Discussion in 'US Health Care Reform' started by Ellen, Mar 28, 2010.
Ah and it was such a good opening too!
I don't know if costs will be controlled, or will go up, or will go down. All I know is that with the old system, costs go up, up, and up.
Supporters of the "old way" got their turn, and failed. Sometimes after trying and failing it's time to let someone with a new idea have a shot.
Wealth is created by entrepreneurs that risk all they have in order to create more wealth. Which creates more jobs and more wealth. Call it what you will, but it's the truth. Will the poor ever become rich by accepting the economic limitations placed on them by government in order for them to accept much-needed assistance?
Banks make money by lending the money they have. Do they then make more money from someone making $300 per week, or from someone depositing $4000 per week that has a premium checking account and gives the bank more money to lend?
Who is in a better position to help their fellow man (or woman)? The poor man who must limit his hours to 27 per week so he won't lose his disability payments, or the entrepreneur that sees his hard work rewarded through revenue? The money and volunteer support that flows into charitable organizations from evil corporations is the very root of freeing a man from the trappings of poverty.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather have a profitable corporation providing hundreds of jobs to good Americans that generally look out for their fellow man than a federal mandate.
Come on man, you're smart, I can tell by the way you type.
Tell me what in this bill controls cost? If it does not control costs, then how does it pay for itself without raising taxes or rationing services? It doesn't, and we all know it. We shouldn't continue to pretend otherwise, or we'll never come to a solution!
No question that "we" had "our turn," and the Republicans paid a heavy political price for it. Although, I guess folks forgot about the whole prescription drug benefit for Medicare, and that Bush wanted to give YOU more control over how YOUR social security taxes were invested.
But this bill is the equivalent of hitting a fly with a 40-megaton bomb. Why the panicked rush? Why the secretiveness and bribes and back-room deals and arm-twisting if it's such a great deal for everyone? Why were groups like the AMA and the unions so very quiet when it was obvious this bill would be terrible for them?
Again, my argument has always been this bill isn't about better health care or controlling costs.
I'm just like you, a guy that wants my little diabetic to get great healthcare. And this bill will not do that.
Are we playing nice Jeff?
You're playing the D-Card too ... great. How, exactly, will this bill change your "little diabetic's" health care. As far as I'm concerned you are "all in" now. Please state, specifically, how this bill will impact your "little D". FYI the editor has two different bullet formatting options if you need help.
I thought this OP-ED was interesting in light of this conversation.
The second impression is that most of us pay attention to the wrong things. Most people vastly overestimate the extent to which more money would improve our lives. Most schools and colleges spend too much time preparing students for careers and not enough preparing them to make social decisions. Most governments release a ton of data on economic trends but not enough on trust and other social conditions. In short, modern societies have developed vast institutions oriented around the things that are easy to count, not around the things that matter most. They have an affinity for material concerns and a primordial fear of moral and social ones.
It is an interesting article, but I'm not sure the best way to achieve social trust is through tax policy, which is what this bill more or less is.
I'm reminded of the story on Dateline (I think), that showed Danes were the happiest people on Earth because they had no social or economic classes and really wanted for nothing.
To transform America into that would require social engineering and redistribution of wealth on a scale previously unseen in America. And it's one of the reasons I distrust this bill so very much.
Perhaps you will find my 50+ previous posts on the matter sufficiently detail how I believe this bill will impact our particular healthcare situation.
Playing the "D card" seems appropriate on forums dedicated to people with diabetes (which describes me) and parents of children with diabetes (which also describes me). If you believe I have aligned the two unfairly, I will be happy to entertain your concerns.
As far as bullet points go, I believe that my prose adequately flows from one coherent thought into another without the need for excessive and unnecessary formatting.
Although I do not understand much of the new Health Care Reform and how it affects younger kids with diabetes (or any other illness), I believe that those with diabetes who are 18-26 may benefit greatly from the new bill. We've been through the "We will cover everyone in your family excpet your daughter with diabetes" discussion. We've been through the, "Congratulations on graduating from college; get a job with its own health insurance." Luckily, our daughter chose a field (nursing) in which she could find a job with health insurance, but it took her several months. Not every college graduate is that lucky. Not everyone goes to college, instead gets a job and maybe that job does not include health insurance, so the new bill is a good thing for this teen/young adult group.
As for other aspects of the new legislation, I don't know enough about it to comment.
I don't have a lot of time but I think this would be interesting to explore. I don't disagree with you that it would be a long road for Americans to redevelop social trust. But I think that tax policy is one way to help people get the "basics" which can help form those social bonds. There is plenty of research that shows societies are more unstable when there is a broad divide between the haves and the have nots - and for the US one of the markers of that divide is access to appropriate health care.
I'd also suggest that people who are happier and feel a level of control over their lives are more productive. For me, it seems obvious that by ensuring a basic standard of living that includes access to appropriate health care, means that a members of a society can move from away from focusing on base level needs to focusing on ways to connect and improve their relationships (Maslow's hierarchy and all that). I would say that is in line with that report you mentioned.
