Why, oh WHY doesn't our side in the health care debate

[samrock]

respond to the cries ... " You want the government involved with making our heath care decisions???" with... What!?!?! You want insurance companies and drug companies making all those decisions and setting up the ground rules!?!?!?! You really like the idea of your health being treated as a commodity on their profit/loss statements??? At least government officials have to answer to us the voters... Insurance/drug companies just have to answer to their share holders..

[cliffordu]

1. I can't figure this out, either. THAT simple statement you just wrote is about all

the argument universal health care needs.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. The insurance and drug companies support the Obama Health Care initiative. It will

pump about a trillion tax dollars a decade to the insurance companies, and with everybody covered the drug companies will be selling a lot more product.

That is why both industries have worked from the very beginning right along side the Obama administration to get this done. They have met numerous times both in public and in private, they have all held news conferences together, they keep making public statements that they are totally on board with the White House efforts to pass a Romney like plan before the end of the year.

If you read the Senate HELP Committee bill and the House HR3200 bill you will see that both bills spend hundreds of billions to subsidize people to buy private insurance.

That is why AHIP (The Association of Health Insurance Plans) support the Obama initiative.

This isn't about government health care, this is about government funded private health insurance. Don't kid yourself.

[cliffordu]

10. I know it. I posted a simple OP here abou that very thing.

The whole thing read:

Insurance is NOT health care.

[inthebrain]

2. Because it means explaining to them that in a Democracy

it's government FOR the people and BY the people.

They want a government where the state is set up like a monarchy. The Federal government is the monarch and the states act like feudal lords.

We are the peasants.

Democracy is not supposed to work like this unless it's a total sham. The real debate should surround whether or not there is enough of a vigilant public to keep government honest. Also, what is it in our democracy that prevents folks from participating or bucking the laws that don't work.

For starters, it begins with these frauds at the townhall meetings. These people are more like brownshirts trying to bully their way in on the part of the insurance companies and the corporations.

[harun]

3. That is THE ARGUMENT to be making. Obama's people should be flooding

the weekend talks shows with that talking point. Everyone I have talked with about health care has brought up the same point.

[still_one]

4. Either because they want the status quo, they can't communicate, or they are incompetent /nt

[global1]

6. It's Almost Like They Want To Get Beat On Tjhis.........

and keep the status quo - but they can say that they put up a good fight - blame it on the Repugs - put health reform back on the back burner for another 20 or so years and continue to feast in the money of Big Insurance and Big Pharma - while WE THE PEOPLE - continue to get ripped.

[Wapsie B]

5. Some people just start from the mindset that government is evil.

They're forgetting of course their farm subsidy payments, SSI check, Medicare coverage, etc...... They see private enterprise as the answer to all of society's problems. What's good for the rich guy down the street has got to be good for him, even if he happens to be a shelf-stocker at Walmart on the graveyard shift. People like that see the wealthy as having won against the oppressive evil government that keep good people down. The wealthy are worshipped because of this and anything that would seem to threaten that standing is looked on with anger. Another reason why I remember talking to low-wage workers beside themselves when there was talk of banning or taxing the hell out of golden parachutes to company executives who's company went under.

[Old School Liberal]

15. I'm one of them

Let me say off the bat that we can and should help those in need without some slippery slope coming after us, but we also need to be aware of the dangers that many direct solutions like this pose. It's not that they're intentionally malicious, but to provide ever increasing powers to government makes it that much easier for the real tyrants when they do arrive. Changes in the general law to facilitate a gradual improvement can be more desirable than viewing restrictions on governmental power as fetters, rather than the things that allowed us to be as comparably free from want than much of the rest of the world. This program will be expensive: the governments own projections are phenomenally high. This program will be practically impossible to remove--when some 50 million Americans become dependent on it for their immediate care, it would be political suicide to remove. We don't have the money; we operate on credit for the time being and need to resolve the budget crisis before even considering such an ambitious program. This program simply isn't necessary: we can reduce as much waste and fraud in Medicare as possible, and reform it to include more Americans. We can also form a committee to determine how current legislation is driving up insurance costs, and attempt to make a bipartisan agreement to allow the market to do its job (any fan of graphs will have to acknowledge that it works when unimpeded). If the government's job is to protect our welfare, then it should not drive us to fiscal insolvency and it should endeavor to do the most good with the lowest possible amount of resources. I think that we should all have access to health care, but that quick fixes and short-sighted legislative proposals is not the path to long term prosperity or a higher standard of living for any of us. Let's find out where we erred and repeal legislation that is driving up costs, and let Medicare cover those that the market truly doesn't account for, not dive headfirst into a one-way path that may have unforeseen repercussions.

