Here's what to expect from Gov't Run healthcare...

[kanyewestjayz4life]

Originally Posted by J Burner

KanyeWestJayZ4life wrote:

---

Um....can we take a second to think of every service provided by the government? Clean Water, Social Security, infrastructure, electricity, waste disposal, MEDICARE. MEDICARE. MEDICARE

Um...can we take a second to know what we're talking about before posting?

Water - Your clean water comes from your COUNTY, not the Federal Government. L # 1

Social Security - Are you serious

If ever there was a system to use as an example of Federal Gov't failure, its SS. L # 2

Infrastructure? What infrastructure are you talking about? The infrastructure for what? Be more specific.

Electricity - Your electricity comes from your STATE, not the FED. L # 3

Waste Disposal - Yet again, run by your LOCAL STATE AND COUNTY GOV'T. NOT THE FED. L # 4

Medicare -

You would be the first person I've EVER spoken to that tells me medicaid is run efficiently and properly. There is no way you are going to justify the government running healthcare by telling me they did a good job with medicaid. L # 5

Just ask your conservatives, who ironically now, emphasis the importance of medicare in their misleading argument that the Public Option will draw funds away from medicare resulting in rationed care for seniors...yeah the same conservatives who voted to cut medicare funds a few months ago.
Funny, because the same liberal Dems who pissed, moaned, shouted and vilified conservatives for wanting to cut medicare funds, are now all for it if . So the point in them pointing that out is to draw attention to the fact that liberals were up in arms when Bush wanted to cut the funding, but now that Obama wants to, it doesn't seem to be a problem. There is a word that begins with "H" thats right on the tip of my tongue.....

Um...can we take a second to know what we're talking about before posting?

Water - Your clean water comes from your COUNTY, not the Federal Government. L # 1

Social Security - Are you serious

If ever there was a system to use as an example of Federal Gov't failure, its SS. L # 2

Infrastructure? What infrastructure are you talking about? The infrastructure for what? Be more specific.

Electricity - Your electricity comes from your STATE, not the FED. L # 3

Waste Disposal - Yet again, run by your LOCAL STATE AND COUNTY GOV'T. NOT THE FED. L # 4

My patience is really wearing. State or national, government pays for this.

Where do you think your county gets the money to fund these things?

My point remains the correct. Government is providing for these services rather than privatized industries out to make money.

Why don't you trying living in Ghana, Bolivia, or Uraguay,where like U.S with health, water is privatized and people only those who can afford to pay the outrageous inflated private costs can afford water.


I'm honestly confused if you really believe what you are saying right now. You're sounding foolish.

Medicare -

You would be the first person I've EVER spoken to that tells me medicaid is run efficiently and properly. There is no way you are going to justify the government running healthcare by telling me they did a good job with medicaid. L # 5
I'll reply to this by posting the part of my post that you failed to mention and I think read.

Yes, people complain about medicare all the time but complaining about it, is different from wanting to do without it, which I don't think any elected officials constituients would allow for the end of Medicare.

And follow it up with another quote from myself.

Show me any proof that medicare is less efficient or cost effective than private insurances to both the taxpayers and the people being insured.

Just ask your conservatives, who ironically now, emphasis the importance of medicare in their misleading argument that the Public Option will draw funds away from medicare resulting in rationed care for seniors...yeah the same conservatives who voted to cut medicare funds a few months ago.
Funny, because the same liberal Dems who pissed, moaned, shouted and vilified conservatives for wanting to cut medicare funds, are now all for it if . So the point in them pointing that out is to draw attention to the fact that liberals were up in arms when Bush wanted to cut the funding, but now that Obama wants to, it doesn't seem to be a problem. There is a word that begins with "H" thats right on the tip of my tongue.....
Um...Obama is asking for Medicare to be more efficient in order to GIVE INSURANCE TO ALL.

To make it easy, he wants "cheap medicare" for everyone, thats why liberals aren't up in arms about it. How at all is that hypocritical?

 

[bigshake]

Just another fallacy of composition. smh

 

[cruthik3]

[h3]What real comprehensive healthcarereform looks like[/h3]
Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.

I have had pretty much no computer access where I am so I apologize for not getting into the debate in the comments from my last post on healthcare. Iwrote this article as an update to that post. The opinions here reflect only my view and have no reflection whatsoever on how Yves perceives the situation onhealthcare.

Yesterday I wrote a healthcare polemic which was mostlydesigned to discuss the politics of healthcare for the President. The essence of my argument was that Barack Obama has not shown enough willingness to fightfor specific policies he espoused on the campaign trail. In a poor economic environment, this weakens him politically, as is being made clear on theissue of health insurance reform. I hope my language was sufficiently over-the-top to get my point across.

