American Health Care.
Discussion
Fittster said:
The Americans have a new health care bill, which seems a little divisive. So why does this split the democrats and republicans when medicare doesn't seem to cause a huge amount of animosity?
Its a fundamental belief thing. The gubbermint will provide vs get off your butts and earn enough to have decent healthcare.randlemarcus said:
Fittster said:
The Americans have a new health care bill, which seems a little divisive. So why does this split the democrats and republicans when medicare doesn't seem to cause a huge amount of animosity?
Its a fundamental belief thing. The gubbermint will provide vs get off your butts and earn enough to have decent healthcare.
Fittster said:
randlemarcus said:
Fittster said:
The Americans have a new health care bill, which seems a little divisive. So why does this split the democrats and republicans when medicare doesn't seem to cause a huge amount of animosity?
Its a fundamental belief thing. The gubbermint will provide vs get off your butts and earn enough to have decent healthcare.Here is a list of what happens.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN19140202201003...
The fundamental argument:
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
It's a slippery slope argument as well because of the power that the Federal Government will wield. It sets a bad precedent and is probably unconstitutional. Certainly the method by which they passed this thing is bordering on unconstitutional as well. The "we know what's good for you and don't care what you think" attitude of the Democrats has not endeared them to the public. The House Leader, Nancy Pelosi, enjoys, roughly an 11% approval rate. It is a partisan bill that only implements Democrat's ideas. For instance tort reform (which would address a HUGE contributor to medical costs through reduction of medical malpractice insurance and people suing their own insurance companies) was not included because the trial lawyers have a huge influence on the Democratic party.
What's next? What other product will the Federal Government require it's citizens to purchase?
A large amount of the costs are being shifted to the States as well which may be unconstitutional. 36 States are suing to stop it.
Prior to it's passage, about 60% of the country was against it.
There are (justifiable) worries that this will become another unfunded mandate such as Social Security or Medicare (both of which are about $50+ trillion in debt)
If the Democrats continue down this path (and as arrogant as they are, they probably will), there will be a sweeping change in November. They are doing it to themselves.
This thing is unprecedented. Not in a good way.
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
It's a slippery slope argument as well because of the power that the Federal Government will wield. It sets a bad precedent and is probably unconstitutional. Certainly the method by which they passed this thing is bordering on unconstitutional as well. The "we know what's good for you and don't care what you think" attitude of the Democrats has not endeared them to the public. The House Leader, Nancy Pelosi, enjoys, roughly an 11% approval rate. It is a partisan bill that only implements Democrat's ideas. For instance tort reform (which would address a HUGE contributor to medical costs through reduction of medical malpractice insurance and people suing their own insurance companies) was not included because the trial lawyers have a huge influence on the Democratic party.
What's next? What other product will the Federal Government require it's citizens to purchase?
A large amount of the costs are being shifted to the States as well which may be unconstitutional. 36 States are suing to stop it.
Prior to it's passage, about 60% of the country was against it.
There are (justifiable) worries that this will become another unfunded mandate such as Social Security or Medicare (both of which are about $50+ trillion in debt)
If the Democrats continue down this path (and as arrogant as they are, they probably will), there will be a sweeping change in November. They are doing it to themselves.
This thing is unprecedented. Not in a good way.
ErnestM said:
The fundamental argument:
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
The counterpoint is surely that they are also attempting to ensure all infividuals are able to purchase a certain product.For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
HiRich said:
ErnestM said:
The fundamental argument:
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
The counterpoint is surely that they are also attempting to ensure all infividuals are able to purchase a certain product.For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
ErnestM said:
The fundamental argument:
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
It's a slippery slope argument as well because of the power that the Federal Government will wield. It sets a bad precedent and is probably unconstitutional. Certainly the method by which they passed this thing is bordering on unconstitutional as well. The "we know what's good for you and don't care what you think" attitude of the Democrats has not endeared them to the public. The House Leader, Nancy Pelosi, enjoys, roughly an 11% approval rate. It is a partisan bill that only implements Democrat's ideas. For instance tort reform (which would address a HUGE contributor to medical costs through reduction of medical malpractice insurance and people suing their own insurance companies) was not included because the trial lawyers have a huge influence on the Democratic party.
What's next? What other product will the Federal Government require it's citizens to purchase?
A large amount of the costs are being shifted to the States as well which may be unconstitutional. 36 States are suing to stop it.
Prior to it's passage, about 60% of the country was against it.
There are (justifiable) worries that this will become another unfunded mandate such as Social Security or Medicare (both of which are about $50+ trillion in debt)
If the Democrats continue down this path (and as arrogant as they are, they probably will), there will be a sweeping change in November. They are doing it to themselves.
This thing is unprecedented. Not in a good way.
But if you are required to buy a product, it's a tax. In the UK you are required to have national insurance and TV license. These are taxes to pay for welfare and for the state broadcaster whatever the semantics the politicians use.For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
It's a slippery slope argument as well because of the power that the Federal Government will wield. It sets a bad precedent and is probably unconstitutional. Certainly the method by which they passed this thing is bordering on unconstitutional as well. The "we know what's good for you and don't care what you think" attitude of the Democrats has not endeared them to the public. The House Leader, Nancy Pelosi, enjoys, roughly an 11% approval rate. It is a partisan bill that only implements Democrat's ideas. For instance tort reform (which would address a HUGE contributor to medical costs through reduction of medical malpractice insurance and people suing their own insurance companies) was not included because the trial lawyers have a huge influence on the Democratic party.
What's next? What other product will the Federal Government require it's citizens to purchase?
A large amount of the costs are being shifted to the States as well which may be unconstitutional. 36 States are suing to stop it.
