health care who don't like it, again, look no further than Massachusetts, where those not pleased with the effects of its health care reform plan have outnumbered those in favor.

Everybody has wanted health care reform, just not in the socialist manner in which this was presented. Ultimately, it's the republicans' fault for not introducing a more moderate health care bill when they were in power; now, they're in no position to complain. Passing this proves Obama's point about change but disproves his rhetoric for compromise; this change is about as major as if the republicans had found some loophole to overturn Roe v. Wade on their watch (and which I would've found deplorable). Maybe all this fear is unjustified, but my gut tells me otherwise.

[Ex-Cyber]

I'm guessing that most of the people who have actually needed major treatment are in that 10%... it's pretty easy to be satisfied with a service when you don't actually rely on it.

I don't doubt that, but I do doubt that they couldn't afford to pay for their own health care insurance. At least 5% of the currently uninsured is employed and should have the money for their own health care insurance if they bothered. 10% are unemployed but even if we assume the vast majority of them lack health insurance (and that the groups of people are the same, discounting those under Medicare or uninsured students), how many of them have critical illnesses? Half? A quarter? A tenth?

Uh, what? I was talking about the group who are insured but unsatisfied, not the uninsured. Lots of people are satisfied with things like drug coverage/discounts for relatively minor services, but insurance companies have a habit of fucking over people who need extensive/expensive care (lifetime claim caps, rescission, delays, bureaucratic runarounds, etc.).

Right, because that whole "bipartisanship" thing was going so very well before this bill was proposed.

Yeah, the Republicans smugly combed their hair with their hand when Obama reached out for a shake, but it'd be naive not to realize most of the reason why he wanted a "bipartisan" climate was to pin his right wing (no, he's a socialist duuuuur!) or incrementalist policies on the Republicans/Blue Doggy Doggs after promising the moon to progressives during the campaign.

That makes sense, but I was thinking more along the lines of the entire past decade rather than just since Obama's election.

[Ganelon]

Lots of people are satisfied with things like drug coverage/discounts for relatively minor services, but insurance companies have a habit of fucking over people who need extensive/expensive care (lifetime claim caps, rescission, delays, bureaucratic runarounds, etc.).

Ah, my bad, I agree with you on that. If the insurer had bad luck insuring someone who ends up having major medical issues, then they need to be forced to pay up. That's what insurance is all about and dogging about not covering patients who come upon unexpected circumstances was something that definitely should have been reformed.

[undamned]

And it actually will reduce the deficit in coming years, and free up more of Americans' money to do things we have traditionally enjoyed rather than investing a greater and greater share in health care.

Do you really think the powers that be truly give a care about our national debt? Any smidgen of cost reduction that might be seen (knock on wood) from a more efficient heath care system (lol) will be taken as "WOOHOO EXTRA MONEY TO SPEND!!!!", not money to get us out of our abysmal financial status.

Social Security and Medicare

Lol.

According to various polls, 85% of Americans had health insurance already and around 90% were satisfied with their health insurance.

I'm guessing that most of the people who have actually needed major treatment are in that 10%... it's pretty easy to be satisfied with a service when you don't actually rely on it.

That's where I fall. I can't remember the last time I went to the doctor, even though I get a pretty smoking deal on health insurance through my employer.

Anyway, health insurance is by no means equivalent to the protection of life. Everybody already agreed hospitals need to be limited to charge reasonable rates (not ridiculous $1000 shots).

Indeed, ridiculous, but until they can curb malpractice, I wouldn't expect that.

Exactly. Lawsuits drive up the need for malpractice insurance which drives up the cost of medical services which drives up the cost of medical insurance...

It will strip service in that doctors will see you for a shorter time or after a longer wait. When you add a bunch of demand into existing supply, you can't avoid that.

Serious. I don't think many people in support of this new plan have any clue how crappy services will become. Less time with the doctor also means more medical issues will be overlooked, many of which can lead to death. My wife is a nurse practitioner and has the blessing of a 30min. time slot with each patient. You'd be surprised at the random/serious stuff she finds wrong with people simply because she isn't being rushed to get the patient in and out in 5min. We won't have that luxury with this new plan and people will suffer.
-ud

[antron]

Social Security and Medicare

Lol.

The Popularity of Government-Run Health Insurance

who's laughing now?

[undamned]

Social Security and Medicare

Lol.

The Popularity of Government-Run Health Insurance

who's laughing now?

