More Obama Hypocracy (and evidence that McCain was the right choice)

[RobMoney$]

After vilifying John McCain regarding taxing health benefits during the campaign, Obama decides maybe that's okay after all.

The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.
In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.
At the time, even some Obama supporters said privately that he might come to regret his position if he won the election; in effect, they said, he was potentially giving up an important option to help finance his ambitious health care agenda to reduce medical costs and to expand coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans. Now that Mr. Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1


Guess that take home pay's gonna get a little lower just as we're trying to dig our way out of a recession.
Thanks Barak (y)

[yeahwho]

We haven't even begun to see how bad the economy is going to get, this is just one of many fucked up scenarios that will play hell on the average U.S. citizen the next 5 to 10 years.

The thing about this is there may actually be a reasoned and rational end point towards National Healthcare, not that I'm holding out for some sort of hope it will lead there. More than likely the AMA, Pharmaceuticals and insurance companies will use the yearly billions in profits to fuck that idea of "National Healthcare" over on a continual basis til your broke and dead.

Who has a better idea? How do you stop somebody that threatens your health through blackmail? Isn't that what these corporations are doing?

[saz]

if he follows through on it, then it'll be just another flip-flop that a lot of politicians usually make. no surprise.

however, there's no evidence here that mccain was the right choice, especially considering he not only voted with bush 90 percent (http://mediamatters.org/research/200808270008) of the time, but also chose sarah nut job (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg) palin as his running mate.

[kaiser soze]

and here I thought you voted for mccain :confused:

so why are ya complaining?!?

[Dorothy Wood]

this really wasn't one of the hot button issues for me (taxing benefits), so I can't say I'm too upset.

you can what if all day long til you're blue in the face, but the fact is obama's the president and there's no way to tell if mccain would make a better one because he'll never be one.


also palin's a nutcase and I will forever hold it against mccain because I thought it showed flawed judgement.

[yeahwho]

this really wasn't one of the hot button issues for me (taxing benefits), so I can't say I'm too upset.

lol, so you mean to tell me in the midst of the campaign heat and rhetoric you weren't focused on the debilitating issue of employee taxed healthcare insurance?

That was like the #1 issue amongst those who like to cite hypocrisy.

[Dorothy Wood]

lol, so you mean to tell me in the midst of the campaign heat and rhetoric you weren't focused on the debilitating issue of employee taxed healthcare insurance?

That was like the #1 issue amongst those who like to cite hypocrisy.


yeah, naw dude. I was more concerned that mccain's plan for health care was a nifty and neat math equation rather than an actual plan.

not that obama has a plan. nobody with a real plan has deep enough pockets to just shake america by the shoulders and say, "listen up fuckos, this is the way it should be".


even then, it really is hard to say how it should be. I haven't been to a doctor in 6 years. oops. that's how I know things are wrong with healthcare. because when I did go to the doctor it was because I broke my foot and needed surgery. I racked up $20,000 in doctor bills, then said, "oh hi, I'm poor, I can't afford this". and they were all, "bring in your pay stubs and bank info", and I did, and they were like, "yeah, shit, you're super poor, nevermind". and I didn't have to pay any of it. but now I make enough money that if that happened, I would have to pay $20,000. for an accident. and accidents happen all the time. so. fuck. shit's scary.

[RobMoney$]

lol, so you mean to tell me in the midst of the campaign heat and rhetoric you weren't focused on the debilitating issue of employee taxed healthcare insurance?

That was like the #1 issue amongst those who like to cite hypocrisy.


Yeah, Obama beat this drum long and hard during the campaign.
To switch positions on this is pretty indefensible.

[RobMoney$]

I haven't been to a doctor in 6 years. oops. that's how I know things are wrong with healthcare. because when I did go to the doctor it was because I broke my foot and needed surgery. I racked up $20,000 in doctor bills, then said, "oh hi, I'm poor, I can't afford this". and they were all, "bring in your pay stubs and bank info", and I did, and they were like, "yeah, shit, you're super poor, nevermind". and I didn't have to pay any of it. but now I make enough money that if that happened, I would have to pay $20,000. for an accident. and accidents happen all the time. so. fuck. shit's scary.