Today, I want to talk more about the substance of the debate. I have to say upfront that when it comes to the actual policies of healthcare, I am probablymore conservative than Democrats are but I do believe serious reform is necessary today.

Let me offer some upfront tactical points. Then I will couch the debate in terms of the social-psychological backdrop and how the Obama strategy fails toaddress it before offering a strategy of my own. At the end, I have a number of links to good posts on the issue from both conservatives and liberals.

The wrong tactics

If you recall, Hillary Clinton outlined her early 1990s health care initiative in excruciating wonkish detail only to have her political enemies use thisdetail to pick her plan apart. Hillarycare was torpedoed because opponents of her initiative had a lot of ammunition with which to work. Team Obama seems to befighting this same battle. They are employing a strategy in which cost reduction was the initial selling point of his reform platform. Moreover, Obama and hisadministration offer little in upfront detail about actual healthcare goals in order to prevent a recurrence of 1994.

But, this is not 1994. And reducing system-wide costs that trickle down to individuals is not a selling point that engenders any visceral or emotionalresponse from voters. Furthermore, I have been dismayed, as have many in America, that Congress and the President seem to have concocted plans for reformbefore taking the debate over healthcare to the public to inform themselves as to what we want. The draft legislation came first and then thetown hall debates. In fact, these debates never would have occurred had the President had his way with a vote before Congress' summer recess. This seemsvery high-handed. Why didn't we have town hall meetings followed by drafted legislation?

The social psychology of economic depression

We are in a deep economic contraction and people are afraid. What Americans want is economic security, not cost reduction. Obama mustoffer a healthcare plan that provides increased economic security to the majority of Americans if he wants greater public support.

Most people in America are satisfied with their health insurance and their health care. As they see it, no change is necessary there. Telling people thehealthcare system in France, Britain or Canada is just as good as ours and we should switch to their model is a losing proposition.

On the other hand, Americans do feel a general sense of economic insecurity. The unemployment rate and foreclosure rates have risen astronomically.Meanwhile, houses, the main asset for most Americans, have declined in value tremendously, as have stocks. Americans are poorer both in terms of income comingin the door and wealth on their balance sheet. No wonder, the word depression is used to describe a major economic downturn.

And there is an increasing sense of anxiety about paying large out-of-pocket expenses despite having insurance. Here, I am talking about money for specificvisits and procedures that one has to reach into one's pocket and pay out here and now. That's the kind of 'cost' that gets people'sattention - abstract system-wide costs, not so much.

Getting people onboard for reform

Given this array of forces bearing down on average Americans, healthcare reform must have increasing economic security for the insured as as theprincipal rallying call. We need to allay people's sense of fear and anxiety by demonstrating that change will make them more secure economically.This is what insurance is all about: reducing economic risk. And right now, given other money problems, most people feel the risk reductionthey are receiving is not adequate.

So, reduction of out-of-pocket expenses for those already insured must be the principal selling point of any reform. Mind you, I believe universalcoverage is the most pressing need. But, quite frankly, telling people we need to give something to other people in a time of economic distress is notthe sort of thing that makes one want to jump up and shout.

Beyond just reducing the risk associated with out-of-pocket expenses, there are other issues of insecurity - the risk of losing coverage or paying moremoney when losing or changing a job, the risk of dropped coverage due to pre-existing health conditions, and the risk of exceeding yearly or lifetime caps. If the healthcare plan that the President and Congress present to the American people can credibly claim to reduce these risks to those alreadyinsured, we would be more likely to accept reform on other issues which I am about to address.

To recap, most Americans like their health care, but feel there are significant gaps in their health insurance. Obama has made a savvy movein switching the debate of late from care to insurance. In reforming American health insurance, four issues will gain widespread support:

1. Capping per visit and yearly co-payments fees.
2. Allowing every worker to remain with the same health insurance provider and paying largely the same premium had they remained with the same employer regardless of employment situation.
3. Preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions.
4. Providing all employees with a health insurance policy option without annual or lifetime caps and making the caps explicit for other options.

Two other reform issues to be addressed

With the issues established that will get most Americans onboard, reform can turn to other agenda items. The first issue is clearly the lack of insurancefor tens of millions. This is an issue which is easy to demagogue due to stereotypes about just who has no insurance in the United States (illegals, Blacks,Latinos, the extraordinarily sick, or the young and healthy). But the true purpose of health care reform has to be insuring all those working inAmerica and their families against large and unexpected healthcare expenses and to promote universal basic preventive care. If we pass a health carebill without substantially all Americans being covered against catastrophic healthcare loss, you can deem the legislation a failure.

However, there is one other issue of importance as well. James Pethokoukis had a good blog post yesterday "A healthcare plan to save Obama's presidency" which encapsulated this idea. First he agreesthat universal coverage is necessary. But, he also adds an important bit regarding our employer-based system.