Prior to it's passage, about 60% of the country was against it.
There are (justifiable) worries that this will become another unfunded mandate such as Social Security or Medicare (both of which are about $50+ trillion in debt)
If the Democrats continue down this path (and as arrogant as they are, they probably will), there will be a sweeping change in November. They are doing it to themselves.
This thing is unprecedented. Not in a good way.
So in the US you have a new tax to pay for healthcare, but don't you already have that for medicare? What I don't understand is the difference between this new bill and medicare.
ErnestM said:
The fundamental argument:
For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
Because of course the current system whereby the uninsured poor who get sick merely aquire debt is so much better. For the first time in history, the Federal Government is attempting to require individuals to purchase a certain product. Furthermore, this product must conform to certain criteria as defined by the Feds.
I agree that the idea of people being compelled to buy health insurance from greedy insurance companies is not ideal. The original plan was for some kind of federal backed insurance that people could buy as an alternative but of course opponents of HCR shot that down (for now). The principle of people being responsible for their own health care is a good one but there has to be a level of AFFORDABLE compulsion or the poor will simply not have cover.
At present insurance companies will refuse to cover people with pre existing conditions. They will no longer be able to. At present insurance companies can drastically ramp up the premiums of those who get sick or impose limits to coverage. They will no longer be able to do so. At present insurance companies can withdraw coverage from people who get sick! They will no longer be able to do so. Small businesses will receive new tax breaks for providing health care for their employees. etc...
America badly needed a health care bill. This has been watered down but it is a start. The utterly partisan posturing of the republicans on this issue has been extremely distasteful and is rooted in something far deeper and more unpleasant IMO.
Fittster said:
But if you are required to buy a product, it's a tax. In the UK you are required to have national insurance and TV license. These are taxes to pay for welfare and for the state broadcaster whatever the semantics the politicians use.
So in the US you have a new tax to pay for healthcare, but don't you already have that for medicare? What I don't understand is the difference between this new bill and medicare.
It is a tax. Which is why the posturing by state attorney generals will come to nothing because the fed govt has every right to raise taxes. So in the US you have a new tax to pay for healthcare, but don't you already have that for medicare? What I don't understand is the difference between this new bill and medicare.
The difference now is that people are actually being required to make provision for their own healthcare rather than relying on the state to pick up the tab. You would think the republicans would be in favour!
Fittster said:
But if you are required to buy a product, it's a tax. In the UK you are required to have national insurance and TV license. These are taxes to pay for welfare and for the state broadcaster whatever the semantics the politicians use.
So in the US you have a new tax to pay for healthcare, but don't you already have that for medicare? What I don't understand is the difference between this new bill and medicare.
I agree that the appropriate way to do this would have been to just create a new tax and then provide the States with more money to take care of the uninsured. However, Obama can't do it that way because of his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.So in the US you have a new tax to pay for healthcare, but don't you already have that for medicare? What I don't understand is the difference between this new bill and medicare.
The uninsured "poor" do already get medicare.
unrepentant said:
Because of course the current system whereby the uninsured poor who get sick merely aquire debt is so much better.
I agree that the idea of people being compelled to buy health insurance from greedy insurance companies is not ideal. The original plan was for some kind of federal backed insurance that people could buy as an alternative but of course opponents of HCR shot that down (for now). The principle of people being responsible for their own health care is a good one but there has to be a level of AFFORDABLE compulsion or the poor will simply not have cover.
At present insurance companies will refuse to cover people with pre existing conditions. They will no longer be able to. At present insurance companies can drastically ramp up the premiums of those who get sick or impose limits to coverage. They will no longer be able to do so. At present insurance companies can withdraw coverage from people who get sick! They will no longer be able to do so. Small businesses will receive new tax breaks for providing health care for their employees. etc...
America badly needed a health care bill. This has been watered down but it is a start. The utterly partisan posturing of the republicans on this issue has been extremely distasteful and is rooted in something far deeper and more unpleasant IMO.
It is not the remit of the Federal Government. The kind of reforms that you are talking about, and I agree that some of them are needed, are better handled by State Governments.I agree that the idea of people being compelled to buy health insurance from greedy insurance companies is not ideal. The original plan was for some kind of federal backed insurance that people could buy as an alternative but of course opponents of HCR shot that down (for now). The principle of people being responsible for their own health care is a good one but there has to be a level of AFFORDABLE compulsion or the poor will simply not have cover.
At present insurance companies will refuse to cover people with pre existing conditions. They will no longer be able to. At present insurance companies can drastically ramp up the premiums of those who get sick or impose limits to coverage. They will no longer be able to do so. At present insurance companies can withdraw coverage from people who get sick! They will no longer be able to do so. Small businesses will receive new tax breaks for providing health care for their employees. etc...
America badly needed a health care bill. This has been watered down but it is a start. The utterly partisan posturing of the republicans on this issue has been extremely distasteful and is rooted in something far deeper and more unpleasant IMO.
Nobody does without healthcare in the US. It's the payment for the healthcare that is being addressed and the philosophy behind it. Do I want some quango in DC making my healthcare decisions for me all in the name of affordability, expediency, efficiency or fiscal priorities? No thanks. Seen that. Don't like it.
To quote another website...
/b/ said:
You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Pentagon misplaced $2.3 trillion.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You didn't get mad when the debt went up $5 trillion under Bush.
You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well f
k that. ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH!
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Pentagon misplaced $2.3 trillion.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You didn't get mad when the debt went up $5 trillion under Bush.
You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well f
k that. ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH!ErnestM said:
Blue Meanie said:
ErnestM said:
Do I want some private firm in Manhattan making my healthcare decisions for me all in the name of profit? No thanks. Seen that. Don't like it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff