| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:24 pm Post subject: How health care reform went down |
 |
|
I'm sure some won't appreciate this, but some will. I'm posting it for them. It came from a digg comment thread...
| Quote: | Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"
Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"
12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States
Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"
Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"
Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"
Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"
Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"
Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"
Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."
One month later
Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever."
Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster"
Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!"
Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal"
Republicans: "Smaller government"
Democrats: "That's not very specific"
Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting"
Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals"
Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!"
Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!"
Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?"
Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)"
Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!"
Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!"
Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Blind Willie
Lux Veteran
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: Satellite of Love
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another way of looking at it:
American public: "Too many of us have no health insurance because we can't afford it. Help!"
Federal government: "OK. Now you're all required to have health insurance or pay a yearly fine." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its not perfect, but I think we're in a better spot than where we were yesterday. 30 million more people are going to be insured, and those who think they are insured aren't going to be surprised and have the insurance pulled back at the last minute. Those are huge, and worth getting in the face of not getting anything at all.
It's not nearly a finished product, but I doubted we'd even get this far. When we start seeing health care as an inalienable right, then we'll be somewhere real. If this didn't pass, though, I doubt anything like it would happen for 20 years.
Also, when we stop letting our political system get financed by corporations, we'll see some actual governance. But for now, I chuckle at blown up stereotypes trying to get things done and almost accidentally reaching a level of success. That's why I posted this.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shockandawe
Lux Vigilante
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 1884
Location: In orbit around Kerbin.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hoodie wrote: | Its not perfect, but I think we're in a better spot than where we were yesterday. 30 million more people are going to be insured, and those who think they are insured aren't going to be surprised and have the insurance pulled back at the last minute. Those are huge, and worth getting in the face of not getting anything at all.
It's not nearly a finished product, but I doubted we'd even get this far. When we start seeing health care as an inalienable right, then we'll be somewhere real. If this didn't pass, though, I doubt anything like it would happen for 20 years.
Also, when we stop letting our political system get financed by corporations, we'll see some actual governance. But for now, I chuckle at blown up stereotypes trying to get things done and almost accidentally reaching a level of success. That's why I posted this. |
But at what cost? I wonder what deals were made behind closed doors to get this through. The cornhusker blowback (or whatever it was called) comes to mind. A lot of people didn't want this.
....is it November yet comrad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimrod7
Lux Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 9421
Location: Under the big top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
∞ Nim checks his calendar ∞
Nope. Still March. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shockandawe wrote: | The cornhusker blowback (or whatever it was called) comes to mind. A lot of people didn't want this.
|
Do you know why this makes me  that you bring this up?
I'll give you three guesses, and one of them should be that it's written out of the bill by the reconciliation measure. Your question is like if I asked, "Why did all the Republicans vote to keep the Cornhusker Kickback as law when the Democrats tried to repeal it?"
So why did all the Republicans vote to keep the Cornhusker Kickback? Huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimrod7
Lux Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 9421
Location: Under the big top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the tide
:D
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 3606
Location: Charlotte, US
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shockandawe wrote: | | But at what cost? |
All that is good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nimrod7 wrote: | |
If you keep sitting on your butt eating that much popcorn and drinking that much coke, you're gonna get reaaaaallly out of shape. In a few years you'll be thankful for this health care reform! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimrod7
Lux Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 9421
Location: Under the big top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "In a few years" is the key phrase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| david frum wrote: | Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifter
Lux Moderator
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 6629
Location: An undisclosed location... for reasons of security, and therefore... insecurity...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blind Willie wrote: | Another way of looking at it:
American public: "Too many of us have no health insurance because we can't afford it. Help!"
Federal government: "OK. Now you're all required to have health insurance or pay a yearly fine." |
My favorite part of it all BW.
