How do I type this?

[dave29]

For the life of me, I am having a hard time listening to some of those argue about this fire issue being some of the same folks railing against having to pay for insurance from a for profit system. Because of this, and many many other changes to our healthcare system, the very LIBERAL goal of insuring 30 million plus people HAS come to pass.

Otherwise these folks LIVES would continue to burn down without the healthcare they deserve. That's the freaking system we have been trying to change, and we had to arm wrestle with the inbreeders in Congress to get it. And it made so many at this sight so very mad that they would have to pay in to the system, or face a minimal fine, that will probably not be enforced.

Are we in agreement that having for profit insurance sucks? Sure. But lives will be saved. Reading about the 3 cats who died, the response to that horrible display of non-compassion, you'd think insuring 30 million Americans was the best thing we'd done in a thousand years.

I am swooning over the hypocrisy. And I know I'll get locked, but it needed to be said.

[daleanime]

1. How about a nice LIBERAL goal....

of providing 30 million plus with health care instead of providing Insurance Companies with 30 million plus additional customers?

[dave29]

2. how about not making 30 million people suffer

so you can remain ideologically pure?

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. How about helping 55 million instead of just 30 million?

It's not 'purity' - it's Democratic values.

[dave29]

8. Hey I am all for it

I'd love that. I'd love Universal health care. I just don't see why we have to deny coverage to those who cannot get it now in order to make a point.

And I especially do not see the point of screaming about the atrocity of letting houses burn down, when a sizeable number of the same group believed insuring 30 million Americans (and yes a good number will be able to afford, if you understand the law at all, and how it is being phased in) was an exercise in corporate appeasement. 30 million be damned!

[daleanime]

42. Not at all....

will take any improvement we can get! And IMHO all progressives want Universal health care so why are we so touchy when we talk about it?

I admit that part of that is because of people like me, I see this as far to important of an issue to let it slide off the national stage. Another is that people do honestly see things differently. For you 30 million Americans with health insurance is 30 million Americans that much closer to the care they need.

For me that's 30 million who still will have to fight with a 3rd party who's only interest is their own profit margin. I see no solution to the health care problems in this nation as long as we use sick people to make millionaires.

Am I seating on my hands this election cycle? Hell no! You think I want a Scumbag for govern of NY? :bounce:

[daleanime]

4. Why do you think 'insurance'....

relieves any one suffering?:wow:


People who couldn't afford insurance are now unable to meet copays, problem solved?:banghead:



And me? Pure? :blush: :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

7. Do you understand that this is being released incrementally?

Next stop: Insurance companies must spend 85% of the money they bring in on healthcare benefits for the insured.

We had nothing. Something will take a little longer.

[daleanime]

41. I have plenty of faith in our government...

to provide enough loop holes for their friends to jump through.



Yes, there are good things about this insurance reform. But a fresh coat of paint is the last thing you should do when your house needs the to have the foundation repaired.

[TexasObserver]

5. more nonsense

More people are uninsured now than before "health care reform" was passed.

[JuniperLea]

6. got link? eom

[TexasObserver]

9. yes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39215770/

[JuniperLea]

16. "rose sharply last year to 50.7 million"

Last year's numbers are hardly indicative of this year's healthcare bill and its efficacy. Wasn't the current bill passed just this past March? Regardless of how magic people think Obama should be, even he can't "pass" a healthcare bill that reaches back into the past to fix things.

[EFerrari]

10. Well, to my mind you're conflating an emergency situation

with a system for everyday use.

[dave29]

11. not having healthcare is not an emergency situation?

really? Now I get why ya'll are wanting to wait for the magical appearance Single Payer

[EFerrari]

12. I haven't had healthcare since 1994 but I don't have emergencies

everyday, no.

[dave29]

13. do you have a pre-existing condition that requires daily maintenance?

I thought not

[EFerrari]

20. You keep moving the goal posts, don't you?

:)

And as a matter of fact, I do.

[dave29]

22. No, I am exploring different aspects of the bill

it's actually got a lot of stuff in it. And hey, good for you for taking care of yourself all by yourself. It's like you have your own firehose, screw the fire dept!

[EFerrari]

24. Maintenance by definition isn't an emergency.

And not only do I think it's criminal to watch a house burn down, I expect to afford the fine for not buying insurance I can't afford to use.

Maybe this difference of opinion is a matter of class as much as perspective. When you've grown up poor, you face these situations all the time. Maybe they look like emergencies to people who are used to a certain, reliable income, I don't know. But you do your best as you can, whether it be figuring out how to do self care when there's no access to doctors or whether it's helping your neighbor put out his fire because that's what neighbors so, their best as they can. Money isn't the first consideration because it can't be, in either case.

[dave29]

26. yes maybe class is an issue

I grew up dirt poor and remain so. I narrowly dodged bankruptcy a few years back. And I was resoundingly told that despite the very real threat of being kicked off my health insurance (which we use sparingly because the plan sucks so hard) because of *my* pre-existing conditon(s), that I was an idiot for wanting this bill to pass. Roger that.

