Healthcare

[marksiwel]

So, someone one to boil down what the Current Healthcare Plan is or Isnt?
Frankly they talk about it, and say its like the Massachusetts plan, and having lived through that, it basically meant, you have to have insurance and it has to not suck.

I dont want this to turn into a Fight, I just want facts.

[03Lightningrocks]

Nobody is allowed to know what it is all about. Your not even suppose to ask what it is all about. I could actually turn you in and you would be forced into re-education camp and if you didn't come around to the right way of thinking, you could face being lobotomized, you would never again question the chosen one.

We are suppose to just take Odumbells word for it that it is going to put us one step closer to the Utopian state he and the other L.T.'s have always dreamed of.

[74novaman]

Sorry. Far too convoluted and complex to break down simply. Heritage Foundation has some interesting articles on it, but go in knowing they're from a right wing point of view.

[marksiwel]

Is it like any other countries Health Care plan?

Why are we doing this instead of Fixing Insurance companies?

[03Lightningrocks]

Why are we doing this instead of Fixing Insurance companies?

Exactly!

[74novaman]

Or Tort Reform?

[marksiwel]

Or Tort Reform?

Really when you look at it people are suing doctors at the same rate as they were in the 80's 90's its just with inflation its more money buts in % its about the same.

Tort reform just makes it harder for the non rich to sue.

Not that our Torts process is perfect or anything

[74novaman]

Links? I've never heard that argument against Tort Reform before. Not saying it isn't valid, just never looked into it.

I've kind of always figured the reason we never got any kind of meaningful tort reform is the guys making the laws are mainly lawyers...that and trail lawyers are one of the top contributors (especially to democrats)

[marksiwel]

Links? I've never heard that argument against Tort Reform before. Not saying it isn't valid, just never looked into it.

I've kind of always figured the reason we never got any kind of meaningful tort reform is the guys making the laws are mainly lawyers...that and trail lawyers are one of the top contributors (especially to democrats)

Links? Her name is "The Wife" (soon to be Lawyer), i'll try and pull up some links.

I think its the insurance companies passing the buck. Saying "Our Rates go up because people sue doctors" and then they give a handful of cash to whomever s in the Whitehouse/Senate that week.

[UpTheIrons]

If you believe the Grand Unified (Socialist) Theory, this is the first big step to socializing the country, and the hardest one to undo once it is done. Once passed, everything will be regulated as a "health" issue: Guns are bad, because they can hurt you. Gas-powered cars are causing asthma, so you must buy a hybrid or electric. Greenhouse gases are bad, so we must do wind and solar, no more coal-fired plants, and so on, etc.

Pres. Obama has said over and over that he favors "Single Payer" health care, which is the government providing coverage and doing all the stuff your current insurance company does (choosing doctors, allowing/disallowing coverage/procedures, setting amounts of copays and premiums), only not as well as the current business does it.

The R's have said over and over that health care needs to be fixed, and most of it could be done by allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines. If every company was able to sell insurance in every state, competition would drive the cost down (how much is debatable). They include tort reform along with that, because a few percent here, and a few percent there eventually adds up to a big savings (hopefully).

The D's have waffled between a version of the R's stuff and some version or full acceptance of "ObamaCare", whatever that is. None of the details have been released. There is a Senate bill and there is a House Bill, but both have to be 'reconciled' so that both houses agree, so what we've heard so far is likely to change some.

03lighningrocks is correct in a sense that we are not allowed to see it. All the negotiating has been behind closed doors (contra the campaign promise), except for that farce of a meeting a couple of weeks ago where the D's said how wonderful the plan was, and the R's complained about how bad it was.

On the one hand, they say it will be just like the plan the members of Congress have, yet the members of Congress are apparently exempt from having to buy in. There are fines you must pay if you don't buy coverage, but you may not qualify for the coverage the government offers. Even if it does pass, only half of the current uninsured in the country will wind up being covered by it, so why bother? (I was one of those for a while - while young and newly married, we didn't have insurance, we were indestructible. The few times we went to the doc was nowhere near what premiums would have cost us in those days)

The weird thing I read a couple of months back was that insurance companies will be compelled to not refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions, yet, the government plan would have a waiting period for pre-existing conditions. Have cancer? Sorry, you have to wait 6 months to get covered.

Again, the Grand Socialist Theory is that this plan, if it passes, will drive the insurance industry out of business, because they would not be able to afford to cover everyone for the rates the government would allow. This would cause people to be uninsured, and they would then have to join the government plan.

I'm tired of hearing both sides bicker and whine about it, but I am truly worried that if it passes, things like we see in England will happen here: a guy waits 4 months to get his broken arm fixed, 25 year old with a family history of cancer dies of cervical cancer because the gov't bean counters would not allow a scan, and so on. Then there was the Canadian (MP of Nova Scotia?) who came here for heart surgery, because they can't even do what he needed in Canada.