So you say you want Nationalized Medical, or "free" healthcare because "shit's scary" in America?
Let's see what a Canadian thinks about their health care system.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.


I dunno, shit sounds pretty scary to me.


How about England?
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23/health-care-around-the-world-great-britain/
Great Britain represents all that is good and bad with centralized, single-payer health care systems. Health care spending is fairly low (7.5% of GDP) and very equitable. Long wait lists for treatment, however are endemic and rationing pervades the system. Patients have little choice of provider and little access to specialists

Private Insurance. 10% of Britons have private health insurance. Private health insurance replicates the coverage provided by the NHS, but gives patients access to higher quality care, and reduced waiting times.
Physician Compensation. Unlike in the case of other single payer systems such as Norway, most physicians and nurses are mostly government employees. In 2004, the NHS negotiated lower salaries for doctors in exchange for reduced work hours. Few physicians are available at night or on weekends. Because of low compensation, there is a significant shortage of specialists.
Physician Choice. Patients have very little physician choice. However, under the experimental London Patient Choice Project (http://www.londonchoice.nhs.uk/), patients waiting more than six months for treatment will be offered a choice of four different treatment providers.
Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. “A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.”
Benefits Covered. The NHS system offers comprehensive coverage. Because of rationing, care might not be as easy to get as advertised. Terminally ill patients may be denied treatment. David Cameron has proposed that the NHS refuse treatment to smokers or the obese.

shit also sounds pretty scary.


How about France?
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-france/

France is often seen by liberals as the ideal system. It has universal health care, with few waiting lists. France has the highest level of satisfaction with their health care among all European countries. How can this be? What is their secret?
France provides a basic, universal health insurances through large occupation-based funds. The General National Health Inusrance Scheme covers 83% of French workers, while other occupational specific (e.g.: for agricultural workers, for the self employed, for miners, etc.) cover the remainder. About 99% of individuals are covered by this universal health insurance system.
However, France utilizes more market-based ideas than most people realized. Copayment rates for most services are 10%-40%. About 92% of French residents have complementary private health insurance.

Funding. Most of the funding is from a 13.55% payroll tax (employers pay 12.8%, individuals pay 0.75%). There is a 5.25% general social contribution tax on income as well. Thus, there is an approximately a 18.8% on employees for health insurance. There are also dedicated taxes which are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.
Private Insurance. “More than 92% of French residents have complementary private insurance.” This insurance pays for additional fees in order to access higher quality providers. Private health insurances makes up 12.7% of French health care spending. These complementary private insurance funds are very loosely regulated (less than in the U.S.) and the only stringent requirement is guaranteed renewability. Private insurance benefits are not equally distributed so there is, in essence, a two-tier system.
Physician Choice. The French have a fair amount of choice in which doctors they choose. However, recently the French have moved towards a more “managed care” practice style where patients have a “preferred doctors” who acts as a gatekeeper for specialists.
Copayment/Deductibles. 10% to 40% copayments.
Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards Increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.


So they still require a 10% to 40% copay, which is deterring people from seeking the "free" medical attention, just like you, Dorothy.
And 92% of the people in France have additional PRIVATE insurance to cover such copays.
What's the point then?

[Dorothy Wood]

I very clearly said "it really is hard to say how it should be". so I don't know why you're trying to bait me with rhetoric.


are you actually upset about this, are you worried every day that obama is going to destroy our nation? really? maybe you should wait until something substantial happens, rather than speculate on what might happen?



did you even read the whole article, rob? it is no way definitive. here's the last paragraph:

But at the Service Employees International Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/service_employees_international_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org), which was an early supporter of Mr. Obama, Dennis Rivera (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/dennis_rivera/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the coordinator of the union’s health care campaign, said that while his organization was “predisposed not to agree to the taxing of health benefits,” he would wait to pass judgment. The union, Mr. Rivera said, wants to see how any tax changes fit into the overall effort to revamp the health care system. “We need to see the total picture,” he said.

basically, if you put aside the sensationalist slant of "omg, obama's a flip flopper", the article basically just says that people are trying figure shit out and obama's not going to say no to a plan that seems viable if it includes taxed benefits.