[Wapsie B]

16. As far as money goes we're already pay for a good share of the costs

with ever increasing premiums as hospitals attempt to make up for those uninsured that receive care through the ER. I find it funny that people suddenly worry about costs over this but in a "time of war" we can spare no expense, hide costs off the books, black ops, whatever. Your argument to me sounds as if it was written by an insurance exec.

[samrock]

17. I'm sorry..

But I doubt your name title.. We are not "rushing" into this.. we have been debating and tossing this issue around for over 60 years!!! Now some how.. All of Western Europe and Canada have found out HOW to make this work.. Are we more fragile then them??? Do we have less resources?? Are we dumber??? IF the rest of the Western World has figure health care out.. we should stop fiddling around and start this!! It will take major tweaking to get it right for us.. BUT a journey of a thousand miles starts with a 1st step.. which we have been afraid to do.. IF we do not get off the dime and some major piece of health care legislation to the Presidents desk before Congress adjourns in the fall.. We will not get this close again for 16 years!!! Remember 1993???

[Old School Liberal]

18. I'm afraid we are rushing

We've been debating it, but we haven't been thinking about it. We never seem to ask why health costs are so high. One major reason is employer based insurance, a uniquely American custom born out of loopholes from world war two: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/is-employer-based-health-insurance-worth-saving/ Another is how Medicare doesn't pay medical providers fully, and the remainder, up to 60% of the expense, is passed onto people with private insurance or who are paying out of pocket. We can cover everyone, and the government will be necessary to account for a small few; but we need to do things transparently, honestly, and to work with the private companies, which, if not influenced by lobbyist groups and government support, will provide the best possible service with the least possible resources. We need to look not only at how we can fix today's problems, but also look back at how we may be the root of them. It's much easier to blame a greedy insurance executive than to consider that we made an error.

[Old School Liberal]

20. Oh, and I forgot to mention

We are dumber, more fragile, and have less resources than them. Western Europe and Canada don't have sustainable budgets either, but they've kept cost down to a point which pales in comparison to ourselves and our own limited public health care system. Our economic strength rests not on products or industry, but tenuously rests on foreign credit resulting from their own government's lack of understanding of the severity of our situation. Our resource potential may be vast, but it is largely untapped, as we are geared to a primarily service economy and it would take some time before we are able to reorient ourselves. We are FUBARed and desperately need to do what we can to alleviate the situation. That being said, we can make universal health care work, but it will take more than a set of brass ones to make it sustainable, and in the long run actually beneficial to the majority of Americans.

[samrock]

22. I disagree..

We saved the world in world war II.. We are tough and resilient people.. we just need a plan.. I know health insurance was started by Kaiser during the war as a way to get around wage freezes.. Not a good way to start health care.. but there ya are.. that is the hand we were dealt.. We need a new deal.. this spinning and spinning with out getting a plan underway is KILLING us as we see more and more lose there health care due to losing there job or having the health insurance companies denying them care.. We need to get a plan in place to cover all.. It will not be a perfect plan.. it will have holes and problems galore I am sure.. but those can be worked on and fixed.. You can not fix the absence of ANY plan..

[fasttense]

23. What you describe, fixing current law, examining current insurance practices

to see why they don't work. Put everyone who "truly" can't afford health insurance on Medicare, attempt to make a bipartisan agreement to allow the market to do its job. Is what the Republicons have been doing for the last 10 years. Things have only gotten worse. What makes you think the Democrats will be any better at it?

