LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Hockeynut!]

bhaw: In my scenario, she definitely can and would be denied help. You aren't guaranteed treatment for illnesses like cancer. The only treatment people are guaranteed is emergency treatment.

A lot of people die from diseases because they have no insurance.

[bhaw]

bhaw: In my scenario, she definitely can and would be denied help. You aren't guaranteed treatment for illnesses like cancer. The only treatment people are guaranteed is emergency treatment.

A lot of people die from diseases because they have no insurance.

With universal coverage, people will still be left out. I've said a lot of good things about social insurance in Canada, but the downfall is that it's hard to find a doctor. At some point, they are too booked to bring on new patients. There aren't enough doctors to cover every American, and probably even less specialists to treat the drastically sick.

The bill doesn't magically create new doctors. So again, end result is the same. Single mom who doesn't pay for insurance is left out. And if she's not, average Joe dad who has always paid for insurance is left out and can't get treatment for his cancer because the system has been flooded with suddenly insured (for free) people.

[pittsoccer33]

bhaw: In my scenario, she definitely can and would be denied help. You aren't guaranteed treatment for illnesses like cancer. The only treatment people are guaranteed is emergency treatment.

A lot of people die from diseases because they have no insurance.

With universal coverage, people will still be left out. I've said a lot of good things about social insurance in Canada, but the downfall is that it's hard to find a doctor. At some point, they are too booked to bring on new patients. There aren't enough doctors to cover every American, and probably even less specialists to treat the drastically sick.

The bill doesn't magically create new doctors. So again, end result is the same. Single mom who doesn't pay for insurance is left out. And if she's not, average Joe dad who has always paid for insurance is left out and can't get treatment for his cancer because the system has been flooded with suddenly insured (for free) people.

And the people who ARE rich will fly to foreign countries or do whatever they can for treatment (not that I'm blaming them). A doctor asked Obama if he would do this to help his wife or daughter at his ABC/Pravda Healthcare Townhall and he dodged the question so fast because he didn't want to admit getting critical treatment will become more difficult.

[Hockeynut!]

I'm just saying that in America a person should not be given a death sentence from a potentially treatable disease because they don't have the money to pay for health insurance. I don't pretend to know the answers, but there should be a safety net if we're truly supposed to be the "greatest country in the world".

[bhaw]

I'm just saying that in America a person should not be given a death sentence from a potentially treatable disease because they don't have the money to pay for health insurance. I don't pretend to know the answers, but there should be a safety net if we're truly supposed to be the "greatest country in the world".

That's fine, but the safety net isn't there with or with out the bill. The bill either just changes the way health care costs go up or leaves out different people.

Instead of spending $2B to get people into more debt with new cars, use it as grants to get more people into medical school or subsidize medical school loans. It would mean more doctors, making universal insurance coverage more feasible, AND it would create more private practices contributing to the economy.

Probably some flaws with the above proposal, but I have zero experience and thought about it for 10 seconds. I'm sure smarter people could come up with a similar yet better plan.

[bhaw]

I'm just saying that in America a person should not be given a death sentence from a potentially treatable disease because they don't have the money to pay for health insurance. I don't pretend to know the answers, but there should be a safety net if we're truly supposed to be the "greatest country in the world".

Look at it this way... Let's say you are a tax paying citizen for 40 years, pay all your insurance premiums and never need the system for much more than check ups, etc. You turn 60 and you get some kind of treatable cancer. So now you think "I've paid my dues for 40 years, I deserve some treatment." Instead you find out that the soonest you can get into a specialist to even diagnose the problem is 2 years away because you "aren't a priority" at this time. Does it make you feel better knowing that during that time you will likely become terminally ill (that could be prevented), leaving your family without a dad after you did the right thing your entire life, because an illegal resident and single mom who hasn't paid a dime into the system are getting their fair share?

Yeah, it's looking out for #1 a bit but the bill leaves these types of scenarios open. It doesn't fix anything... just shifts things to different demographics or different verbiage.

[pittsoccer33]

I'm just saying that in America a person should not be given a death sentence from a potentially treatable disease because they don't have the money to pay for health insurance. I don't pretend to know the answers, but there should be a safety net if we're truly supposed to be the "greatest country in the world".

Look at it this way... Let's say you are a tax paying citizen for 40 years, pay all your insurance premiums and never need the system for much more than check ups, etc. You turn 60 and you get some kind of treatable cancer. So now you think "I've paid my dues for 40 years, I deserve some treatment." Instead you find out that the soonest you can get into a specialist to even diagnose the problem is 2 years away because you "aren't a priority" at this time. Does it make you feel better knowing that during that time you will likely become terminally ill (that could be prevented), leaving your family without a dad after you did the right thing your entire life, because an illegal resident and single mom who hasn't paid a dime into the system are getting their fair share?

