The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[m0tbaillie]

Also, I had a VERY good dental plan through my employer (as a dependent, I opted for TriCare for medical). Yet, I still had to pay for half of my crown. Which was $500. So, if some old fart who may or may not have served honorably in Korea has to pay for his glasses than oh well. I'm a veteran of OIF, so therefore I shouldn't have to pay shit. Is that your agrument?

My argument wasn't "He's an old dude from Korea bow down to him" or anything along those lines - his service was irrelevant. My whole point was that the old guy was obviously well, well past his working prime and had to shell out several hundred dollars (I was standing right there when she rang him up, I'll say it was <700 and >300) for something simple that medicare/medicaid should already cover *for those who demonstrate need*.

And his successor is spending money like a drunken sailor in a liberty port.

Well that is neither here nor there. We spent ourselves into a hole and with the overall lack of oversight by the previous Adminisration as well as a well-timed chain of events "bad shit happened" and the economy has begun to flatline. Desperate times call for desperate measures. You forget, however, that when Clinton left office, we were riding a pretty sweet surplus *and* he instituted a new version of welfare and made it work.

I was reading on the internet the other day that 30% of those without coverage are those who opted out with their employer. Then there's always those Mafioso, drug dealers, and other career criminals that aren't offered it through their employers. But I guess it's worth those of us who work our ass off to pay for criminals to get health care - because EVERYONE is ENTITLED to it.

McDonald's doesn't offer health care. Neither does Wal-Mart, nor do any of the other multitude of places that work their employees just under the required number of hours to be eligible to provide benefits to said employees.
Countries evolve through the hard work of those who are productive members of society. When you start taxing their work in order to provide for the collective good, then you're starting to sound a lot like the Marxists. You know what? Sometimes, not everyone has value. Also, nobody said anything about criminals, now we're just getting into sheer semantics and splitting hairs. Criminals can also ride the bus, send mail, and utilize any other number of various public services that our taxdollars provide.

You want healthcare for all kids? I have no problem with that. However, someone who's been on welfare their whole life, and is exploiting that program (where I grew up, there were a number of girls in my HS that continually got pregnant at 16, 17, 18 after they already had a kid so they would get more money) - it's time for Darwin to take over.

Yes, it's sad that people abuse the system. People will *always* abuse the system in some fashion if they think they can get away with it. It really does suck and it ruins such programs' reputations and mars the good deal for everyone else, but there *are* still people out there who legitimately need said services that have to be taken into consideration. These kinds of programs should be put in place, albeit with stringent limitations and regulation as well as serious punishment for pattern abuse. We cannot, however, ignore everyone else because of the dishonesty of a few losers and freeloaders.

 

[PropAddict]

My whole point was that the old guy was obviously well, well past his working prime and had to shell out several hundred dollars (I was standing right there when she rang him up, I'll say it was <700 and >300) for something simple that medicare/medicaid should already cover *for those who demonstrate need*.

My grandfather's a Korean War vet. He was well past his working prime 20 years ago. Still, he always buys his own eyeglasses. Wouldn't think of letting someone else buy his crap for him.

Why are you assuming that just because your guy's old he didn't have the coin to buy his own stuff? Many people save or work to earn pensions, you know.

 

[Bevo16]

50 million people in this country are without healthcare in a country of just over 300 million and you don't think that's a big deal? Do you know what federal minimum wage is? blah blah blah.

Ever hear the phrase "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"?

OK, 300 million people. 50 million "in the country" without health care. Care to attempt to quantify that?

We know that there is somewhere around 12 million illegal immagrants "in the country", and virtually none of them have health insurance.

On top of 12 million illegals, we have virtually the equal of that number of children who are US citizens due to being born on US soil to illegal immagrants.

Then we get into the millions of young americans who are actually citizens simply opt out because they don't need it.

Are we up to 50 million yet? Pretty damn close I bet.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Ever hear the phrase "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"?

OK, 300 million people. 50 million "in the country" without health care. Care to attempt to quantify that?

We know that there is somewhere around 12 million illegal immagrants "in the country", and virtually none of them have health insurance.

On top of 12 million illegals, we have virtually the equal of that number of children who are US citizens due to being born on US soil to illegal immagrants.

Then we get into the millions of young americans who are actually citizens simply opt out because they don't need it.

