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

[exhelodrvr]

If you're young and healthy and can afford health insurance but don't buy it, the odds may be in your favor, but if you roll the dice and lose it can be a hell of a large bet to pay off. Buying health insurance (or homeowner's insurance or car insurance) is not a zero sum game; you shouldn't expect to get paid in benefits over the course of your enrollment an amount that equals the sum of the premiums you have paid. On the other hand, if you are one of the unlucky few who suffers a catastrophic injury or comes down with a serious medical condition, having insurance coverage could literally be a life saver or life extender, or at the very least protect your quality of life. What rational person with the ability to pay for health insurance would take that gamble for themself, not to mention family members? Would you?

Lots of people do it. It's a calculated risk, and if you are smart you should look at it from that perspective. That doesn't mean it's not smart to take the risk, or not smart to not take the risk. But the facts are that on the average you would benefit financially from not doing it.

I haven't had the option to make that decision, having been in the Navy and since the Navy with a company that provided health insurance. If I was single, I think that I would take the chance. If I were married, no kids, and my wife was healthy, with a family history of good health, I would be inclined to do so, assuming that she agreed. Married, with children, I probably would not take the risk.

 

[Random8145]

To save a lot of money and to make sure more of the taxpayers money goes to the students getting the loans instead of the middlemen.

Oh come on now Flash, that's what the government always says, you really believe the government taking control of something will make it more efficient?

Then why did they vote for it then?

Bribing, and they knew Obama's presidency would be finished if it didn't pass. And even then, that was by reconciliation.

A moot point, I haven't seen any serious movement on reinstating it or him supporting it lately.

Point is he still supported it.

A couple of outliers have said as much but there is no serious movement at all to do so. Stop being silly.

I'm not saying there is any serious movement to do so, I'm saying if they could get away with doing so they probably would.

When has he said that?

You think someone who wants the government in control of areas like healthcare, education, CO2, etc...does not think the government should be the prime mover of the economy? His ideology fits in with those that do.

I really don't get where people think he is a socialist, I think the definition has been twisted to be the new bogeyman instead of liberal. The government directly controls a tiny portion of the economy and there has been no serious suggestion to greatly expand the government's control of private industry in this country, outside health care if you want to count it as such.

Like I said, not socialist as in Lenin or Stalin or Mao, socialist as in British Labour party during the 20th century, or the German Social Democrats, or the French Socialists.

The government does not need to own the economy to control large portions of it. Like I said for example, you put the EPA in charge of regulating carbon emissions and you indirectly control the entire economy through that alone.

The governments takeover of the two auto companies was due to dire financial circumstances and will likely not last too much longer and has proven an exception to the rule.

Agree, the unions sure made out nicely from this though.

Tighter regulation in some cases but regulation is not the same as control, especially when you consider that in some aspects the economy and much of the financial industry is more loosely regulated than it used to be.

Thing is though, back when the financial sector was much more heavily regulated, it was dominated by an establishment of institutions, who dominated via lack of competition because of the regulations. When those regulations were lifted, many of those firms were driven out of business and didn't like it (they wanted to maintain their monopolies).

So if the government decides to bring these ultra-massive financial institutions under heavy regulation, they could create monopolies essentially that cannot really do anything without the authority of the government, thus becoming appendages of the government.

Some of the President's opponents seem to often seem to prophesize apocalyptic scenarios that just don't seem to pan out in the end. I will work for a while but after people don't see them panning out in the end it will lose it's effect.

The opponents are just going by facts as they see them. You have Medicare and Medicaid on the brink financially. You have states out of money. We have seen these disasters happen before with for example New York City and now California financially. The thing with the United States is people are so secure in this nation with the strength of its institutions and its wealth that people think, "Oh, that's fantasy, America will never go bankrupt..." well it would be pretty difficult to, but there is a limit to even what this country can do in terms of debt and deficit, and it will cause major problems in the future regardless.

One concern for example is the defense. If America goes the route of European social democracy, the defense budget will be gutted, in order to make way for the higher social spending and also the higher amounts of interest to be paid on the debt.

If you notice, Barack Obama and the Democrats flat-out lost the debate on the subject of healthcare. They rammed it through by force. The very legitimate concerns many people had about the healthcare legislation they never addressed because they knew they would lose. All we have seen is Barack Obama talk, talk, talk the past few years with virtually zero substance.

Then he made a bunch of speeches on healthcare as President in trying to get his bill passed and he still had virtually no substance. So in the end they just used brute force.

