LGP Political Discussion Thread

[ExPatriatePen]

Serious question. Does anyone following this discussion really think that the Obama administration or the law makers that are advocating healthcare reform - that those individuals have any intention of participating in this reform themselves, or will they continue to exempt themselves and hold onto their "cushy" health care benefit package courtesy of you and me, the Tax paying people of America?

if there is an option that you can keep your coverage you currently have, absolutely no way they are going to switch. I know I wouldn't if I were them, and still won't (being that I work for the state and currently get "cushy" benefits)

Eddy, are you at work right now?

[HomerPenguin]

Other than using "deserve" as in saying that they morally shouldn't get it somehow, you're about right. Change deserve to "entitled." A totally different connotation.

Is it? Seems like semantics to me. No matter what you call it, it's still society telling you that it's not worth it to treat your cancer.

[ExPatriatePen]

Other than using "deserve" as in saying that they morally shouldn't get it somehow, you're about right. Change deserve to "entitled." A totally different connotation.

Is it? Seems like semantics to me. No matter what you call it, it's still society telling you that it's not worth it to treat your cancer.

No, it's society telling you that the treatment of your cancer is a personal responsibility and not their responsibility.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the next phase will be a requirement that only non-smokers get treated for lung cancer... etc... I don't want uncle Sam questioning my occasional cigar.

[bhaw]

My definition of "basic" care is ER (oh my god I cut my finger off!) care and preventative types of care. I would be happy if those were universally covered in an effective way. But once you get past that, it's not society's job to take care of you.

Didn't you mention that you recently moved to Edmonton and that society is paying for your wife's pregnancy/the birth of your child?

Serious question though. While you've been in Edmonton, have you noticed a big uprising from citizens against the universal health care system? Are people up there clamoring to go to a system like we have in the US? Are the employers in Canada saying "Please let us pay for our employees health insurance?" I know the Canadian system has flaws, but I'm wondering if people want it to be changed to a non "socialized" system.

If you go back, I'm not clamoring for the current US system either.

I've said before, I'd be in favor of a system like this in the US, but that's not what Obama is doing. Here, you are getting coverage for free regardless of your means. You don't have half the population paying premiums and half the population getting it for free.

There is secondary coverage available through employers. So those with the means are further protected, which actually falls in line with my thinking I've been talking about.

The main concerns here are:
1. Not enough doctors
2. What if funding runs out?

[Hockeynut!]

I'm still trying to figure out how people who are "OMG, socialized health insurance is the devil - we must defeat it!!!" are also saying "OMG, they want to cut medicare, how dare they?!?!" Shouldn't the crowd that says socialized health insurance = evil also be against medicare?

I say, let gramma and pop pop go bag groceries at Giant Eagle or mop the floor at McDonald's is they want health insurance. Why should I pay in to medicare just so they can sit on their butts and play with their grandkids all day long?

[ExPatriatePen]

I'm still trying to figure out how people who are "OMG, socialized health insurance is the devil - we must defeat it!!!" are also saying "OMG, they want to cut medicare, how dare they?!?!" Shouldn't the crowd that says socialized health insurance = evil also be against medicare?

I say, let gramma and pop pop go bag groceries at Giant Eagle or mop the floor at McDonald's is they want health insurance. Why should I pay in to medicare just so they can sit on their butts and play with their grandkids all day long?

Works for me.

[bhaw]

Other than using "deserve" as in saying that they morally shouldn't get it somehow, you're about right. Change deserve to "entitled." A totally different connotation.

Is it? Seems like semantics to me. No matter what you call it, it's still society telling you that it's not worth it to treat your cancer.

Well, I think it's society saying that no one is worth them treating their cancer for them, so at least its a universal message.

I see a difference. Worth is more of a moral message. Entitled is different. If Donte Stallworth gets out of jail, never gets rehired in the NFL, loses all his money and goes totally poor and can't find a job anywhere, is he "worth" getting gov't subsidized health care and possibly welfare? (opinion) Is he entitled to it? Yup.

[Hockeynut!]

Here, you are getting coverage for free regardless of your means. You don't have half the population paying premiums and half the population getting it for free.

This is where I get confused. On one hand you seem to be saying socialized health care is morally wrong and against what the country and society stands for. Do you mean that or do you actually favor a universal, single payer system? They're opposite ends of the spectrum.

