Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 122
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare optionPage 7 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

I know I just can't wait for it all to kick in. I have a couple of grandchildren who will finally be able to have insurance.

I have friends who will finally be able to take their medication as the doctor prescribed. Also, they will no longer have to decide whether or not to buy medication or food.


And THOSE are some of the reasons we needed this bill.
Complaining because Obama didn't wait five days to sign this bill is really petty.
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/23/2010 11:13:26 PM

Ha...is that so? Then why is Obama having to go on yet another campaign tour to try and convince the American people that Obamacare is good for them? Maybe if he just explains it, yet again, we stupid Americans will finally realize that our government knows what's best for us, eh?


C'mon now, don't belittle our Community Organizer in Chief. He knows if he stays in Washington he will just have to hear about things he doesn't want to deal with, like unemployment and the debt he is expanding into new and alarming depths. Let the man campaign, it's clearly the one thing he's good at. He's been doing since he became a Senator and hasn't let up even after he became the President. Let him and his teleprompter run around the country on the taxpayers dime to pre-selected audiences who will cheer his every "um" and pretend that he is convincing those with "no common sense" that he knows it all. I mean, clearly a bill that he barely convinced his own party to vote yes on, and only after kickbacks and bribes and threats, has to be a good one, right? Maybe he can even convince himself.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/25/2010 8:22:43 AM

My American flag will be flown upside down until all of the communists are driven out of my White House. God Bless America.


If "commies" were in the white house you wouldn't be allowed to fly the flag anyway you like.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 125
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/25/2010 10:10:54 AM

We've waited 100+ years for national healthcare and now the wait is over. Amen.


Pass the potatoes, but keep waiting. This bill is NOT national healthcare, at least not as the Europeans or Canadians define it. This bill is a national health insurance mandate, tied to insurance regulation to make it palatable.


But the first step is to get something passed.


The Democrats could have passed most of this bill without controversy. IF the bill had just been about ending the pre-existing condition clause of health plans, it would have had overwhelming support (minus, perhaps, the insurance industry lobby). However, the clause about the forced purchase of health insurance is the sticking point.

It will be curious what products the insurance industry will come up with to satisfy the mandate, and at what costs. Will all ailments be covered by all policies? The bill forbids health insurance companies to set dollar limits on healthcare, so how will basic plans be differentiated from "cadillac" plans? Deductibles? If I buy a health plan with a $50,000 deductible because it's the only one I can afford, other than now paying money I don't have, how does my health coverage improve?
 motownmaniax
Joined: 8/13/2006
Msg: 126
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/25/2010 2:43:35 PM
Pass the potatoes, but keep waiting. This bill is NOT national healthcare, at least not as the Europeans or Canadians define it. This bill is a national health insurance mandate, tied to insurance regulation to make it palatable.


You’re right. It’s a poor substitute for other industrialized nations’ healthcare systems because the steps needed to “really” get serious about national healthcare wouldn’t be politically acceptable in our climate.

True cost control means strict regulation on pricing—what can be charged for procedures, how much doctors can make, insurance premium limits, availability of cheaper generic drugs, etc—but that means eliminating our for profit system. That's how other countries did it. They also made a conscious, moral decision to make universality a reality by accepting the trade-offs. Everybody pays into the system and spreads the tax burden around (the cost of which, btw, would still be much less than any equivalent insurance premium being paid now and projected in the future).

But the argument that no bill is better than the one passed is silly. I already detailed the reasons why in earlier posts, but the main being whenever healthcare reform is killed it takes at “least” a decade to start it up again, and the costs of waiting are much too high.


The Democrats could have passed most of this bill without controversy. IF the bill had just been about ending the pre-existing condition clause of health plans, it would have had overwhelming support (minus, perhaps, the insurance industry lobby). However, the clause about the forced purchase of health insurance is the sticking point.


Only pre-existing conditions? How would that fix a deeply broken system and control costs? You can’t fix healthcare with Band-Aids and incremental steps. We’ve tried that for at least the past 40 years and accomplished zilch.

Is the bill perfect? No. The Republican version was even worse because it relied on the healthcare industry to basically police itself. Government “interference” with healthcare is considered an evil to cons, remember? They are much more inclined to have a hands-off approach and count on market mechanisms to control costs. I submit that without firm government mandates (laws) it simply wouldn’t happen in the present system.