[yeahwho]

Yeah, Obama beat this drum long and hard during the campaign.
To switch positions on this is pretty indefensible.

He hasn't proposed this, he is in stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm not too sure what your so hyped up about here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29703278/)

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.


At the time, even some Obama supporters said privately that he might come to regret his position if he won the election; in effect, they said, he was potentially giving up an important option to help finance his ambitious health care agenda to reduce medical costs and to expand coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans. Now that Mr. Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

Most every president has met issues they've campaigned on that have had to be compromised. I think this is a bit of a red herring as opposed to our phones being tapped without cause or prisoners having no Habeas Corpus.

But hey if this is the "issue" that gets your blood boiling, go for it.

[RobMoney$]

"It's a red herring" is the new catch phrase in the GP forum it seems.
Someone says it in almost every thread.

[yeahwho]

"It's a red herring" is the new catch phrase in the GP forum it seems.
Someone says it in almost every thread.

Well, how about a green red robin or some such nonsense, I don't know what to say, obviously he is not proposing the issue, yet you are correct in he also is not limiting the discussion or perhaps actual taxation of employee healthcare benefits, yet this has been par for every fucking essential product ever since TARP bailed out major corporate banks and insurance companies.

I agree it is fucked up, but I see a much worst scenario coming from these programs that bailout corporations. I used to worry about our citizens in triple debt until this past year. Now what is coming is very uncertain, I am glad Obama will be the one to start the direction of our new economic lives, but I'm still more than jaded on WTF it will be.

Because as you've pointed out, the working people of America are paying the price, with their benefits, cut in pay and millions of citizens with the end of their jobs. No work. Nada.

Not a pretty scenario, but still I find the employee taxation of health benefits to be one of many hundreds of bad ideas I am powerless over.

[RobMoney$]

The issue I have is with the two women I know who had breast cancer surgery this year and the one male family member I have that had cancer in his testicles, brain, and lung (whom Ive posted about before who did not have medical insurance and had all of his medical bills taken care of through free public medical assistance).

I couldn't imagine living under a system where those folks would have to wait for months or years just to see the specialist they needed. Or as the English do, possibly be denied medical care at all if you're determined terminal, a smoker, or obese.

All so we can say "we provide health care to everyone for free".
Guess what, that system doesn't exist.

[saz]

So you say you want Nationalized Medical, or "free" healthcare because "shit's scary" in America?
Let's see what a Canadian thinks about their health care system.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html


I dunno, shit sounds pretty scary to me.

first of all, david gratzer is a very far right-wing, conservative columnist. he openly despises public health care, and prefers the for-profit, private health care system which found in the united states (which results in the deaths of 18,000 americans every year because they are unable to afford insurance). gratzer is also a senior member of the manhattan institute, a right-wing think tank, and he was also an advisor to rudy giuliani in his failed 2008 bid for the republican nomination. gratzer and his opinions represent a very small minority in this country. even the federal conservative party and prime minister stephen harper, openly advocates and supports public health care. they not only realize that not doing so would result in political suicide, but the conservatives also recognize that it is an essential system which works, just like police and fire services. people have the right to health care, it is not a privilege. that is a very common and shared canadian value. strengthening our health care system is always a top priority amoung the electorate in federal election campaigns, along with the economy, jobs and the environment.

there is nothing "scary" about our health care system. if it wasn't for public insurance, my family would have had to have made massive sacrificies (selling homes) in order to afford major surgery a family member had a few years back. but with our system, the surgery was free, as was his time spent in the hospital recovering. granted, our system has problems, it's not as great as france's or italy's for example, and yes we have problems with waiting lists. however, by no means are gratzer's observations legitimate (it's outright bullshit, he is exagerrating the problem on a grand scale). our system works very well and the overwhelming majority of canadians support it.


How about England?
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23/health-care-around-the-world-great-britain/


shit also sounds pretty scary.

no, "shit" doesn't sound scary to me, and more importantly, especially to the brits on the board here (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=90547). the author of that piece, jason shafrin, writes for the "healthcare economist". the words economics and health care do not go hand-in-hand, unless of course you are very right-wing, and do not see any ethical conflicts when championing a for-profit, private health care system as that site seems to do. it seems to deride public health care while championing private insurance. but more importantly, the prime reference for shafrin's article was an article by michael d. tanner from the cato institute, which is a right-wing libertarian think tank, which of course is opposed to public health care, and favours the for-profit, private health care system found in the united states, in which 18,000 americans die every year because they can't afford health insurance.


