Health care reform on the way?

Theaphelia wrote:

Quote :

One of the bill's major features is a new national insurance market, in which private companies could sell policies that meet federally mandated benefit levels, the government would offer competing coverage and consumers could shop for the policy that best met their needs.

I...really don't know how I feel about this. I'm naturally suspicious of the motives behind this. On the other hand, this means private companies better make their plans damn good if they want customers to stick with them. Of course, the government costing more than private insurance might hamper that effect.

The problem I have with this bit is that all the private companies competing with the government's policy have to "meet benefit levels" that the government picks. That's sort of like telling every candy company in the US that Wonka is now the only policy maker and Hershey's, Mars, and Brach's all have to do what they say now. It's not a real competitive market and that one guy who is calling the shots is going to stack the deck in his favor--if not eliminate the competition all together. This ties into that "public option" buzz word you've been hearing thrown around a lot lately.

KGarrett wrote:

Trying to get conservatives to admit non-rich people have human rights is like pulling teeth, though. Except moreso because you don't get paid for it and don't get to rip their teeth out.

Yeah, you might want to look at this. It's not just conservatives and it's not just rich people. To quote one of the highlights, 53% of people polled think that the quality of health care will get worse under a federal system, not better. Stick to blaming the other side if you like, but you're going to end up just spinning your wheels.

*ALERT! POSSIBLE PAGES-LONG WANK-STARTER FOLLOWING!*

By the way, for anyone who is pro-life and reading this, for all that there have been protestations that no federal money will be used to fund abortions, which is nice to hear, as things stand now, there's no reason federal money from this bill can't be used to fund abortions. "But the Hyde Amendment!" you say. Well, let's look at that.

The Hyde amendment is an limiting feature attached to one specific piece of legislation. This one, to be specific (Google "H.R. 1105" if that link stops working). And the very first words of the Hyde amendment go, "None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act..." The Hyde amendment does not cover all actions by the federal government ever, and since this bill will be funded from elsewhere, there is nothing to stop the federal government from using whatever tax dollars it grabs up for health care coverage to fund abortions. Isn't that fun?

These guys are pretty right-leaning, but they've noticed a shift in rhetoric coming from the White House which suggests that perhaps this cover will not be used in future. These folks aren't my favorite, either, but that article suggests that Pelosi isn't planning to allow any amending when the bill gets to the House floor unless maneuvered into it. Certainly this is causing problems in the Democratic party. In fact, as many as forty House Democrats are threatening to vote against the health care bill if language like the Hyde amendment is not included in it.

KelinciHutan wrote:

By the way, for anyone who is pro-life and reading this

If you are "pro-life" and not in favor of giving everyone affordable, lifesaving medical treatment at any reasonable cost, then you are an enormous hypocrite and everyone should disregard everything you say forever.

Lysander wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

By the way, for anyone who is pro-life and reading this

If you are "pro-life" and not in favor of giving everyone affordable, lifesaving medical treatment at any reasonable cost, then you are an enormous hypocrite and everyone should disregard everything you say forever.

Try reading the whole post and then responding to it. Not doing that pretty much makes you a moron.

For the record, yes, of course I want to see health care reforms. Heaven knows we need it. The fact that I'm not willing to jump on board with any system offered, regardless of the problems I see in it, does not make me bad. It makes me cautious.

Did you actually have a point to make, or were you just talking for the sake of it?

KelinciHutan wrote:

KGarrett wrote:

Trying to get conservatives to admit non-rich people have human rights is like pulling teeth, though. Except moreso because you don't get paid for it and don't get to rip their teeth out.

Yeah, you might want to look at this. It's not just conservatives and it's not just rich people. To quote one of the highlights, 53% of people polled think that the quality of health care will get worse under a federal system, not better. Stick to blaming the other side if you like, but you're going to end up just spinning your wheels.

