Health Care

[nightrider250R]

A lot has happened since Obama has taken office. The main thing is the Health Care plan. What do you think of it? For me it is gonna ruin families. I have done a lot of research and know the typical big politician BS. Here is my views on this plan. It is unconstitutional, you will be forced to get the plan or you will be considered a criminal. Really? Forcing me to pay for something I dont want. Second it will cost around 600 dollars a month. With my father unemployed he will go to jail.:eek: Where is a public option in this? Well that is my view in this. What are yours? The folks from the UK how has it worked for you?

[The Batman]

A lot has happened since Obama has taken office. The main thing is the Health Care plan. What do you think of it? For me it is gonna ruin families. I have done a lot of research and know the typical big politician BS. Here is my views on this plan. It is unconstitutional, you will be forced to get the plan or you will be considered a criminal. Really? Forcing me to pay for something I dont want.
It won't be forced unless you don't already have a health care plan which is something that every american SHOULD want unless you have the money to pay every doctor visit out of the pocket.
Second it will cost around 600 dollars a month. With my father unemployed he will go to jail.:eek: Where is a public option in this?
It will not be $600 because that isn't affordable by everyone which is the whole point of the health bill in the first place. The very most I saw that it would cost(and it wasn't even official so it might be more or less) was $200 for a family plan
Well that is my view in this. What are yours? The folks from the UK how has it worked for you?
And it doesn't really matter how it worked in the UK because we are the USA our plan will be shaped and formed around our country to better serve our people.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/nathealthplan.htm here's a source from back in june and things have most likely changed since then though.

[Patchy]

I feel free health care in the UK works, its not free as in we pay a certain amount in health taxes based on salary.

Its great for people that then become dependant on health care, e.g. cancer paitents but then it may not benefit a person that has never needed anything from the healthcare.

All prescription in Scotland are under £10 (can't remember exact price) thats for your top of the range cancer treatment medication and low prescriptions e.g. tamiflu. Which is very very good imo

[nightrider250R]

Empty Misery;717335]It[/B] won't be forced unless you don't already have a health care plan which is something that every american SHOULD want unless you have the money to pay every doctor visit out of the pocket.

It will not be $600 because that isn't affordable by everyone which is the whole point of the health bill in the first place. The very most I saw that it would cost(and it wasn't even official so it might be more or less) was $200 for a family plan


You will be forced if there is no public option which is the bill they are trying to pass(it says so in all the fine print of the bill). Second $600 is the estimate give or take a few hundred.

[Patchy]

Also in the UK there is many private hospitals/practices in case you don't want to have to wait for unnecessary surgery e.g. getting ears pinned back.

[The Batman]

You will be forced if there is no public option which is the bill they are trying to pass(it says so in all the fine print of the bill). Second $600 is the estimate give or take a few hundred.

You do realize that "a few hundred" is the difference between it being affordable or not.

I also didn't say that it wouldn't be force, my exact words were, "It won't be forced unless you don't already have a health care plan."

[theOperaGhost]

How can the government force people to get health insurance? It's a persons option if they want to be insured or not.

[Rainstorm]

Forcing a person to get Health Care is somewhat like the matter of forcing someone to have a certain religion in older times. It just doesn't work.

[Sage]

Republicans need to calm the fuck down. Seriously you guys. It's not like Obama's gonna do anything anyway.

[Sapphire]

The folks from the UK how has it worked for you?Our system is different to yours. We don't need to pay for health insurance - instead we pay taxes that go toward the NHS. If you want to go private then the option is there for you.

I think the NHS works well. There are some problems with it, but the successes outweigh the shortcomings IMO.

All prescription in Scotland are under £10 (can't remember exact price) thats for your top of the range cancer treatment medication and low prescriptions e.g. tamiflu. Which is very very good imo
In England, we pay £7.20 for prescriptions - that should also include cancer treatments although I can't be sure.

[maeniel]

I wish too retract this statement, I've since educated myself.

[maestro15]

I injured myself in Paris, and i was better in no time. My mother didn't pay a single cent. and we were all happy! Look at France, such a great country and people are paying extra for there taxes. The same injury happened to me here in the U.S. , it took forever to get my results back, the bill was expensive. Politicians don't see how much nicer the healthcare is in other nations. We live in a nation where we help, not throw out people because they don't have health insurance.

[quartermaster]

At one point in time, the health care bill, with medicare buyout and public option, would have helped a lot of people. But the current one is a twisted shell of what it was supposed to be and is an absolute abomination that would actually force us to buy health care. It went from a lifesave too just another way the government is fucking over the american people. The radical right spent awhile spreading extreme lies about the health care bill and the supposed "death panel" that didnt exist, when the reality was that the bill was only ment to give the insurance companies competition too keep costs down, not take health care away from old fucks, or prevent you from sticking to your current provider. Now, the bill at its current state in the senate, isn't going to help anyone.

Believing that the government, which created the insurance company oligopoly, will actually create competition and will also control costs is pure economic ignorance and ignores the facts inherent from the monetary failures of other government organizations. We discussed this health care issue ad nauseum in a previous thread, not too long ago, may I suggest you review my posts there as to why this health care bill would never do what it sets-out to do.

All you are doing is replacing one government created monopoly with another government created monopoly. It does not address the salient issues involved with why health care is so expensive in the United States; I can give you one hint, it isn't because of our fictional free-market.

[maeniel]

While I certainly believe the progressive outcry of disappointment in the Senate bill is legitimate, lacking a public insurance option or an expansion of Medicare,that’s not reason to be against the bill in its entirety. It is still better than remaining at status quo, by leaps and bounds. While it would be wonderful if something better could be passed, it’s evident that that would not happen. Not passing this bill would leave people continuing to be denied for pre-existing conditions, small businesses and individuals would not be eligible for group insurance, which greatly inflates the cost of health care for millions of Americans , and we would be stuck exactly where we’ve been for the past 20 years. Yes, the Senate bill has its obvious flaws, but it’s far more dangerous to not pass anything.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale professor well-known for his influence and pushing for a public option explains this very well:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/why-i-still-believe-bill

The public option was always a means to an end: real competition for insurers, an alternative for consumers to existing private plans that does not deny needed care or shift risks onto the vulnerable, the ability to provide affordable coverage over time. I thought it was the best means within our political grasp. It lay just beyond that grasp. Yet its demise–in this round–does not diminish the immediate necessity of those larger aims. And even without the public option, the bill that Congress passes and the President signs could move us substantially toward those goals.
As weak as it is in numerous areas, the Senate bill contains three vital reforms. First, it creates a new framework, the “exchange,” through which people who lack secure workplace coverage can obtain the same kind of group health insurance that workers in large companies take for granted. Second, it makes available hundreds of billions in federal help to allow people to buy coverage through the exchanges and through an expanded Medicaid program. Third, it places new regulations on private insurers that, if properly enforced, will reduce insurers’ ability to discriminate against the sick and to undermine the health security of Americans.

[quartermaster]

While I certainly believe the progressive outcry of disappointment in the Senate bill is legitimate, lacking a public insurance option or an expansion of Medicare,that’s not reason to be against the bill in its entirety. It is still better than remaining at status quo, by leaps and bounds. While it would be wonderful if something better could be passed, it’s evident that that would not happen. Not passing this bill would leave people continuing to be denied for pre-existing conditions, small businesses and individuals would not be eligible for group insurance, which greatly inflates the cost of health care for millions of Americans , and we would be stuck exactly where we’ve been for the past 20 years. Yes, the Senate bill has its obvious flaws, but it’s far more dangerous to not pass anything.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale professor well-known for his influence and pushing for a public option explains this very well:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/why-i-still-believe-bill

The public option was always a means to an end: real competition for insurers, an alternative for consumers to existing private plans that does not deny needed care or shift risks onto the vulnerable, the ability to provide affordable coverage over time. I thought it was the best means within our political grasp. It lay just beyond that grasp. Yet its demise–in this round–does not diminish the immediate necessity of those larger aims. And even without the public option, the bill that Congress passes and the President signs could move us substantially toward those goals.
As weak as it is in numerous areas, the Senate bill contains three vital reforms. First, it creates a new framework, the “exchange,” through which people who lack secure workplace coverage can obtain the same kind of group health insurance that workers in large companies take for granted. Second, it makes available hundreds of billions in federal help to allow people to buy coverage through the exchanges and through an expanded Medicaid program. Third, it places new regulations on private insurers that, if properly enforced, will reduce insurers’ ability to discriminate against the sick and to undermine the health security of Americans.

I believe you are missing my point, I understand what it aims to do, but the plan is counter-productive, as it leads to more government involvement into the health care sector, when the answer is less. Instead of allowing for a free market to prevail, where real competition between doctors would naturally lower prices, it simply increases regulation and government involvement. Again, the pretense that one monopoly is better than an oligopoly is unfounded. Research shows that regulation is the reason that health care is so expensive, and why insurance companies rule the market (barriers to entry, cartel creation, financial "hoops," etc.); increasing regulation will do no more than increase prices on the private sector, which will effectively make health care less affordable. With a public option and more rigorous regulations on the private sector, the private companies will be unable to compete against the government option. As such, a universal health care system could be its result, as opposed to a free-market, private sector that would, on balance, deliver services for less, and with better quality.

The current neo-mercantilist/ “corporationist” system is a mess, to be sure, but it should be emphasized that this system is a direct result of government regulation and intervention into the health care sector (poignantly from the lobbying of the health care companies to create an oligopoly).

There is much to this debate that I have addressed in the following thread; I suggest you read my posts (I have several), come back with your contentions, and then we can adequately discuss this matter. I have no inclination of reiterating my previous points, but I would be more than willing to build off of them to accommodate you:

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=625528#post625528

[maeniel]

I believe you are missing my point, I understand what it aims to do, but the plan is counter-productive, as it leads to more government involvement into the health care sector, when the answer is less. Instead of allowing for a free market to prevail, where real competition between doctors would naturally lower prices, it simply increases regulation and government involvement. Again, the pretense that one monopoly is better than an oligopoly is unfounded. Research shows that regulation is the reason that health care is so expensive, and why insurance companies rule the market (barriers to entry, cartel creation, financial "hoops," etc.); increasing regulation will do no more than increase prices on the private sector, which will effectively make health care less affordable. With a public option and more rigorous regulations on the private sector, the private companies will be unable to compete against the government option. As such, a universal health care system could be its result, as opposed to a free-market, private sector that would, on balance, deliver services for less, and with better quality.

The current neo-mercantilist/ “corporationist” system is a mess, to be sure, but it should be emphasized that this system is a direct result of government regulation and intervention into the health care sector (poignantly from the lobbying of the health care companies to create an oligopoly).

There is much to this debate that I have addressed in the following thread; I suggest you read my posts (I have several), come back with your contentions, and then we can adequately discuss this matter. I have no inclination of reiterating my previous points, but I would be more than willing to build off of them to accommodate you:

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=625528#post625528

I didn't miss your point, you wrongly assumed I was trying to address it. I merely stated my opinion, which is that this bill is probably better than inaction.

Either way I'd love too see this research you speak of as well as any other sources you've founded your opinion off of sir.

[Gigablue]

Please don't bump old threads. :locked: