The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[wendybeth]

Why does it have to be a system like either? I get the feeling that the systems of Canada and Britain keep getting thrown into this conversation because most Americans have a negative image of them and it helps fuel the Anti fires. Plenty of other countries have health care models we could follow just as easily, if we were so inclined. Personally, if it does happen, I think it will likely be a new type, given our long history with insurance, etc, that most other countries have not experienced.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

An increase in demand can lead to an increase in supply, but it would most certainly start with a shortage of the supply. Short supply with increased demand increases the cost until supply can be increased. That presents another problem, in that increaing supply isn't as simple as going to a doctor manufacturer and having them make more. We have to have people that want to become doctors, are willing to study long enough to become doctors (and pay the tuition for it), and are qualified to become doctors. So I disgaree with the foundation of your first paragraph. I am not arguing for rationing (though I think it is going to happen based on supply and demand), nor am I abandoning those economic principles.

You are still saying that medical coverage is earned. That certain people do not deserve to have it. That certain people should go bankrupt when they get sick.

I say this unequivocally: This is morally wrong.

For conservatives to say that they have the moral high ground on this issue is preposterous. As I believe it was Strangler Lewis said, either you get help from family, or your neighbors, or your church....or you just scale it up. People that live in America are my neighbors. They are my community. I care about them. I know this goes against basic conservative principles, but what it follows is basic moral principles.

To follow your logic regarding supply and demand - again, a rather worrisome moral choice. Instead of allowing the system to grow (and face the growing pains) to match the need, you'd rather keep it tight, allowing only those who can pay to receive care.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have been there.

You know what? I survived. I didn't have much of anything material. I have experienced death, not poverty, but a lack of meterial possessions, and most of that came from paying for my mom's health care.

You were lucky, and you should realize that. You could have easily been on the street. My family didn't have medical coverage either, and paying for things like surgery and a broken arm put a huge dent. Why can't you extrapolate that some people don't actually make it past that debt?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ok, I'm visiting heritage.org. Already I've got something to say.

link

The federal government would decide the level of health benefits that Americans would re*ceive through the exchange. These rules would apply to the new national health plan and all par*ticipating private health plans.

From Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan nonprofit:

Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the “minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.

Here's a full Heritage article supposedly about why unions support this bill. This is just a snippet:

The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.[4]

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans.[5] Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers--including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers.

Again, FactCheck:

Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by labor unions or nonprofit groups. Specifically, it covers “retirees and . . . spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees” who are covered by “employment-based plans” that provide health benefits. It’s open to any “group health benefits plan that . . . is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations,” as well as voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (page 66). Furthermore, the aim of the fund is to cut premiums, copays and deductibles for the retirees. Payment “shall not be used to reduce the costs of an employer.”

Sorry Leo, but this site is lying to you and misleading you. And that's just the first two things I found...

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

You are still saying that medical coverage is earned. That certain people do not deserve to have it. That certain people should go bankrupt when they get sick.

I completely disagree. Where did I say certain people deserve not to have it? I said that putting another 40 million people on some form of government assistance overwhelms the system and creates an immediate shortage, which harms EVERYONE.

As far as a moral high ground....your level of judgmentalism is astounding. I think the corruption of the political system and the imminent collapse of government programs like medicare and social security are great examples of why this is a travesty and will never work. I'd like to see something work. I don't think this is it. As Obama said when not on the teleprompter - "Look at Fed Ex and UPS - they're doing all right. It's the postal service that's ahving all the trouble." Another goverment run program doing horribly. I thought it hillarious when Obama said something to the effect of "Medicare is failing, so we need a different government program to step in". Ludicrous.

Why, when the government is running a 1.6 trillion deficit, and the CBO says this will not save money and in fact may raise the deficit, would I trust them? As a disclaimer, everyone here is well aware (or should be) of how disgusted I was with Bush and the way he spent money. It isn't an Obama thing, it's a government thing. I was against Bush's perscritpion drug program as well.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

As Obama said when not on the teleprompter - "Look at Fed Ex and UPS - they're doing all right. It's the postal service that's ahving all the trouble."

Link?

Not that it's untrue, FedEx and UPS aren't struggling like the USPS is. Maybe the postal system should be privatized. I get all the packages sent via FedEx and UPS but I don't get all the mail sent via USPS.

[scaeagles]

He says it somewhere around 55 seconds of this video clip.

He is trying to say how private insurance companies won't be run out of business, and ends up completely indicting the government run one. However, I will say that he's quite homnest in what he says. It is the government run one of the three that is running over budget and can't control costs.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I completely disagree. Where did I say certain people deserve not to have it? I said that putting another 40 million people on some form of government assistance overwhelms the system and creates an immediate shortage, which harms EVERYONE.

I'm saying, if it will take some growing pains to get to a point where every American has health care, then it's worth it.

Right now, there are people without care, without options. People who go broke due to medical problems. For them, the current situation is more harmful than any possible shortages. When you say it harms EVERYONE, you mean EVERYONE WHO HAS CURRENT INSURANCE, which again cuts out those who are not as fortunate as you and I. I retain my point.

I think the corruption of the political system and the imminent collapse of government programs like medicare and social security are great examples of why this is a travesty and will never work. I'd like to see something work.

If you want to talk about the imminent collapse of gov't programs, please provide a link. If you want to talk about funding the programs, that's a whole other question. But if you want to talk about programs that work...

Medicare works. The satisfaction with Medicare is higher than satisfaction with private insurance.

(Full disclosure, I got the chart from this opinion piece, but the chart is from data from the US Dept of Health & Human Services.)

Social Security does what it's supposed to do - keep people above the poverty line. It was never meant to be a retirement parachute. It keeps the elderly off the streets.

[BarTopDancer]

I started looking at the Heritage Foundation link and CP did a much better job than I summarizing and linking up than I can do this late. But I'll look at it later.

I do have to say though, it appears that it's just another "outrage" site spinning incorrect information.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

If you want to talk about the imminent collapse of gov't programs, please provide a link. If you want to talk about funding the programs, that's a whole other question.

I guess this is where we won't agree. I see running out of funding as a imminent collapse. You see it as a need for more funding.

So the government can just take more and more and more to keep funding this stuff.

What do you think will happen when social security can no longer be funded? The only choice is to once increase taxes.

Look at the Obama example of the post office. They run out of money, they raise the cost of a postage stamp, yet they still run huge deficits. How will this vary from what will happen with any medical programs? It won't. In fact, it doesn't. It appears as if you admit to financial insolvency of SS and medicare, but I suppose if we keep throwing more money at it it wil be fine. This is what happens with all government programs.

[wendybeth]

I think the message that keeps getting lost in all this is that health care reform largely depends on negotiating with the various entities that are driving the costs out of control. I suspects you base your assertions of the price of universal access to health care on current costs, Scaeagles, would that be accurate? Other countries pay far less for pharmaceuticals and equipment, which drives down the costs of testing and care in general. We not only subsidize those without healthcare in our country at present, but the world as well. Most of the medical companies charge us outrageous prices, all because they can. It's interesting that some of the most promising research into cures for diseases and syndromes occurs in countries where the healthcare systems are heavily regulated. It would seem that even without the profit motive, researchers and other medical personnel are still motivated to come to the aid of their fellow human beings.