[eddysnake]

Serious question. Does anyone following this discussion really think that the Obama administration or the law makers that are advocating healthcare reform - that those individuals have any intention of participating in this reform themselves, or will they continue to exempt themselves and hold onto their "cushy" health care benefit package courtesy of you and me, the Tax paying people of America?

if there is an option that you can keep your coverage you currently have, absolutely no way they are going to switch. I know I wouldn't if I were them, and still won't (being that I work for the state and currently get "cushy" benefits)

Eddy, are you at work right now?

ummmmm... I'm on break...

[Hockeynut!]

I'm still trying to figure out how people who are "OMG, socialized health insurance is the devil - we must defeat it!!!" are also saying "OMG, they want to cut medicare, how dare they?!?!" Shouldn't the crowd that says socialized health insurance = evil also be against medicare?

I say, let gramma and pop pop go bag groceries at Giant Eagle or mop the floor at McDonald's is they want health insurance. Why should I pay in to medicare just so they can sit on their butts and play with their grandkids all day long?

Works for me.

If you mean that, then I can totally understand where you're coming from. It's the people who rally around medicare and fight tooth and nail against medicare cuts who are also against universal health insurance that confuse me.

[ExPatriatePen]

if there is an option that you can keep your coverage you currently have, absolutely no way they are going to switch. I know I wouldn't if I were them, and still won't (being that I work for the state and currently get "cushy" benefits)

Eddy, are you at work right now?

ummmmm... I'm on break...

I'll bet you are.... Retired on the job are we?

[ExPatriatePen]

I'm still trying to figure out how people who are "OMG, socialized health insurance is the devil - we must defeat it!!!" are also saying "OMG, they want to cut medicare, how dare they?!?!" Shouldn't the crowd that says socialized health insurance = evil also be against medicare?

I say, let gramma and pop pop go bag groceries at Giant Eagle or mop the floor at McDonald's is they want health insurance. Why should I pay in to medicare just so they can sit on their butts and play with their grandkids all day long?

Works for me.

If you mean that, then I can totally understand where you're coming from. It's the people who rally around medicare and fight tooth and nail against medicare cuts who are also against universal health insurance that confuse me.

I SERIOUSLY mean it. Why should Jack Welch (Ex-CEO of GE) get Medicare, yet he does.

[bhaw]

Here, you are getting coverage for free regardless of your means. You don't have half the population paying premiums and half the population getting it for free.

This is where I get confused. On one hand you seem to be saying socialized health care is morally wrong and against what the country and society stands for. Do you mean that or do you actually favor a universal, single payer system? They're opposite ends of the spectrum.

No. I guess I'm arguing a very specific plan.

Universal coverage is 100% fine with me if it's FREE to everyone or costs the same to everyone getting the same coverage. I think that coverage should be necessities... ER, preventative, diagnostic, even pregnancy. At some point, ideally, I think you have to be responsible for yourself. Whether that is through additional health insurance through your company or on your own or just paying as you go b/c you don't think you need the insurance.

If not that, I would be ok if, again, the same coverage cost everyone the same. What I don't agree with is me working my ass off, paying my taxes AND paying higher health insurance premiums because the government decided that since I'm so comfortable in my life, I can pay for others.

Also, the health care system up here is more efficient, which keeps costs down. For the most part, they give you what you NEED because it has to be justified. They don't give you whatever you want because they know insurance will pay for it and you will pay it out of pocket.

It's harder to explain in words than I thought actually.

[bhaw]

Best put: If you could convince me that we could provide universal care for EVERYONE with minimal increases in my current costs, go for it.

Problem is that I don't see how that's possible. It would cost me significantly to do that.

[HomerPenguin]

Universal coverage is 100% fine with me if it's FREE to everyone or costs the same to everyone getting the same coverage. I think that coverage should be necessities... ER, preventative, diagnostic, even pregnancy. At some point, ideally, I think you have to be responsible for yourself. Whether that is through additional health insurance through your company or on your own or just paying as you go b/c you don't think you need the insurance.

In Canada, do they consider cancer treatment to be a "necessity" or something you have to be responsible for yourself?