No, the system is seriously broken. When longevity starts decreasing and infant mortality rates start increasing all the while costs are skyrocketing, you know something is seriously broken with a country's medical system. And I don't think anyone is arguing that it's all due to our backward, unscientific, poorly educated doctors and medical technologies. When an industry can make more money by NOT doing what it charges its customers for, the problem is beyond a mere market fix.

A seriously flawed social systems can NOT be corrected by the market. Did the market correct separate but equal in the South? Why didn't all those smart businessmen start allowing everyone, black, white or purple, into their restaurants to eat in the 1950s? Anyone with half a brain would know that the more people you allow to come into your store or restaurant, the more money you can make. Yet the magical hand of the market never corrected Southern America's apartheid. It takes government intervention before a serious long standing social problem can be corrected.

That's why we need change, and drastic change, to our dysfunctional health-care system. Tweaks, new regulations, minor adjustments are not going to fix this problem. I doubt the Obama plan is drastic enough to fix it either. But at least it sets the stage for government intervention.

Did people claim it would cost too much money to do away with separate but equal and Southern America's apartheid? When a society is broken, most people don't look at the cost to repair it. Was it too expensive to send out those National guardsmen to protect those black children to force desegregation? I remember all the complaints about the cost of busing, which turned out to be nothing more than disguised racism.

With a social problem, there are huge costs that no one quantifies. In our health care system their are huge costs being paid right now. When our government steps in to correct this inequality, the same money will simply flow in a saner, more efficient manner. Lucky us, we can quantify some of the federal costs just like they could quantify the cost of busing. But unless drastic action is taken, the costs of wasted lives, torn apart families and destroyed communities will be paid over and over again by an ever increasing number of Americans.

[Old School Liberal]

25. Drastic quick action has its appeal, but is quite permanent in this case

True enough, the Republicans have argued that changes in the general law had to be made, but those changes weren't done or proposed, nor was the situation properly analyzed to trace the root of the problem. Democratic government has a tendency to be lumbering, slow, and prone to error. The fact that what is merely an attempt at reform and repeal is practically impossible due to political realities shows how difficult correcting imperfect systems can be. Drastic action naturally produces a ton of problems, none of which, I am sure, will be so easy to remedy. When an industry can make more money by not doing what it charges its customers for, we need to question why this is: why isn't competition driving prices down? as the only organization removed from market forces is the government, the problem very often lies there and is a place to start looking; are these circumstances temporary or permanent? if the former then we need only better understand the conditions so that it may be shortened and not repeated, if the latter then we need to understand why that is, as well.
Seriously flawed social systems are forced by market forces to correct themselves over time. The ones that persist have had government support. It's easy to forget that all those segregated restaurants were required by law to serve one race, or provide separate accommodations. Social ostracism is what changes the loose ends, legislation tends to come late. People in the Middle Ages were barbaric and cruel by our standards, but over time with increased material wealth and education, their temperaments became more civil as we had the means for more complex social institutions--contrast 19th century man with 14th and you'll find no legislation to play nice--people were moral without government intervention, and tolerance became increasingly more inclusive (and still does) as time went on. South Africa's apartheid was actually a cost borne rather than a cost saved without even considering the practically universal embargo against them. That was simply a government not of the people and by the people, but of an elite--the economy suffers when populations are confined to restricted areas to live, and work, and businessmen aren't allowed to set up shop on account of their race. That was a sin of government which restricted choices well beyond a reasonable point. School busing, does not compare in that whatever its costs may be, they do not measure up to what this plan will, and would not quite risk making our currency insolvent in the long term. The National Guard was needed in the south because the local government was against desegregation--police refused to do their job and protect children from mobs; the governor of Alabama himself stood in front of the door. Expense had nothing to do with anything, order was simply being restored.
That you argue health care costs will flow in a 'saner, more efficient manner', I can only say that I hope the government appoints the world's smartest, most powerful psychic to direct the budget, because mere humans cannot solve the complex riddle of resource distribution the way that a bunch of idiots responding to prices in a self-interested pattern can.
A bee hive can solve math problems (e.g. predict where a sugar bowl will be when moved away from the hive in a patterned interval) that no bee could do by simply responding to chemical signals. Humans responding to price fluctuations do much the same; but the problems we solve together can never be grappled by consciously directed men such as ourselves. Don't dis the market, it is the most ruthless and efficient logistics manager the world has ever known; it has allowed mankind to flower with a phenomenal growth of prosperity and political freedom yet seen; and it was discovered not by design, but by accident in the Italian Renaissance and has allowed man to have progress in every subsequent generation, a fact that we now often take for granted. Its only flaw is that it leaves those unable or unwilling to help themselves to croak, and that is where we should step in out of decency. But to say that we'll do so better, more efficiently, or even come close to a manageable level of expense is completely false. We should keep the numbers of people who need help to an absolute minimum by recognizing this tool that seems to be viewed more as a barrier to progress, rather than the thing which allowed for it.