Me still. Are you on Medicare? I have a close friend that I've helped w/ his finances / SSI / medical needs for about 12 years. If you have Medicare and don't get jerked around by doctors accepting you one day and not the next, congrats.
-ud

[antron]

Me still. Are you on Medicare? I have a close friend that I've helped w/ his finances / SSI / medical needs for about 12 years. If you have Medicare and don't get jerked around by doctors accepting you one day and not the next, congrats.
-ud

anecdotal

do you want me to start bring up stories from the private market?

[Skykid]

Hold on a minute, don't health insurance companies aim to not provide treatment to people in the same way that car insurance people aim to provide the least amount of money in the event of an accident? It's a business at the end of the day.

The arguments for and against seem to be based on personal experience of having healthcare insurance or not actually ever having to call on healthcare insurance for serious ailments (congratulations!)

I always considered medical help for capital gain to be fundamentally backward, because you can't actually rely on anyone to help you, only to see if they can get out of helping you.

Or is this totally incorrect?

[Ganelon]

That's right. You're betting you'll get sick. The insurance company is betting you won't get sick. Once insured, if you do get into health issues, your insurer is obligated to cover you but there are a lot of reports that at a certain point, plenty mope around hoping you'll stop pestering them. That's the heart of what health reform was supposed to be about.

And if you don't get sick, the insurer makes money from you paying them for the risk. But then just letting people with pre-existing conditions into insurance means insurance companies will be losing money off the bat. Who pays for that? You in the form of higher fees or you in the form of taxes to the government subsidizing insurance companies for their losses. The only thing offsetting that is a bunch of new people being forced into getting health insurance. Unfortunately, many of them "don't have money" to pay so they're not contributing much either.

That's why this new system is unjust to both the insurance companies and to normal people who don't feel they have any risk and don't wish to pay. That is, unless they do get into a serious problem, don't have money, and suck up tons of taxpayer money on life-saving procedures without insurance, which is the main democratic fiscal argument, and is -possibly- true based on certain estimates. However, the republicans estimate that the costs will offset these savings and I agree with this point of view.

[Ed Oscuro]

That's why this new system is unjust to both the insurance companies and to normal people who don't feel they have any risk and don't wish to pay.

ahahahah you crackin' me up mang

Truly, you must not have any clue what is going on to think that the insurance companies have been anything but a way to print money for their owners. Strike the word "unjust" from your vocabulary when talking about the free ride on the backs of consumers insurance has been getting. What other industries are exempt from antitrust regulation (and, last I checked, still will be)? There is no right to get rich off a monopoly on a public service as important as this, just as power companies have to quickly duck for cover after the latest story breaks of a WWII veteran freezing to death because his power meter shut off the power in the middle of winter. The insurance companies have been making money hand over fist and forcing the people who they actually might have to pay out of their pools. An important part of this legislation is telling insurance companies that they can't force people out when they suddenly realize the insurance buyer is about to get sick. It's the real-world version of the evil villain dumping his henchman into lava at the first sign the henchman might stop pulling his weight. Insurance is a critical public service that society really doesn't function as efficiently without, like a standardized rail system or roads that are centrally administered and repaired (take whichever analogy you best like; they're both better systems than we currently have for health insurance).

We've discussed (a few times) how the uninsured cost everybody in the health care system money regardless of whether they are impacting fees for services (and thus inflating them for everybody else) or whether they are impacting a wider pool as a small ripple (which is still inflating the costs of health insurance but in a more manageable fashion). Basically, there's no way of getting out of paying for the uninsured and poor unless you want to deny them health care unless they can pay out of pocket.

Everybody has risk; everybody eventually has some interface with health care, even if you're planning on dying at home when you get old. It's too simplistic to say "people who don't get sick shouldn't have to pay;" accidents happen, even to "invincible" younger people.

[Ed Oscuro]

And it actually will reduce the deficit in coming years, and free up more of Americans' money to do things we have traditionally enjoyed rather than investing a greater and greater share in health care.

Do you really think the powers that be truly give a care about our national debt?

Yes, if by "powers that be" you mean the people who actually have to make the decisions, and not those folks who are beholden to special interests, and Stinky Limburgerites and other anti-system parties that want to bring it all crashing down to enact a New Order. The wars are essentially expensive prestige projects for us at this point, but that's a story for another day.

Where does this fascination with a modern stab-in-the-back come from, I wonder? Politicians not doing what we'd like them to is one thing ("Congress needs Pep," just ask Will Rogers), but I think the large number of folks who think the top levels of government (cynics and whoever is currently in the opposition) end up selling the nation short, and this line of thinking devolves into simple nihilism.

