Why is everyone so afraid of the word Socialism?

[TheBrutalTruth]

They are not forced into this debt just like you are not, just like I am not.

If I have a problem with this, I can simply move away from it. I can go anywhere or even live off of the black market and not have to pay anything.

The big thing to understand is that we make more money as a product of all the 'debt' we are enslaved with. So in reality it is simply that you would not make as much without the structures in place, which you look at as slavery, and I look at as opportunity.

$400 Billion in interest payments, how far would that go towards covering the medical costs of that 6 - 7 million that are "uninsured"

With out the debt it is likely that the government would have just expanded Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP and would have no need to attempt to socialize healthcare.

Of course, that is assuming that the government's goal is to cover those people instead of imposing restrictions on healthcare.

I have yet to hear any plausible explanation, except rationing of care, on how costs will be reduced if the "uninsured" are covered. Surely those people would want MRIs, CAT Scans, EKGs, Colonoscopies, and other preventitive medicine done that often reveals nothing, but is done as part of good medical work.

Instead of permitting the doctors to do their job (which explains the cost) with the degree of professionalism that their job demands the government is clearly going to have to ration healthcare to actually reduce costs.

The question is not if they are going to ration healthcare, the question is how they are going to ration it. Which group is going to be thrown under the wheels of the lorry?

In Britain it's the old, and those that need dental, or made bad health choices according to bureaucrats. Perhaps we will follow that system.

Smokers need not apply (you unlucky bastards just get to pay for it)
Drinkers need not apply (you unlucky bastards just get to pay for it)
Old People need not apply (you old farts just get to pay for it and suffer)

Hardly thoughts to inspire confidence in a national system.

Then there's the entire fact that the actual writing of the insurance requirements will be left to bureaucrats. Unelected officials who face no repercussions for their bad decisions and routinely fail up, as they can not be fired with out great difficulty due to the byzantine-backwardness of the federal government.

Even if Congress was writing the requirements, I would not care for that unhappy medium. People should be allowed to choose what they want covered, and the best way to achieve that is to open up the markets further and perhaps institute regulation that allows for ala carte pricing in insurance (the same ideas that would be pushed onto Cable, but are blocked by the complaints that free-riding low-viewership channels would be axed due to lack of audience. If they don't have a self-sustaining audience then why is everyone else stuck paying for them against their will?)

 

[hanimmal]

$400 Billion in interest payments, how far would that go towards covering the medical costs of that 6 - 7 million that are "uninsured"

With out the debt it is likely that the government would have just expanded Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP and would have no need to attempt to socialize healthcare.

Of course, that is assuming that the government's goal is to cover those people instead of imposing restrictions on healthcare.

I would assume that is the goal. And that would be a great start.

I have yet to hear any plausible explanation, except rationing of care, on how costs will be reduced if the "uninsured" are covered. Surely those people would want MRIs, CAT Scans, EKGs, Colonoscopies, and other preventitive medicine done that often reveals nothing, but is done as part of good medical work.

Lets look at something like teeth.

If you go to the dentist regularly for cleanings due to having dental care you would not have to get expensive procedures as much (over the entire population). Same with catching things like heart conditions early means that you may just need to get some medicine and work out a little instead of waiting 5 years and having to get a triple bypass. Or diabeties patients not getting treatment and having to get a foot amputates. on and on.

In the short term it would be more expensive, but over a longer time there would be far less very expensive procedures.

And that would save the money.

Instead of permitting the doctors to do their job (which explains the cost) with the degree of professionalism that their job demands the government is clearly going to have to ration healthcare to actually reduce costs.

The question is not if they are going to ration healthcare, the question is how they are going to ration it. Which group is going to be thrown under the wheels of the lorry?

This already happens and is why there needs to be a change in the first place. If the insurance companies didn't fight the doctors all the time and ration the care people receive then this would not have been brought up (regulation)

In Britain it's the old, and those that need dental, or made bad health choices according to bureaucrats. Perhaps we will follow that system.

Smokers need not apply (you unlucky bastards just get to pay for it)
Drinkers need not apply (you unlucky bastards just get to pay for it)
Old People need not apply (you old farts just get to pay for it and suffer)

Hardly thoughts to inspire confidence in a national system.

But those are just thoughts and nothing more.

Then there's the entire fact that the actual writing of the insurance requirements will be left to bureaucrats. Unelected officials who face no repercussions for their bad decisions and routinely fail up, as they can not be fired with out great difficulty due to the byzantine-backwardness of the federal government.