Have you noticed how well they do with Medicare? Heard the complaints about the VA hospital? That's what I worry about on a much larger scale.

Other folks - have I conveyed the jist of it? Is this what you've seen so far?

[dweyant]

Links? I've never heard that argument against Tort Reform before. Not saying it isn't valid, just never looked into it.

I've kind of always figured the reason we never got any kind of meaningful tort reform is the guys making the laws are mainly lawyers...that and trail lawyers are one of the top contributors (especially to democrats)

Links? Her name is "The Wife" (soon to be Lawyer), i'll try and pull up some links.

I think its the insurance companies passing the buck. Saying "Our Rates go up because people sue doctors" and then they give a handful of cash to whomever s in the Whitehouse/Senate that week.

[dweyant]

Links? I've never heard that argument against Tort Reform before. Not saying it isn't valid, just never looked into it.

I've kind of always figured the reason we never got any kind of meaningful tort reform is the guys making the laws are mainly lawyers...that and trail lawyers are one of the top contributors (especially to democrats)

Links? Her name is "The Wife" (soon to be Lawyer), i'll try and pull up some links.

I think its the insurance companies passing the buck. Saying "Our Rates go up because people sue doctors" and then they give a handful of cash to whomever s in the Whitehouse/Senate that week.

I have a friend who's wife is a ENT north of Dallas. She said that since Texas passed it's tort reform a number of years ago her liability insurance has dropped in 1/2. I forget the numbers but it was significant.

[marksiwel]

from another thread

Whadda ya bet the health bill would mandate no guns in the house for the health of the chill-drin? He who controls the health of a nation controls every aspect of a nation.

Has that been used by any other country with Healthcare? Canada,France, Sweden, ect?

Not sure on that, would be interesting to know. But a few months ago some pediatric magazine called for pediatricians to ask if they family owned guns and if so, to ask them to store them out of the house. If this health bill can restrict our weight, it wouldn't be surprising to restrict guns. Already insurance oftens bans behavior deemed risky, ie, sky diving, care racing, etc.

Anyone care to point out where in the healthcare bill it would restrict our weight or guns?

[wgoforth]

from another thread

Whadda ya bet the health bill would mandate no guns in the house for the health of the chill-drin? He who controls the health of a nation controls every aspect of a nation.

Has that been used by any other country with Healthcare? Canada,France, Sweden, ect?

Not sure on that, would be interesting to know. But a few months ago some pediatric magazine called for pediatricians to ask if they family owned guns and if so, to ask them to store them out of the house. If this health bill can restrict our weight, it wouldn't be surprising to restrict guns. Already insurance oftens bans behavior deemed risky, ie, sky diving, care racing, etc.

Anyone care to point out where in the healthcare bill it would restrict our weight or guns?

I don't know that anyone has even gotten to read it have they? I was thinking that was one of the problems is that it hasn't been fully released. Either way, such becomes the danger when one entity controls health care, is that if they deem something as dangerous (tobbacco, weight, etc) they can require you to stop it for coverage. In England they require compliance to drs orders, even when the patient has reasons to disagree, for continued treatments.

And does anyone really think a health bill would not get modified over the years? Whether it would begin to ban certain items doesn't mean it would not down the road. Again, is the danger when one entity mandates. Right now there are health insurance companies that will not cover you if you are overweight, or if you smoke. But another will at a higher premium. If only one company, that eliminates such competition.

A difference between the US vs these other nations is that they have had a frontal assault against guns. With the US constitution, they cannot make a frontal assault here, so we have to be on guard for back door approaches.

[marksiwel]

I don't know that anyone has even gotten to read it have they? I was thinking that was one of the problems is that it hasn't been fully released. Either way, such becomes the danger when one entity controls health care, is that if they deem something as dangerous (tobbacco, weight, etc) they can require you to stop it for coverage. In England they require compliance to drs orders, even when the patient has reasons to disagree, for continued treatments.

And does anyone really think a health bill would not get modified over the years? Whether it would begin to ban certain items doesn't mean it would not down the road. Again, is the danger when one entity mandates. Right now there are health insurance companies that will not cover you if you are overweight, or if you smoke. But another will at a higher premium. If only one company, that eliminates such competition.

A difference between the US vs these other nations is that they have had a frontal assault against guns. With the US constitution, they cannot make a frontal assault here, so we have to be on guard for back door approaches.

I think the flaw in your argument is that no one is talking about getting rid of Private insurance. You can still have private insurance in Canada, the UK, Japan ect, it just doesnt make sense to.
I just dont think theres much argument to Healthcare=Gun Ban, because we havent seen it done anywhere.
I mean, I could be wrong, I dont know much about the Healthcare Bill, I just hear rumors and What Ifs.

also did anyone catch this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201003 ... ost/490080" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care