 

[OnTopTime]

Lots of people do it.

And in an earlier post, you wrote that "many of those 37M already pay their health care costs, because they can afford to, and are in the age range where it makes financial sense to NOT have insurance."

Please define "many" in this context, and cite your source. I really don't think that there are "many" out of a sample size of 37 million people who don't have health insurance because they choose to pay out of pocket even though they are financially capable of buying health insurance.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Include that Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in.

The government virtually never does anything more efficiently, because of the levels of bureaucracy between them and the issue being addressed. There are some things that need to be handled by government, but those should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary, and that should be handled by as low a government level as possible.

 

[exhelodrvr]

And in an earlier post, you wrote that "many of those 37M already pay their health care costs, because they can afford to, and are in the age range where it makes financial sense to NOT have insurance."

Please define "many" in this context, and cite your source. I really don't think that there are "many" out of a sample size of 37 million people who don't have health insurance because they choose to pay out of pocket even though they are financially capable of buying health insurance.

Of the 37 M, 8.5 M live in households with incomes 50-75K, 9.1 M in households 75K and above. So depending on where you draw the line on who can "afford" it, it's at least in the 10M range.

 

[Flash]

Oh come on now Flash, that's what the government always says, you really believe the government taking control of something will make it more efficient?

Shockingly enough in this case it will. Why? Because instead of paying the private industry to loan money the government will do it itself. Look at the details and you will see the taxpayer has been getting bent over for years with the program the way it is now.

Bribing, and they knew Obama's presidency would be finished if it didn't pass. And even then, that was by reconciliation.

None of the Congressmen/women are going to gain financially from those deals personally, the areas they represent will, bribing is too strong a word. And I guess the tax cuts that President Bush passed early in his administration were also rammed through since it was done by reconciliation.

Point is he still supported it.

The bigger point would be if he actually done anything about it. I tell my wife I would leave her in a heartbeat if Shania Twain walked through our door, but would I do it?

I'm not saying there is any serious movement to do so, I'm saying if they could get away with doing so they probably would.

Seriously, instead of supposing what politicians would do if they got away with it is like saying what kind of car you would buy if you had all the money in the world, it is pointless. What they do is important, not what they say.

You think someone who wants the government in control of areas like healthcare, education, CO2, etc...does not think the government should be the prime mover of the economy? His ideology fits in with those that do.

Show me where he has done or said something to that effect. Unless you suddenly gained the ability to read minds then supposing what he really thinks is pretty pointless.

The government does not need to own the economy to control large portions of it. Like I said for example, you put the EPA in charge of regulating carbon emissions and you indirectly control the entire economy through that alone.

That is reaching really, really far to say the EPA indirectly controls the entire economy.

Agree, the unions sure made out nicely from this though.

So did the executives.

Thing is though, back when the financial sector was much more heavily regulated, it was dominated by an establishment of institutions, who dominated via lack of competition because of the regulations. When those regulations were lifted, many of those firms were driven out of business and didn't like it (they wanted to maintain their monopolies).......So if the government decides to bring these ultra-massive financial institutions under heavy regulation, they could create monopolies essentially that cannot really do anything without the authority of the government, thus becoming appendages of the government.

I thought a monopoly is where one company controls the market, not several. And claiming that a private company in competition with others in a regulated market will be an appendage of government is entirely again stretching it waaaaaay far.

If you notice, Barack Obama and the Democrats flat-out lost the debate on the subject of healthcare. They rammed it through by force. The very legitimate concerns many people had about the healthcare legislation they never addressed because they knew they would lose. All we have seen is Barack Obama talk, talk, talk the past few years with virtually zero substance. Then he made a bunch of speeches on healthcare as President in trying to get his bill passed and he still had virtually no substance. So in the end they just used brute force.

The above is all pretty much personal opinion, not fact. The law was passed by majorities in both houses of Congress in a manner in which many bills have been made law by both parties, not illegally or nefariously, not exactly 'brute force'. But I ain't really going to change your mind, I guess we will have to let the voters decide.

 

[OnTopTime]

Of the 37 M, 8.5 M live in households with incomes 50-75K, 9.1 M in households 75K and above. So depending on where you draw the line on who can "afford" it, it's at least in the 10M range.

Source?

 

[exhelodrvr]

That's from WIkipedia, but the same general figures are used in a variety of studies/reports.