Btw, Dems “did” incorporate Republican ideas in the bill. Did the Republicans get everything they wanted? Of course not. Do you think if the tables were turned and ‘pubs controlled the process they’d step aside and say, here Dems, you craft the bill and put whatever you want in it, no questions asked. Hardly.

I’m hoping the bill can be improved, too, but again, something had to be passed first. Waiting for the perfect bill would mean waiting for probably another 100 years. If Republicans gain control of Congress in the next congressional elections and can improve things, go for it. But don’t gut the basic reforms.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/29/2010 7:31:14 PM

Pass the potatoes, but keep waiting. This bill is NOT national healthcare, at least not as the Europeans or Canadians define it. This bill is a national health insurance mandate, tied to insurance regulation to make it palatable.
its a fantastic foot in the door,its changed the tide that took 100 years to turn,many many have tried and failed ,yet Obama did it,and as he said its a good start,he and everyone knows its only a start.I for one want what most the other countries already have,but I'm satisfied with what I'm getting,it can always be improved.It sad how many ignorant vengeful state leaders are going to try to sue.Just try in this country to take away something from the people such as the pre condition deal,how offensive are they,and why do they care,they are rich and they have fantastic insurance...... One of the other times I can think of where the peoples health was taken to heart was 1965 when Johnson signed in Medicare and medicaid,not much more had happened since then, besides both those systems being allowed to be mismanaged,certain frauds gone unchecked and lack of care towards continually making it run like a well oiled machine.

Just like today's health care,Obamas going after the fraud and abuse and those tens of billions saved help go back into the system,money being used for the right reasons.

We have alot of good systems in place,like the VA,SS,Federal school loans,ect.all any of them need is good management,removal of the frauds and waste and bringing their administrative problems into today's computer age and out of the 1980's
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/31/2010 7:06:04 AM

According the RCP current poll average 40.7% are for and 50.8 oppose the bill currently. (Average of 12 various polls, with not showing more for than against the bill.)

Of the five polls since the bill was enacted its the average of them apparently is 43.4% for and 49.8% oppose the bill. A spread against the bill of 6.4%.

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2010/03/public-support-for-health-care-reform_17.html


It seems the tides of public opinion are indeed changing towards supporting this legislation.


For example, similar to other polls, a Feb. 26-28 Ipsos/McClatchy poll first found that 41 percent said they favored the health care plan under consideration, while 47 percent were opposed. A follow-on question, though, found that many of those opposed to it (17 percent of the whole sample) did so because it did not go far enough. Only 25 percent aligned with the Republican position by complaining that it goes too far.

Rather than thinking of the public as divided along party lines, it is better to think of it as being like Goldilocks and the porridge. Twenty-five percent say the health care plan goes too far, 17 percent say it does not go far enough (some are still disappointed over the removal of the public option), while 41 percent say it is about right. Rather than being on one side of the spectrum, it appears that the proposed health care plan occupies the middle ground of the electorate.

This helps us understand how Mr. Obama can also be right when he says that the public supports most of the key elements of the plan. While many people are not satisfied with the plan overall, numerous polls have found that there does seem to be consensus about most of its key elements.

In a recent Newsweek poll, majorities supported insurance exchanges (81 percent); requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions (76 percent); requiring most businesses to provide coverage (75 percent); and requiring all Americans to have health insurance, with the government providing subsidies for those who cannot afford it (59 percent).

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-14/news/bal-op.health0314_1_health-care-health-insurance-newsweek-poll


One has to remember that opposing the legislation can work two ways, with those supporting it feeling it doesn't go far enough. We've seen many Americans on the left here state exactly that.

The key parts of the legislation have some rather strong solid support, if not the overall bill, but that too is improving. It's normal when legislation is being proposed for the gap to be higher in opposition, and less likely once it's passed. For those that like the idea, then the base is there to work from in the future.

That's one of the reasons for seeing this as a Waterloo on the RNC battleplan. Repealing this legislation now is going to alienate more people than it pleases, and they did not get involved when it counted to change things in the legislature in any progressive way - even though they admitted that healthcare had to be improved upon.