Yeah, it's looking out for #1 a bit but the bill leaves these types of scenarios open. It doesn't fix anything... just shifts things to different demographics or different verbiage.

And if you use the 47 million uninsured number, kick out the illegals, forget about the 20somethings, and work with the people that are legitimately too poor to buy insurance and work to get them on medicaid (temporarily, not for good) while incentivizing career training in a growth industry where benefits can be provided or afforded on a given salary.

I also take exception with forcing those with a "pre existing" condition to be covered. Thats not fair, it really isn't. But I don't see how its any different than buying car insurance after wrecking or home owners insurance after a fire. I'd like to know exactly which of these will not be covered, because I know my mother's thyroid and asthma problems were covered when she took a new job.

If more insurance companies could compete across state lines, there would be more of them looking at those pre existing condition cases saying "you know what, lets take a chance on them. sure, we'll make them pay higher premiums, but it might be worth it." It is the same way you evaluate a higher risk investment in your retirement portfolio. It isn't fair to them to force them to pay a higher premium, but it isnt fair to force someone who is naturally a lousy driver to do it either is it? And if they show they can manage their health care costs then you can begin lowering their premiums. More competition would also work to drive the premium costs down in general.

[ExPatriatePen]

I'm just saying that in America a person should not be given a death sentence from a potentially treatable disease because they don't have the money to pay for health insurance. I don't pretend to know the answers, but there should be a safety net if we're truly supposed to be the "greatest country in the world".

"In America"???? Why not Ethiopia or Malaysia or Pakistan? Are American lives more important than lives elsewhere? As long as you're advocating spending other peoples money, why not save the entire planet?

[shafnutz05]

Ok, I didn't want to start a new post, but I HAD to point out this quote that Obama used to defend his healthcare plan today:

UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems...

Now in context, Obama was using this quote to answer a question from someone worried that private insurers would not be able to compete with the monstrous government-run insurance plan. Essentially comparing UPS/Fedex to private insurers like Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Aetna, while comparing the postal service with his new federal insurance plan.

Am I the only one that thinks this comparison is not only laughable, but completely irrelevant? First off, is it really a good idea to point out how poorly the postal service is being run to defend the government taking over ANOTHER part of the private sector?!?!

Also, is he really trying to compare the postal system to the healthcare system? The healthcare system is about 1000x more complex. I feel like with the growing opposition to this, the president is getting more and more desperate and starting to make some pretty questionable decisions. If he was trying to use that comparison to increase support for a government takeover, i don't think he accomplished his goal.

[pittsoccer33]

The bill litterally states that once enacted, if you change jobs or have a "life event" (such as your 22 year old daughter leaving your plan) they will NOT be eligible to join the new insurance group. You will be forced onto the governments. This will eventually force insurance companies out of business.

[Hockeynut!]

"In America"???? Why not Ethiopia or Malaysia or Pakistan? Are American lives more important than lives elsewhere? As long as you're advocating spending other peoples money, why not save the entire planet?

Hey, let everyone without insurance die. Fine by me. But then don't give me some BS about the USA being the best place in the world to live when other (OMG, socialized) countries don't let thousands of people die a year of treatable illnesses because they don't have health insurance. I know my thinking that we shouldn't let people die like dogs makes me a pinko commie liberal but I think if we want to prop our country up as better than all of the other countries in the world then we should at least have the same safeguards in place that much of the rest of the civilized world already have.

[pittsoccer33]

The US has the highest standard of living in the world. Some attain in through hard work, some through luck, some because of the work of their parents or grandparents. It isn't always fair, but the opportunities are there. There is no other country in the world where you can achieve as much as you can in America.

[bh]

"In America"???? Why not Ethiopia or Malaysia or Pakistan? Are American lives more important than lives elsewhere? As long as you're advocating spending other peoples money, why not save the entire planet?

We already do that in the defense business, truthfully, I could see it happening. I really really hope not, but I could see it.

Hey, let everyone poor die. Fine by me. But don't give me some BS about the USA being the best place in the world to live when other (OMG, socialized) countries don't let thousands of people die a year of treatable illnesses because they don't have health insurance.

Do you have any links to any numbers? I'd like to know where statements like these come from. How many people do you know with a treatable illness that died because they were refused treatment because they didn't have insurance? I can't imagine that it's that high. I'd also like to compare those numbers with other "socialized" countries numbers of people that die on waiting lists.

Also there is evidence that some countries fudge the WHO numbers anyways.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova76.1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bh]

Hey, let everyone without insurance die.