In any case, people are sadly uninformed about what's going on. I blame some of that on the Dems having to spend all their time trying to pass the legislation; they will start to campaign about the details and perceived benefits quite soon.

[Ganelon]

Well, at least someone else is suffering from a mild case of dyslexia too so I don't feel all alone... I'm not sure how many times I need to emphasize that some type of reform was needed, mentioning some of the exact problems that you just repeated. Thanks for agreeing, I guess? Or how many times everybody disagrees with how the numbers will work out in the end. I think you're characterizing people too much by their tone rather than their actual message, which I was guilty of just a few posts back. *cleans up the bopped out strawman*

[Ed Oscuro]

Damnit Ganelon, type with your brain, not your butt. "...unjust to the insurance companies" sounds like somebody needs to call the wahmbulance.

By the way, the Vice President spikes the punch bowl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic2eEcnwghU

Classic! Classy too.

[Ganelon]

It's like having your kid file a million dollar life insurance policy for you -after- you die and the insurer being forced to accept it. Of course it's unjust in that context no matter how much they tried to trick and rip everybody off in the first place. Stop the company's dishonesty and also stop treating insurance like it's free help. Fair?

[Ed Oscuro]

It's like having your kid file a million dollar life insurance policy for you -after- you die and the insurer being forced to accept it.

Of course this is a major structural problem in the US health care system, such injustices perpetrated against which the Insurance Lobby is helpless bankrupts state treasuries every other day along with the bogeyman of "tort reform"

[BryanM]

Things not going your way? Throw a hissy fit and sue that it's not constitutional, and hope your shills in the supreme court will stick their dick in the mashed potatoes for you.

[BulletMagnet]

Things not going your way? Throw a hissy fit and sue that it's not constitutional, and hope your shills in the supreme court will stick their dick in the mashed potatoes for you.

Are you talking about activist judges? Surely you jest!

[GaijinPunch]

how many of them have critical illnesses? Half? A quarter? A tenth?

It does not take a critical illness to break a poor person. Shit...my $1200 IV I got a couple of years ago would put a serious pinch on someone that made $20k a year... and those people exist.

[CMoon]

And here's what Obama gets for accomplishing something: 51% disapproval rating. Jesus...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cn ... irst-time/

Sometimes I think it's the US that needs to start over (as a country) from scratch...

[antron]

Well, he did promise change and bipartisanship, so that automatically of makes him a liar.

Oh, and the economy.

[Ed Oscuro]

It will strip service in that doctors will see you for a shorter time or after a longer wait. When you add a bunch of demand into existing supply, you can't avoid that.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that there will be an increase in demand. If anything, the attack on the "Cadillac Plans" (or comprehensive plans) is a way to reduce use of services. There is actually a provision to watch how critical care is affected by people trying to make their own health care purchasing decisions - remembering that ordinary people aren't doctors, and if cost outweighs their concern for their own health, they might not get critical care. This has been a pretty common and valid concern which unfortunately the Republicans in power of the messaging seem to have downplayed (ignored) in favor of some stuff that doesn't make sense or isn't as true.

Well, he did promise change and bipartisanship, so that automatically of makes him a liar.

They did try that route, and as usual trying to get everybody on board gets you labeled a ditherer.

JoshF made the right criticism of the first Obama year: He promised stuff that it turned out wouldn't be delivered.

Things not going your way? Throw a hissy fit and sue that it's not constitutional, and hope your shills in the supreme court will stick their dick in the mashed potatoes for you.

Are you talking about activist judges? Surely you jest!

I thought it was a good point.

[KBZ]

some words from the greatest man to ever have lived

I wish the best of luck to all those fighting to ensure the well being of their fellow citizens as it will only make you're Nation stronger. However, I sure don't envy the battle many of you face. A radical problem needs radical solutions, and this one could take generations.

[neorichieb1971]

United you stand now. All for 1, 1 for all.

Now your country can lead and say it never left anyone behind.

[Strider77]

Gimme my life, gimme ma energy...

[Acid King]

And here's what Obama gets for accomplishing something: 51% disapproval rating. Jesus...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cn ... irst-time/

I don't think that's surprising, it seems like the bill was universally disliked by the left and the right.

Sometimes I think it's the US that needs to start over (as a country) from scratch...

Should have let the south go.