I don't think the stats given can tell us anything about whether or not the public support for healthcare reform can be broken down by class or political affiliations. We are not given the raw statistics to inspect ourselves, to make any calls about this. It's still only just over half the population that believe care will get worse. Furthermore, "don't know" answers are typically counted as negative opinion. Therefore, it's likely that less than half the population think that care will get worse. Again, it's hard to tell with the information this article gives us.

Around half is pretty damn good, when it's something new like this. When the National Health Service was in development, it was hugely unpopular. The fear of something new and different is a powerful motivating factor. I don't know how far this has been applied to politics, but certainly within science, there is the idea that new ideas are more readily accepted when those who consider them new "die out" (not necessarily literally). I think that guy is called Kuhn.

Anyway, public opinion is likely to be fairly negative in the face of such fears. So debate should focus more upon the important question: how many lives can healthcare reform save? Can healthcare reform improve population health? If the review of this evidence suggests that it can, then there is a moral responsibility to implement it, public opinion be damned.

ZoZo wrote:

Furthermore, "don't know" answers are typically counted as negative opinion. Therefore, it's likely that less than half the population think that care will get worse. Again, it's hard to tell with the information this article gives us.

Rasmussen is one of our better polling services in the US. Most people tend to like the data they give, and they poll on all kinds of stuff. Aside from which, my suspicion is that the "don't know" answers were not counted as negative responses and were either tallied separately, or it wasn't an option. Although, I agree that it would be better to have the raw data somewhere to be sure.

In general, when I link things here, I either give a caveat about who I'm linking ("tends to lean right," "you guys don't like this source," or something), or only link sources that the board in general is known not to object to. There are a few exceptions, but that's my usual rule of thumb. I've seen a lot of liberal folks here get away with linking blogs and such, but this board is just too far left for me to try it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

theweirdkind wrote:

Because many Americans are selfish and don't want to pay taxes that would help other people.

We will all hang together or we will all hang separately. But fuck that, dem big govmint stealin mah taxes and takin ar guns, for people who needs to get jahbs and bootstrap themselves.

KelinciHutan wrote:

The problem I have with this bit is that all the private companies competing with the government's policy have to "meet benefit levels" that the government picks. That's sort of like telling every candy company in the US that Wonka is now the only policy maker and Hershey's, Mars, and Brach's all have to do what they say now. It's not a real competitive market and that one guy who is calling the shots is going to stack the deck in his favor--if not eliminate the competition all together. This ties into that "public option" buzz word you've been hearing thrown around a lot lately.

Yeah, damn the government for setting standards, and trying to make the coverage not suck complete donkey balls, damn them all to hell.

You also seemed to miss that the insurance companies had immunity from antitrust laws, so what the fuck kind of free market are talking about?

Or, for that matter, why the fuck do you think that health is supposed to be a market?

KelinciHutan wrote:

Yeah, you might want to look at this. It's not just conservatives and it's not just rich people. To quote one of the highlights, 53% of people polled think that the quality of health care will get worse under a federal system, not better.

So, 53% of people are morons? Who knew?

KelinciHutan wrote:

Rasmussen is one of our better polling services in the US...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

KelinciHutan wrote:

Try reading the whole post and then responding to it. Not doing that pretty much makes you a moron.

Okay, here's a response to all your points:

1) Oh gosh whatever shall our poor corporate oligarchs do if the mean old government makes them meet standards? People are dying of preventable health problems right bloody now and you're setting here bitching about the poor widdle insurance business that won't cover them. "Pro-life" my balls.

2) 90% of the opposition is based on ideological opposition to "big government" which was essentially the first thing out of your mouth, and while you're bitching about that and not offering any better ideas, people are still dying right now of preventable illness.

3) Fuck you, abortion is awesome.

Quote :

For the record, yes, of course I want to see health care reforms.

You just want to wait until someone proposes a way to make everything better without actually changing anything we have now, which isn't going to happen so get over it.

