[AlexdeLarge]

House bill would make health care a right
link

Rahm it through link

"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."

Translation: We will not read the bill that will take over a third of the US Economy, but Obama wants it and we are in control so we will pass it anyway......

What will it look like?


http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf



Of course keep in mind that this cumbersome bureacratic nightmare will not apply to Pelosi and the rest of Congress. She will not have to wait to get the best care................and her Botox will be free, courtesy of you the taxpayer.(aka suckas)

[mattduke]

State media outlets to hammer in the message

link

[frankthetank]

I still think that bigger things are at work here. There is some reason that corporate America (world?) is behind this. Is it because they are sick of insuring people and want the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

[Prince]

I still think that bigger things are at work here. There is some reason that corporate America (world?) is behind this. Is it because they are sick of insuring people and want the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

Agreed that something doesn't compute here. I can't figure it out yet, though. Corporations obviously seek to reduce costs, but in this proposal employers must provide healthcare coverage or face an 8 percent penalty from what I gather. On this surface, this doesn't seem to benefit them. On the other hand, perhaps these companies now have their excuse to push healthcare costs onto the employer, so rather than get coverage for say $25/month, it may go up to $150/month.

Another thing I don't understand. Let's say you have healthcare through your employer, but that it isn't very good or doesn't cover much. Some sack of shit gets "free" coverage through the government that covers far more than yours does. How is it fair for someone who pays nothing in the system get better and cheaper (i.e. "free") coverage than someone who pays in through their employer. This is a disaster in the making.

[Niagara]

What will it look like?

It looks like the schematic for my ASUS motherboard. Probably equally complicated.

[vision-master]

I still think that bigger things are at work here. There is some reason that corporate America (world?) is behind this. Is it because they are sick of insuring people and want the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

Agreed that something doesn't compute here. I can't figure it out yet, though. Corporations obviously seek to reduce costs, but in this proposal employers must provide healthcare coverage or face an 8 percent penalty from what I gather. On this surface, this doesn't seem to benefit them. On the other hand, perhaps these companies now have their excuse to push healthcare costs onto the employer, so rather than get coverage for say $25/month, it may go up to $150/month.

Another thing I don't understand. Let's say you have healthcare through your employer, but that it isn't very good or doesn't cover much. Some sack of shit gets "free" coverage through the government that covers far more than yours does. How is it fair for someone who pays nothing in the system get better and cheaper (i.e. "free") coverage than someone who pays in through their employer. This is a disaster in the making.

It's called Capitalism.

Your free to buy insurance on the open market.

Just like auto insurance.

[dinopello]

It's called Capitalism.

Your free to buy insurance on the open market.

Just like auto insurance.

The comparrison with auto-insurance is interesting. The law requires that you obtain private insurance or else (if no private company will cover you because of your record) you must pay an uninsured motorist fee annually to the state. I'm not sure what this is used for or if the state can refuse to take the money and therefore refuse to allow you to drive ?

[Prince]

It's called Capitalism.

Your [sic] free to buy insurance on the open market.

Just like auto insurance.

Come on now, you're smarter than this. It may be called capitalism, but such usage as it applies to our state of affairs is erroneous. At best we have oligarchic socialism.

[vision-master]

It's called Capitalism.

Your [sic] free to buy insurance on the open market.

Just like auto insurance.

Come on now, you're smarter than this. It may be called capitalism, but such usage as it applies to our state of affairs is erroneous. At best we have oligarchic socialism.

What are you talking about. You are free to purchase your own insurance in our 'free market'. Not happy with your current insurance, find coverage that suits your needs. What's so hard about this?

[rangerone314]

Essentially the title of this post is correct. Rights are only a convention of society, that a group of people decide to recognize. They don't derive from God or Nature or the Constitution.

Thus when someone says "I have a right to X" they are really saying "I want X and I want you to recognize that I deserve to get X". They are simply wrapping up their request in the word "right" which has a moralistic connotation to it.

Do people have a right to health care?

That being said, I find it hard to trust anything those bunch of baboons in Congress do. They could find a way to screw up a free lunch. Actually, they conduct their business with huge deficits thinking that there IS something as a free lunch.

Its only a free lunch if someonelse is paying for it... (in this case our children or grandchildren)

[Pretorian]

What I dont get here is this: why countries with an income per capita 10, 20 30 times less can provide free or nearly free healthcare for its citizens and US can't? Its just so fucking hard!
why countries with an income per capita 10, 20 30 times less than US's can provide healthcare even to foreign citizens who happened to be there?
why countries with an income per capita 10, 20, 30 times less than US's can provide free or nearly free medical education?