Are we up to 50 million yet? Pretty damn close I bet.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628

Most of those statistics actually come from the Census bureau and typically only take into account US citizens when calculating them. In the above case, it compares both non-citizen immigrants, and natural-born Americans across race, class, and gender. The data mentions nothing about illegal immigrants directly.

However, it does not that the insurance disparity is growing (or was, in 05) amongst natural-born Americans and was holding rather steady (albeit at 40-something percent) for non-citizen immigrants.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

My argument wasn't "He's an old dude from Korea bow down to him" or anything along those lines - his service was irrelevant. My whole point was that the old guy was obviously well, well past his working prime and had to shell out several hundred dollars (I was standing right there when she rang him up, I'll say it was <700 and >300) for something simple that medicare/medicaid should already cover *for those who demonstrate need*.

In the future you may want to clarify your points a bit more so they are not misinterpreted.

As for the old man needing glasses? How do you know he couldn't afford it.

As for the 50 million Americans without coverage. I was one of them and I opted out of coverage.

What you don't seem to understand is that no one in this country is being denied medical aid when they need it. If I go into the hospital they will eventually help me.

Who cares if the hospital bill is massive after a medical procedure if it saved that person's life? They chose to have the procedure done.

You're whole rant about the selfishness of those who do not want healthcare for all is preposterous. I'm certain that there are plenty of those people who give to charities on a regular basis in support of what they CHOOSE to support.

I don't want to support healthcare for all Americans and I don't want any of them to be forced to have it.

I also don't believe that all Americans need healthcare insurance.

I also don't think those that live unhealthy lifestyles should qualify for any type of nationalized healthcare.

This country was founded on principles of liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.

That liberty is being infringed upon when it is no longer the choice of the American people to choose to live the way the want.

 

[desertoasis]

Nobody said anything about liberalism versus conservatism so if you're resorting to that ridiculous black-vs-grey mentality then just stop. This doesn't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative: in the last 8 years a conservative president spent more money than any other president in history, even World War II, but I digress, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to prove with this paragraph, by saying that Bush spent more than any president before him...our current president is on track to be spending more than the last three did, combined.

Unfortunately though, it has everything to do with liberalism vs. conservatism, a political divide that has become blurred in the last few decades. I talked this point out in a different thread, but its worth bringing up here. The party-line descriptor of a liberal Democrat is something along the lines of 'providing services to those who can't provide for themselves'. This mindset was borne out of the Great Depression, when the government was propping up nearly everything, or at least attempting to. Thanks, FDR. This has since been perverted into 'providing services for everyone, regardless of whether or not they need them'. One could expand that to include those who aren't eligible for them as well, like illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, the Republican party-line descriptor has been equally perverted, due mostly to the hijacking of the party by Newt and Company (along with the Moral Majority). It used to be 'the government should stay out of people's lives and businesses; people can fend for themselves just fine.' Pretty straightforward. It has since become 'the government has the right to intrude upon people's lives and businesses in the interests of national security and economic prosperity.' Some of that can be attributed to the post-911 overreaction, some of it is the logical backlash to the Democratic line. Either way, the two party lines have become much closer together politically.

So, to say that it has nothing to do with liberalism vs. conservatism is naive at best. If it's the same basic ideology, how can the current administration claim to be pushing a new agenda? If you really look at what POTUS is plugging, it's not all that different than what was being proposed a year or two ago.

 

[m0tbaillie]

In the future you may want to clarify your points a bit more so they are not misinterpreted.

As for the old man needing glasses? How do you know he couldn't afford it.

Well, Medicare is for people over 65 and Medicaid is for lower-income people. He asked about both, and seemed pretty bewildered about having to pay out of pocket. I guess it wasn't the best example to use, but it was pretty friggin' sad to watch as I was standing right there when it went down.

As for the 50 million Americans without coverage. I was one of them and I opted out of coverage.

What you don't seem to understand is that no one in this country is being denied medical aid when they need it. If I go into the hospital they will eventually help me.

Who cares if the hospital bill is massive after a medical procedure if it saved that person's life? They chose to have the procedure done.

Wait wait wait. I'm not saying if you walk into a hospital that they won't treat you without insurance. Sure they will. But that also doesn't mean that they won't bill you for thousands of dollars afterwards. Furthermore, if you're going into the hospital to have a life-saving procedure done, I doubt you're "opting" to have that done. That's pretty much a necessity at that point. Once you start spending more than a day or two in the hospital and having multiple procedures done, things start getting up in the range of tens of thousands of dollars. Hell, I know someone who spent 3 days in the hospital with pneumonia and ended up with a bill for $29k, fortunately their insurance covered it, but what if it hadn't? Hell, I drive a brand new car that's only $22k.

