LGP Political Discussion Thread

[pittsoccer33]

The theory behind universal care lowering prices is related to supply and demand, but in a different way. A lot of people who don't have insurance are younger, healthy people who think they don't need it. If these people were all entered into the pool, it would be more people paying for insurance but not needing it, which would bring down overall costs - especially considering that people who don't have insurance but have emergency health issues usually get treated and those costs are absorbed by the insured anyway. That's the theory. Whether it would work is up for debate.

Then you're forcing these people into something. Do you ride a motorcycle (I am assuming you do not)? I do. If you were forced to buy motorcycle insurance (even though you won't be wrecking a bike) my premium would come down. I suppose I would like that but it leaves you without a personal choice.

I didn't have health insurance from the time I was about 11 until I began my career. I can only imagine how much money that saved my family.

[Firebird]

I'm healthy, young, never broke a bone or sprained an ankle, get sick to visit the doctor maybe once or twice a year.

Why should I have to pay $200 a mo. for health care because of some chain smoker, potato chip lover, couch potato is ruining his life? Or why should I pay for someone who is getting knocked up every year? I'm sick of the fact that I am paying for child support for someone out there who I have never met because they are having kid and after kid while taking in gov't stripends and can barely even afford one. Or why should I have to pay for someone's hospital treatment because they are a coke-addict?

[eddysnake]

Once they are paying for your medical treatments they can begin banning anything and everything that could hurt you. They'll continue targeting caffiene, junk food, tobacco, alcohol, nutritional supplements, fast food, firearms, and more.

Bureaucrats will tell you what you must feed your children (and yourself), what drugs and vaccines they (you) must take, what physical activities they (you) must participate in. In the bill itself it says that agents of some new government agency will be showing up at your house making sure your kids are being properly cared for. And how is that going to save the country money (which is how this is being presented)? The President himself said they'll be advising senior citizens to take pain killers as opposed to undergoing procedures that attempt to increase the quality of their life in the name of cost savings.

That is really scary to think that that could happen one day. It reminds me in a twisted way of Stalins supposed plan to create an army of ape-men...

[Hockeynut!]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

[pittsoccer33]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

When I hear that scenerio I want to say "what marketable skills does she have? why doesnt she have a well paying career? where is the father? did she have children knowing her financial situation could not support them properly?"

If you work at Pizza Hut, Mcdonalds, or Sears you have access to health insurance. Beyond that, Americans are compassionate people and thats why millions of people donate millions of dollars to fund cancer research and treatments (I will not get in to President Obama wanting to cut the charitable contribution tax deduction).

I also believe that "catastrophic" insurance coverage should be a more advertised and available option. You don't use your car insurance to pay for oil changes, tire rotation, and tune ups. You pay that out of your pocket. But Americans have grown this sense of entitlement that every doctor visit and Aspirin pill should be paid for.

I am young and healthy. If I go get a physical every few years I can afford to pay that expense myself out of my pocket. What I could not pay for are cancer treatments. Why not allow me the option to buy a cheaper premium level that would cover the worst case scenerios?

[shafnutz05]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

You're missing the point. Hey, I am ALL FOR there being some kind of program where a working mother (or anyone else in a similar situation) gets some kind of tax credit/reimbursement/aid from the government for the treatment she desperately needs. The problem is, this plan is about the government taking over the largest single portion of the private sector and nationalizing it, and the NUMEROUS highly questionable/downright worrisome policies that will come riding in on the coattails.

That is extremely unfair (and ignorant) to dismiss people that oppose this plan as angry/selfish right-wingers who don't give a damn about people who are suffering from sicknesses and can't afford treatment. Again, I would be all for a responsible plan that allows hard-working people who are struggling to afford treatment to get access to that. Unfortunately, that is not the ultimate agenda of the plan being shoved down our throats right now. I was raised by a single mother who DID work two part-time jobs, so don't brush me off as someone that grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth. There are extremely relevant arguments against this bill, and resorting to an attack on emotion is not going to eliminate them.

[shafnutz05]

Nothing is more irritating than someone using this argument to support the bill:

"So and so is dying of cancer and doesn't have treatment, and YOU want her to die in misery you selfish jerk!"