Even if Congress was writing the requirements, I would not care for that unhappy medium. People should be allowed to choose what they want covered, and the best way to achieve that is to open up the markets further and perhaps institute regulation that allows for ala carte pricing in insurance (the same ideas that would be pushed onto Cable, but are blocked by the complaints that free-riding low-viewership channels would be axed due to lack of audience. If they don't have a self-sustaining audience then why is everyone else stuck paying for them against their will?)

This is what the bill was set up to be.

It had three plans very basic that covers the dr visits and emergencies, to a gold standard program. Then through the private markets you could either get the insurance that they were offering and circumvent it totally, or peicemeal their plans.

But it seems that the government plans may go out and the private insurance companies will be the ones doing the co-op plans.

And I am all for the government not having to have to do it, I just know something needed to be done, the insurance companies just realized they were going to not be able to screw the system anymore and decided that their bluff was going to get called and are now willing to work with us.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I would assume that is the goal. And that would be a great start.



Lets look at something like teeth.

If you go to the dentist regularly for cleanings due to having dental care you would not have to get expensive procedures as much (over the entire population). Same with catching things like heart conditions early means that you may just need to get some medicine and work out a little instead of waiting 5 years and having to get a triple bypass. Or diabeties patients not getting treatment and having to get a foot amputates. on and on.

In the short term it would be more expensive, but over a longer time there would be far less very expensive procedures.

And that would save the money.



This already happens and is why there needs to be a change in the first place. If the insurance companies didn't fight the doctors all the time and ration the care people receive then this would not have been brought up (regulation)



But those are just thoughts and nothing more.



This is what the bill was set up to be.

It had three plans very basic that covers the dr visits and emergencies, to a gold standard program. Then through the private markets you could either get the insurance that they were offering and circumvent it totally, or peicemeal their plans.

But it seems that the government plans may go out and the private insurance companies will be the ones doing the co-op plans.

And I am all for the government not having to have to do it, I just know something needed to be done, the insurance companies just realized they were going to not be able to screw the system anymore and decided that their bluff was going to get called and are now willing to work with us.

Deregulation and an ala carte system, ironically plans in the most regulated states have their figures quoted the most, $10,000 for a family in Taxachusetts versus $3,000 for a similar plan in Montana or Wyoming. It is absurd to believe that by allowing government to dictate what must be covered that costs will be reduced. They will inevitiably cover too much and lead to more costs being passed from one group of citizens to another.

The plan being proposed reeks like raw sewage. If it is truly being defeated than good, hopefully this time it will stay dead.

 

[CrackerJax]

There are three states which already emulate Obamas health care plan. New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts.

Highest rates for insurance in the nation? Anyone? New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts.

 

[hanimmal]

Deregulation and an ala carte system, ironically plans in the most regulated states have their figures quoted the most, $10,000 for a family in Taxachusetts versus $3,000 for a similar plan in Montana or Wyoming. It is absurd to believe that by allowing government to dictate what must be covered that costs will be reduced. They will inevitiably cover too much and lead to more costs being passed from one group of citizens to another.

The plan being proposed reeks like raw sewage. If it is truly being defeated than good, hopefully this time it will stay dead.

The whole government saying what is needed is what is wrong though. It is more allowing the doctors to provide the care they want without insurance companies telling them no that is too expensive so let them die (which does and is happening now) or go bankrupt.

And at the same time getting insurance to the rest of the people so that they can get the preventative care in an affordable fashion to help us become healthier as a country which would help lower costs.

Regardless of how it happens it needs to happen. Either it will stay the same and continue to dig us deeper until something very radical has to happen, or something happens now to start the ball rolling before it is too late.

There are three states which already emulate Obamas health care plan. New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts.

Highest rates for insurance in the nation? Anyone? New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts.

How can they emulate something that is not even in existence?

 

[CrackerJax]

Hooboy... now you question whether they are doing it? You are one lazy debater..... go read up first before you post any more ignorance. You waste my time.

 

[jrh72582]

Hooboy... now you question whether they are doing it? You are one lazy debater..... go read up first before you post any more ignorance. You waste my time.