[frankthetank]

I think that has to do with profits, paper pushers, hookers, blow?

If you go looking for private insurance, its expensive unless you get "catastrophic" coverage. Like a policy where you pay the first $10K or so. I know a guy who is going this route. Is putting money aside in an account to pay out his health care costs. I think he plans on doing this once his kids are cut from his policy (which i take it must be very expensive if he is going this route).

My cousin is under the La Crosse county employee health care plan here in Wisconsin and its weird. They don't have any insurance companies, they just pay out the claims. They keep a large pool of money on hand... Must be nice! Not sure what their plan runs them or what their deductibles are like, but i've never heard them complain.

[ian807]

Capitalism is not a magic fairy that solves all problems. If it did, the health care debate wouldn't be happening. There would be no economic crisis.

Experiment proves. Extreme communism and extreme capitalism both eventually fail.

Most wealthy western democracies have some form nationalized health care. It's expensive. It gets rationed. It gets done. Hordes of Swedes and Canadians are not wandering the streets impoverished and dying of disease. And nobody goes bankrupt over an earache.

Sorry guys. Time to grow up. Living in a complex society means compromise and balance. Sometimes you use a government solution (e.g. defense, road systems, electrical grids, food and drug safety standards, libraries, your Mom's social security check...). Sometimes you need private ones.

[mattduke]

Capitalism is not a magic fairy that solves all problems. If it did, the health care debate wouldn't be happening. There would be no economic crisis.

Experiment proves. Extreme communism and extreme capitalism both eventually fail.

Most wealthy western democracies have some form nationalized health care. It's expensive. It gets rationed. It gets done. Hordes of Swedes and Canadians are not wandering the streets impoverished and dying of disease. And nobody goes bankrupt over an earache.

Sorry guys. Time to grow up. Living in a complex society means compromise and balance. Sometimes you use a government solution (e.g. defense, road systems, electrical grids, food and drug safety standards, libraries, your Mom's social security check...). Sometimes you need private ones.

So long as I'm free to opt out.

[ian807]

So long as I'm free to opt out.

I agree. That should be an option. For that matter, if you voluntarily do something awful to yourself (e.g. shoot speed, drink your liver to death, harm yourself in a suicide/robbery/murder attempt), or you want extreme care for your 101 year old aunt Matilda, I won't be wild about paying. I think that's where rationing comes in, and where it makes sense.

[vision-master]

Capitalism is not a magic fairy that solves all problems. If it did, the health care debate wouldn't be happening. There would be no economic crisis.

Experiment proves. Extreme communism and extreme capitalism both eventually fail.

Most wealthy western democracies have some form nationalized health care. It's expensive. It gets rationed. It gets done. Hordes of Swedes and Canadians are not wandering the streets impoverished and dying of disease. And nobody goes bankrupt over an earache.

Sorry guys. Time to grow up. Living in a complex society means compromise and balance. Sometimes you use a government solution (e.g. defense, road systems, electrical grids, food and drug safety standards, libraries, your Mom's social security check...). Sometimes you need private ones.

So long as I'm free to opt out.

That's part of the problem, people who can afford coverage, but choose not to. This makes everyone's premiums higher.

[AlexdeLarge]

[Fishman]

Pretorian
Excellent question. Most countries you mentioned provide a utilitarian egalitarian form of health care. If its proven to help, you get care, you may line up for care but SOME care is available to all. We provide ALL care to some. In England if you come into a hospital with a headache you may see a physician, get an exam, but extremely unlikely to have a CT unless clear changes are present. If they miss the diagnosis, tough. In the US, you frequently get a CT, the docs incentive is to miss nothing, thereby lowering their risk of litigation, regardless of the cost.

Prince
The unloading by corp America is easy. They tried to reduce healthcare costs during the 90s with managed care. The culture screamed bloody murder and sued like H*LL. Under government control, they say what does and does not get done, who are you going to sue?

[ian807]

who are you going to sue?

Probably nobody. Just like now. Most people are just too poor to sue, and no lawyer in his right mind will take a small case on contingency. "Justice" is for the rich, here in the USA.

[Fishman]

Ian
Only partially correct, any can and do sue IF the lawyer thinks they can convince 12 people of their viewpoint and the money gained is good enough, see John Edwards history. Even the rich don't sue on a small cases. Neither get to sue in most of the countries Pretorian brought up. "Justice" as you call it is a major reason health care is so expensive here. Its a balanced triad of cost, access to care, and quality/access to sub specialty care. We have less money, we want to insure everyone. What goes down?