 

[OnTopTime]

That's from WIkipedia, but the same general figures are used in a variety of studies/reports.

According to 2007 U.S. Census data, 7.8% of people in households with income of $75,000 or more did not have health insurance. That figure was 14.5% for households with income of at least $50,000 but less than $75,000, 21.1% for households with income of at least $25,000 but less than $50,000, and 24.5% for households with income of less than $25,000. What those figures don't tell you is how many of those people chose not to have health insurance even though they thought they could afford it. If you find those numbers anywhere, please let me know.

 

[Random8145]

Shockingly enough in this case it will. Why? Because instead of paying the private industry to loan money the government will do it itself. Look at the details and you will see the taxpayer has been getting bent over for years with the program the way it is now.

That argument could be made to nationalize everything. Instead of the private sector doing something, just let the government handle it and things will go far more efficiently. England tried it with nationalizing much of the economy after WWII on the idea that nationalized enterprises would be far more efficient than private-sector enterprises, but it wasn't true. I will believe it when I see it.

Not surprisingly, most people do not like to use the government student loan program because the customer service to it is terrible: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html

None of the Congressmen/women are going to gain financially from those deals personally, the areas they represent will, bribing is too strong a word. And I guess the tax cuts that President Bush passed early in his administration were also rammed through since it was done by reconciliation.

They gain in terms of power however, getting such deals (although it seems some might backfire). As for tax cuts, well a few things:

1) Reconciliation was created for budgetary matters, which taxes probably fall under
2) The argument that, "The other side abused their power, so now we will abuse it fully as well" I don't think holds water
3) Reconciliation was never used before to pass such sweeping legislation for our nation.
4) I am not saying I agree with the Republicans previous use of reconciliation, they have abused it to, although not to this degree.

The bigger point would be if he actually done anything about it. I tell my wife I would leave her in a heartbeat if Shania Twain walked through our door, but would I do it?

The argument on this goes back to whether or not at heart he is a socialist, which I think he is, although more a social democrat or Fabian socialist.

Seriously, instead of supposing what politicians would do if they got away with it is like saying what kind of car you would buy if you had all the money in the world, it is pointless. What they do is important, not what they say.

But they can only do things if you put them into power, and you put them into power based on what they say.

Show me where he has done or said something to that effect. Unless you suddenly gained the ability to read minds then supposing what he really thinks is pretty pointless.

He has a background with so pretty far Leftists and wants the government to be the prime one in charge regarding some major areas of the economy.

That is reaching really, really far to say the EPA indirectly controls the entire economy.

We have a carbon-based economy. Everything depends on energy. You control carbon emissions, you control energy. Remember, there is no known technology to reduce carbon emissions by any significant amount, which means reducing carbon means cutting energy.

Cap-and-trade works if there is such technology, and thus it worked for having industry scrub their coal and clean out things like sulfur-dioxide and other pollutants. But for pure carbon, the only way to actually reduce it is to cut back energy usage. You control energy usage, you will indirectly guide the entire economy.

So did the executives.

But not the shareholders.

I thought a monopoly is where one company controls the market, not several. And claiming that a private company in competition with others in a regulated market will be an appendage of government is entirely again stretching it waaaaaay far.

Okay, oligopoly then. Private companies in a market so regulated that it is virtually impossible for other companies to enter and compete, can become appendages of the government. The health insurance companies are made into utilities with this bill, but they still "compete" with one another.

The above is all pretty much personal opinion, not fact. The law was passed by majorities in both houses of Congress in a manner in which many bills have been made law by both parties, not illegally or nefariously, not exactly 'brute force'. But I ain't really going to change your mind, I guess we will have to let the voters decide.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right, and just because something is right doesn't mean it is legal either. The Democrats, if they could not have gotten the votes needed, could have used deem-and-pass, which would have allowed them to pass the bill without the votes. That's wrong, but technically legal.

And again, no piece of legislation this sweeping has ever been passed into law before using a simple majority vote like this, in a strictly partisan manner. Medicare and Medicaid had wide popular support and bipartisan support.

 

[HercDriver]

That argument could be made to nationalize everything. Instead of the private sector doing something, just let the government handle it and things will go far more efficiently. England tried it with nationalizing much of the economy after WWII on the idea that nationalized enterprises would be far more efficient than private-sector enterprises, but it wasn't true. I will believe it when I see it.