Have you even established a thread of ethos yet? Who are you to speak so authoritatively? You're pathetic. In fact, the definition is - poisonous, anti-intellectual. You, sir, are a poisonous anti-intellectual. You harbor irrational thoughts and beliefs based upon preposterous and mostly imagined evidence and then bully others into believing this make believe drivel. You should join a circus man. Your kind is becoming more and more rare - almost to the point of extinction (unless you move to Texas).

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Have you even established a thread of ethos yet? Who are you to speak so authoritatively? You're pathetic. In fact, the definition is - poisonous, anti-intellectual. You, sir, are a poisonous anti-intellectual. You harbor irrational thoughts and beliefs based upon preposterous and mostly imagined evidence and then bully others into believing this make believe drivel. You should join a circus man. Your kind is becoming more and more rare - almost to the point of extinction (unless you move to Texas).

Oh wow, such intellectual terms. Perhaps you should reflect that the true ability of any one that has intellect is to ensure that they are understood by everyone in their audience. Though speaking of bullies, you are a person that has no room to talk JRH, you are just as guilty as he is. (Not that I'm innocent, but I'm honest about it, I can not count the number of times I have admitted to being a jack ass.)

Where is your admission of guilt?

But that's irrelevant, and where is your stance against ad hominem attacks. I have yet to see either you or Hannimal confront the actual points put forth by CJ which is that there are already states that have attempted to institute a system similar to the flawed system being debated right now.

In those states it has

1. Failed to Contain Costs
2. Not Achieved its purported goal of providing coverage for everyone
3. Reduced the liberties enjoyed by the people of those states.

Though apparently, in your words, I guess I am guilty of being a poisonous anti-intellectual, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not the one that attempts to make myself something more than just another citizen. CJ is not the one that is running around trying to make people listen to him based on his tenure at a university.

 

[CrackerJax]

Follow the numbers. Follow the money. Find the truth.

 

[bluetick]

To know the road ahead, ask those coming back. To become a millionaire the most simple way would be to do exactly what the millionaire before you did.

This health care bit is not anything new, only new to Americans. So if you want to know how it works then ask the people living in the countries that use this system if it works or not and HOW it works. What is so difficult to understand about that? The village idiot can figure that out, but you can't?

 

[bluetick]

CJ and TBT, don't you get tired of answering to and trying to argue with people who are obviously living under a rock? They have a disease you know. It is like schizophrenia, not being able to realize what is going on around them.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

CJ and TBT, don't you get tired of answering to and trying to argue with people who are obviously living under a rock? They have a disease you know. It is like schizophrenia, not being able to realize what is going on around them.

Yeah, you're probably right, I'm wasting my time.

 

[CrackerJax]

I wake up each day with hope anew that some of these folks will one day turn on their own brain and start to think for themselves. They are fed a diet of information without the tools to separate the wheat from the chafe. It must be frustrating and I guess in the end it's easier to just go along with the flow, and that's a pity..... for them.

Yet, I awake each day anew and HOPE..... Heck, I have made it already, and am trying to help preserve the way for others to make it as well. Some resist the equations of success. Don't ask me why.... I don't have their fiscal demons.

 

[Greenhousegrower]

I've been following the debates going on in America over healthcare reform and I cannot understand why anyone would be against the idea of accessible healthcare for all. It seems that those against it are merely afraid of it, and do not see how beneficial it could be, it is being twisted and manipulated to seem like a socialist, scary idea, by the redneck politicians who are backed by the huge, faceless, uncaring insurance companies. Bullshit, this is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. Home of the free? Equal opportunities? How about you live up to that and give people equal opportunity to access medical care if they need it, instead of being a slave to the insurance industry.
Take the NHS in the UK for example, every single person in the UK is entitled to free quality healthcare, and are they a so called 'socialist' society? No. They are a thriving capitalist society with an economy in far better shape than yours. The same goes for almost every other country in western Europe.
The UK spend 8% of their GDP on healthcare a year, and EVERYONE is covered, the USA spend 16% of GDP on healthcare, and only those who can afford health insurance are covered. This seems wrong to me, inhuman, sick people are left without the meds they need just because they are poor. It is a waste of money, but more importantly a waste of life, and something needs to be done. As we watch the story unveil from across the pond, we hope that a decision is made that values peoples health. You have the opportunity to improve the bad image America has made for itself during the Bush administration by doing the right thing.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I've been following the debates going on in America over healthcare reform and I cannot understand why anyone would be against the idea of accessible healthcare for all. It seems that those against it are merely afraid of it, and do not see how beneficial it could be, it is being twisted and manipulated to seem like a socialist, scary idea, by the redneck politicians who are backed by the huge, faceless, uncaring insurance companies. Bullshit, this is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. Home of the free? Equal opportunities? How about you live up to that and give people equal opportunity to access medical care if they need it, instead of being a slave to the insurance industry.
Take the NHS in the UK for example, every single person in the UK is entitled to free quality healthcare, and are they a so called 'socialist' society? No. They are a thriving capitalist society with an economy in far better shape than yours. The same goes for almost every other country in western Europe.
The UK spend 8% of their GDP on healthcare a year, and EVERYONE is covered, the USA spend 16% of GDP on healthcare, and only those who can afford health insurance are covered. This seems wrong to me, inhuman, sick people are left without the meds they need just because they are poor. It is a waste of money, but more importantly a waste of life, and something needs to be done. As we watch the story unveil from across the pond, we hope that a decision is made that values peoples health. You have the opportunity to improve the bad image America has made for itself during the Bush administration by doing the right thing.