Most people that make this argument probably a) have not read the bill, b) haven't really read or understood all of the fine print and policies that come along WITH the bill.

An intelligent discussion is fine with me, but don't use the knee-jerk liberal appeal to emotion...I like to use my heart AND my brain

[Hockeynut!]

Look at the post I responded too. How can you say I'm making the irritating knew jerk liberal response when I use the scenario is a dying uninsured mother as a reason why universal care should be considered in response to someone else using the scenario of a low life coke addict as a reason why it shouldn't? Wow. Just... wow...

I don't think Obama's plan will work. I've said from the beginning of this debate that I had reservations about it in it's present form. But I've also said the system is broken. All the R's care about is crushing Obama and the D's. They don't want to fix the problem.

And when people in this country are dying of terrible diseases because they don't have insurance - that's a problem. When people in their 50's lose their jobs due to a company closing down and they can't get private insurance for less than $800 a month - that's a problem. When an employer is expected to pay out $1,400 a month per employee for a family plan - that's a problem. Look at the percentage of our country's wealth that is spent on health care per year and compare that to other countries - that's a problem.

I want to see these problems addressed and discussed, not just swept under the rug while one party tries to crush the other. Since "Hillary-care" was defeated in the 90s, the health care situation in this country has grown exponentially worse. If a serious debate would have started 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation now. And when Obama's plan is defeated and the R's parade around clapping each other on the back for handing him his Waterloo, health care will again fall onto the back burner.

And how will things be in another 15 years?

[Firebird]

Look at the post I responded too. How can you say I'm making the irritating knew jerk liberal response when I use the scenario is a dying uninsured mother as a reason why universal care should be considered in response to someone else using the scenario of a low life coke addict as a reason why it shouldn't? Wow. Just... wow...

I don't think Obama's plan will work. I've said from the beginning of this debate that I had reservations about it in it's present form. But I've also said the system is broken. All the R's care about is crushing Obama and the D's. They don't want to fix the problem.

And when people in this country are dying of terrible diseases because they don't have insurance - that's a problem. When people in their 50's lose their jobs due to a company closing down and they can't get private insurance for less than $800 a month - that's a problem. When an employer is expected to pay out $1,400 a month per employee for a family plan - that's a problem. Look at the percentage of our country's wealth that is spent on health care per year and compare that to other countries - that's a problem.

I want to see these problems addressed and discussed, not just swept under the rug while one party tries to crush the other. Since "Hillary-care" was defeated in the 90s, the health care situation in this country has grown exponentially worse. If a serious debate would have started 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation now. And when Obama's plan is defeated and the R's parade around clapping each other on the back for handing him his Waterloo, health care will again fall onto the back burner.

And how will things be in another 15 years?

The problem isn't universal health care. The problem is lowering the cost of healthcare.

Get rid of 90% of the malpractice cases that are borderline absurd and you no longer need the "malpractice insurance" that costs an arm and a leg.

[pittsoccer33]

All the R's care about is crushing Obama and the D's. They don't want to fix the problem.

Thats not true. I'm all for allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines, increasing tax deductions for medical treatment, and limiting malpractice even more. On Obama's last prime time telepromter conference he accused pediatricians of performing tonsilectomies because they will make more money that way (nevermind the fact an Otolaryngologist would do that). Doctors DO perform many senseless procedures, but that is because they are afraid of being sued into oblivion if this misdiagnose something. Their insurance rates in PA are so high that many leave the state. Limiting tort would lower their cost to do business.

Doing those things does nothing to further federal bureaucracies, so that is why they are off the table currently.

[shafnutz05]

Look at the post I responded too. How can you say I'm making the irritating knew jerk liberal response when I use the scenario is a dying uninsured mother as a reason why universal care should be considered in response to someone else using the scenario of a low life coke addict as a reason why it shouldn't? Wow. Just... wow...

I don't think Obama's plan will work. I've said from the beginning of this debate that I had reservations about it in it's present form. But I've also said the system is broken. All the R's care about is crushing Obama and the D's. They don't want to fix the problem.