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. I would rather have someone that doesn't have any gain in the game..

to make a decision about my heathcare than someone who stands to be promoted, or even get a bonus, be denying me coverage.
How could anyone even argue that?
Profit making in the healthcare industry is nothing short of evil.

[Kajsa]

9. Excellent point,Samrock!

That IS the argument to present to them.

Welcome to DU!

I'm glad you are here.

:hi:

[Doctor_Horrible]

11. I wonder if there is a side-by-side comparison of the decisions made under medicare and those

made under private insurance - same illness/treatment, etc... and show who exactly comes out ahead. It would be a great visual against "stake-holder run health care." Which is a great description you gave us.

The problem would be finding people of comparable age that aren't both on medicare. Because, you know, NO ONE wants gov't "interfering" with their health care :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: Just don't touch their medicare card!!!!!!!!!

[Old School Liberal]

12. It's complicated, isn't it?

That doesn't mean we should simply dive into what will be an incredibly expensive government program without putting some major thought into it first. This program will make enough Americans dependent that it would be political suicide to remove in the future, should that be desirable. I don't see how the problems associated with Medicare won't replicate themselves in any new program. The fact that the government literally doesn't have the money to pay for this program doesn't help either. All Americans should have medical coverage, of course, but we must be careful not to confront this problem with a quick fix that will do more harm than good. If we were to reform Medicare, and attempt to understand why insurance is as high as it is, we can make general changes to the law that will allow the insurance companies to provide their services more cheaply, while providing for the hopefully significantly reduced numbers of uninsured under a more efficient Medicare system.

[Mr Generic Other]

21. we already pay more per-capita than any other system and yet we are not all covered.

your arguments are are straight out of the republican playbook and part of the fear mongering that is promoted by the right wing.
you sound as if you believe our system works. i am not sure where you have been getting information but it does not reflect reality.

[Old School Liberal]

26. Them's fightin' words

I should be more clear: we have the worst system in the entire world. But it is so only due to existing legislation. To adopt a European model is not a viable idea for us considering the condition of our budget, which would destroy any hope of having a decent world to live in for the next generation. We're already digging ourselves deeper in the whole; the last thing we need is a bigger shovel.

[samrock]

28. Uh in 2000 we had a balanced bduget...

Hell we were running a surplus.. remember.. I remember talk about how once the debt was totally paid off we would have problems.. Soo all this hole was dug since then.. soo we just need to go back to the polices from before 2001... 1st step will be when the Bush tax cuts die a natural death as they run out in 2010.. Then IF we have a health care plan in effect.. we will see massive savings when 40%+ or so of our population due not have to use emergency rooms as their health care.. as THAT is the most expensive kind.. plus with all getting regular checkups think of all the disease we will catch early.. think of all the man power hours saved.. the ramifications are very deep.. kids not losing parents/grandparents for many additional years.. the savings will be HUGE... "Stop making with the negative waves Morioity"..