I'm going to try to refrain from insulting your intelligence in this reply.

First and foremost is the fact that the plan being proposed strips away the right of individuals to pay out of pocket for their own healthcare with out the middle man of an insurance company.

Secondly, is the fact that such a system will benefit large corporations which will get the contracts to administer it.

Thirdly, is the fact that it will be used as an excuse to regulate what we eat, drink and smoke.

Fourth is the fact that the federal government has no business, or need, to be involved as it is not part of its Constitutional Duties.

Fifth, is the fact that this plan doesn't resolve the free rider problem but will actually make it worse. The projections made by the CBO conclude that the cost will be an additional $1 TRILLION dollars per annum expanding healthcare from 16% of the economy to 22% of the economy (making it larger than even the Federal Governments share of the economy.)

Sixth, is the fact that the only way the government is planning on lowering costs is to restrict payments for services and restrict access to payments for services rendered by physicians.

Seventh, is the fact that the federal government under the guise of Medicare and Medicaid has a history of ignoring medical procedures that are off the beaten path and do not benefit major pharmaceutical corporations. Such procedures may range from old methods (medical maggots) to more modern methods (bacteriophages) that have not been allowed in the United States.

The system being proposed fails to guarantee access (the states that have tried it have the highest number of uninsured, and the highest insurance rates), it fails to actually provide health care, because for at least, what seems like, the billionth time health insurance is not health care.

Real solutions would involved

encouraging more people to become health care providers thus leading to higher supply, more competition and thus lower costs (most doctors are refusing to accept medicaid patients due to bureaucratic paper work, and it is likely that we will see many near retirement do just that, and many others that are thinking about entering the medical field change their career choice.)

reforming law regulating tort lawsuits and punitive damages to limit the amount of money doctors have to pay out. It is not beneficial to the public when a surgeon has to pay $200,000/annum, because that cost is passed onto the public in the form of higher fees for the services the doctor provides.


Simple solutions would go far to reduce costs. The government proposed solution is a byzantine tangle of regulation that will ultimately increase costs, and about the only advantage that it has over honest reform is that much of those costs will be hidden from people like you who don't read their pay-stubs and realize how much the government already costs them.

 

[CrackerJax]

We're used to making our own decisions.

 

[Greenhousegrower]

You certainly know a lot more about this topic than I do, and you definitely raise some excellent points. Maybe the mistake I made was to take what works in europe and apply that to the U.S. People definitely should have the right to pay out of pocket for healthcare if they wish to, and that should be preserved even if a free healthcare option is employed. As for Large corporations benefitting, they will benefit in either case so its might not be as relevant.
No arguing with the fact that it may be an excuse to regulate what you eat drink and smoke, that would not be right if they could do that. But does that happen in other countries? I can see how it could happen but I've never heard of it.
If its not part of the Constitutional Duties, fair enough, thats the law, but it seems like assuring the health of you people should be a priority.
As for the rest of the points you raised, they are entirely specific to the U.S, and above all true. So there is no argument there.

If it were not for the culture in America that involves everyone wanting to sue everyone else, than maybe the premiums would not be so high and the current system would work better.
Just out of interest, are you opposed to change entirely or would you be in favour of (if it was possible, I don't know) a system that allowed those to pay out of pocket if they want to, but also provided cover for those who can't afford to?