And when people in this country are dying of terrible diseases because they don't have insurance - that's a problem. When people in their 50's lose their jobs due to a company closing down and they can't get private insurance for less than $800 a month - that's a problem. When an employer is expected to pay out $1,400 a month per employee for a family plan - that's a problem. Look at the percentage of our country's wealth that is spent on health care per year and compare that to other countries - that's a problem.

I want to see these problems addressed and discussed, not just swept under the rug while one party tries to crush the other. Since "Hillary-care" was defeated in the 90s, the health care situation in this country has grown exponentially worse. If a serious debate would have started 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation now. And when Obama's plan is defeated and the R's parade around clapping each other on the back for handing him his Waterloo, health care will again fall onto the back burner.

And how will things be in another 15 years?

Fair enough...I didn't see anything quoted so I didn't realize you were responding directly to someone.

I agree.....the healthcare system (which I believe is STILL the best in the world) definitely has its flaws. Healthcare needs to be made cheaper and more affordable for people...nationalizing it and increasing demand while maintaining or decreasing supply (as BH pointed out) is NOT the answer.

1) Do something about the millions upon millions of illegal aliens we are being forced to treat for free at American hospitals.

2) Pass long overdue tort reform so doctors don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on malpractice insurance to protect against the BS lawsuits filed by lowlifes (I know, some are legitimate)

3) Help create incentives to give those aspiring medical/nursing students that final push they need to take the chance on medical school...instead of making life a pain in the *** for physicians and other doctors like this bill would do, increase the incentive. Increase the supply of medical care

[pittsoccer33]

Another thing is to provide incentives to insured americans to lower their healthcare costs. My copay is $20 or $25. For me, I don't care if the doctor I go see is charging Highmark $100 or $1,000 for my visit, since I pay the same. If my interests were aligned with the insurance companies, I might seek out a lower cost provider.

None of these things are being discussed. We're just rushing to vote on a bill our congresspeople are admitting they wont bother to read. And when people like me express dismay over points of the bill and want to press for alternatives, we're called unamerican and through flag@whitehouse.gov face the threat of being added to Janet Napolitano's list of other "extremists" who might become potential terrorists, like anti abortion advocates and returning soliders.

[Hockeynut!]

All the R's care about is crushing Obama and the D's. They don't want to fix the problem.

Thats not true. I'm all for allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines, increasing tax deductions for medical treatment, and limiting malpractice even more.

When I referred to R's, I meant R's in congress. Sorry for the confusion.

[HomerPenguin]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

When I hear that scenerio I want to say "what marketable skills does she have? why doesnt she have a well paying career?

Right. Because if she doesn't have any marketable skills or a well-paying career, who needs her?

[bh]

I don't think Obama's plan will work. I've said from the beginning of this debate that I had reservations about it in it's present form. But I've also said the system is broken. All the R's care about is crushing Obama and the D's. They don't want to fix the problem.

Agreed. It's why I hate the current political environment.

And when people in this country are dying of terrible diseases because they don't have insurance - that's a problem. When people in their 50's lose their jobs due to a company closing down and they can't get private insurance for less than $800 a month - that's a problem. When an employer is expected to pay out $1,400 a month per employee for a family plan - that's a problem. Look at the percentage of our country's wealth that is spent on health care per year and compare that to other countries - that's a problem.

See this is where I think people get confused. You are equating insurance to health care when they are different things. People don't die because they don't have insurance, they die becasue they don't have access to care, and I agree that it is a problem. Insurance wouldn't be needed if care was cheaper and I don't see anyone debating ways to make health care cheaper. Also this company offered insurance needs to stop. The way to do that is to offer the same tax breaks to private individuals that comapnies get. I don't get car insurance or house insurance though my employer, so then why medical insurance?

I want to see these problems addressed and discussed, not just swept under the rug while one party tries to crush the other.

Well, I agree, but I don't see any change comming anytime soon.

And how will things be in another 15 years?

Sadly probably the same of worse. I have really low expectations of government in general.