I want everyone to have access to healthcare, and if not everyone, at the very least, someone who did not before. This bill will help me marginally, but many others far more. And that is what I am talking about here... desire to help our neighbors.

And fwiw, the whole damn country is on fire.

[EFerrari]

28. In that sense, sure.

I remember my poor young mom telling me, "if you get hurt, I'll spank you!" and she was really saying, "the idea of you getting hurt makes me frantic because there is no money for doctors". It would be nice to see us get past that kind of preventive strategery. :)

[dave29]

30. agreed.

I'll never forget my first trip to Mexico where the dentist told my parents I had 31 cavities.

[uppityperson]

14. Here is my problem. Money. I cannot afford this health insurance. I need healthcare, but can't

afford the insurance. If insurance were affordable, I'd agree that the "very LIBERAL goal of insuring 30 million plus people" came to pass. But if I can't afford it, it hasn't. I am for the very LIBERAL goal of providing affordable health care, not unaffordable insurance, to 30 million plus people.

[dave29]

15. hey maybe we didn't help you this time, but we may have helped your neighbor

is that good enough? Or does their house have to be on fire?

[uppityperson]

21. My neighbor is unable to afford the high costs of INSURANCE and would like affordable health care

There is a difference between health insurance and health care. My neighbor is having financial difficulties also and cannot afford the high cost of health insurance, esp with the high deductibles in it.

AS for your fire analogy, I'm not going to put water on their house if it's not on fire and I doubt the fire dept will either.

[dave29]

25. Ok so my point is this.

since we are talking around each other (shocking)

If this bill helped one person, it would be good enough for me. Healthcare is crucially important. I understand that people have very strong opinions (not always rooted in fact) about this bill and insurance companies, cost and whether or not it will be useful to them. But the sentiment I saw expressed in the fire threads was in stark contrast to what I saw during the healthcare debate. In the fire thread, people were shocked, just shocked I tell you that we would avoid helping one person regardless of how boneheaded they were. Now that we're merely talking healthcare it's back to me me me.

[uppityperson]

27. I stayed out of fire threads. Sorry if you see me wanting affordable healthcare for all as "me me"

Are you calling me deluded as well as egocentric? My opinion on the difference between affordable health care and unaffordable health insurance is "always rooted in fact". The facts are I cannot afford to pay $600/month for insurance that has a $5000-10,000 deductible. This does NOT give me any better access to health care than I had before.

Same for my neighbor and most of my friends. "If this bill helped one person, it would be good enough for me." Not for me. I want more than 1 person helped. If you pretend this is "back to me me me", you have a problem larger than I can deal with here.

[dave29]

29. I was not singling you out

sorry you took it so personally. And if you think I am done fighting for better healthcare, wrong.

My problem is with fairweather liberals who think helping everyone is holding out for what helps them.

[zipplewrath]

31. At what cost?

There is a mandate in this bill, is the cost of that "worth" helping just one person? We continue to prohibit the negotiation of drug prices, and the importation of drugs from Canada. Was that worth "one more person"? This will raise the cost of insurance for the young and healthy. Was that worth insuring one more person? This bill was designed by the GOP in '93 to inhibit the passage of universal health care. Is that worth "one more person"?

The cost of this one more person was very high. I hope it was worth it. You say 30 million more will have health insurance. The White House says 25 million will still go without health CARE. Was that worth "one more person"?

[dave29]

32. for many, you might not want to admit it

health insurance is what provides access to health care. Yeah, 25 million sill still go without, that sucks. And yes, my 1 person comment was hyperbole.... FAR more people will be helped by this bill.

I honestly do not have the strength to argue the merits of the bill yet again. My intention here was to draw a straight line between the desire to help one person vs the desire to help none that many people here displayed brazenly with the fire threads.

[zipplewrath]

34. Unfortnately not for the target audience

I understand that health insurance, espeically for employer provided health insurance is often an important combination in obtaining health care. The correlation however does tend to start to break down once one has a job of such limited quality that one isn't getting benefits. Furthermore, even those with employer provided insurance often can't afford to use it, because the job provides "token" insurance with high copays and deductibles.

For the target audience, there will not be alot of correlation between having insurance and having access to health care. Worse, the bill was very specific about those that will be left out in the cold, and it was absolutely the most vulnerable. Those with low paying jobs, but with high premiums. They'll be exempt from the mandates, but they'll get no health care.

It isn't clear how many "millions" will actually get health CARE from this. Probably the largest portions will be people who now get medicaid. Many of them were alread eligible for some sort of government assistance. Roughly half were already eligible and just didn't get it. And for this we gave away price negotiations, cadillac taxes, mandates, and no drug price negotiations. Alot of people got screwed so that these "millions" will be obligated to have health insurance, but have no guarantee of health care.

And the rate of inflation of health CARE costs is still estimated, by the White House, to be around 6% per year for the foreseable future.

[dave29]

35. "target audience"

I wonder what the target audience is for all of the new community health centers?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/sen_bernie_sanders_health_care.html

[zipplewrath]

37. Medicaid

Predominately medicaid. They will tend to be located in high population centers with large medicaid and medicare populations.

[dave29]

38. yes, among other things

and that is a net positive. Most of these centers will work on a sliding scale. This was the point I was working towards.

[zipplewrath]

40. But miss much of the target population in need of HCR

These centers aren't destined to be located where they will serve people WITHOUT health care access. Quite the opposite, they will tend to be focused in areas that already have wide spread access, at least those with medicaid and medicare. The ultimate purpose of HCR was to save the government money, not to increase individuals access to affordable health care. The CHC will likely be in high population centers, serving predominately people already eligible for some form of public assistance in health insurance or health care. It isn't that people without health insurance won't be able to use them, they just won't be located with the intent of focusing upon that need. They will be located to save the government money, not individuals.

[JuniperLea]

18. It was only passed in March...

And because of the GOTP sabotage, the bill is on slow release... you can thank obstructionists. Don't give up hope... things are changing.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Don't and say you did because insurance people can't afford to use

along with increased cost shifting and taxing benefits to insure the trend only continues in to the future is not a liberal objective. Nor is forcing every American into an unreformed predator cartel.

The system is a complete nightmare, including for many in corporate plans that many seem convinced are peaches and cream.

[dave29]

19. no one said anything about peaches or cream

why do you want 30 million to remain uninsured?

[uppityperson]

23. I could have this insurance, but cannot afford it even with the high deductibles

I don't have $600/month for insurance that has a $5000 deductible, and cannot afford one with a lower deductible.

If I could, whoopie! I'd be insured but homeless. AND unable to afford the deductible before the insurance would kick in.

There is a difference between health insurance and affordable health care.

[jgraz]

33. The next time someone complains of people going to extraordinary lengths to criticize Obama

I'm going to send them a link to this thread. Bookmarked.

:eyes:

[dave29]

39. the intent of this thread was not to praise Obama

but to point out hypocrisy. For example, getting into food fights with DU members about anything under the sun and complaining of inaction... but ignoring when they post the evidence you request. And really, wasn't I just giving props to Bernie Sanders on the community centers? I mean, sure he kind of looks like Obama...

eyeroll back atya.

As with many other threads this one devolved into a discussion of how crappy the health care bill was. Strangely, I expected that, but hey, at least didn't get locked, right?

[HereSince1628]

36. The government should provide guaranteed health-care loans

In short, the day you find out you need money, you go to the lender (an agency, something like medicare) and the lender provides you the loan (some fair value over prime, yeah devilish detail there) and you make arrangements to pay them back. People don't pay huge sums prior to their medical care utilization (which makes executives of insurance companies rich) and deincentivizes insurance purchasing. People pay off their loan as best they can, under terms that allow them to live somewhere other than a poor house (yeah, I know devilish details here). In the end, if you haven't paid off your debt when you die, the feds get to inherit upto 100% what's left of your estate as one of the possibly several creditors). That changes things only a little, because right now the last day or three of life demands the transfer of huge amounts of wealth into the medical system. In my model the government rather than an HMO gets to recoup its investment by taking your estate.

You don't like this deal? Well, a person could still buy private insurance. And when it fails this system would be there as a safety net to catch the bodies discarded by the insurers.

Mainpoints...

1. The government has an interest in everyone getting preventative care because it helps keep down the costs of treatment of preventable conditions. The government has an interest in keeping costs down through regulation and by enforcing economies of scale that a 400 million+ population can provide for medicines and routine preventative care.

2. Using a flat income tax, everyone who has a positive cashflow makes a defined contribution to the system. This provides immediate capitalization needs of the system and would help the system pace itself with inflation in the health-care arena.

3. The user has an incentive to avoid using a loan, in the same way that every borrower has an incentive to use cash but to work the lending market and to protect his/her credit rating. Borrowers would be incentivized to use only what they really need and to remain current while paying back their loans.

4. The government (agencies and the legislature) would be incentivized to keep down the costs of health-care in a manner that it currently has not. The Feds might even want to open government healthcare centers to populations that have no profitability for private providers. Over several generations (probably 3-4) the costs of health-care would become more or less stable, yes-at a large fraction of GDP, when adjusted to inflation.

5. For an individual with any level of health financing needs it would mean an open line of credit limited to use for that purpose. This would provide for high-priced care for long-term chronic as well as catastrophic and expensive acute conditions. Yes, healthcare indebtedness could become a bottomless pit, except for the math which says the lending system would stabilize over the long term because there is only so much we can spend help people if care is fairly priced. Outstanding debt could be forgiven at death, after garnishing a person's estate (yeah I know, devilish details to protect surviving spouses, dependent relatives).

6. It isn't really getting insurance after you get sick. It is getting a guaranteed loan regardless of your prior health and financial condition. The government could even package these health loans to create derivatives which they could sell to the paper pushers on Wall St re Goldman-Sachs.