 

[bluetick]

TBT made some great points GHG.

Want to run for president now?

Anyways one word in all of what he said hits the nail on the head and that is CONTROL. It is not about health care, it is about the Government having control.

Also if asked world wide who has the best health care in the world you would find out it is in the USA. I think you forgot to question the people who got no care at all and the people who waited for 6 months before they got to see a doctor.

The system needs changing, I agree, but not the obama way. He hands out the details of this new insurance plan of 1000+ pages, doesn't even read it himself and also doesn't give anybody else the time to read it before he wants the damn thing signed. I have not read it and even if I did I would feel like a 5 year old at a scientist convention. Uncomprehending to most.

The same thing happened here with the stimulus bill...1000+ pages also and pressured them to pass this bill the same day because it was imperative to get things moving. We've seen how that has worked out.

He IS a wolf in sheeps clothing. JMO

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

You certainly know a lot more about this topic than I do, and you definitely raise some excellent points. Maybe the mistake I made was to take what works in europe and apply that to the U.S. People definitely should have the right to pay out of pocket for healthcare if they wish to, and that should be preserved even if a free healthcare option is employed. As for Large corporations benefitting, they will benefit in either case so its might not be as relevant.
No arguing with the fact that it may be an excuse to regulate what you eat drink and smoke, that would not be right if they could do that. But does that happen in other countries? I can see how it could happen but I've never heard of it.
If its not part of the Constitutional Duties, fair enough, thats the law, but it seems like assuring the health of you people should be a priority.
As for the rest of the points you raised, they are entirely specific to the U.S, and above all true. So there is no argument there.

If it were not for the culture in America that involves everyone wanting to sue everyone else, than maybe the premiums would not be so high and the current system would work better.
Just out of interest, are you opposed to change entirely or would you be in favour of (if it was possible, I don't know) a system that allowed those to pay out of pocket if they want to, but also provided cover for those who can't afford to?

Care is already provided for those who can not afford it. Doctors are bound by the hypocratic oath to help people first and foremost with out concern about the ability to pay.

Hospitals are obligated to provide care to any who go to their emergency rooms seeking care and are not permitted to turn people away due to lack of insurance. The hospitals are then protected by bankruptcy law, which does not permit medical debts to be lumped with other debts and dissolved by law.

Such debt can then be turned over to a collection agency, and they can attempt to collect, but they are not guaranteed success. It would seem that when I earlier said that this system would just cost millions of jobs in insurance I was wrong. It would seem that this will also cost additional millions of jobs in the collections industry, and thus is a horrible bit of reform.

It does no one any good to have "access" to non-existent medical care. There was a saying in Russia amongst the common workers near the end of its days, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

As far as favoring reform

Law Suit Reform would go a far way to limiting punitive damages.

Consider the example above where the surgeon pays $200,000 a year. If the surgeon only performs 200 surgeries a year (3 - 4/week) then the cost passed onto to patients is $1,000 per surgery. If the surgeon performs 400 surgeries a year (6 - 8/week) then the additional cost is $500. This is the kind of cost pyramiding that brought down GM, and appears to be strangling doctors.

On top of the fact that the Surgeons and Doctors get screwed by the insurance companies is the fact that they then get screwed by their government. Much of a surgeon's actual costs are overhead. Billing Companies, or Billing Specialists which can take 3 - 10% of the gross receipts. Assistants, Nurses, Front Desk Managers, Account Managers. The number of people that rely upon doctors for their jobs is immense, but most of them exist due to paper pushing.

The biggest source of paper pushing is the federal government (and the insurance companies) mounds upon mounds of regulations that restrict what the doctor can and can not do. Requirements to get pre-approval to test the efficacy of a drug against something that it has not been approved for (which insults the intelligence of the doctors by making them answer to bureaucrats.)

But all of that is inconsequential to my biggest problem with this legislation. That is the fact that the government seems to believe that it has the right to order me to contribute to an abusive monopoly established under its protection against my will, and then threaten me with penalties if I do not.

Get Insurance or Sacrifice 2.5% of your income.

I don't see why some one in my position should be obligated to get insurance. I pay out of pocket, and have no problem with it, despite the fact that I am in the process of paying $8,100 or thereabouts for a lot of dental work. It is work that I was able to determine that I wanted done, and I was able to get it. I paid cash, the dentists started on it right away, the only other people involved have been the dental assistants, and the billing department of the dentists office. There was no need to waste time dealing with an insurance company, or with the socialist insurance institutions of the federal government, state governments or local/city governments.