This is a silly statement. Not everyone without insurance will die just like many with it will. Flawed premise.

I know my thinking that we shouldn't let people die like dogs makes me a pinko commie liberal but I think if we want to prop our country up as better than all of the other countries in the world then we should at least have the same safeguards in place that much of the rest of the civilized world already have.

Who wants people to die like dogs? Nobody in this thread is advocating for that. This type of rhetoric is what gets in the way of fruitful discussion and the reason politics in this country goes nowhere. It's all extreme rhetoric.

[doublem]

The US has the highest standard of living in the world.

Where do you get your numbers?

[Hockeynut!]

Hey, let everyone without insurance die.

This is a silly statement. Not everyone without insurance will die just like many with it will. Flawed premise.

I know my thinking that we shouldn't let people die like dogs makes me a pinko commie liberal but I think if we want to prop our country up as better than all of the other countries in the world then we should at least have the same safeguards in place that much of the rest of the civilized world already have.

Who wants people to die like dogs? Nobody in this thread is advocating for that. This type of rhetoric is what gets in the way of fruitful discussion and the reason politics in this country goes nowhere. It's all extreme rhetoric.

Extreme rhetoric? I said we should have a safety net so people in bad situations shouldn't die from a treatable illness and I get jumped on with "Well why don't you just save everyone in the entire galaxy since you're so happy to spend other people's money".

My thoughts on this issue are clear and there's no sense debating it further. It's a philosophical difference of opinion. I think if our country is supposed to be the best in the world we need a safety net to keep people from dying of treatable illnesses. Others disagree. And I agree to disagree.

[shafnutz05]

Where do you get your numbers?

If you are talking about the UN definition of "standard of living", I think we are in the Top 20 so far. I always thought that was a ridiculously arbitrary and subjective statistic

[doublem]

Where do you get your numbers?

If you are talking about the UN definition of "standard of living", I think we are in the Top 20 so far. I always thought that was a ridiculously arbitrary and subjective statistic

Why?

[bh]

Extreme rhetoric? I said we should have a safety net so people in bad situations shouldn't die from a treatable illness and I get jumped on with "Well why don't you just save everyone in the entire galaxy since you're so happy to spend other people's money".

My thoughts on this issue are clear and there's no sense debating it further. It's a philosophical difference of opinion. I think if our country is supposed to be the best in the world we need a safety net to keep people from dying of treatable illnesses. Others disagree. And I agree to disagree.

lol, calm down. The extreme rhetoric comment was directed at politicians. You are using it (rhetoric) as well though. Answer me this: who here has advocated no safety net and has said people should "die like dogs"? I just think that type of wording in these posts doesn't serve any purpose other than trying to elicit an emotional response and are not constructive.

I would like to hear your answer to ExPats question though. Where do we draw the line? How much is too much?

[shafnutz05]

Why?

Because of some of the measurements the UN (or whoever comes up with it) use. For example, income disparity. This basically states that the more even income distribution is in a nation, the higher standard of living. So in a STRICT socialist country where people are forced to contribute their income to the poor, this is technically defined as having a "higher standard of living". The whole concept was originally designed to favor countries with socialist economic policies in place and encourage that type of system.

[bh]

Where do you get your numbers?

If you are talking about the UN definition of "standard of living", I think we are in the Top 20 so far. I always thought that was a ridiculously arbitrary and subjective statistic

Why?

Well considering that the top 75 countries are considered having a high standard of living and the difference between 1 to 20 is 0.024 points I'd say that being anywhere in the top 20 is quite an achivement.

[doublem]

Who is spending other people's money? If you are referring to taxation then you could make that argument for anything. Do people in other countries pay taxes for United States health care? Your argument that we might have to pay for all people around the world is a reach, don't you think,we can't even do that in this country. Are you really worried about things like this? I hope everyone in the world can afford health care, so far every other industrialized nation can.

[doublem]

Why?

Because of some of the measurements the UN (or whoever comes up with it) use. For example, income disparity. This basically states that the more even income distribution is in a nation, the higher standard of living. So in a STRICT socialist country where people are forced to contribute their income to the poor, this is technically defined as having a "higher standard of living". The whole concept was originally designed to favor countries with socialist economic policies in place and encourage that type of system.

Lol, what? What strict socialist countries are there in the world? Like who?

[doublem]

Yes, but the growing inequalities between the rich and the poor is the problem in the U.S.

[pittsoccer33]

The US has the highest standard of living in the world.

Where do you get your numbers?

I just threw that out there, and it turns out I was wrong. We are second in average annual income behind Switzerland.