American Healthcare

[Venetia]

@Whiskey Dick:
Guess what? I've actually paid over $14,000 already in medical debt (the remainder of a $150,000 operation via PPO). I have $2500 left. I come from a family rife with medical debt.
I come from a very poor family, and yet:
I still don't want to depend on a large powerful entity to control my life.

I have something called pride, and a sense of ownership. If the government themselves took away my health, then I'd demand they pay for it. If some dick rammed into my car and threatened my health, I'd force them to pay for it. If I myself fuck up myself (whether or not it's actually my fault unfortunately doesn't matter), then why should other people suddenly have to pay for it?

I don't like people paying my way in life. It's LAZY AND DEMEANING. The problem with kids today is that they're losing that sense of ownership and in pride in taking home the sweat of one's own back. They want some big strong daddy figure to pay for them and make it all okay. But there's a real problem with that big strong daddy: They just keep getting bigger ... and stronger ... and, as history often shows, more oppressive. Suddenly he's not benevolent old dad anymore. He's Big Red, here to tell you how it's gonna be.

It's sickening to see people who don't have faith in the people. Governments are supposed to be respresentations of the people. It's supposed to be small, and decentralized. Communities vote for what's best in their community. They see their money going toward things they USE, things invested IN their community.

What happens when I pay this big fat tax all my life and I never use it? Let's say I die at the age of 46 and am healthy the whole run, then get hit and killed by a bus? Where did all my money go? Will my family ever see it? NO. Will I ever use it? Obviously not! Will it be used in a way I deem satisfactory? Nope! So WHY DID I PAY IT.

Oh! But IF I get stricken down with illness or injury, I'll have something to fall back on! Gee, that's swell. But shouldn't it be more MY prerogative to plan for that sort of thing?

What I don't like about UHC, or any socialist agenda, is that it treats people like morons who have no control over their own lives or outcomes or (lol) incomes.

I don't care if there're a lot of stupid dicks in the world who would squander everything. I'm not one of them, so why must I suffer for their shortcomings?


Like I've said in this very thread multiple times, I agree that there needs to be reform. But not that drastic.

You're not a "forward thinker" for believing in socialism. In fact, socialism is a pretty old theory! You're just an "idealist". A lot of my ideas are "idealist" too, but in thinking that people are capable to manage their own money.

There needs to be a more moderate meeting of ideas. Extremes are not something that will work out to ANYONE's benefit when talking about America as a whole entity.

 

[Whiskey Dick]

I see your frumious bandersnatch and I raise you a "happy and dauntless and sagacious" Prince Prospero.

 

[FlippyD]

It is far too late at night to fall into full discourse, but I'd simply like to state that, despite my own personal philosophy I am not voting republican next month. Despite being libertarian, I feel Obama represents a set of ideals and programs I deem beneficial to this country at this time. And, I believe many libertarians are voting for him as well (I have yet to meet one that isn't, and we tend to stick together.)

I find my problem mostly with your first comment, that republicans vote republican due to inconsequential boorish topics. I wear the flag of a republican based on my beliefs, yes, however that does not mind I will walk blindly into a wolves den because I'm, presumably, frightened of men giving each other the once over and my indelible right to own enough firearms to make the constabulary blush. It would be, as if I accused you of being democratic and then denounce your pot smoking, neo-feministe, anarcho american-hating ways. Truly, I don't know if you even live on the west coast.

 

[So fist]

A few things about the situation concerning socialized healthcare.  First I do not support it because current models and programs floated out there will not do much to prevent what bloats healthcare costs in the first place: long term and largely preventable illnesses.  We live in a nation that leads in being bad the the two most important health indicators, blood pressure and obesity.  The amount of studies that show that proper diet and exercise to maintain proper weight and blood pressure shrinks the chances of suffering from the three big diseases long term heart disease, cancers, and diabetes dramatically.  But you lump obesity on top of the other disease producing vices (smoking, alcoholism, and drug use) and deliver a free healthcare handout that only cures the result and not the cause you are talking a lot of cash over a long period of time.  And given that the congress has had to create a 700 billion dollar warehouse for debt that won't mature until four years from now at least I doubt you will find it.  Especially when estimates on that medicaid and medicare (our current arm of government subsidized insurance) is due to double in its proportion of the gdp by current natural growth estimates:

Yet according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid already takes up 4% of GDP today and will rise to an unsustainable 9% over the next two decades.