Now the Democrats own that talking point, and the American people will remember it if they choose to align themselves simply around that legislation's demise.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 129
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/31/2010 8:48:57 AM

One has to remember that opposing the legislation can work two ways, with those supporting it feeling it doesn't go far enough. We've seen many Americans on the left here state exactly that.


Exactly.

This bill didn't go far enough--and that was to appease those on the other side of the aisle. Way to spite your face by cutting off your nose. Makes a lot of sense, right?
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 3/31/2010 10:43:26 AM

This bill didn't go far enough--and that was to appease those on the other side of the aisle.
Exactly,we ended up with a mere foot in the door only because of one year of protest and aggressive stall tactics of the Reps.That let the tea party gain in strength because of false propaganda,that let the haters become entrenched and develop into hate protests,and even to the point of some doing blatant racist tactics,they fueled the fires of grandmas going to die.One year of fueling the fires with lies gave everyone time to position,even radical democrats,"I should have been a republican" Lieberman,to get his own personal agenda fulfilled,and a few democrats in heavy republican dominated states whose only concern was their Christian related agenda being fulfilled,or to safeguard any chance of re-election in their state.

The original public option plan was just a foot in the door,who would have thought a third of "that" foot would in the end be cut off.

Its not black and white of why the disapproval rating,yes of course many are mad because they don't even want it and many are mad because its not close to enough.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/1/2010 11:06:50 PM
And some support that's going to be problematic for the Republicans in Congress to fight against :


Once Opponents, Insurers Back Effort to Make Health Reform Succeed

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1974757,00.html?cnn=yes#ixzz0jv3j5j7d

The health-insurance industry, which spent months campaigning against Democratic health reform, has shifted focus in the wake of its passage, pivoting from opposition to making sure the new law succeeds beyond most expectations.
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry trade group, has agreed to sign on to a new, 50-state health care reform implementation effort, provisionally called Enroll America, which is being organized by Ron Pollack of the pro-reform group Families USA. "We are participating in it," says AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach. "The goal is to get everyone covered."

Other parts of the health industry, including drug companies and hospitals, are also expected to join the effort, which will focus on making sure as many uninsured Americans as possible get insurance under the law President Obama signed Tuesday. "We are literally going to try to raise tens of millions of dollars per year for the next several years, beyond 2014 when most of these things get implemented," says Pollack. He says he plans to meet Wednesday with Karen Ignagni, the head of AHIP, to discuss the involvement of insurance companies.

The Congressional Budget office estimates that 95% of legal Americans will have health insurance after the law is fully implemented by 2016, adding approximately 32 million previously uninsured people to the health-coverage rolls. Health insurers have long argued for tougher government mandates that would require more of those who are generally healthy to get health insurance, which helps spread the risk in the pool of insured.

Enroll America won't be the only outside group working to sell health-insurance reform in the coming months. A coalition of labor and other progressive interest groups plans to launch its own outside effort to educate voters about the benefits of the new reform law in advance of November elections. "If we can teach the public what's in it, it can help trump the politics of repeal," says one person involved in this effort, which is likely to work with Anita Dunn, who resigned as White House communications director in December. "We need to build a political case for health care reform over the next 10 months."

PhRMA, the drug industry's trade group, is also expected by progressive activists to continue public education spending over the coming months, though the organization's board has not yet made any final decisions. The group has already spent tens of millions of dollars in recent months on ads promoting health reform.

While conservative groups and Republican politicians will surely continue advertising and organizing against the health-reform law, Families USA also plans to launch its own public education campaign, funded through foundation donations, over the coming months. It will include a "health-reform road show" across the country, which will seek to drum up local press coverage of the new law's benefits, says Pollack. The organization is also planning to release state-by-state studies of the number of beneficiaries from key parts of the law, like the new protections for patients with pre-existing conditions.

Individual insurance companies also plan to launch education efforts for their existing customers about the benefits provided by the new law. "Our top priority is to minimize disruption for the 200 million people we serve today," says AHIP's Zirkelbach.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1974757,00.htm


America's Health Insurance Plans ?


Welcome to AHIP’s web site. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is the national association representing nearly 1,300 member companies providing health insurance coverage to more than 200 million Americans. Our member companies offer medical insurance, long-term care insurance, disability income insurance, dental insurance, supplemental insurance, stop-loss insurance and reinsurance to consumers, employers and public purchasers.

AHIP provides a unified voice for the community of health insurance plans. A major policy goal for our members is to expand access to high quality, affordable coverage to all Americans. We have developed innovative proposed solutions to promote universal coverage, raise the bar on quality, and make health care services more affordable.

http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?bc=31/


Their board of directors features almost every main CEO in healthcare organizations across America.

http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?bc=31|42|54

The American Medical Association:


March 19, 2010 — The American Medical Association (AMA) today announced its qualified support for Democratic healthcare reform legislation scheduled to come before the House this Sunday for a historic vote.

"The pending bill isn't perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," AMA President J. James Rohack, MD, said at a press conference Friday.

The AMA board of trustees took its position, said Dr. Rohack, because it considered the status quo unacceptable.

"We think doing nothing would only accelerate the total [healthcare] costs to America and increase the total number of uninsured, and we know already that they live sicker and die younger if access to their medical care is the emergency room," he said.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718909


Add these voices to the numbers of Americans that support this legislation, and add their momentum to the education of Americans over what this legislation will bring to them now in benefits (and in the future) as consumers of healthcare services...and the Republican ability to overcome this growing tsunami of backers will slowly start to be minimized to a point where it will be difficult (if not impossible) to overcome realistically.

The longer they maintain this Pickett's Charge into the growing barrage of counter information, the more it will cost them politically as the nation slowly changes it's opinion as a result of it - and they remain target fixated on defeating an issue that's increasingly seen as a positive by the country.

Healthcare providers and medical people, as cited, are clearly backing this in a very public manner - as I've cited. These are the very people that provide healthcare for Americans every day of the year, and they are certainly in the best position to judge what's needed.
 motownmaniax
Joined: 8/13/2006
Msg: 132
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 12:46:37 AM
Criticism seems to come down to two salient points—the bill doesn’t adequately reign in costs and mandatory coverage is unconstitutional.

On the first point there is some truth. The bill won’t eliminate costs. It won’t even stop the upward spiral. The way to do that is eliminate our for profit system and institute strict cost control on all facets of the healthcare industry, but industry lobbyists are simply far too strong and the public will too weak for such a radical change. The system apparently isn’t viscerally broken enough to drive necessary public opinion needed to push the legislation. Projections, however, say the bill will “slow” costs and save hundreds of billions over the next few years compared to doing nothing and keeping the status quo.

The second resides in the constitutionality of Congress' Commerce Clause authority regarding healthcare insurance. In every court case that touched upon the issue, the central authority of the Commerce Clause has never been challenged.


Dec, 2009, http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf

If health insurance is itself an “ingredient” of interstate commerce and “self-evidently” within Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the statutory goals for broadening, making more efficient and less costly, and otherwise improving health insurance coverage, specified in the Senate Findings, fit equally within that authority. Further, the individual mandate requirement easily qualifies as a “necessary and proper” means of achieving those goals, under the standard first articulated by Chief Justice Marshall and adhered to since:

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”18

Many independent experts, studies, and analyses concur in Congress' judgment that health reform with universal coverage must include a responsibility requirement; without it, not enough individuals will participate in a voluntary system, adverse selection will continue, the government will continue to overpay for care for the uninsured, and overall health reform will be unsustainable. 19 Experience in other countries with universal coverage programs confirms these analyses ....

Given Congress' well-supported judgment that mandatory health insurance is essential for making effective the scheme for health care reform established by the bill, there can be no serious question that the individual mandate is “plainly adapted” to the ends promoted by the legislation. All the post-New Deal cases cited by opponents in which the Supreme Court has resolved contested exercises of Congress' Commerce Clause authority have involved matters on the periphery of that authority – intrastate activities, non-economic activities, or other activities alleged not to have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, such as those at issue in Lopez and Morrison. But this is not such a situation. Health insurance is “in” interstate commerce, nowhere near its periphery. But even if (contrary to established law and plain fact) that were not the case, the individual mandate would nevertheless be well within Congress' authority.


Obviously, the constitutionality question has to be played out in the courts. It may very well be fast-tracked all the way to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. We’ll see what happens.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 133
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 2:35:42 PM

... mandatory coverage is unconstitutional.
Obviously, the constitutionality question has to be played out in the courts. It may very well be fast-tracked all the way to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. We’ll see what happens.
I think as soon as the first case gets thrown out, the others will quickly follow.