PS: People are dying right now, and you're bitching about our one chance to help them because you're pro-life.

Quote :

To quote one of the highlights, 53% of people polled think that the quality of health care will get worse under a federal system, not better.

Who gives a fuck what average Joe "thinks" will happen, in regards to healthcare? Unless they're Ms. Cleo.

Psy-4 wrote:

Yeah, damn the government for setting standards, and trying to make the coverage not suck complete donkey balls, damn them all to hell.

See, that I wouldn't mind. Setting standards. If the government wanted to institute regulations for health care providers that everybody across the country had to meet, I'd be more than behind this. This would guarantee decent quality care for everyone who needed it, reasonable expectation of access to it, and would allow the government to act as an independent agent to monitor everyone on behalf of the people, without their own interests to muddle the issue (which is supposed to be the point of a democratic government). I've never been a fan of a federated health care system because it does muddle the government's interests. For all that people say, "Oh, sometimes they're on our side," those times lately have been few and far between, from both parties.

Psy-4 wrote:

You also seemed to miss that the insurance companies had immunity from antitrust laws, so what the fuck kind of free market are talking about?

Here, I must conceed you have a point.

Lysander wrote:

PS: People are dying right now, and you're bitching about our one chance to help them because you're pro-life.

"Our one chance to help them." Yeah, no one's ever going to come up with any other suggestions, ever, at all, period. All of history hinges on this one bill in the US Congress. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] You know how ridiculous that sounds, right?

Also, take tax money and use it to kill people? Hell, yes I oppose that. You keep conveniently forgetting that premise of opposing abortions is that all humans, regardless of size, development, location, or whatever else you want to throw out there, are people. And they are not just dying, they're being killed off. Don't make me start trotting out numbers on you. I suppose that may seem minor to you, but it is an absolute deal-breaker for me and millions of other Americans.

But, I tell you what. I'll make you guys a deal. Call your congresspeople--all three of them--and tell them that you want an amendment like the Hyde amendment added to this bill, post their phone numbers so that if you lie to me I at least know you had to google for it, and I'll call mine--all three of them--and tell them I want them to vote for it, provided that kind of language is in there. I can live with whatever other objections I have, so long as this one condition is met.

KelinciHutan wrote:

"Our one chance to help them." Yeah, no one's ever going to come up with any other suggestions, ever, at all, period. All of history hinges on this one bill in the US Congress. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] You know how ridiculous that sounds, right?

Um. Many singular bills and court decisions have changed the cultural landscape of America for decades, and continue to do so now. Where's the indication that this will be any different?

And Sorry, there are also millions of Americans who don't want others deciding what we can do with the contents of our uteri. So stuff it.

/abortion wank.

KelinciHutan wrote:

"Our one chance to help them." Yeah, no one's ever going to come up with any other suggestions, ever, at all, period.

The insurance industry hasn't. The Republicans haven't. You didn't. When somebody makes a suggestion that everyone in America can agree on, let me know.

Quote :

Also, take tax money and use it to kill people? Hell, yes I oppose that.

Criminal negligence must be easier than homicide.

Lysander wrote:

Criminal negligence must be easier than homicide.

If musicals have taught me anything, it is.

Quote :

Also, take tax money and use it to kill people? Hell, yes I oppose that.

Some abortions are necessary to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, especially in life-threatening situations. Not funding a life-saving abortion, tax money or not, is killing people. According to pro-lifers, it would sometimes be two people, because the baby can die right along with the mother.

Theaphelia wrote:

Quote :

Also, take tax money and use it to kill people? Hell, yes I oppose that.

Some abortions are necessary to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, especially in life-threatening situations. Not funding a life-saving abortion, tax money or not, is killing people. According to pro-lifers, it would sometimes be two people, because the baby can die right along with the mother.

I agree. Those provisions are excepted in the Hyde amendment, as are cases of rape, and incest, so copying it here would cover those concerns.