How about France?
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-france/

So they still require a 10% to 40% copay, which is deterring people from seeking the "free" medical attention, just like you, Dorothy.
And 92% of the people in France have additional PRIVATE insurance to cover such copays.
What's the point then?

once again, it's yet another piece by michael d. tanner from the right-wing, libertarian cato institute.

you know, if the private, for-profit american health care system was truly as great and superior than public heath care, then every other western nation would have a private, for-profit system. however no other western nation does. no other western nation wants have 18,000 of their civilians dying every year because they can't afford private health insurance.

The issue I have is with the two women I know who had breast cancer surgery this year and the one male family member I have that had cancer in his testicles, brain, and lung (whom Ive posted about before who did not have medical insurance and had all of his medical bills taken care of through free public medical assistance).

I couldn't imagine living under a system where those folks would have to wait for months or years just to see the specialist they needed. Or as the English do, possibly be denied medical care at all if you're determined terminal, a smoker, or obese.

All so we can say "we provide health care to everyone for free".
Guess what, that system doesn't exist.

you don't have to wait "months or years" to see a specialist. any problems we have with our health care system is always blown out of proportion by right-wing zealots who oppose public health care, and prefer for-profit, private health care. these are just the same old, tired, regurgitated right-wing talking points i've been hearing my entire life. my family member didn't have to wait "months or years" for his major surgery. free health care does indeed exist. i've had access to it my entire life.

[The Notorious LOL]

I fully agree with RobMoney on this. I called Obama and told him that I would not vote for him unless he promised to do everything he said he would before the election. He was all "I got you, son" and I was all "alright son lets do this".

[yeahwho]

The tiniest grain of common sense tells me to ignore "alarmist style" punditry and just check facts that pertain to the bottom line, like life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) and cost (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140821.htm).

After figuring out that now the government may add an additional cost to my health, well maybe we are not the most mentally healthy people out there, because the system is fucked up.

[RobMoney$]

there is nothing "scary" about our health care system. if it wasn't for public insurance, my family would have had to have made massive sacrificies (selling homes) in order to afford major surgery a family member had a few years back. but with our system, the surgery was free, as was his time spent in the hospital recovering. granted, our system has problems, it's not as great as france's or italy's for example, and yes we have problems with waiting lists. however, by no means are gratzer's observations legitimate (it's outright bullshit, he is exagerrating the problem on a grand scale). our system works very well and the overwhelming majority of canadians support it.

Canadian health care is irrelevant, since they are, relative to the US, considerably poorer, considerably larger, and with a considerably sparser population that is far more geographically spread out.

no, "shit" doesn't sound scary to me, and more importantly, especially to the brits on the board here (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=90547). the author of that piece, jason shafrin, writes for the "healthcare economist". the words economics and health care do not go hand-in-hand, unless of course you are very right-wing, and do not see any ethical conflicts when championing a for-profit, private health care system as that site seems to do. it seems to deride public health care while championing private insurance. but more importantly, the prime reference for shafrin's article was an article by michael d. tanner from the cato institute, which is a right-wing libertarian think tank, which of course is opposed to public health care, and favours the for-profit, private health care system found in the united states, in which 18,000 americans die every year because they can't afford health insurance.

you know, if the private, for-profit american health care system was truly as great and superior than public heath care, then every other western nation would have a private, for-profit system. however no other western nation does. no other western nation wants have 18,000 of their civilians dying every year because they can't afford private health insurance.

Then why do 92% of the people in France choose to supplement their "free" healthcare with a private health insurance?
When that high of a percentage have supplemental private coverage, it would seem to indicate that the "free" coverage is inadequate.
What are we talking about here, free bandaids for all, anything beyond that is on your dime?
We've always been led to believe that the French system was the gold standard?


you don't have to wait "months or years" to see a specialist. any problems we have with our health care system is always blown out of proportion by right-wing zealots who oppose public health care, and prefer for-profit, private health care. these are just the same old, tired, regurgitated right-wing talking points i've been hearing my entire life. my family member didn't have to wait "months or years" for his major surgery. free health care does indeed exist. i've had access to it my entire life.