Not surprisingly, most people do not like to use the government student loan program because the customer service to it is terrible: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html



They gain in terms of power however, getting such deals (although it seems some might backfire). As for tax cuts, well a few things:

1) Reconciliation was created for budgetary matters, which taxes probably fall under
2) The argument that, "The other side abused their power, so now we will abuse it fully as well" I don't think holds water
3) Reconciliation was never used before to pass such sweeping legislation for our nation.
4) I am not saying I agree with the Republicans previous use of reconciliation, they have abused it to, although not to this degree.



The argument on this goes back to whether or not at heart he is a socialist, which I think he is, although more a social democrat or Fabian socialist.



But they can only do things if you put them into power, and you put them into power based on what they say.



He has a background with so pretty far Leftists and wants the government to be the prime one in charge regarding some major areas of the economy.



We have a carbon-based economy. Everything depends on energy. You control carbon emissions, you control energy. Remember, there is no known technology to reduce carbon emissions by any significant amount, which means reducing carbon means cutting energy.

Cap-and-trade works if there is such technology, and thus it worked for having industry scrub their coal and clean out things like sulfur-dioxide and other pollutants. But for pure carbon, the only way to actually reduce it is to cut back energy usage. You control energy usage, you will indirectly guide the entire economy.



But not the shareholders.



Okay, oligopoly then. Private companies in a market so regulated that it is virtually impossible for other companies to enter and compete, can become appendages of the government. The health insurance companies are made into utilities with this bill, but they still "compete" with one another.



Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right, and just because something is right doesn't mean it is legal either. The Democrats, if they could not have gotten the votes needed, could have used deem-and-pass, which would have allowed them to pass the bill without the votes. That's wrong, but technically legal.

And again, no piece of legislation this sweeping has ever been passed into law before using a simple majority vote like this, in a strictly partisan manner. Medicare and Medicaid had wide popular support and bipartisan support.

There isn't a "sweeping scale"that I know of that will tell you if something has reached the "sweeping threshold. I would say that the trillion dollars in tax cuts enacted in the previous administration were sweeping and passed on the thinnest of majorities (twice with the VP breaking the tie).

And simple majority is how legislation is passed in both Houses of Congress. There is no need for a super majority if the legislation is sweeping/unpopular or any other reason. The only reason it needed 60 votes was to reach cloture because of a Republican filibuster. For some reason, people have the idea that the Dems are powerless without 60 votes because that is what is needed to pass legislation...nope, it is only when the minority party threatens filibuster (continually, as the Senate has never had this many threats to filibuster in its recent history).

And I think you are mixing up things a bit. The reconciliation process is really more contentious on the Senate, than the House as it affects the House very little since it already has rules limiting debate and filibuster. The Senate reached 60 votes...if they had enacted the reconciliation process and passed the bill with 51 votes you would have a point, but as it passed it the concerns about reconciliation is moot.

Summary: Legislation passes in both Houses of Congress by simple majority. Despite threats of filibuster in the Senate, the Dems were able to muster 60 votes to reach cloture. In the House the Dems reached a simple majority. In short: The Dems did indeed win the debate on health care.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I believe in a safety net for those who can't help themselves.

...and who are those that can't help themselves?

For those who simply wont help themselves, I believe in tough love and survival of the fittest - that can be a powerful motivator.

True, but what's the difference between those who can't help themselves and those who won't help themselves?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I am of the opinion that health care is part of the public commons

So then you agree that doctors, nurses, et al should be compensated at such, correct?

]...as long as the profit motive is part of the system, there is an inherent conflict of interest within insurance companies

Yes, that pesky profit motive always gets in the way. Would there not be an inherent conflict of interest in any for profit system, regardless of industry?

What surprises me is how Switzerland's model was never discussed/considered in this whole debate.

Because we're not Switzerland or anything like them.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I will assume that those cases make it to the Supreme Court sooner or later and then they will decide whether it is Constitutional, until then it is all mental masturbation as Brett says.......

Ahhhh yes, the mental masturbation argument...used by folks who are unable to articulate why or why not something is Constitutional/unConstitutional. Even if it is decided by this court to be Constitutional, does that really mean it is? On the other hand, maybe the Court might decide these cases to be unConstitutional. Again....doesn't mean it's right.

Requiring someone to buy insurance is not the same dictating what someone does to their body, just what they have to purchase.

I feel so much better now.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Until the Supreme Court finds the bill or parts of it unconstitutional it will remain the law of the land, whatever you may think of it.

You keep thinking that.