- advertisement -

The Rage Is Not About Health Care

Discussion in 'US Health Care Reform' started by Ellen, Mar 28, 2010.

  1. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380

    The problem is ... I am living in the present, so what has happened in "recent times" is essential in my thinking process about many topics - including healthcare reform. To be honest, had we had this discussion 3 years ago, it's very possible that my opinion regarding healthcare reform would have been much different. As I learn more about how the government works, I have lost much of the trust that I once had.

    As for your comment in regards to the dollar... It may be a "real" dollar bill and sure you can buy things with it but the way that the Federal Reserve - along with The Treasury - keep printing paper out of thin air - backed by little... We are heading down a difficult road, I'm afraid. Healthcare could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

    Or, it may work out perfectly. :)

    ps. I'm not being sarcastic when I make the comments such as (or it may work out perfectly - with the smiley face)... It is an honest opinion that I really don't know... I'm trying to be positive but I have real concerns.
     
  2. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    How much time do you have?
     
  3. Karenwith4

    Karenwith4 Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    LOL I am anticipating a night of low-watching tonight so I could have plenty. :)
     
  4. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Sadly, I've got major allergy stuff going on right now (sniffly, sinus issues, etc.)... I think that I'm down for the count tonight. I hear my bed calling me... I'll be back tomorrow though.
     
  5. frizzyrazzy

    frizzyrazzy Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    14,141
    I hear you. :) I totally get that. None of us know. It's like glass half empty/half full - both totally correct, just depends on the perspective that you come from. sometimes I'm a half full person, sometimes I'm a half empty person. In this case, I'm falling on half full you're falling half empty. neither right, neither wrong. :)
     
  6. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    Well, for one thing the Constitution specifically allows the federal government to regulate some of those things. As far as how well they are operated...

    The highway system is a mess, and states are selling their tollways (I thought these were funded through existing tax revenue?) to private businesses because they can't manage them.

    NASA, in my opinion, spends a lot of money so we can look at cool pictures. I understand and appreciate the science they do; and I am a HUGE astronomy buff; but when bureaucrats are left to make decisions in the public eye, you get the Challenger disaster from 1986.

    The National Parks are incredibly under-funded, and their policies often contradict what they are trying to accomplish.

    The military, remember the $400 hammer? The Osprey? And what happens when politicians use it for political gain? That's why I fear their involvement in health care.

    The Treasury: Don't get me started, but this is one the Constitution specifically mandates that Congress regulate.

    The FAA and FDA: My only thoughts on the FDA are that they have way more power than they were intended to have; and often safety is sacrificed for budgetary reasons. Kind of scary when you relate that to...nevermind. What do you hear the most about air-traffic controllers? They're over-worked, and have been for many, many years. Why this is still a problem is beyond me.

    The Court System: Over-burdened, under-funded, and the "public defender" is what will become of the "primary care physician." When what is supposed to be a completely fair process ends up being controlled by elections (local and state judges are elected in most places), you get stupid things like mandatory sentencing. Drug users, for example, come out of prison way worse than they were when they went in.

    Most libraries are not federally regulated to my knowledge.
     
  7. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    Again, it's apples and oranges. It was a popular measure in Canada passed in the open. Not so here, no matter which side of the issue anyone is on.

    And when you say "government is paying for it," what you mean is "they are collecting taxes from us and then paying it on our behalf." It's an important distinction; and it's one that goes against the very fabric of what this country was founded on. If it works in other places and they like it, great! I'm not saying they shouldn't have it.

    It's also important to note that in Canada's Parliamental system, as in many others, the party that controls parliament controls the agenda completely; so there is no running and hiding or blaming outcomes on the other side like we have here ALL the time. Just ask some American who deserves the credit for the economic boom of the 90s, and you'll get 100 different answers from 100 different people.

    So that's why I do not want any of these knuckleheads using health care as an election-year ploy/scare tactic/carrot every 2 years.
     
  8. Karenwith4

    Karenwith4 Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    LOL Guess what - I disagree.

    The conditions around the passing of the UHC law doesn't affect the fact that medical decisions are the domain of myself and my doctor and not the government, which was the point I was making. The government is less involved in health care decisions under the UHC than say they are in educational ones.

    And yes you are right that the government collects taxes to pay for healthcare. Just as they collect taxes to fund everything else they are responsible for. I'm not sure I understand how the distinction is any more relevant for UHC than for military spending, education, roads, libraries, fire and police services etc.

    As for your political system - lol I agree we've got a very different system. However it's not quite as cut and dried as you suggest.

    I personally think that a UHC system would become quite quickly accepted and integrated. In Canada it's a rare politician who suggests any kind of changes to our health care system and they are often soften their statements rather quickly. It's not used as a political carrot any more than the concept of public education is in the US. There's always talk of improving, but it is accepted as fact that it should exist as a benefit and duty of citizenship.