Second socializing the healthcare sector hopelessly politicizes the industry.  Right now the drug companies, medical research corporations, and healthcare providers have to satisfy the needs of the government as well as the the private insurers that ultimately pay the large part of their services.  Private insurance as a business is concerned about its bottom line.  It wants to take in more money than it pays out.  And rightfully or wrongfully it will look out for its own interests first which includes low cost delivery of health care services.  Having the government muscle out that influence on the industry means that is much less of a priority.  Yes the government will want to keep costs incurred to it low, but its pressure to do so is not nearly as great.  Fact is a socialized insurance organization like medicare is not going to have to worry about bankruptcy.  If it overruns it will always get additional emergency funding from the executive branch and if it believes its mandate requires more cash it has an avenue not available to private insurance, the taxpayer.  The lack of pressure and competition for cost effective treatment will keep costs high and pass the burden of them further onto the tax payer.  In addition to the loss of competition you also empower the drug and research lobbies on capital hill.  Now that socialized medicine has made a cash cow of the government for them the who you know on capital hill will be the all important factor for economic survival for these firms, rather than merit based innovation and delivery of service.  Socialized medicine would actually make it easier to bury innovation in politics to preserve everyone that benefits status quo.  This is kind of the reason why socialism doesn't work in the first place.

I am not happy with status quo myself but I don't see the problem as the result of lack of insurance but rather a culture that doesn't value its long term health as much as it should, and is largely ignorant of health costs and ways they can avoid the bugaboos down the road.  I like the McCain plan because it encourages more transparency on these issues.  In order for consumers of insurance to make good decisions they need to  be better informed about the product they are purchasing and how it applies to their health.  When they understand that they can break out of the habit of being patronized by their doctors and insurance companies and make smarter long term health decisions.  I could get into more but this wsj article really sums up my opinion rather well.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is so agitated because Mr. McCain's proposal is highly progressive. The Republican wants to readjust the subsidies that Congress channels into health coverage for business so that lower- and middle-wage workers aren't shortchanged, as they are now. Currently, people who get insurance through their employers pay no income or payroll taxes on the value of the benefit. This is revenue the government forgoes to encourage certain behavior. If those losses were direct spending, the tax exemption would have cost more than $246 billion in 2007.

But all that money props up only employer-provided insurance. For reasons of historical accident and lobbying clout, individuals who buy policies get no tax benefits and pay with after-tax dollars. Mr. McCain is proposing to make the tax benefits available to everyone, regardless of how they purchase their insurance.

He would offer a refundable tax credit of $5,000 for families, $2,500 for individuals, and the benefit isn't dependent on where people work or what they earn. Some would stick with their current job-based coverage. Given the option, others -- especially the uninsured, armed with new health dollars -- would decide to buy coverage on their own. That in turn would stimulate a market for more affordable insurance.

Mr. Obama doesn't want to let people make this choice. He even claims it would amount to "taxing your health-care benefits for the first time in history," which is a wild distortion. His point seems to be that because companies wouldn't have to pay for health care, they could raise wages and thus taxes would also increase for workers on those higher incomes. But doesn't Mr. Obama want higher wages?

All in all, workers would come out ahead with the McCain plan. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the average taxpayer would see his tax bill drop by $1,241 in 2009. On average, lower-wage workers have more limited coverage as part of their compensation, mostly from small- or medium-size businesses. But the more generous the employer health plan, the more the tax subsidies increase. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the current employer benefit is only worth between $600 and $3,000 for people making under $100,000. The upper-income brackets save between $4,000 and $5,000.

The most affluent -- i.e., the top quintile of earners -- would be slightly worse off after 2013 under the McCain plan, though they'd still have plenty of options. Even as he routinely promises to raise taxes on "the rich," Mr. Obama is leaping to their unlikely defense here only to frighten everyone else. The McCain plan is fairer than the status quo, which subsidizes the most expensive employer (and union) insurance plans.

The choice as I see it is Obama offers you a handout, McCain an opportunity to provide for yourself. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122343823408914411.html

 

[FlippyD]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or I'm misunderstanding it, but it sounds like McCain wants to give money back to the people through refunds to help pay for health insurance. This is to help the individual. Yet, if insurance companies know that people are getting more money (the people who already can afford health insurance, not the ones that need it) then why wouldn't insurance companies raise prices to get more from the worker with benefits?

 

[___]

@Ven: the problem with your reasoning about the expense of healthcare is that healthcare is already more expensive in this country than in any other country. Our health insurance companies operate with roughly 25% administrative overhead, which is essentially just money getting flushed into the high-level executives' incredibly deep pockets, as compared to 5-10% in regulated countries. The cost of our services is insane compared to any other first-world country. This is the reason people can't afford health care in the first place. Many countries who provide 100% health care do not have nationalized systems, they chose a regulated industry and blanket health care for those who are not insured by their employers, basically the system that Obama proposes. FEHB is a great program, I used it for 3 years, and the government has been very frugal in its implementation. The value is better than any health insurance I've ever had, and I would gladly use it again as a freelancer who doesn't get health benefits because I don't have an employer. But the great thing about the Obama plan is that you can keep your current health insurance if you like it, because the system is not going to be nationalized. Neither is the practice of medicine. The tax money to cover the government's contribution to the FEHB benefits for those who choose that plan is going to have to come from somewhere, but it will be relatively inexpensive, especially compared to McCain's ridiculous proposal.