[Old School Liberal]

32. I do hope you're right

Forgive me if I don't share your optimism at an untried plan's apparent ability to solve all of our problems in one efficient swoop. Try not to get too excited in case it disappoints. As for the budget, yes, Clinton did an adequate job--hiking up taxes during a boom tends to help--but he certainly didn't control expenses in what could be called a responsible manner...then I shudder to think of the alternatives, considering the Bush years. Anyway, the point is there are too many optimists in this forum--negative waves are critical for stability in any democracy.

[Mr Generic Other]

29. if its just about the money then look at the defense budget

and begin to make cuts. we spend more than the rest of the world's countries combined on our military budget.

[Old School Liberal]

30. Capital Idea

If only we could convince Congress to cut the pork...hence the need to tread carefully in regards to big programs, those that profit tend to become attached, whether or not in the national interest.

[fasttense]

24. Yes, most social problems are complicated.

But the market never fixed separate but equal and it can't fix our failing health-care system either. See my post above (#23).

[lib_wit_it]

27. Did you put the same time and energy into warning against us diving in to the unfathomably expensive

and destructive Iraq war? Somehow I doubt it.

[Old School Liberal]

33. Must I toe the party line on every matter?

Ever hear of a Blue Dog Democrat? I don't have to be some warmongering neocon to be concerned about expenses--they tend to affect people's lives negatively, and require us to part with ever increasing proportions of our income, restricting my financial freedom further for a service that will likely wind up as efficient as the DMV or veterans' hospital. While we naturally need to address the health care problem in this country, throwing billions if not trillions of dollars at a plan encompassing all Americans tends to be massively disruptive, and in my mind is completely unnecessary--direct solutions tend to produce perverse, unforeseen consequences and should thus only be applied on a small scale to tie up loose ends.

[lib_wit_it]

34. I'll save reading what you wrote for after you actually answer my question.

Oh, and yeah, I've heard of those phony Dems called Blue Dogs. That's not who the DU is for.

[Old Codger]

13. Simply put

That concept would be way to logical for their simple minds to grasp. Good common sense is good but not all that common.

[cloudbase]

14. This is from

a guy who posts on a motorcycle board I'm on. He's a pediatrician in Canada, so knows of what he speaks. There is more wisdom in the last three sentences than all of the stuff coming out of Washington, the town hall meetings and what has been in the press.



"For the most part in Canada, those with money get the same treatment as those on welfare. You can never rule out the effect of influence, but as I said, for the most part, the treatment is the same, access is the same.

My wife spent three days in hospital this week; I have no complaints about her care.

My father had surgery for stomach cancer - and survived for another 15 years. Not bad for a condition that kills 95% of people within 6 months of diagnosis. Similarly he had surgery for prostatic cancer in record time and had two open heart operations in his 80s. All his care was done in provinces where I have never practiced - influence not an issue.

Do we have problems - sure we do. There isn't a system in the world that doesn't have them. All I can say about this debate is ignore the extreme arguments, look at the facts objectively, and decide if the limitations of your present system are more or less toxic than the limitations of ours."

[OHdem10]

19. Do the Dems on the Hill really believe in any type of Universal

Insurance or Health Care????

For years they have run using Health Care as an issue. Yet
they seem absolutely to have been unprepared to deal with it.

You would have thought they would have had a strong outline
of what they would do during the campaign. They should have
had the Blue Dogs support during the Campaign or they should
not have supported their election.

Otherwise they look two faced. Promising Universal Coverage
to the people knowing it would never pass because of the Blue
Dogs. This is a GOP tactic.

Somebody has to start calling a spade a spade.

No bill is better than a bad bill.

[havocmom]

31. Because they were told to.

They do what they are told.

They respond to what they are told.

They are told things to make them do the bidding of a powerful elite who cares nothing for them.

They seem to be stuck in a place where they are constantly seeking love from a parent figure and are ever angry that the parent figure just doesn't give a shit.

There might be some chemical missing too.