KelinciHutan wrote:

I agree. Those provisions are excepted in the Hyde amendment, as are cases of rape, and incest, so copying it here would cover those concerns.

I love it when pro-lifers say it's okay to get an abortion in cases of rape or incest. It really lays out their true motives on the table and lets everyone see what massive hypocrites and monsters they are.

If your opposition to abortion is based on the belief that abortion is murder, you should not make allowances for rape or incest. After all, the fetus didn't have a choice on how it was conceived, and just because the victim is more sympathetic does not excuse murder.

If, on the other hand, your opposition to abortion is based on controlling people's sex lives, than it's perfectly allowable. It doesn't make sense to "punish" people for sex they didn't choose or ask for, so they should be shielded from any and all consequences of sex.

So yeah, stick your "saving the kids" rhetoric straight up your ass. I ain't buying it.

TheHermit wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

I agree. Those provisions are excepted in the Hyde amendment, as are cases of rape, and incest, so copying it here would cover those concerns.

I love it when pro-lifers say it's okay to get an abortion in cases of rape or incest. It really lays out their true motives on the table and lets everyone see what massive hypocrites and monsters they are.

Or, it's because I know that only legislation with those provisions in it is going to get passed right now. An exclusive legislation would get shot down. With those provisions, it has a chance. Given that this eliminates over 90% of abortions, then rather than taking the hardline and saving no one, you save most and don't sleep as well at night. If I thought that legislation that banned abortion in all cases but ones where the life of the mother was threatened had a reasonable chance of getting passed, yes I'd be behind it. As things stand now, not so much.

But, hey, believe whatever you wish. I can't stop you. You're clearly not worried about how all this would play out outside of an academic discussion, anyway.

WOW! I think this is a record. Health care wank turning into abortion wank in less than 2 pages?

And Cyberwulf hasn't posted yet!

Maximilia wrote:

WOW! I think this is a record. Health care wank turning into abortion wank in less than 2 pages?

I did post a warning.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

WOW! I think this is a record. Health care wank turning into abortion wank in less than 2 pages?

I did post a warning.

PUNCH THOSE ROCKS LIKE YOU MEAN IT

Soooo... you bitch against health care for everyone, yet call yourself pro-life? I guess human life is only important when it's inside mom's belly. But what if mom herself doesn't have health insurance, what about that? Well, I guess it doesn't really matter. Once the little fuckers are born, they should just learn to deal, right?

Spoiler:

Bootstraps.

Ceres wrote:

Soooo... you bitch against health care for everyone, yet call yourself pro-life? I guess human life is only important when it's inside mom's belly. But what if mom herself doesn't have health insurance, what about that? Well, I guess it doesn't really matter. Once the little fuckers are born, they should just learn to deal, right?

Spoiler:

I'd like to give everyone good healthcare. I'd also like to snap my fingers and make global warming disappear, chew a stick of gum to solve the Israel-Palestine problem, and maybe do the hokey pokey to get rid of AIDS, just to cap things off.

However, it's not that simple. The Obama administration is already spending money like a drunk sailor on shore leave, only worse, because this sailor has access to his (not to mention everyone else's) credit cards. No stopping when the wallet runs dry here, no siree.

There's no such thing as free healthcare. Everything has to be paid for somewhere, and wanting the already wildly overcommited government to handle it is just plain stupid, especially when you consider the budget entropy that government agencies are prone to. The attempts to stimulate the economy aren't working, so their solution is to keep throwing money at it, without even stopping to consider if the right things are being unstimulatable. After all, look at the state of the tax cuts; they're entirely dependent on the current prevailing political wind, so is any tax cut, at this point, a true permanent change in income, or rather a momentary advantage to be exploited before Washington see-saws back in the other direction? So if you want to bitch about irresponsibility, why not start with the part where you want the entire country to underwrite your grade-school world-saving fantasies, the costs be damned?

English Major Version: We can't pay for this shit.