You're whole rant about the selfishness of those who do not want healthcare for all is preposterous. I'm certain that there are plenty of those people who give to charities on a regular basis in support of what they CHOOSE to support.

I don't want to support healthcare for all Americans and I don't want any of them to be forced to have it.

I also don't believe that all Americans need healthcare insurance.

You don't think everybody needs health insurance? What happens if you break your leg and are admitted to the hospital and have to pay out of pocket? Do you have any idea what that costs?

I got drunk, fell down a flight of stairs, and split my ear open. My buddies took me to the hospital. I got 9 stitches in my ear and was billed for $5,700 dollars for 20 minutes worth of stitches. Fortunately, I have health insurance. Let's say for a second that I didn't have insurance or a steady paycheck or, assuming I did have a steady paycheck, that I had a wife and a kid and was making 10 bucks and hour. See where I'm going with this?

I also don't think those that live unhealthy lifestyles should qualify for any type of nationalized healthcare.

This is actually completly agree with. The fatties riding scooters around Wal-Mart get no sympathy from me. Only 1-3% of obesity cases in this country are based on actual pre-existing medical conditions versus lifestyle choices. You're right.

This country was founded on principles of liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.

That liberty is being infringed upon when it is no longer the choice of the American people to choose to live the way the want.

Nobody is telling you you can't live the way you want because some of your tax dollars go into provide another social program, much like the plethora of social programs that your tax dollars already go to support. Don't you think you're being a bit over-dramatic there man?

 

[phrogpilot73]

My argument wasn't "He's an old dude from Korea bow down to him" or anything along those lines - his service was irrelevant. My whole point was that the old guy was obviously well, well past his working prime and had to shell out several hundred dollars (I was standing right there when she rang him up, I'll say it was <700 and >300) for something simple that medicare/medicaid should already cover *for those who demonstrate need*.

So again, I demonstrate a need for my car to get me to work. Why am I paying for gas, oil changes, maintenance when I already pay for insurance and warranties? Why did he NEED new glasses? Were you privvy to the entire chain of events? Was he going there because he stepped on them? Did he need a new prescription? Or did he lose them? Where does it end?

Well that is neither here nor there. We spent ourselves into a hole and with the overall lack of oversight by the previous Adminisration as well as a well-timed chain of events "bad shit happened" and the economy has begun to flatline. Desperate times call for desperate measures. You forget, however, that when Clinton left office, we were riding a pretty sweet surplus *and* he instituted a new version of welfare and made it work.

Yup, desparate times call for ridiculous spending so it appears that we're doing something. Nothing more, nothing less. Very little impact has been seen by the stimulus plans thus far. Except for wooden arrow makers.

Oh, and Clinton left office with a sweet surplus - because he was using the Social Security surplus as part of his budget. So many people were working, he could get away with it - now that baby boomers are retiring it makes it even worse. All presidents are creative with their math. Bush didn't include the wars in the budget to make it look better than it is. Obama says he's going to lower the budget, but that's after he jacks it through the roof first.

Yup - Clinton, great American. New version of welfare and made it work. Problem: it caused the level of poverty to rise.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/welf-j02.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0830-22.htm
http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2006083118.html
http://www.workers.org/2009/us/welfare_0212/

McDonald's doesn't offer health care. Neither does Wal-Mart, nor do any of the other multitude of places that work their employees just under the required number of hours to be eligible to provide benefits to said employees. Also, nobody said anything about criminals, now we're just getting into sheer semantics and splitting hairs. Criminals can also ride the bus, send mail, and utilize any other number of various public services that our taxdollars provide.

McDonald's does offer health care. So does Walmart. Part time employees don't get it - and a lot of people don't want to work for either company because it's "beneath them". Something like 70% of managers at McD's started part time, and 50% of franchise owners are the same way.

I thought you said that everyone was entitled to health care, then when I bring up an unsavory element of society, I'm just getting into semantics?!?

These kinds of programs should be put in place, albeit with stringent limitations and regulation as well as serious punishment for pattern abuse. We cannot, however, ignore everyone else because of the dishonesty of a few losers and freeloaders.

So the way they should be put in place is with minimal discussion and debate, and barely enough time for people to vote on it to read all 1000+ pages? Because that's what's happening. Thank god congress has stood up to the president on this one.

I got drunk, fell down a flight of stairs, and split my ear open. My buddies took me to the hospital. I got 9 stitches in my ear and was billed for $5,700 dollars for 20 minutes worth of stitches. Fortunately, I have health insurance. Let's say for a second that I didn't have insurance or a steady paycheck or, assuming I did have a steady paycheck, that I had a wife and a kid and was making 10 bucks and hour. See where I'm going with this?

Yup, I see where you're going - and here's where I'm going.

If you don't have a steady paycheck, insurance, or you have a wife and kid and make 10 bucks an hour, don't spend what little you have on booze. You wouldn't get drunk, wouldn't fall down a flight of stairs - and voila! You wouldn't need stitches.

Personal responsibility is lacking these days, and then we (those who have it and work our asses off) are made to feel guilty for those that don't.

 

[exhelodrvr]

If they are going to provide more treatment for the same overall cost, or the same treatment for less cost, then the only way to do it is cut out unnecessary expenses. I think that there are several ways to do that that don't require "national health care":

Limit the malpractice industry (Krauthammer's column linked below deals with this)
Simplify the regulations
Better preventative medicine
Less use of ERs for non-ER issues

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302723.html

The other two areas that would provide huge cost savings (and would probably make "national health care" financially viable, especially if combined with the above items) would be not providing services for illegal aliens, and minimizing treatment for people who are terminally ill/elderly. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the President to talk about those.

 

[Flash]

If they are going to provide more treatment for the same overall cost, or the same treatment for less cost, then the only way to do it is cut out unnecessary expenses. I think that there are several ways to do that that don't require "national health care":

Limit the malpractice industry (Krauthammer's column linked below deals with this)
Simplify the regulations
Better preventative medicine
Less use of ERs for non-ER issues

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302723.html

The other two areas that would provide huge cost savings (and would probably make "national health care" financially viable, especially if combined with the above items) would be not providing services for illegal aliens, and minimizing treatment for people who are terminally ill/elderly. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the President to talk about those.

All of the above makes a lot of very good sense. I think few people realize how much we pay for 'end of life' care.

One major and one minor thing to add to the above list; 1- Make medical records electronic to a basic standard, the VA has done this pretty well. 2- Make doctor's records (ie. malpractice suits, sanctions, etc) more available to the public and more standard. Right now it is quite difficult to find out a doc's history and the reporting can vary greatly from state to state.

P.S. One caveat about illegals and other uninsured, they have to be treated by law and ethics for many health issues, especially life threatening ones. Something to note.

 

[Bevo16]

P.S. One caveat about illegals and other uninsured, they have to be treated by law and ethics for many health issues, especially life threatening ones. Something to note.

Right. I have no problem with providing the care to people who must get it or die. I just think that illegals should be deported immedietly after they recieve their life saving care, and that other uninsured (especially those who have opted out for lifesyle) should have their wages garnished until they pay off their debt.

The idea of a "public option" for health insurance is a lie. It's not health insurance, it's "health welfare" because it is not subject to any proper business practices. If it was run in a manner that it was forced to turn a profit or at least break even, that would be one thing. That is not what they are doing. This program can and will run in the red by a huge margin and never go bankrupt until the taxpayer revolts. No real insurance company will be able to compete with another option that has no reason to be profitable.

 

[MasterBates]

You know Mot.. This is reallll easy for you to say "I dont' have a problem with paying X Y or Z out of medicaid.."

When you start paying over $15K in taxes in a year, (AFTER my refund) and you see no good fuckers just sitting on their porch drinking, collecting welfare and being a drain on society, THEN comment about how much you want to pay for.

Now you want me to pay for their fucking medical care? Get a job or GTFO is my answer to them.

I went through college with only catastrophic insurance. It was all I needed. Why should I be forced to buy medical coverage for others, either through compulsory participation in a government insurance program, or through my (increased) taxes.