I seriously doubt this will ever go to ANY kind of Supreme Court ... State or National.

Not to mention how long it would take to get that far. I'm sure the Supreme Courts of any State are not going quickly clear their dockets just for this. And what about the SCOTUS ... I'm sure their docket is quite full and there would be no time for such a silly thing in say ... FOREVER.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 134
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 2:56:35 PM
Its been a very long time since our country has such a magnitude of dissention arose from not only citizens but state governments from all over.

Yes, you're right... It HAS been a long time... The last time "dissention" of this sort rose to such magnitudes... violence, shrill screeches of "unconstitutional" and "states' rights", threats/pipe-dreams of secession/overthrow and claims of the "end of America as we know it"... As I recall, it had something to do with a bunch of extreme conservatives being upset about and opposed to giving "uppity n*ggers" equal rights and access to "the American Dream"...

Thank God it's been a long time... And hopefully it will be an even longer time before we hear this kind of crap again... but I'm not holding my breath, I suspect it will be repeated EVERY TIME the Obama administration tries to do something significant to improve the future prospects of the nation...
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 4:17:19 PM

It seems the tides of public opinion are indeed changing towards supporting this legislation.

Don’t pay attention to the polls. Obama himself says to ignore them.

"Every day since I signed reform into law, there's another poll or headline that says, 'Nation still divided on health reform, no great surge in public support,' " Obama said. "It's been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought."

I agree... just wait and see.

Any chance for a public health care option died when the House decided to approve the Senate bill. What are the chances of another health care bill coming up anytime soon? None. And to think that Obama had a whole year with a super-majority but still didn’t get the job done. What a squandered opportunity.

I think a lawsuit filed by a quarter of the States against the federal government is anything but silly and doubt it will treated as such by the courts. Being a constitutional question, State Supreme courts won’t be deciding it. It will go straight to the SCOTUS and my guess is it will be expedited (think Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board and Bush v. Gore).

My guess is right around election time.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 136
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 5:38:23 PM
Healthcare companies are the largest donors to half a dozen Governors around the country. They donated over $130 million to federal election campaigns and over $160 million to state campaigns in 2008.

It's a shame people losing their homes and facing catastrophic illnesses didn't donate millions. Then you might have seen universal coverage.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 6:18:36 PM

Reid will have a vote on a Public option. A Reconciliation vote 50+1 to pass. Currently there are two bills. One Medicare for all, the other a public option. 40 plus Senators have signed on.
There will be a Vote. This will be Health Care reform.


Haven't been keeping up on things ... so that sounds like great news.

I think once people start seeing the benefits kick in it will not only boost support but it will also be impossible then for the Tea Baggers to convince people they should give up something they've needed for so long and are finally getting.

If the Neo-GOP's campaign on getting rid of something good ... they will not win.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/2/2010 7:13:45 PM
LOL... support is not broad in some quarters in Florida.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36152956?GT1=43001

MOUNT DORA, Fla. - A central Florida urologist has posted a sign on his office door warning supporters of President Barack Obama to find a different doctor.
Cassell says most patients have been extremely supportive, though three had complained.
"They know it's not good for them," Cassell said.

 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 139
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 4/3/2010 11:38:39 AM

Reid will have a vote on a Public option. A Reconciliation vote 50+1 to pass. Currently there are two bills. One Medicare for all, the other a public option.

Huh? If you have Medicare for all why would you need a public option?

Reid can’t have a vote on a public option until the House does and if they could have done it with a simple majority budget reconciliation vote they would have included it in HR4872. It would never have passed the Byrd rule test because it would bust the budget. Any public option legislation is going to have to go to the full floor.
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 5/12/2010 3:01:46 PM
I keep saying it, to anyone that listens,....


When states battle the federal government, it's "We, the People" who get to pick up the tab, no matter who wins in the end.


It always ends up that "We The People" are the ones that have to come up with the money to foot any bill, or legislature that gets passed.

Anytime any elected offical comes forward with a "New, and Improved, Sure Fire Way,... to make life better,..Improve Our School System, Health Care System,..Lower the cost of Utilities, Gasoline,...Produce,...and build the best roads that $Money $ can buy,....you can bet your azz that their talking about YOUR $MONEY$,...not theirs !

Who pays for any of these so called Improvements ?