McCain's plan is horrible, he's going to tax health care to the tune of about 12k per year per capita in order to provide 5k per year in health benefits per capita. It's stupid, blatantly stupid, to claim that it's going to help most people. It will make a marginal, barely valuable level of benefits available to those who don't have it in exchange for adding a large swath of the population to the throngs of uninsured who have to rely on that 5k to get by because their employer can't afford the added tax. It's a stupid plan that only a stupid or cynical person would come up with, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will cost us a fortune and provide a laughable level of benefits to the uninsured.

I don't like to say the answer is regulation if I can avoid it, but the system has proven solid and many countries have implemented it without a deficit and without driving out either insurers or doctors who want to get paid more. Sicko is a stupid documentary and Moore is an idiot, but PBS did a great one on health care recently that gives a modest, well-balanced perspective about what's going on around the world - and most of it is not nationalized, social health care. You can find the documentary, "Sick Around the World", on the PBS website.

 

[___]

@Ixis, concerning libertarian voters:
From my participation over at Reason magazine and reading from the Cato Institute and other libertarian publications, most Libertarians are feeling like Obama is the lesser of two evils. There are a few people doing the protest vote for Barr, but most of them (and I agree) think it's more important to keep McCain out of office than to show where their real policy allegiances lie, especially since Barr is apparently an idiot. I'm an independent but I have strongly libertarian leanings; I don't believe in political parties or the idea that any party knows exactly what a person wants and can tell them how to vote reliably, but I believe in the fundamental concepts of libertarianism (when applied as policy, not ideology) so I'm very well-acquainted with libertarians.

 

[___]

@Skirtboy: the argument that American hospitals are somehow more efficient is utterly fallacious, since they get to pick who to treat and refuse the most needy who would impose the highest toll on the efficiency of operations. Of course they're more efficient, they don't do the hard or expensive jobs for anyone who can't ensure they'll recoup the costs. Here's a British word I like: bollocks. That's your argument

 

[FlippyD]

@Ixis, concerning libertarian voters:
From my participation over at Reason magazine and reading from the Cato Institute and other libertarian publications, most Libertarians are feeling like Obama is the lesser of two evils. There are a few people doing the protest vote for Barr, but most of them (and I agree) think it's more important to keep McCain out of office than to show where their real policy allegiances lie, especially since Barr is apparently an idiot. I'm an independent but I have strongly libertarian leanings; I don't believe in political parties or the idea that any party knows exactly what a person wants and can tell them how to vote reliably, but I believe in the fundamental concepts of libertarianism (when applied as policy, not ideology) so I'm very well-acquainted with libertarians.

Yes...?

 

[___]

I was agreeing and elaborating

 

[FlippyD]

I was agreeing and elaborating

Oh, cool. (/bro highfive)

 

[Whiskey Dick]

I know we aren't supposed to criticize sources but isn't wsj satan's herald?  Their editorials and opinions make Fox News look like the Nation.

 

[___]

Haha, sadly you can't get away from slant in the media anymore unless you watch CSPAN and write your own editorials... for yourself. WSJ is pretty bad but they do have valid points on certain aspects of business and economy. Unfortunately that particular article completely failed to be accurate or non-partisan. Cato is much better on economic issues, so I guess they're not as important as they used to be for news.

 

[Venetia]

@Ven: the problem with your reasoning about the expense of healthcare is that healthcare is already more expensive in this country than in any other country. Our health insurance companies operate with roughly 25% administrative overhead, which is essentially just money getting flushed into the high-level executives' incredibly deep pockets, as compared to 5-10% in regulated countries. The cost of our services is insane compared to any other first-world country. This is the reason people can't afford health care in the first place. Many countries who provide 100% health care do not have nationalized systems, they chose a regulated industry and blanket health care for those who are not insured by their employers, basically the system that Obama proposes. FEHB is a great program, I used it for 3 years, and the government has been very frugal in its implementation. The value is better than any health insurance I've ever had, and I would gladly use it again as a freelancer who doesn't get health benefits because I don't have an employer. But the great thing about the Obama plan is that you can keep your current health insurance if you like it, because the system is not going to be nationalized. Neither is the practice of medicine. The tax money to cover the government's contribution to the FEHB benefits for those who choose that plan is going to have to come from somewhere, but it will be relatively inexpensive, especially compared to McCain's ridiculous proposal.