Take that socialist shit and shove it up your ass. I deal with socialism in the military to serve the country, I don't want to fucking deal with it when I am a plain ole citizen again.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

Nobody said anything about liberalism versus conservatism so if you're resorting to that ridiculous black-vs-grey mentality then just stop. This doesn't have anything to do with being liberal or conservative: in the last 8 years a conservative president spent more money than any other president in history, even World War II, but I digress, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Um, maybe this will help you put the last 8 years in perspective.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

 

[Spekkio]

You don't choose to pay taxes, you have to pay them. You also have probably never made use of social welfare, but your taxes support that as well. Whether you use or don't use a service is uttery irrelevant, the quintessential factor and the point that I'm trying to make is that at least if you *needed* to utilize said service, it would be there. You wouldn't hit rock bottom one day and magically start paying taxes to ride the bus and for your foodstamps.

Again, you missed the point. When I move from town A that provides garbage disposal, a large parks dept, and a large public transportation network to town B that does not have those things, my taxes are going to be lower. In effect, I have chosen not to pay the taxes that town A is charging me because I don't want those services.

So while we all have to pay taxes, those taxes would be lower if the government didn't take up stupid endeavors like national health insurance.

As far as the "me, me, me," that attitude is exactly what is beneficial to society. When people are motivated by personal goals and achievements, they will work harder. When everyone gets the same thing no matter how hard they work, then people cease to be motivated. Our country has always had an individualistic mindset, and I'd say that's why we've managed to be top dog in under 200 years.

You also ignore the fact that the U.S. is the largest per-capita donator to charity. Yea, we sure are a selfish country.

EDIT: Mot, you have effectively brought this thread full-circle. Go back to page 1, and you can see that your "but omg X people don't have healthcare!" is a bogus argument. You don't NEED to have health insurance to have access to health care, and it certainly doesn't cost "thousands of dollars" to see a doc about a cold or sore throat.

What happens if you break your leg and are admitted to the hospital and have to pay out of pocket? Do you have any idea what that costs?

If you're smart, you'll take your ass to your family practitioner (with or without insurance) who also knows how to read X-rays just like an ER physician. He'll probably see you immediately as you walk/are carried into the office grimmacing in pain. The X-ray will cost a couple hundred, the visit another $100, and he'll write you a referral to a specialist. This will also take less time on average than going to the ER, even if you have to wait for the family doc's office to open the next morning, since a broken bone is triaged as an up to 24-hour wait. From there, it's a matter of how severe the broken bone is -- if it requires surgery to repair, yes, the cost will be high, but that's why there are catastrophic insurance options. If it just requires to be set and casted, you can probably expect to have a bill in the $1k-2k realm after all is said and done. Considering the frequency with which people break bones, that is more than affordable for someone without health insurance who puts away some money "just in case."

As far as your numbers: have you seen what the docs ACTUALLY got paid, or are you just quoting the inflated bills?

 

[Ajleger]

You pay a fee to use all of that stuff, it's called taxes. Why are people making the connection that their tax dollars, once removed, have zero impact on these services? It just isn't so.

And no, be it local or federal, you still pay state and federal taxes and, one way or another, money out of your pocket is going to pay for those services be it the money you pay in taxes or the money you open your wallet and spend to keep said service operational.

Do you realize the difference between state/local and federal taxes? Federal taxes are constitutionally supposed to be used only for things allowed by our federal constitution, and everything else is supposed to be determined by the states. It's the 10th amendment. Pretty damn important, and almost everyone ignores it. If California, or Michigan want to have free state healthcare for all the unemployed, lazy, and even the few who had bad breaks, they are allowed. They are also allowed to run budget deficits and not pay their state employees because they go broke.

50 million people in this country are without healthcare in a country of just over 300 million and you don't think that's a big deal? Do you know what federal minimum wage is? Do you know how many times a raise to the federal minimum wage was shot down under the previous POTUS? Have you ever tried to pay hospital bills on minimum wage? This isn't about giving free hand-outs to people, it's about raising the standard and quality of life for *everyone*. That's how countries evolve, the bar that is bare minimum is continuously raised so that even the poorest of the poor enjoy some quality of life than simply being written off as "poor, lazy, or sick".

Threadjack, but raising the minimum wage does not raise the quality of life for everyone. Everyone who still has their minimum wage job, maybe, but those whose employers can no longer afford wouldn't consider their lives improved. And more importantly, if some loser still has a minimum wage job beyond the age of about 18, I could give a flying F about if he can afford hospital bills. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to support families, or to be able to afford massive hospital bills (or massive car payments, mortgages, etc. etc. etc.). They are meant for those with very little skills or experience to offer, normally teenagers. As they gain experience/go to school/move up within some company, they no longer have that minimum wage job.