See, Americans see health insurance as need instead of a want.
If you are injured or sick you can walk right into an emergency room and get medical assistance (see Dorothy's story for proof).
So No, health insurance isn't NEEDED, it's all a want because you don't want to be financially responsible enough to save your money in case you need to have some standard medical attention.

Let's take for instance child birth. Let's say you and your spouse make the decision to have a child.
Why should Insurance be involved in that hospital visit?
Normal child births should not be insurable events. You know almost exactly what the delivery will cost in advance, unless something goes wrong. Standard delivery is usually in the neighborhood of $10k.
So if you want a kid, save up the $10K so you can afford a normal delivery in a hospital.
Insurance is supposed to be for unexpected, high risk events that are best spread across a large pool of people with similar risk characteristics. Providing health insurance for say, the 1-in-1000 horrible high cost pregnancy (where severe shit goes wrong)...well, that makes perfect sense. That's the way INSURANCE should be applied to medicine.
Health insurance for a standard delivery? Makes no sense at all.

I just don't buy this notion that because healthcare is a necessity the government should provide it. It's not the government's job to provide you free shelter and it shouldn't be their job to provide you free health care either.

[RobMoney$]

How did you guys not destroy me for that glaring spelling error?

Hypocrisy.

[mikizee]

I noticed it but couldn't be bothered pointing it out

[Bob]

How did you guys not destroy me for that glaring spelling error?

Hypocrisy.

i can't speak for everyone else but i'm just kind of used to them honestly

[RobMoney$]

I admit half the time I just ignore red underlines.
But I do try to use proper spelling in titles at least.

[Dorothy Wood]

Canadian health care is irrelevant, since they are, relative to the US, considerably poorer, considerably larger, and with a considerably sparser population that is far more geographically spread out.



Then why do 92% of the people in France choose to supplement their "free" healthcare with a private health insurance?
When that high of a percentage have supplemental private coverage, it would seem to indicate that the "free" coverage is inadequate.
What are we talking about here, free bandaids for all, anything beyond that is on your dime?
We've always been led to believe that the French system was the gold standard?




See, Americans see health insurance as need instead of a want.
If you are injured or sick you can walk right into an emergency room and get medical assistance (see Dorothy's story for proof).
So No, health insurance isn't NEEDED, it's all a want because you don't want to be financially responsible enough to save your money in case you need to have some standard medical attention.

Let's take for instance child birth. Let's say you and your spouse make the decision to have a child.
Why should Insurance be involved in that hospital visit?
Normal child births should not be insurable events. You know almost exactly what the delivery will cost in advance, unless something goes wrong. Standard delivery is usually in the neighborhood of $10k.
So if you want a kid, save up the $10K so you can afford a normal delivery in a hospital.
Insurance is supposed to be for unexpected, high risk events that are best spread across a large pool of people with similar risk characteristics. Providing health insurance for say, the 1-in-1000 horrible high cost pregnancy (where severe shit goes wrong)...well, that makes perfect sense. That's the way INSURANCE should be applied to medicine.
Health insurance for a standard delivery? Makes no sense at all.

I just don't buy this notion that because healthcare is a necessity the government should provide it. It's not the government's job to provide you free shelter and it shouldn't be their job to provide you free health care either.



*brain melt*


I'm sorry, there are a thousand points to address here, but you seriously think it's normal and okay for a child birth to cost $10,000?

you are so shortsighted, it's outrageous. baffled, I'm...just baffled.

[saz]

Canadian health care is irrelevant, since they are, relative to the US, considerably poorer, considerably larger, and with a considerably sparser population that is far more geographically spread out.

if it's irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in the first place? and considering that the us has a much larger population, than the tax revenue would be much greater as well. plus, once the iraq occupation is over, that will provide many more billions of dollars to be spent on the american home front.