Also, the health care system up here is more efficient, which keeps costs down. For the most part, they give you what you NEED because it has to be justified. They don't give you whatever you want because they know insurance will pay for it and you will pay it out of pocket.

Careful. That sounds dangerously like the kind of talk that got the "death panel" train rolling.

Edited to add the smilies because I wasn't being serious.

[bhaw]

Don't confuse me with someone who thinks it's "evil" based on principal. I think it's wrong to put a heavier burden on people to provide for others.

[HomerPenguin]

Best put: If you could convince me that we could provide universal care for EVERYONE with minimal increases in my current costs, go for it.

Problem is that I don't see how that's possible. It would cost me significantly to do that.

Aren't you living in a country that's already done it?

[Hockeynut!]

bhaw: Okay, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. I'd rather see a universal/single payer system. I think this was what Obama initially wanted but then people started freaking out and this became a compromise (and not a good one).

[eddysnake]

I'll bet you are.... Retired on the job are we?

In my mind, yes, I do wish I was retired... now if only the gov't could read my mind and start with my retirement pay... as I write that I realize that the gov't probably can read my mind, but I don't think the pay will be happening anytime soon...

[bhaw]

Universal coverage is 100% fine with me if it's FREE to everyone or costs the same to everyone getting the same coverage. I think that coverage should be necessities... ER, preventative, diagnostic, even pregnancy. At some point, ideally, I think you have to be responsible for yourself. Whether that is through additional health insurance through your company or on your own or just paying as you go b/c you don't think you need the insurance.

In Canada, do they consider cancer treatment to be a "necessity" or something you have to be responsible for yourself?

Also, the health care system up here is more efficient, which keeps costs down. For the most part, they give you what you NEED because it has to be justified. They don't give you whatever you want because they know insurance will pay for it and you will pay it out of pocket.

Careful. That sounds dangerously like the kind of talk that got the "death panel" train rolling.

Yeah, not meaning you have to justify the treatment. Meaning there isn't as much waste. They won't do 10 ultrasounds on you during your pregnancy just because you want to see your baby again.

We haven't run into that, fortunately. But from what I gather based on a customer of my wife's, there is a limit to what you can get for long term cancer.

Like I tried to say above... if you could tell me that we could treat everyone for cancer and I'd see no difference in my costs, and I'd be guaranteed the same coverage as the next person, of course I'd go for it.

[HomerPenguin]

bhaw: Okay, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. I'd rather see a universal/single payer system. I think this was what Obama initially wanted but then people started freaking out and this became a compromise (and not a good one).

See, I don't think he ever had any intention of going that far. Too many corporations to appease.

[bhaw]

Best put: If you could convince me that we could provide universal care for EVERYONE with minimal increases in my current costs, go for it.

Problem is that I don't see how that's possible. It would cost me significantly to do that.

Aren't you living in a country that's already done it?

Yes. Are you trying to convince me that the US can currently do that? No offense, but I laugh at that. There are about 9 million changes they would have to make ahead of time for that to happen.

I think the difference here is principal versus the reality.

[GaryRissling]

While obviously I am very much opposed to further socializing health care, I think I have to point out for the sake of the discussion that - even from a conservative perspective - our current system has major problems that do need to be addressed.

First off, if you are taking the position that people can generally can get the coverage they can afford, and don't have an entitlement to certain levels of care; there are a couple of premises that you should consider. First off, if you receive your insurance benefits through your employer, you are a member of a purchasing group and you receive preferential insurance rates that a non-member cannot receive. I don't believe that people should have to work for my company (or any company) in order to receive similar rates. Further, because of employer coverage and medicare/medicade/etc; the free market really is not being allowed to work IMO, at least not for individuals seeking coverage. The first step towards real reform has to be to utilize market forces to ascertain real market prices for healthcare in this country.

[doublem]

bhaw: Okay, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you. I'd rather see a universal/single payer system. I think this was what Obama initially wanted but then people started freaking out and this became a compromise (and not a good one).

See, I don't think he ever had any intention of going that far. Too many corporations to appease.

Single Payer? We might not ever get a public option out of this.

[bhaw]

Gary... those "preferential rates" are called business. Why do you get cheaper rates at Costco? Because you are buying 900 bananas instead of 2. I have no problem with that as it makes total business sense... which is what health care and insurance is... a business. That doesn't sound very conservative of you