Look at the bright side. If the fine is cheaper than the insurance, you can get insurance at anytime you need it since pre-existing conditions do not matter now (if any companies survive under those laws)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blind Willie
Lux Veteran
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: Satellite of Love
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hoodie wrote: | | 30 million more people are going to be insured |
Only because these 30 million people are going to be required by federal law to purchase insurance from private companies. I find that troubling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the tide
:D
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 3606
Location: Charlotte, US
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Drifter wrote: | | (if any companies survive under those laws) |
U.S. Stocks Rise as Drug Shares Gain on House Health Bill
March 22, 2010, 4:45 PM EDT
U.S. stocks rose, erasing an early drop, as drugmakers gained after the House of Representatives passed an overhaul of the health-care industry and analyst upgrades lifted companies from Citigroup Inc. to Boeing Co.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Inc. climbed at least 1.4 percent to help lead health-care companies higher after the House approved legislation that will ensure tens of millions of uninsured Americans will get medical coverage. Boeing Co. advanced 1.7 percent to help lead gains in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Citigroup Inc. jumped 3.6 percent as Richard X. Bove at Rochdale Securities LLC advised buying the shares.
“The health-care legislation approval removes the uncertainty,” said Richard Sichel, chief investment officer at the Philadelphia Trust Co., which manages $1.4 billion. “On top of that, the shares had been beaten down, so you can find reasonably valued companies.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifter
Lux Moderator
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 6629
Location: An undisclosed location... for reasons of security, and therefore... insecurity...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're cherry pickin my comment there tidy. I was talking about the scenario I described... meaning if nobody gets insurance until they need a coverage payout, as opposed to paying in for years. I think you knew that though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BW, you're right. I do think now that we're going in this direction, there will be more push for a public option. A lot of these things all need to fall together; everyone needed coverage if we were going to do away with pre-existing conditions. Now that everyone needs to have coverage, I think we'll see a more honest look at a public option. I certainly don't think this is done, just a step in the right direction.
There was an interesting editorial in the NYT a few weeks back, about opting out of pre-existing conditions clauses; I didn't think it was the answer, but it was an interesting idea. I feel like it might have been Frank Rich about 2 weeks ago; I'm about to go out for a bit, but if no one recognizes what I'm talking about I'll post it later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimrod7
Lux Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 9421
Location: Under the big top
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hoodie wrote: | | I certainly don't think this is done, just a step in the right direction. |
You are right. This is just the first step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Lux Townie
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 5613
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I personally think that certain things are not congruent - safety/profit (such as fire and police) - health care should be the same |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mbauer
Not A Truck
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 3930
Location: Tallahassee
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's probably not a surprise to any of you that I was very happy with the passage, although I do have some concern with the mandatory paying thing. All in all, I think it's a step in the right direction, as Hoodie said, far from perfect sure, but a good step. And plenty more work to do.
I also think David Frum is right on. This whole "Party of NO!" approach is going to backfire on the Republicans. The Dems now have a major, historic piece of legislative achievement to run on. All the Republicans can say is, "We called them Communist, Nazi, baby killing, liars!" Not realizing how incredibly ignorant, blind, and intolerant that makes them look.
IMHO
MB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the tide
:D
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 3606
Location: Charlotte, US
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Drifter wrote: | | You're cherry pickin my comment there tidy. I was talking about the scenario I described... meaning if nobody gets insurance until they need a coverage payout, as opposed to paying in for years. I think you knew that though... |
I definitely know what you mean but it should be noted that the market reacted positively which, according to many pundits (cough), wasn't supposed to happen.
Consequently - I look at that positive reaction by Wall Street as a small failure...
Of course I'm glad the bill (and reconciliation bill) passed, but I think it's a mistake to play by industry ground rules. And yet I understand why many provisions were removed and never fully explored, which, in my estimation, is the sign of good legislation. Contrary to popular belief, this bill was influenced heavily by Republican concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest
Lux Newbie
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Location: Southern NH
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An example of why this will help somewhat.
The hospital submitted their bill just fine, the "independent" doctor who read the CT didn't and charged me $200. After 3 months and some run around final price with insurance was $87. I ended up paying $5. My premiums covered the $82 out of the insurance companies pocket. The $113 dollars is the savings their going after by making everyone get insurance.