McCain's plan is horrible, he's going to tax health care to the tune of about 12k per year per capita in order to provide 5k per year in health benefits per capita. It's stupid, blatantly stupid, to claim that it's going to help most people. It will make a marginal, barely valuable level of benefits available to those who don't have it in exchange for adding a large swath of the population to the throngs of uninsured who have to rely on that 5k to get by because their employer can't afford the added tax. It's a stupid plan that only a stupid or cynical person would come up with, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will cost us a fortune and provide a laughable level of benefits to the uninsured.

I don't like to say the answer is regulation if I can avoid it, but the system has proven solid and many countries have implemented it without a deficit and without driving out either insurers or doctors who want to get paid more. Sicko is a stupid documentary and Moore is an idiot, but PBS did a great one on health care recently that gives a modest, well-balanced perspective about what's going on around the world - and most of it is not nationalized, social health care. You can find the documentary, "Sick Around the World", on the PBS website.

I'll admit, I'm much more friendly to Obama's views on fixing healthcare, I just really worry when liberals start sticking their hands into the money pot, so to speak.

Thus far McCain has only proven himself to be a George Bush II, with way-too-conservative social views and amazingly and dumbfoundingly liberal methods of expenditures. For a while, until I familiarized myself with McCain's voting in regards to finances, I was leaning to the right. But now that I've researched his stances, it really does seem like Obama's the lesser of two evils.

It really doesn't matter WHO wins the presidency in 2008 for proponents of free trade: we're very likely going to be biting the bullet for some time! I guess, atleast maybe we can get some more relaxed social boons along the way :/

 

[___]

You know, I don't like anyone sticking their hands into my pockets particularly, but when you look at the record it's not the liberals who tend to be hurting me. Liberals like to rob from the rich to give to the poor, conservatives like to rob from the poor and give to themselves (and notably, not the liberal rich). Given the choice of robbers, frankly, I'm not rich The last thing I need right now is another four years of a government calling protectionism, subsidies, favoritist tax policies and socialized corporate welfare "deregulation", especially when the consequence of that behavior is to cut my taxes a barely noticeable margin and raise my cost of living by close to double (and well above the pace of inflation).

Give me a hippie who wants to steal some of that money back any day of the week : (

 

[skirtboy]

@Skirtboy: the argument that American hospitals are somehow more efficient is utterly fallacious, since they get to pick who to treat and refuse the most needy who would impose the highest toll on the efficiency of operations. Of course they're more efficient, they don't do the hard or expensive jobs for anyone who can't ensure they'll recoup the costs. Here's a British word I like: bollocks. That's your argument

Here's the biggest differenxe between American hospitals and those in many socalised countries. American hospitals can deal with not only problems that threaten life, but those that threaten quality-of-life. To get treated for many non-mortal illnesses in many places requires a long wait that is nonexistent in this country, for the insured.

 

[___]

Reports of wait lines for elective treatment are greatly exaggerated, but aside from that what's to stop a person from paying a privately practicing doctor for the treatment at his convenience, if he can afford it? Nothing, in theory, though the few countries where medical practice is actually socialized do put a stop to it. Fortunately they're in the minority, and many of those who can afford to buy their treatment currently come here, which means the net effect on the wealthy is nill and those who cannot afford to pay for the treatment at a time convenient to them still get it eventually instead of not at all. It is unlikely that we will ever adopt socialized medical practice here, only socialized insurance or smarter industry regulation or some mix of the two - which is what most countries already implement, contrary to what Michael Moore and the insurance industry would both like you to believe.

Actually when you think of it that way, Michael Moore is the status quo's biggest friend by way of making an ass of the opposition.

 

[Dewoor]

I remember reading Venetia's post about taxes.
Well, today my math teacher (she is a funny and cool person) opened her payments in the class, while the class was working on the math example. And she said: ,,What the feck? Jeez, they cut off half of my payment. Tax this for those, tax that for those... I'm working hard like everyone else, and those lazybones on the street are having free healthcare and helpmoney from it. That's not fair" (She said this in hungarian for sure)
Sorry, that was kinda good-for-nothing post, but I thought I will post it, since I read about this here.

 

[___]

Well, I'm not sure what your health care and tax system are in Hungary so it's tough to make much use of that. If it's like many socialized European countries though its plan is much different from anything the U.S. is going to implement. Americans bitch incessantly about comparatively low taxes; if any politician were to propose taking nearly half our pay and handing it out to the unemployed we'd probably have a civil war over it. Our welfare system, ideally, provides a social net for people who want to work and have worked in the past so they can survive through short periods of unemployment on the way to finding a new job. Our social security is set up to provide for people who are injured or aged to the point that they can't work, not for people who don't feel like working. The incentives aren't always set up properly, and there is some fraud and corruption, but it worked fairly well until the baby boom.