I went in, said I wanted care, schedule an appointment, and then paid. In 8 weeks I'll be done paying, and everything that I needed done will be done. The level of service is not restricted by the government. The dentist had to inject me with an anaesthetic three times before it took hold for the last bout of fillings. Under the system being proposed he would probably have been prohibited by paperwork from actually wanting to choose that course of action, and instead of following the hypocratic oath he would have been forced to tell me that I was SOL if it hurt.

The system being proposed is built upon lies.

The biggest of those lies is the picture of the uninsured that the government is pushing.

http://2.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/

Summary

Former Sen. Fred Thompson said on "Meet the Press" that "the 45 million … figure of uninsured is probably about twice the real number of people who can’t afford insurance or don’t have access to it really." He’s not the only one saying that the number is inflated. We find that many of the numbers cited are accurate, but may need to be seen in context to get a true picture.

• The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007. But fewer lacked coverage for the full year, and more did without for one or more months during the year. All three numbers are likely to be higher for 2008 due to massive job losses.

• Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it, according to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. This is sometimes, but not always, a matter of choice.

• Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that figure includes both those who are here legally and those who are not. The number of illegal immigrants who are included in the official statistics is unknown.

• Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year, according to the Census Bureau. But this does not necessarily mean they have access to insurance. Even higher-income jobs don’t always offer employer-sponsored insurance, and not everyone who wants private insurance is able to get it.

• Forty percent of the uninsured are young, according to KFF. But speculation that they pass up insurance because of their good health is unjustified. KFF reports that many young people lack insurance because it’s not available to them, and people who turn down available insurance tend to be in worse health, not better, according to the Institute of Medicine

The first admits that the number being bandied about is not that were actually uninsured but the maximum number that did not have insurance coverage in 2007, due to being in transition between jobs.

26% are able to get public coverage, thus reducing the real number by just over a quarter, to 33.8 Million.

21% are legal and illegal immigrants, the number of illegal immigrants isn't separated, but as it is likely that those people do not want insurance or will be deported as they are criminals they can be safely excluded from the "uninsured" that we need to even worry about. There's another 9.6 Million that have been fraudulently included in the number of uninsured for partisan reasons, thus reducing the number to 24.2 Million.

20% don't need it due to making enough to do with out (> $75,000) thus they need to be removed from the quoted figure to avoid being biased. That reduces the number by 9.14 Million to 15.06 Million.

Of the remaining 15.06 Million you need to keep in mind that there is a large portion (40% of the total figure) that are young. For obvious reasons the young could probably get insurance if they wanted it, but have for whatever reason, choosen not to get it. 40% of the 45.7 would have been 18.3 Million, bringing the total to an impossible negative number for uninsured.

Now, it is absurd to believe that the government which already provides services that a quarter of the uninsured qualify for is going to convince them to get insurance coverage. I would imagine that those people enjoy being independent, fully-functional adults, and wonder how the hell they have found themselves in a land of dependency-issue laden dysfunctionals.

The other groups are the affluent (which I probably fit into being single with no dependents) that pay out of pocket.

The third group is the young (which I also fit into.) For obvious reasons, being in fine health, there is no benefit to me to have insurance. If circumstances changed, or if they were different (If I had a wife and kids) I would probably elect to get coverage for them, but if the government forces me to pay 2.5% of my income, or get insurance, then it is likely that I will be deprived of my ability to afford that.

Actually, if the government does that, I'm saying fuck it and leaving the country. Nothing flies as high as the eagle that flies free.

The real question, which the media has glossed over by reporting their fictitious numbers, is do we actually need reform?

If people don't want insurance that is their business. Clearly they are coping just fine with out it, and thus there is no reason to force them to get it.

More importantly is the fact that the system being proposed interferes in the rights of the insurance companies to run their own businesses. It violates the rights of the shareholders, employees, executives, managers, creditors and customers of the insurance companies.

It violates freedom of contract which is the foundation for commercial law and makes a mockery of the 8th Amendment (No Excessive Fees and Fines.)

I also mentioned something about the cost not being revealed in total to the public. The $1.2 Trillion over 10 years is what the CBO thinks it will cost the government (they thought Medicaid would only cost $10 Billion by 1990 when it was in fact costing $100 Billion + by 1990)

There are the additional costs to the public, which under the current plan amount to the lesser of the cost of insurance for 45.7 Million individuals (many of which don't want it) or 2.5% of their income.