After that we can figure out why he get $87 for 5 minutes of work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifter
Lux Moderator
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 6629
Location: An undisclosed location... for reasons of security, and therefore... insecurity...
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What if Congress mandated everyone in the country must buy a gun? or a bible? or to secure a Senators vote in the future, we'll have mandates in bills that citizens must purchase the products of their largest campaign contributor or go to jail? If they can force you to buy something, they can force you to buy anything...
-----------------------
| the tide wrote: | | I definitely know what you mean but it should be noted that the market reacted positively which, according to many pundits (cough), wasn't supposed to happen. |
The drug and insurance companies support this bill, but is it good for them, or for the citizens of the country? They just got 30 million new customers...
-----------------------
If this great big damnass law is so great a deal for the American masses, why are the peeps who wrote the entire thing exempt? Why are they not gettin on the express train with the people they are so desperate to help?
------------------------
I'm just waiting for all the big feckin easter eggs to start popping out... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the tide
:D
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 3606
Location: Charlotte, US
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Drifter wrote: |
| the tide wrote: | | I definitely know what you mean but it should be noted that the market reacted positively which, according to many pundits (cough), wasn't supposed to happen. |
The drug and insurance companies support this bill, but is it good for them, or for the citizens of the country? They just got 30 million new customers... |
| the tide wrote: | | Consequently - I look at that positive reaction by Wall Street as a small failure... |
Since when was Communism good for drug and insurance companies?
Just sayin'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a long answer to your question Drift, but it all starts with one thing:
do we as a country value money over human life?
You see, if we don't, we let someone who comes to the ER that has been in an automobile accident die if they don't have insurance or can't prove they can pay. But the obvious answer is, we do take care of them. This has to be paid for somehow.
So extend that a bit, something less dramatic: someone has cancer. Or a history of cancer, or a history of something, anything, that allows an insurance company to deny insurance, or drop someone. Which is something that happens all of the time. Fortis has been in the news recently for targetting HIV positive patients and dropping them as company policy: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317
We then make insurers not drop patients, and not make it impossible to get insurance if you've got a preexisting condition.
But oops, now it doesn't make sense for anyone to get insurance until they already need it.
I know you know all of this. I know you know the chain of events is unsustainable unless everyone has to have insurance. I know you know the denial of coverage and dropping of insurance were two huge problems under the old system, ones that challenged our humanity to ignore. Really, they're tied to that first question I brought up: what do we value more as a country, money or life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the tide
:D
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 3606
Location: Charlotte, US
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hoodie wrote: | There's a long answer to your question Drift, but it all starts with one thing:
do we as a country value money over human life?
You see, if we don't, we let someone who comes to the ER that has been in an automobile accident die if they don't have insurance or can't prove they can pay. But the obvious answer is, we do take care of them. This has to be paid for somehow.
So extend that a bit, something less dramatic: someone has cancer. Or a history of cancer, or a history of something, anything, that allows an insurance company to deny insurance, or drop someone. Which is something that happens all of the time. Fortis has been in the news recently for targetting HIV positive patients and dropping them as company policy: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317
We then make insurers not drop patients, and not make it impossible to get insurance if you've got a preexisting condition.
But oops, now it doesn't make sense for anyone to get insurance until they already need it.
I know you know all of this. I know you know the chain of events is unsustainable unless everyone has to have insurance. I know you know the denial of coverage and dropping of insurance were two huge problems under the old system, ones that challenged our humanity to ignore. Really, they're tied to that first question I brought up: what do we value more as a country, money or life? |
This is a wonderful argument.
And yet it's an argument that will go no where simply because the opposition KNOWS that the free market can never be achieved. It's humanly impossible. And no matter how much de-regulation takes place there will always be regulation that interferes with the perfect system. Always an opposing position to blame for not quite getting to utopia after 6 years of complete control of both Congress and Executive (SC too). It's unachievable and politically brilliant tactic.