    Karen
     
  9. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    I disagree. LOL!

    How this law was passed is incredibly important. There must be a very high level on the part of the people in order to accept this law because of how its written. For example, this law direct the Secretary of HHS to form a number of agencies, decide on what is taxed and what isn't, etc. In other words, there is a lot that we just do not know about HOW the law will be carried out. In order for the public to accept that it will take time to hash out, they must trust those that passed it to execute all of these unknowns. There is not a soul that can defend how this law was drawn up or passed. People are way more skeptical of it probably than they would have been if it were passed out in the open; and the problem is that if it were negotiated in the open, it never would have passed.

    The distinction on the taxation issue is very, very important. The United States Constitution specifically allows the federal government to regulate some things; and things not mentioned are delegated to the states. I often hear people say this is no different than auto insurance:

    1. If you don't own a car, you don't have to buy auto insurance.
    2. Most importantly, buying auto insurance is NOT a federal mandate! Individual states mandate that people buy insurance. Why? Insurance is not inter-state commerce, and thus cannot be regulated by the federal government.
    The same standard applies to this law. Because insurance cannot be purchased across state lines, it is by definition not inter-state commerce, and thus there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the federal government to regulate it.

    Secondly, never in our country's history has the federal government required anyone to buy any good or service. You may think that we are required to "purchase" Medicare, but really we aren't! If you never have a job, you don't have to pay in. Also, Medicare is quite clearly from tax revenue paid by everyone with a job, and calling the insurance mandate (or paying the fine) in this bill a tax (which is what it is), completely changes the structure of the law and voids it.

    So, all of that said, UHC may be a phenomenal idea that would work very well in the United States, but this law ISN'T how you do it. It's completely jammed with pork, political payoffs, tons of new regulations, and absolutely zero ways to actually control costs. Everyone knows it will lead to higher taxes, and now I see the president is moving toward a VAT, which makes people trust government even less!

    Combine all of that activity with the complete economic destruction of our country that will occur if the EPA is successful in implementing the ideas in the Cap and Trade bill that was soundly rejected in Congress, and this government is not doing itself any favors in promoting its policies.

    And the real, honest to goodness tragedy in this bill is that a few people with a very far-left agenda twisted a lot of Democrats' arms to pass it, and its going to cost them their seat in Congress. Even the most moderate Democrat will no longer be allowed to carry that label; they will forever be tied to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. That may play well in San Francisco and Chicago, but in most of the country (where people prefer their candidates to be center-right according to polls), good Democratic leaders will go down to defeat in their quest to pass this law.

    Essentially, we've now set our country up to be dominated by the extreme left or the extreme right, depending on who is in power in any elected body. For at least the short-term (2-10 years), even the most common-sense Democratic ideas will never see the light of day as a result of this law. Most polls show that except for New York and Hawaii, Democratic Senators up for re-election are trailing very badly in the polls, (Even Barbara Boxer in California is trailing), and members of the House are not faring any better. Dick Morris (among many others), former political adviser to Bill Clinton, is now projecting that Republicans will win the House and Senate.

    I don't say all that for political reasons in all sincerity. What I'm saying is the progressive agenda will now be set back by at least 10 years by this law (which may not even be upheld in court), and could even possibly be repealed in 2012. By showing that reconciliation, bribes, and straight-party votes can be used effectively, the Democrats have set themselves up for the first Republican president with majorities in both houses to completely repeal what they've worked for all their lives.

    Why does this matter?

    If the bill had not been pushed through so aggressively and secretively, and not secured by bribing members of Congress; I would almost guarantee you the Democrats would have held Congress and the White House long enough to achieve their ultimate goal of a single-payer system. But they didn't, and now no one's happy.
     
  10. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125732/Congressional-Job-Approval.aspx

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125753/Enthusiasm-Voting.aspx

    On the front page, you'll see 54% of Republicans are very enthusatic about voting, and only 35% of Democrats are. In 1994, when Republicans won the House and Senate, it was 44% to 38%

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/127223/Parties-Even-Congressional-Midterm-Preferences.aspx

    And most importantly, this probably isn't the best time to propose new mandates on employers that will discourage them from hiring:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
     
  11. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    About using current poll numbers to make a case that health care reform is bad:


    1) Some historical perspective with regard to Medicare (quoted from Washington Post)
    • A majority, 54%, said it was a serious problem that "government medical insurance
      for the aged would be a big step toward socialized medicine."
    • Today, of course, Medicare is overwhelmingly popular.
    2) Support for the Iraq war was near 60% in 2002, then dropped into the
    30% range by 2006 and are still 30% today. What does that say about polls
    in the same year that the government takes "bold" action?

    Why are the new health care rules "unpopular" at this moment? Is it because
    of the new rule changes (how many people have actually read the law?), or is
    it because the republican bullhorn is blasting 24/7 telling people that we
    should be scared at socialism on the rise?

    Citing polls, while trying to influence the polls through 24/7 bullhorning, is a
    curious and somewhat effective strategy. It is interesting to watch Fox, Rove,
    et. al. engage in this behavior.

    What matters, in my opinion, is not the polls, or the nonsensical defense of
    the status quo by the party who had 8 years to enact protections for people
    with pre-existing conditions, and blew the opportunity. Only one thing occurs
    to me in reading the new law, that children and adults with pre-existing
    conditions will no longer be denied access to health care.
     
  12. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    1. Medicare is overwhelmingly popular? With who?

    Doctors? Nope.

    Patients? No.

    Suppliers? No Way.

    Taxpayers like me that are paying in but are unlikely to receive any benefit? Not really.

    And was it a "big step toward socialized medicine?" Well this law certainly expands upon the basic concepts within Medicare and Medicaid. So if it walks like a duck..

    2. You might read your "bullhorn" response and consider it could answer your own question.

    3. So if the Republicans had bribed Congressmen and negotiated the law behind closed doors; then passed a reform bill on a 100% party-line vote, you would have been OK with that? What if the Republicans had done the same thing to vote to go to war in Iraq? I suppose you probably would not have liked that.

    When you say "How many people have read the law," you should also include the majority of the people who voted for it, including Nancy Pelosi who said, not once, but twice, "we'll have to pass it first to see what's in it."

    And if Fox News, a cable news outlet, has the power to sway that much public opinion, there must be a lot of people watching Fox News; which further proves that this administration's radical (yes, I said radical) far-left agenda is pushing the country much further to the right; which will even further delay the need for incremental reforms. If this president's agenda were not so radical, I would actually feel very badly that this country will be in complete political gridlock come November.

    The elimination of pre-existing conditions is an exciting prospect; I just hope that some of these doctors that are bailing out of the industry in anticipation of this fiasco decide to stay around.

    Would you stay around if your pay were cut for sending too many patients to specialists? I guarantee you the American Medical Association is in a complete state of panic right now because the promised "Doctor Fix" still has not passed, and it was the only reason they supported the bill.

    And I sure do feel bad for those Democrats that voted for the bill when the unions figure out they were lied to. That is going to get ugly.
     
  13. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313

    The New England Journal of Medicine polled 6,000 randomly selected physicians (AMA members, by the way)
    http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home:
    "it seems clear that the majority of U.S. physicians support using both public and private insurance options to expand
    coverage. A majority of physicians also support the expansion of Medicare. Support for the public option is consistent
    across physician specialties, practice settings, and regions of the country"
    When it comes to our new health care rules, the only thing to fear is fear itself.
     
  14. chbarnes

    chbarnes Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,215
    Actually, the AMA supports the legislation, even though it didn't address ongoing grievances like the sustainable growth rate for Medicare.
    This isn't even approximately, a government takeover of health care. To some degree, that happened years ago with Medicare. Today, Medicare fees and policies provide a benchmark by which other insurance policies are measured.

    Contrary to popular belief, Medicare is not directly administered by the Federal government, but by private contractors who have won competitive bids to provide the service, but must adhere to government standards. That's why Medicare coverage for certain services varies by region across the US. Different carriers interpret the rules differently.

    Nevertheless, Medicare is the clearest, most transparent insurer I have to deal with. You always know where you stand and have a good idea what will be covered. However, you really have to have a second policy to cover the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover.

    In contrast, the Medicare Advantage plans are a nightmare. They provide inducements such as dental and eyeglasses, but can often leave enrollees with high uncovered expenses. I understand why the new legislation decreases support for these policies.

    While the new legislation is controversial, Medicare actually affects more lives. I See few people calling for the elimination of Medicare.

    Chuck
     
  15. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    Think how much money and hassles we'd all save with single payer.
     
  16. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    This article is dated September of 2009, way back when they thought there would be a "doctor fix" passed immediately after the bill was.

    But if you would like to go back that far, here's an article which draws from sources within the New York Times. It appears about 2 results down in Google from where you found that one. Ignore that the article is about the 45% of physicians who would quit if the bill passed; look at the section about the AMA...

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

    The poll your article cites is the only one I've seen where physicians "support" the bill; and it's used all the time by supporters, and it was done by Gallup in September of 2009.

    The only thing we have to fear is outdated articles used out of context. That and massive trillion-dollar laws passed in nearly complete secrecy.
     
  17. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    You know, you keep saying this. Over and over and over. What exactly do you mean?
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  18. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
  19. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    It's here, Karla... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
    According to documents provided by former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush, ten days after taking office in January 2001, instructed his aides to look for a way to overthrow the Iraqi regime. A secret memo entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" was discussed in January and February 2001, and a Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts", included a map of potential areas for petroleum exploration.
     
  20. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380

    Yay, Conspiracy Theories... My favorite topic. :D
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice