A realization and the Baucus Bill.

[wiggs]

It just occurred to me that most of the country (under 65) does not have access to the best health care. Yet ALL of the country contributes to taxes that fund new research, drugs, public hospitals, and new techniques. Aside from the moral issuse of medical bankruptcies and choosing between food and health care, there is something also fundamentally wrong with all of us helping pay for the best medical care that is available to only the wealthiest of our citizenry.

It takes a MASSIVE effort to place a patient in front of a doctor in a hospital, with resources to treat a problem. You have years of public schools, testing boards, internships in public hospitals, years of public review of drugs, equipment and drugs that were developed with public research money, agencies that monitor safety and qualifications, laws and courts that keep the system stable, regulations that keep patients safe, etc. A huge PUBLIC effort that all taxpayers pay for.

If the huge engine of government, taxation, public university hospitals, medical schools, research funding (not a small amount), etc only exists because of the work and taxes of ALL of us, why do only a portion of us get to benefit from it? Isn't that wrong? Why isn't this part of the argument?

And why does the Baucus bill cost so much? Can't we just pass laws that limit immoral corporate activity (like cherrypicking and denying coverage and buying legislators)? Why does stopping the pillaging of citizenry wealth by insurance companies (or greedy mortgage houses) have to cost the taxpayers? Are we somehow thinking about paying the insurance companies NOT to rip us off so badly? Are we doing something about compensation, like the CEO of UHC who got 1 billion dollars for less than a decade of work?

[Cleita]

1. Not only that every American who gets a paycheck contributes to the

payroll taxes that fund Medicare. I think they should have access to Medicare if they pay into it.

[BzaDem]

2. You can't ban pre-existing condition discrimination without a mandate and adequate subsidies.

People would simply buy health insurance when they needed it, and healthy people would therefore not be paying into the system. This means that the pool of the insured would be primarily sick, which would raise premiums for everyone through the roof. If you think premiums are high now, you wouldn't believe how high they would have to be if there were community rating but no mandate (even if insurance companies all simultaneously became non-profit with low exec pay).

[Vincardog]

3. How about if we covered EVERYBODY and paid for it by allowing Dim Son's tax cuts to expire?

Would that be a way to get health care cheap enough?

[whathehell]

4. Sounds like a great idea...I don't know why we hear so little about this.

[tridim]

5. That's essentially Obama's plan.

Except he's replacing "cover everybody" with "make quality healthcare affordable for everybody".

[Laelth]

11. The individual mandate?

If letting Bush's tax cuts expire is going to pay for this plan, why do we need the individual mandate?

If you ask me, Obama's plan is paid for, principally, by the struggling middle-classed people who are uninsured, not by the elimination of tax breaks for the rich.



-Laelth

[Vincardog]

14. I should have been more clear How about Universal Single Payer paid for by allowing DS's tax breaks

to expire. We do not need to give any more money to PARASITIC CORPORATIONS

[havocmom]

13. We have our WINNUR!

Thanks to all the others calling in today.

[Oregone]

6. "People would simply buy health insurance when they needed it" - Erroneous Talking Point

People will simply buy the barest bones, cheapest, and most worthless insurance policy they need in the meantime to meet the mandate.

Since not every health plan will have a fixed price, the "gaming" of the system will continue by people playing musical chairs based on their need. The entire system is a damn game. Its all smoke and mirror bullshit to force a mandate on you.

[Laelth]

12. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[wiggs]

7. Who says? We think that Medicare operates with single digit overhead percentages,

right? We also believe that private insurance operates with 20-30% overhead because of company profit and engorged administrative costs. If companies agreed to (or were forced to adhere to through competition) a reasonable profit margin and reasonable compensation for executives wouldn't that pay for a lot of coverage that doesn't exist now? The difference is HUGE when talking about a multi-trillion dollar per year industry.

Subsidies to STOP windfall profits on the sickness of americans? Doesn't sound right.

[wiggs]

9. Lots of people seems to think that betting on insurance companies increasing profits is

a good investment.

"Health Insurance Stocks Rally With Release Of Baucus Health Bill"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Ardent15]

8. The insurance companies have a stanglehold on too many politicians. nt

[Laelth]

10. Good argument. You're absolutely right. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. You mean the Baucus DeBacle?