The working class Taxpayer.

OK,..you say that The Federal Reserve promises to Print up new, fresh money, to pay for what ever it is,.......it just puts the working class taxpayer, deeper in DEBT !

I dont care if they sell bonds,..or promise to only add 1 Cent Tax to help build a new Super Dome,...it still comes out of the Working Taxpayers Pockets, and devalues the dollar even more, and continues to add debt to every American.

At last,....Finally,....the bean counters have done the "Long Math", checked, and double checked, and have came to the truth of the matter concerning the Health Care Reform Bill will NOT,.......SAVE $ MONEY $,...instead, it is going to end up costing us each and everyone, and putting the burden on generations yet to come.

And we still have people that "Support" a Health Care Bill,..with or without Public Option, thats going to burden our nation possiably to its collapse.

Do we, as a nation, have to hit the bottom of the barrel, before people will open their eyes and say,...."We should of been more worried about restoring our Economy, instead of Health Care Reform."

What good is a Health Care Bill, with, or with out Public Option, if the public cant afford to buy into it.

How is the "Proposed" $750 Dollar Fine for not having Health Care Coverage going to matter, to people who cant afford it in the first place.

Our Economy should of been addressed first, and then if and when Americans could afford a fair, decent Health Care Package, there could of been plenty of time to address the issue, and iron out all the problems we've encountered in this crazy mess.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 141
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 5/12/2010 4:29:48 PM

Who pays for any of these so called Improvements ?

The working class Taxpayer.

So who should be paying for them?
 BikerBiker53
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 5/28/2010 8:47:42 AM
Hey ^^^

Instead of asking,...

"Who should be paying for them?"

Lets ask

"Why, should the working class taxpayer be paying the way for benifits of illegals and or non working people on Social programs that continue to abuse the system, and further the decline and erosion of the fabric of our society ?"

First,...look at all the illegals that pay nothing into our society, only take, take, take,

and Im not pointing the finger at "Hispanics",..thats just part of the problem associated with the illigals crossing the borders,....finally the truth has came out that illegals from other countries that means the USA, great harm are sneeking into our country via mexico.

Look at all the illeagls from Asia,..and I've even read about the vast amount of illegal Irish, that abound in the NYC area,....

WHY, should the working class taxpayers not only be paying for their own, and their familys health and welfare,.....but even the people who contribute nothing to society,
except creating more debt and burden ?

With the new healthcare reform, hopefully we might see a change,...but with so much unemployment, and illegals,..I believe the working class taxpayer will still continue to pay the way for those non employed, and illegals.

I've got my Health Care, like millions of others, and feel the working class shouldnt have to pay the way for others that are unemployed, either through no fault of their own, or just too lazy to work, and abusing the already over burdened system.

If the government had been run, the way it should of been run, Social Security would still be there, secure, for those on it,..instead of being robbed by Peter to Pay Paul,...

If the government had invested, and metted out the money it raises through taxes, we would have a surplus, insted of a deficet thats spiriled out of control to the point of our country becoming bankrupt,.....

Our government sets a poor example for others to follow,...all at the expense of the working class taxpayer,....and this new "Heathcare Bill",..lost a lot of momentum and support, before it was passed,...and guess who will end up footing the bill for the governments mis-management,....the working class citizens,......like always.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/6/2010 4:48:01 PM
Amazingly, the right in the USA is adapting the same position as the Godless Chinese Commie government has ?


By the mid-1990s, the government provided only 10 percent of the funding for public health facilities in China. Put another way, modern Chinese hospitals have to secure 90 percent of their budget on their own, through so-called “revenue-generating activities.”

Most of the government’s meager support comes in the form of reimbursement based on staff size and number of hospital beds—a set-up that encourages excessively large staffs and construction. In this way public assistance actually hurts more than it helps—a pattern evident across Chinese health care today.

Most hospitals are government-owned, and the doctors who work there are on salary—and paid very poorly. Today, a junior doctor can make less than $120 a month.  A doctor’s biggest payday comes with his yearly bonus, which is tied to the revenue he brings in for his hospital or facility. Thus not only do hospitals have an incentive to have a lot of beds, but doctors also have an incentive to fill them—all to turn a profit.