Make health insurance mandatory and subsidize those who can't afford it. (That's the blue part.) But at the same time dismantle employer-based health plans, which prevent consumers from understanding the true costs of their healthcare decisions. In any case, employer plans are just an accident of history. (That's the red part.)

The simplest way of dismantling them, according to an analysis by McKinsey, would be to make the money spent on health insurance by employers available as cash, tax free, to employees. "Insurers would then compete for customers with policies that offer better value for the money," according to McKinsey. "The combination of invigorated supply and demand is the only healthcare reform plan that will avert the economic disaster that otherwise awaits us."

A Purple Plan for the centrist - or purple - president many Americans thought they were voting for. It would bolster the president's popularity, lift American spirits and help restore the economy.


If I run a business in the United States in competition globally, why should I be forced to provide healthcare to my employees unlike businesses in no othercountry. This clearly puts American businesses at a disadvantage and is a legacy of a system that needs to end.

What's more is dismantling the employer-based health insurance system would have a huge stimulative effect on the economy and financialassets. Every listed company in the United States would instantly be worth more and have more money available to provide for investment. But, ofcourse, the devil is in the details because this measure would effective be a tax cut for business. Where is the revenue to support this cut? If thePresident and Congress could find a legitimate way to recoup this revenue that makes the health care initiative relatively deficit neutral, there would bebipartisan support for such a provision.

Recap

The healthcare debate has been a fiasco. It was begun without any input from the American people. Obama and many in Congress even attempted to passlegislation before the summer recess when serious debate could happen. We saw this tactic under Bush when Hank Paulson tried to fast track the TARPlegislation.

As a result, the debates have often not been very substantive and have degenerated into an emotional demagoguing of this key issue. Better messaging wouldbe nice as well. What's in it for me? And what are your goals in passing this legislation? These are two questions neither Obama or many in Congress cananswer.

Below are twenty articles I found informative. They run the gamut from very conservative to very liberal (Patrick Buchanan to Robert Reich, if that givesyou a better flavour). I am adding them here for your attention as well. Comments are appreciated.

 

[frankie valentino]

Originally Posted by HOVKid

Originally Posted by J Burner

Chose not to? Spend money on other things? Are you serious?

Are you? I didn't make it up. Are you telling me that there is noone out there without healthcare simply because they didn't feel like paying for it? True story, my boy just paid $15,000 cash for his new car. Does he have healthcare? Nope. Can he afford it? He could have, before he spent his entire bank account on a car.

Are you saying all those people in those pictures decide they rather have a Louis Vuitton bag instead of getting health insurance like to get prescription glasses in order to read better?

Funny you should mention that



And I didn't say ALL, but about half could afford it if they were willing to sacrifice some luxury. How many of those people drove there in their own cars? So, it comes down to whats more important to you, healthcare, or a brand new car or HDTV. Many people chose the car or the TV. Thats all I'm saying, and you're telling me thats not true?



Might as well check out yo boy in those Jordan XII's as well. I KNOW I should not be paying for some dude to wear Jordans.

He bought those at footlocker which helped pay some 17 year olds salary, isnt that good?

 

[hueyp in louiev]

 

[duba169]

once again

jburner where is your plan?

 

[beermann2]

I would like to know where in the bill does it says "public option", because I have read thru some pages of bill and I didn't see that phrase.Have they revised it and now saying it?
Just wondering where does it say that. As for practicing medicine for over 30yrs, Ron Paul perspective on healthcare is really insightful.�

I'm going to say is that this is just another stunt to expand gov't.� and more gov't is not the answer.�
Who here has actually read the bill?

 

[verynecessary]

Originally Posted by Beermann2

I'm going to say is that this is just another stunt to expand gov't.� and more gov't is not the answer.�
Who here has actually read the bill?

i think part of the reason there's so much debate is this is turned into an all or nothing provision. the bill itself is 1000+ pages and manyof the senators/reps didn't even get to read more than a few pages the first time it went up for a vote. the more that is added to the bill, the lessobvious the choice is. there are so many concessions and compromises to try and make it more appealing, but it's already becoming a cluster #(&*. ithink the better course of action would be to break up the bill into smaller bills to at least get some differentiation between the fear mongering and theblanket approvals.

i generally like ron paul's ideas, but i don't think the free market can singlehandedly carry the health care system, not with corporatism the way itis now.

 

[friendliest ghost]

Originally Posted by Trelvis Tha Thrilla

The government can barely run the DMV, I dont know what makes peolpe think they will be able to run health care efficently.

Its a good idea on paper, but will be a nightmare in real life.

More than anything, this is why I'm skeptical of the so-called Obamacare. The government is absurdly inept in damn near all its agencies.