[bh]

The theory behind universal care lowering prices is related to supply and demand, but in a different way. A lot of people who don't have insurance are younger, healthy people who think they don't need it. If these people were all entered into the pool, it would be more people paying for insurance but not needing it, which would bring down overall costs - especially considering that people who don't have insurance but have emergency health issues usually get treated and those costs are absorbed by the insured anyway. That's the theory. Whether it would work is up for debate.

No, this is all wrong. overall costs will not go down, they will just be spread out over more people. No matter what demand will increase. When something is free demand will skyrocket. If supply of the service remains the same, then cost has no other option to go but up. Now that cost may be spread over more people so individually people will might see lower costs but overall, I don't see how costs could do anything but rise.

[pittsoccer33]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

When I hear that scenerio I want to say "what marketable skills does she have? why doesnt she have a well paying career?

Right. Because if she doesn't have any marketable skills or a well-paying career, who needs her?

Noooooooo

I would rather work to treat the problem (the lack of proper education, lack of husband) than treat the symptom (no health insurance).

But at what point do you hold people accountable for their own decisions?

[shafnutz05]

But at what point do you hold people accountable for their own decisions?

This is where I have to draw the line a little bit. My parents divorced after 8 years of marriage, it was NOT working. Now granted, my Mom worked her butt off to raise my sister and I, and we were lucky enough to have coverage. But if for whatever reason she lost her job or was laid off, that's definitely not her fault or anyone else's. If a coke addict's nostrils are burned to a crisp, should I pay for their care? HELL NO. But that is the other extreme.

[Geezer]

Costs never go down in govenment progams. I was a teenager when they started medicare. You only have to look at social security, medicare or other government programs to understand how incapable the federal government is regarding cost-related issues.This administration is also trying to backdoor free healthcare for illegal aliens. The Dems biggest problem IMO is Emmanuel's brother ,who's an admin heath policy guru, issued his Kevorkian-type views. This has the gray panthers fired up.Since seniors are a major Dem voting bloc
Obama's crew is scrambling to deny reducing medicare spending on old people.
I watched some of Lou Dobbs shows where they were comparing health care in our country versus that in forign countries. I didn't see anything in the plans in Canada,Great Britain or Denmark that convinced me we should adopt such programs. I've seen various news reports about people waiting for cancer treatment and of people from such countries coming to the U.S. for treatment.
My opinion of socialistic programs is that they drag the entire population down to the same miserable level. Once there society continues to decline since there is no incentive to work hard.

[DelPen]

Reform Medicare and Medicaid so it breaks even and pays in full for services rendered instead of trhe usual 70% and tort reform so punitive lawsuits go out the window but compensatory such as loss of future earnings and pay lost can still be awarded but no more million dollar lawsuits because weasels like John Edwards channels and unborn child.

Do that and then we can talk about overhauling the complete health care system that a vast majority of this country has no problem with.

[Geezer]

Tort reform would be a huge help in reducing health care cost as well as our business climate in general.

[Geezer]

I guess it's no longer health care reform. Per Barrack it's now health insurance reform.

[ams]

Lack of husband = a problem?

There will always be people working these jobs, at least until we get sentient robots into restaurants and malls, and three generations of financial planning isn't realistic for all of them, so there ought to be a system that doesn't let them fall through the cracks.

[bhaw]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

Isn't the end result the same?

1. Current situation: Single mom goes and gets health care. She can't be denied being helped. She gets the bill, can't pay it, insurance premiums go up.

2. Under new bill, same mom is covered but can't afford the coverage so for those that can pay, premiums go up.

Where's the change? The fact that she's covered instead of not covered?

[bh]

Or why should you have to pay for some single mom who's working 2 part time jobs to make ends meet who gets breast cancer and is dying because she can't afford chemo and radiation. Yay for personal choices and looking out for good ole number one. That's what America is all about.

Isn't the end result the same?

1. Current situation: Single mom goes and gets health care. She can't be denied being helped. She gets the bill, can't pay it, insurance premiums go up.

2. Under new bill, same mom is covered but can't afford the coverage so for those that can pay, premiums go up.

Where's the change? The fact that she's covered instead of not covered?

Exactly. The only way there can be change is if the actual costs of care go down. Then everybody benifits.