We'll assume that they average to earning right around $46,000 a year (though it is probably higher) which would mean that for those 45.7 Million the cost would be 52.5 Billion/year, which is easily excluded from the CBO estimates if they elect to pay the 2.5% fine. If they elect to get coverage then the cost will be probably on the order of $2,500/year per each, which amounts to an additional 114 Billion per annum.

So over the next 10 years the real cost of this legislation has leaped from between $1.2 Trillion (which we don't have) to $1.7 Trillion - $2.2 Trillion (which we definitely do not have.)

Luckily, for the politicians, not for us so much, they can turn shitstained paper into dollars, so they do this act of borrowing money, or devaluing it, to pay for the costs. Which means that inflation goes up, (don't think I'm not going to demand a pay raise from my boss to adjust for the 2.5% I'm losing) which means costs go up. If costs go up 2% on rent, houses, food, water, electricity and other major services that we take for granted. We will see an additional cost of easily $1 Trillion to the people that this flawed proposal is supposed to help.

So the real cost becomes $2.7 - $3.2 Trillion over 10 years.

Oh, and of course depriving people of their natural liberties and freedoms, which is infinitely more valuable in my not so humble opinion.

Let's not forget that if doctors quit, then the system fails, because all of a sudden there's no way to provide the healthcare that government is TAXING everyone for.

OOPS, EPIC FAIL, and make no mistake the United States is already facing a shortage of doctors (despite soaring demand) so the arguments that demand will create supply fail. The only thing that could possibly create more supply at this point is to actually ease restrictions on medical practitioners so that more man-hours are available, and less taken up by pointless paper shuffling.

But this system will require even more paper-shuffling, thus reducing availability even further. Oops, now the doctors wastes another 2 minutes of the 15 minutes he assigns to a patient on paperwork, reducing the amount of time that he'll spend with a patient even further.

No, you can't talk to the doctor, he's busy blabbing to Uncle Sam about your condition and thus violating your rights to privacy. Yet another liberty that is being infringed upon by this legislation. I do not think it is any of the government's business what medical care I get (provided I'm paying for it myself, or through a third party.)

Thus, an unwelcome agent, has once again violated the security of patient-physician confidentiality, and based on the track record of the government in securing records (Sandia Area National Labs any one) I am not confident that my records will not suddenly become a commodity to be bought, sold, traded and marketed.

Then there's the spectre of medical insurance fraud. Now, let's say that you have a serious condition, but some one gets your information, pretends to be you and gets care that should have been yours. You got to get care, and get refused, because you have exceeded your allotted care for the year. You die, and the person that perpetuated fraud benefits from care that the government promised you, and even pre-charged you for.

Pre-charged you for, when there is no guarantee that you'll even need it. So if you don't use it, you lose it. WTF kind of system is that. That's the equivalent of your water company saying that you have 1 hour to get as much water from their system as you will need for the month or you will not have water for the rest of the month.

This system doesn't benefit the majority of the uninsured (who don't need medical care) it makes them pay for services they don't need, or will use. Now, that's social injustice.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

TBT made some great points GHG.

Want to run for president now?

Anyways one word in all of what he said hits the nail on the head and that is CONTROL. It is not about health care, it is about the Government having control.

Also if asked world wide who has the best health care in the world you would find out it is in the USA. I think you forgot to question the people who got no care at all and the people who waited for 6 months before they got to see a doctor.

The system needs changing, I agree, but not the obama way. He hands out the details of this new insurance plan of 1000+ pages, doesn't even read it himself and also doesn't give anybody else the time to read it before he wants the damn thing signed. I have not read it and even if I did I would feel like a 5 year old at a scientist convention. Uncomprehending to most.

The same thing happened here with the stimulus bill...1000+ pages also and pressured them to pass this bill the same day because it was imperative to get things moving. We've seen how that has worked out.

He IS a wolf in sheeps clothing. JMO

Bluetick, you wouldn't feel like a five year old. The language is simplistic in the bill, the problem is how it is used.

For some reason the imbeciles on the hill believe that they have to use legalese and not write their plans down plainly, but the words they use are simplistic.

It's not a matter of feeling like a five year old, it's a matter of feeling like you're surrounded by retards who can't speak or write the English Language.