I'm struck by how often this discussion moves between what is good for an individual versus what is good for society and how rooted those comments seem to be in social trust and fear issues. It would be interesting to find some kind of study that compares level of trust in government vs UHC/social programs across a variety of countries or cultures.
I'm being philosophical because I am avoiding laundry and booking dentist appointments ...lol.. gotta go.
Herein lies the problem. It is my belief that this plan will deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. Those who have a lot of money will have their own health system, and those that do not will have another. I would not dare pretend that divide does not exist now, but by putting everyone into the same system, those who can afford to are likely to "opt-out" since they will likely choose something other than the most affordable common denominator.
In that light, it actually helps if that happens since those who opt out will still pay their fines but consume none of the resources. However, if there are resources that are only available to one system or another, then we'll have a widening of the social divisions.
I like the argument about Maslow; but I think that if people are artificially restricted from reaching self-actualization, then the perception will be injustice. We may be seeing some of that now in the violence going on here and there.
IMO, impossible to do aka it'll never happen, considering the the multicultural mosaic that makes up the US.
Having lived in the US I can absolutely understand why you believe that. However this is where the disconnect lies for me and for many of my non-American friends. Why not go with a UHC program then? Why not give everyone the same access to care - which will eliminate the haves/have not divide. There is tonnes of evidence that there are systems around the world that work.
The problem as I see it is that there is the US is caught in a vicious cycle which is a self fulfilling prophesy. You (general and nonpartisan) don't trust your government to make good decisions so you force them into a compromise position where no one gets what they want and the government hands are tied to make things better. This causes increases in the divide between the haves and have-nots because people are scared and focused on trying only to secure/maintain their base needs. So this has the result of a decrease in confidence in your government and weakened social bonds. And when it is time to make a social decision again, no one trusts the government, the governments hands are tied, and the compromise decision makes it hard to make anything better.
What if the insurance companies did the right thing, rather than just the profitable thing? What if Americans didn't feel so isolated/divided from their society and alienated from their government that they could look beyond their own needs and trust that their base needs will be met and so they could make decisions from higher up on the hierarchy.
I completely understand that the deep distrust of your government is culturally and historically ingrained. But it is somewhat baffling - you are your government and so that distrust also plays out in distrusting others to make decisions that are right for you from a societal standpoint. (and just to be clear - all yous in my post are collective/general, not specific to you Nick).
The "go it alone" approach to health care, international policy, environmental policy, financial/economic policy isn't serving the US (or the rest of the world frankly) well.
LOL you don't have to sneak. It would be interesting to hear your perspective.
What do you mean by being artificially restricted from reaching self-actualization? I am not sure I understand. My take on it is that I don't know that you can be restricted if you are able to move through those base levels. And so it seems to me that policies or lack of them that keep people stuck in dealing only with base needs seem to harm both the individual and their society.
My take on the violence is that people are scared about the ability to fulfill their base needs which is totally understandable, but not completely rational as they are actively working against ensuring those base needs can be met for themselves and their neighbours.
I agree with Rella - (I think it was her in this thread) that the media like Olberman and Beck are not doing their job in helping people make sense of this kind of issue and our educational institutions (and I include Canada here too) don't do enough to help people prepare to think through the implications about this kind of decision.
When I read this I thought "fair enough" - my memory isn't what it used to be so I grabbed a cup of coffee and spent and hour or so reading through your posts (sad, I know). The only specific thing, that I could find, where you mentioned about how this bill will impact you or your family's health care is the mention of your father's 401k or IRA (I can't remember) where you speculated it was reduced by half because of the bill.
Other than that everything else was general speculation that the bill will result in "bad things", several posts to other articles and an ideological rage against the process and the players.
As to my previous post - I still think it's bad form to use D as a fear tactic on this particular issue - especially in this forum.
Raising taxes and creating an disincentive to grow business (the bill provides aid to companies under 20 employees, and then fines them at 50 if they don't provide coverage), then that by definition removes the incentive for some to achieve self-actualization, but moves others toward the same goal.
By "artificial" I mean anything that interferes within the free flow up and down the hierarchy in a pure free market state (which does not exist, nor does the pure Utopia).
A little bit of the disconnect lies in that I believe that the free market will do a better job of providing for one's neighbors than government can. Obviously that can vary wildly based on the historical culture of any given political state.
I do not believe this bill will eliminate the divide. It will shift it a little further one direction and add more people on one side than the other, then it will deepen significantly.
Your point about "we are the government" is well-taken, however once government begins to make decisions against the will of the governed, then mistrust develops on all sides. Mistrust of government may not even be the real issue; I think it's deep mistrust of political parties and their members.
Alienation from government is demonstrated quite clearly (in my view) by the thread that is now closed.
You'd probably have to look through the closed thread, but essentially my fundamental problem is that we are putting our faith in government, and government has done nothing to earn it.
I do not agree that I have used diabetes as a fear tactic, and certainly not anymore than proponents of the bill have. Given that this is a diabetes forum, and that the discourse has remained respectful (lately anyway), I think examining the bill through the context of diabetes is very valid. I also think that "rage" against the process and players is quite important since there is already significant historical data to indicate that the process and players chosen to execute this bill are among the least-trusted citizens in America.
Separate names with a comma.