Then why do 92% of the people in France choose to supplement their "free" healthcare with a private health insurance?
When that high of a percentage have supplemental private coverage, it would seem to indicate that the "free" coverage is inadequate.

i think what you don't realize that in europe, they have access to both public and private health care. the option of private isn't a collective bias, slant or diss to public coverage, but rather because europeans want that choice. this is what many democrats are now proposing for health reform in the us, to have the choice or option between private and public. the same debate occurred here about a decade or so ago, about having the option of private clinics etc.


What are we talking about here, free bandaids for all, anything beyond that is on your dime?
We've always been led to believe that the French system was the gold standard?

it is, france has the best health care system in the world. however, they also have the option for their citizens to seek private as well. if the majority of the population wants it, i think that is pretty fair, as long as the private insurance, hospitals, clinics etc don't produce massive cost overruns, construction delays, and provide a burden on government budgets. those same problems have occurred here, as time and time again public hospitals have proven to be much cheaper and more effective than private ones.


See, Americans see health insurance as need instead of a want.

that's how the rest of the western world views it as well. access to health care isn't a privilege, it is a right, and i think it is morally wrong that only those who can afford it shall receive it.


If you are injured or sick you can walk right into an emergency room and get medical assistance (see Dorothy's story for proof).

right. but then you get billed. or if you don't have coverage, you'll get dumped on skid (http://www.lacity.org/atty/Advocating/attypatientdump.htm) row (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hospital-attorney-city-2035885-patient-county).


So No, health insurance isn't NEEDED, it's all a want because you don't want to be financially responsible enough to save your money in case you need to have some standard medical attention.

so, should people be paying the police the fire department for their help as well? sorry, but yes, health insurance is needed. 18,000 americans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm) die every year because they can't afford insurance or can't get access to adequate coverage. plus, a majority of americans (http://www.healthcare-now.org/2009/02/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/) want public insurance. you can argue all you want that people should be financially responsible, however millions of people can't afford to pay for all sorts of procedures, operations, surgeries etc. or, they're forced to sell their homes and make major sacrifices, despite being financially responsible.


Let's take for instance child birth. Let's say you and your spouse make the decision to have a child.
Why should Insurance be involved in that hospital visit?

because access to adequate health care is not a privilege, it is a right.


Normal child births should not be insurable events. You know almost exactly what the delivery will cost in advance, unless something goes wrong. Standard delivery is usually in the neighborhood of $10k.

ten grand to have a child. sorry, but i find that to be so morally wrong.


So if you want a kid, save up the $10K so you can afford a normal delivery in a hospital.
Insurance is supposed to be for unexpected, high risk events that are best spread across a large pool of people with similar risk characteristics. Providing health insurance for say, the 1-in-1000 horrible high cost pregnancy (where severe shit goes wrong)...well, that makes perfect sense. That's the way INSURANCE should be applied to medicine.
Health insurance for a standard delivery? Makes no sense at all.

what makes no sense at all is attaching dollar signs and greed to health care. people getting sick, people suffering, and people dying is how american health maintenance organizations make money. and even if you have insurance and are covered, sometimes the health maintenance organizations will deny your coverage for the procedure or operation you require, because they need to maintain a profit. linda pino was a former medical reviewer for humana health insurance, and she testified to congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwGLdYBm1bY) that she denied coverage to one patient who died, and denied coverage to many other humana clients, in order for humana to save millions of dollars. she was then promoted. or how about nathan wilkes' son thomas, who was denied (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNHNCScYpX8&feature=related). there's also emily cannon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0mgiwXzGM&feature=related), who was insured with blue cross, but they denied her care as well. health insurance companies are sickening.


I just don't buy this notion that because healthcare is a necessity the government should provide it. It's not the government's job to provide you free shelter and it shouldn't be their job to provide you free health care either.

well, seeing as even those who have insurance and are covered actually do get denied care by their health insurance companies, the government should provide it. it is the government's job to attend to the needs of the people, which includes providing health coverage, because the people are the government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1kClwG7Js&feature=related). we pay for the government, so it should work for us, and not for private enterprise. if the us military, as well as us congressmen and senators receive government insurance, why can't the rest of america? why is public health insurance not good enough for the american people, but good enough for conservative democrats and republican congressmen and senators?

[kaiser soze]

I wonder how robmoney will feel about his insurance when he needs a rare brain surgery procedure which would cost him 3 to 5 years salary or his father comes down with Alzheimer's disease and they have to pay EVERYTHING they practically own into medicaid for a nursing home (because the two other insurances his parents had been paying into for the past 20 years are null for some fucking inconceivable reason).

Insurance of all types in The U.S. are a fucking scam on so many levels. Look at the people post Katrina, look at the our soldiers health care and insurance issues. Look at the people fighting tooth and nail for insurance to pay up for a tragic car accident. Look at the many corporations who work the loopholes to deny their workers insurance.

Insurance companies (in their current state) are bilking the public (AIG anyone?). It needs to be reformed with more government oversight.

[yeahwho]

Nothing against gay people, I mean I'm sorry they are not getting married in the same way hetero's are, I'm just sort of have never considered this to be a major issue. Like abortion, healthcare and judge nominations I find these issues to be a distraction from the fact that we're currently in the midst of spending $9 to $13 billion dollars a month to wage war on false information.

My grandparents had a cause during WWII and so did the rest of the America, it was to get the War over and our soldiers home.

I just currently could give a rats ass if "same sex" marriage is an issue.

Call me callous but people are being fucking destroyed daily due in part to decisions Dick Cheney made the past decade. But since he's pro-gay marriage I should have some fucking respect? I bet he doesn't kick dogs or eat live chicken heads either, but I have to keep things in perspective.

[RobMoney$]

*brain melt*


I'm sorry, there are a thousand points to address here, but you seriously think it's normal and okay for a child birth to cost $10,000?

you are so shortsighted, it's outrageous. baffled, I'm...just baffled.


I never said how I felt about a normal child birth in a hospital costing around $10k. It's just a fact that's the ballpark figure of what it costs.

But again, nothing says you have to give birth in a hospital. There are other options.
Now I agree that a hospital is the safest place, in case something goes wrong. But that is a WANT, not a need.
It's perfectly acceptable to give birth anywhere with the aid of a midwife or some other professional. People do it all the time, it's not as if it's even uncommon.

We don't expect our auto insurance company to pay the bill everytime our car needs an oil change, or for maintenance.
Now it's possible an auto insurance company could offer a plan that covers all repairs, but it would certainly be costly, no? Car warranty's cost thousands.

[yeahwho]

I just realized I'm in the wrong thread, you have invoked so many anti-Obama threads I'm having a hard time keeping track Rob.

But since it's this healthcare thread, ditto on fuck the lower priority issues though, lets focus on getting our soldiers out of harms way in the middle east, lets get this war situation under control is the way to I'm going.

No amount of death, danger, injury, ill will or money is a bigger waste of US taxpayers wealth that squandering it on a protracted war.

[Bob]

I never said how I felt about a normal child birth in a hospital costing around $10k. It's just a fact that's the ballpark figure of what it costs.

But again, nothing says you have to give birth in a hospital. There are other options.
Now I agree that a hospital is the safest place, in case something goes wrong. But that is a WANT, not a need.
It's perfectly acceptable to give birth anywhere with the aid of a midwife or some other professional. People do it all the time, it's not as if it's even uncommon.

We don't expect our auto insurance company to pay the bill everytime our car needs an oil change, or for maintenance.
Now it's possible an auto insurance company could offer a plan that covers all repairs, but it would certainly be costly, no? Car warranty's cost thousands.


i read this to mean that you approve of a system in which people choose to give birth to their children in a not entirely safe environment on account of the fact that they can't afford the $10,000 bill (a system that is unique in the industrialized world). you're ok with the mother of your soon-to-be-born child dealing with an unexpected complication in the living room of a midwife that may or may not be equipped to deal with the situation, rather than in a hospital that has the necessary equipment on account of the fact that you couldn't save up the money in time. because safe and sterile childbirth is a want, not a need. like an oil change.

help me out rob, i must be misinterpreting you, because that sounds pretty bad

[Dorothy Wood]

at this point, I'm of the opinion that rob has completely lost his mind.

[Documad]

I can't get past the error in logic. Even if Obama turned out to be a disappointment, it wouldn't mean that McCain was the right choice, or even a better choice.