It's absolute free-market or communism to them.
Last edited by the tide on Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:18 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camaro
Lux Newbie
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 75
Location: WV, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject: Camaro |
|
|
Print trillions of dollars while taxing our b*lls off isnt really the soundest of economic theory, so no wonder the price of health insurance cost were increasing, its called inflation. So that is the reason to take it over? Forcing citizens to engage in commerece is fraud and down right unconstitutional.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.
John Locke
"The government that governs least governs best."
Thomas Paine
Last edited by Camaro on Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:43 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I fail to see what most of this has to do with health care? It seems like a scattershot of talking points. Or is this a statement that you like the bill, since the CBO estimates its going to cut defecits by $138 billion over the next 10 years? Woohoo, fiscal responsibility rocks!
Last edited by hoodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shockandawe
Lux Vigilante
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 1884
Location: In orbit around Kerbin.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hoodie wrote: | There's a long answer to your question Drift, but it all starts with one thing:
do we as a country value money over human life?
You see, if we don't, we let someone who comes to the ER that has been in an automobile accident die if they don't have insurance or can't prove they can pay. But the obvious answer is, we do take care of them. This has to be paid for somehow.
So extend that a bit, something less dramatic: someone has cancer. Or a history of cancer, or a history of something, anything, that allows an insurance company to deny insurance, or drop someone. Which is something that happens all of the time. Fortis has been in the news recently for targetting HIV positive patients and dropping them as company policy: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317
We then make insurers not drop patients, and not make it impossible to get insurance if you've got a preexisting condition.
But oops, now it doesn't make sense for anyone to get insurance until they already need it.
I know you know all of this. I know you know the chain of events is unsustainable unless everyone has to have insurance. I know you know the denial of coverage and dropping of insurance were two huge problems under the old system, ones that challenged our humanity to ignore. Really, they're tied to that first question I brought up: what do we value more as a country, money or life? |
I see this and I agree with you to an extent, but what I don't understand is if this is indeed a simple solution to your problem.
Couldn't a small bill have been passed making it illegal to dismiss/deny someone based on a pre-existing condition?
Being denied and not wanting the insurance are two different things. This is where i think Congress crossed the line. It doesn't matter whether or not a person may not want health insurance, but that freedom of choice was something that we as a nation have built ourselves upon. Now we no longer have that choice. We are now forced to purchase it.
They could have done this without taking away our freedom of choice.
Last edited by Shockandawe on Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odelay
ooodelayheehoo!
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 2122
Location: Yonder...
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we are skipping some steps in "reform". I agree that some of the things insurance companies do are wrong to preexisting customers. At the same time, how can they predict someone will cost them $300 a month but only charge them $80?
As far as being forced into coverage or being fined, is that still in the new revision? I knew it was in the original but haven't looked at the revised one.
No matter what, I don't think there can be a middle ground. It's all or nothing in my eyes. When is the last time a Government program turned a profit? How can a company compete with one that can take a loss?
I think we are better off coming up with some rules rather than trying to remold an entire industry.
I do like the comment of "Party of NO!" because it all really makes me sick. I am more right than left, but the right has been acting pretty childish recently and I just don't understand. heh, that's a lot comming from me. :p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoodie
Burning Man
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 4746
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The reason why that can't happen that way is the two are tied together: if pre-existing conditions go out the window, there would be no reason to sign up for insurance until your health gets in bad shape, and you get insurance to pay your bills for you. And, if someone without insurance had an accident and couldn't pay, they'd still need to be paid for from somewhere; that somewhere is why your aspirin in a hospital setting is billed for $200.
And this is all why the public option is such an important deal. It would just be an option, so people wouldn't be forced to pay to companies whose goal it is to make money; they would have an option (but not a necessity) from the government.
One side effect of all of this, is that with denial of coverage out the window, the insurance companies actually have a reason to pursue preventive care and keep people healthy, so they don't have to pay big bills for them when they get sick. We might actually see some interest and support in food reform, preventive care, and overall health. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