To help doctors and hospitals generate revenue, the Chinese government has set prices for two services—high-tech diagnostic services and prescription drugs—above the cost of delivery, meaning providers can charge more for scans or medications than it actually costs to provide them. The government’s price setting scheme also allows for a 15 percent profit margin on drugs.

The idea is to give hospitals and doctors a duo of cash cows from which to generate funds. But there’s an obvious downside: providers have a huge incentive to scan and prescribe, especially because doctors make so little and want to increase their income.

But procuring the newest gadgets and/or imported drug is expensive, which means that providers have to spend a lot in order to turn a profit. An article in the newest Health Affairs by Winnie Yip and William Hsiao, both professors at the Harvard School of Public Health, points out that a Chinese health care provider “has to dispense seven dollars’ worth of drugs to earn one dollar of profit.”

Yip and Hsiao note a striking example of this incentive to overdose. In China, 75 percent of patients suffering from a common cold are prescribed antibiotics, as are 79 percent of hospital patients—more than twice the international average of 30 percent. The piling on of prescriptions helps hospitals take advantage of high profit margins: a 2005 Washington Post story pointed out that pharmacies can provide up to 90 percent of hospital revenue. The result of these incentives has been a skewed system where primary care is all but non-existent, but which spends exorbitantly on designer drugs. Today the share of health care spending devoted to pharmaceuticals in China is more than three times that of most of the developed world.

Skewing incentives even further is the fact that, in order to make basic health care affordable to citizens, the Chinese government set the price of basic care lower than its service cost. That means that providers actually lose money when they do anything besides irradiating or medicating a patient. So not only is there an incentive to rely on high-tech services and prescription drugs, there’s actually a strong disincentive to do anything else.

With fewer Chinese insured and providers itching to undertake expensive care, it’s little wonder that out-of-pocket spending is so high in China: it accounts for a whopping 60 percent of the nation’s total health care bill.  It also should come as no surprise that waste has helped China’s health care spending grow at an annual rate of 16 percent over the past twenty years, a good 7 percent faster than the growth of China’s GDP over the same period. Yes, that means that China’s world-wowing economic boom is actually happening at a slower rate than the growth of its health care system.

As the authors note, this fact is “somewhat surprising,” because in theory, patients pay premiums to keep out-of-pocket costs down, and better access to care should keep people healthier—and thus reduce costs for everyone. But the problem is NCMS does little to address the “supply side” problems in China—the incentives to provide wasteful, ineffective care. And so the benefits of expanding coverage and increasing public assistance to providers are muted.

As with every other sector of its economy, China has a lot on its plate when it comes to health care. The collapse of communism ushered in an age where providers were encouraged to make a buck in order to survive—at the expense of cost-effectiveness and health. Now China must find a happy medium between the communism of old and the do-anything-to-profit ethos of today. The search is bound to be interesting.

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/04/chinas-health-c.html


See a pattern here ?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/6/2010 10:38:07 PM

In China, 75 percent of patients suffering from a common cold are prescribed antibiotics

Why are they going to hospitals with colds?


Probably due with their experience with this little thing called "SARS" .


Signs and symptoms

Initial symptoms are flu-like and may include: fever, myalgia, lethargy, gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, sore throat and other non-specific symptoms. The only symptom that is common to all patients appears to be a fever above 38 °C (100.4 °F).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome


If average people cannot afford proper healthcare, then they become a Petri dish for diseases that will inevitably spread into the rest of the population. This is a national defense issue, and should be held in the same regard in terms of it's importance.

If 3,000 people die in a terrorist related series of attacks, then the country is ready to spend unlimited funds to ensure it never happens again.

If a pandemic starts among these people that cannot afford proper healthcare, it's potential spread is going to kill more Americans than a terrorist attack will - and will be costly and slow to turn around.

It's impact on the economy will be impressive, and long lasting.

Look at things like tuberculosis and leprosy, and how they have established themselves in the USA in recent years.

We live in an interconnected world now, one where a disease can spread from one country to another in hours if someone takes a plane.

Mother Nature can potentially be a WMD carrying terrorist, in a sense.

Even a real terrorist would find the perfect target for spreading some types of disease in areas of America where far too many people have no access to proper preventative care, and people that are sick already are typically the first touched by pandemics.

The extreme right, often preoccupied by national defense issues, fails to see healthcare as a vital part of it.

More Americans have been, and will continue to be, killed by treatable disease than probably ever will be by foreign terrorists.


Excluding the September 11 attacks, approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970.

The toll from the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center is also uncertain, but current figures place the number of dead above 3,000. The number of dead at the Pentagon and on the hijacked airliners numbered approximately 385.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html


Let's call total American deaths due to terrorism 4,000 to use a round figure, and that's in the last forty years (fo0reign and domestic incidents).

75,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from infectious disease.
20,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from sexually transmitted infections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States

So if you are killed by a foreign terrorist, there's no limit to how much will be spent to protect those left living.

If you are killed by a disease that could have been prevented with better access to healthcare, it's your tough luck.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 145
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/7/2010 10:09:54 AM

If average people cannot afford proper healthcare, then they become a Petri dish for diseases that will inevitably spread into the rest of the population. This is a national defense issue, and should be held in the same regard in terms of it's importance.

Communicable diseases like the flu or colds tend to spread before anyone can even get to the doctor. So while an individual may die from an advanced case of the flu because they don't have insurance, on a broad level it doesn't spread because of a lack of health care. If there is a vaccine for a particular flu, there are always free and low cost shots available in the community. It doesn't even matter if you HAVE health insurance, if you show up they will give you the shot anyway. You don't have to show financial need.

So no, disease doesn't spread in the US due to a lack of health insurance.

The best case for universal health care are untreated diseases that get much worse by the time a person goes to the doctor for treatment. Stage 4 cancer is very expensive to treat, and if you show up in an ER as a charity case you will be put on SSI and Medicaid. Studies show that the costs of keeping a person alive is the most costly in the last couple of months of treatment. So if those people got regular health care and got treated when their illnesses were curable they would cost the health care much less per person who becomes ill. Chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and hypertension are also expensive to treat, especially when you consider that an individual will be on expensive medication for 20 or more years.

However, adding another 50 million people to the health care rolls cost as much or more than treating additional advanced and chronic diseases because it will require building additional hospitals, training additional doctors and other health care professionals. It is not a cheap thing to do.


Even a real terrorist would find the perfect target for spreading some types of disease in areas of America where far too many people have no access to proper preventative care, and people that are sick already are typically the first touched by pandemics.

Even if you have regular health care, there is little that can be done for most communicable diseases. The available treatments can be bought in any drug store, and even if you had health insurance, it wouldn't pay for over-the-counter drugs. Health care only comes into play if you start to go into respiratory failure, run a very high fever that can't be controlled and therefore need medical support in a hospital.

Fact is that most colds and flu cases are never seen by a doctor, and it has relatively little to do with the patient's access to medical care. It's just that most resolve on their own.

The closest we've come here to terrorists trying to spread disease was in the 2001 anthrax attacks and that only affected 68 people (and the terrorist was an American). It is very hard to spread a pandemic via terrorism. If it could be done, it already would have been done.


So if you are killed by a foreign terrorist, there's no limit to how much will be spent to protect those left living.

That's a matter of national security. We do on a broad basis try to protect Americans from communicable diseases through vaccine programs.

However, the most expensive diseases are the chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc. that are borne out of millions of obese people. If our lifestyle as a nation was different, our health care costs would be less than half of what they are now.

What we need to keep people healthy and contain health care costs is broad based community education. In the 1950s and 1960s we didn't have major medical insurance and we were a lot healthier. Cutting the amount of food by half that most of the population eats would do more to improve human health than all of today's pills, doctors, hospitals and medical advances combined.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option
Posted: 6/8/2010 2:00:07 AM

In the 1950s and 1960s we didn't have major medical insurance and we were a lot healthier.


People were also exposed to a lot less toxins, as has just been pointed out above. The food industry today is a lot different than it was in those times.

People were far more physically active (at work and after it), as well, in that "pre-computer" time.

Stress levels were lower too, in a far more "primitive" society.

Remote control channel changers were called......your kids.

It was harder to get on a plane , and get off hours later in another country with a communicable disease.

These things, and many more factors, are the reality of today's world.

While I agree with you that educating people is important in such things, it's hard toovercome decades of a commercials telling people that not exerting yourself is a good thing. It's hard to overcome years of neglect of the "cost" of gym classes in schools being too expensive to continue.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Support broad in U.S. for public healthcare option