Want the public option for health care to pass? You can help!

[Olo401]

A very serious question. Why should I help to give illegal immigrants insurance?

Actually, you're doing it already. And from what I understand some of the changes being proposed would make it harder for them to game the system.

And here's something else to think about - illegals who don't have health care become carriers of disease, and they spread it to the rest of us. That makes it a much larger issue than just controlling immigration - it's a public safety issue. There needs to be something in place to prevent outbreaks of disease and control them when they do happen, regardless of the segment of the population.

[pohibaba]

- None of the possible plans forces prices down by fiat - in fact it would do so through efficiency and creating additional competition.

No, it's artificially lowering the price of healthcare. When you have an organization that doesn't care about profit and can charge whatever it likes it creates an unfair advantage. The only way for other healthcare companies to keep up is by lowering their prices, but that also means cutting the services they provide because they, unlike the government program, have to worry about profits.

- Shortages (i.e. denial and cancellation of coverage, sick/injured people being kicked off their plans and dumped on sidewalks in South Central LA, etc.) are happening NOW, because profit margins are more fucking important to HMOs and for-profit hospitals than keeping people alive.

If you think I'm arguing that the system we have now is perfect, then let me correct you. There are many, many things wrong with the system that we have, but the way of improving the system is allowing REAL competition not this fixed bullshit that's being proposed.

- None of the possible bills being debated now have anything to do with socialized medicine, according to your own criteria. If anything, the best plan bring tossed around would create additional competition and prices would drop from making healthcare more efficient, which is what your second image asserts.

I don't really agree with throwing around bullshit terms like "socialized medicine" because I don't think it adds anything to the debate and is only an attempt to scare people to one side of the fence or the other.

And speaking of basic freedoms.. you know, life, liberty, and either the pursuit of happiness or property depending what you're reading.. guess what the current system robs us of in their unending profiteering quest? Life.

But I also don't like the idea that if you don't support government issued healthcare then you don't care about the lives of poor people. I do, I just simply don't agree with the way you want to go about it.

[SephYuyX]

I didnt read the thread, but I hope everyones consensus is that a public health option is the US would be a horrible thing. It would cause mass layoffs, hurt small businesses even more, cause companies to compeltly drop coverage, and give free health care to illegals.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I didnt read the thread, but I hope everyones consensus is that a public health option is the US would be a horrible thing. It would cause mass layoffs, hurt small businesses even more, cause companies to compeltly drop coverage, and give free health care to illegals.

lol what

I have to know where you got those arguments because each one is false in its own special way

[tyven]

he prob should have read the thread

[tyven]

my favorite part is the free healthcare for illegals

my second favorite part is the companies dropping coverage

actually i dont know which part i like more

[Olo401]

No, it's artificially lowering the price of healthcare. When you have an organization that doesn't care about profit and can charge whatever it likes it creates an unfair advantage. The only way for other healthcare companies to keep up is by lowering their prices, but that also means cutting the services they provide because they, unlike the government program, have to worry about profits.

So instead, you have several organizations that care about profit so much that they charge whatever they like and create an unfair advantage for themselves against their customers. Plus, the resulting cutting of services provided to satify profit margins happens anyways.

And I take it you're also opposed to non-profit private insurance carriers competing with for-profit ones, since despite satifying the need for competition it still creates the "unfair advantage" of not being for profit.

If you think I'm arguing that the system we have now is perfect, then let me correct you. There are many, many things wrong with the system that we have, but the way of improving the system is allowing REAL competition not this fixed bullshit that's being proposed.

The problem here is that health care is a necessary fact of life, and in some cases it's considered a basic human right (and it should be in this country but it isn't). Either way, you can't ethically balance the needs of the free market against people's lives, because when you do that PEOPLE DIE. Do the proposals currently being debated now satisfy that ethical dilemma? No, probably not I'll admit that much. But they're a LOT better at reaching that goal than doing nothing at all.

I don't really agree with throwing around bullshit terms like "socialized medicine" because I don't think it adds anything to the debate and is only an attempt to scare people to one side of the fence or the other.

I was simply using the language used in your example graphs. The whole "socialized medicine" nonsense is a propaganda tool used by opponents of serious health care reform.

But I also don't like the idea that if you don't support government issued healthcare then you don't care about the lives of poor people. I do, I just simply don't agree with the way you want to go about it.

Then what would you propose, that doesn't create the ethical conflict of pushing people away from care because of profit margins?

[Maxxthepenguin]

my favorite part is the free healthcare for illegals

my second favorite part is the companies dropping coverage

actually i dont know which part i like more

The hurting small businesses imo is the funniest

[tyven]

harry reid just announced that they will finish the bill in the fall. BUSY AUGUST FOR MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Headspace]

harry reid just announced that they will finish the bill in the fall. BUSY AUGUST FOR MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You're going to miss Devin Thomas get cut in camp!

who won't be able to get his bum ankle fixed because he'll have no job and health care.

See what you've done?

[Olo401]

harry reid just announced that they will finish the bill in the fall. BUSY AUGUST FOR MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

When I first saw this, I thought "fucking spineless Harry Reid again.."

...then I realized something. Let's face it - he's not a Republican. He's not gonna just ram shit through without any input from the other side, like the Republicans did from 2001-2007.

We liberals, for lack of a better term, are reasonable folks despite being fearmongered, beaten, illegally jailed, sent to die for profit, called traitors and unAmerican, spied on, drowned, starved, ripped off & driven to poverty. We will still give those guys who treated us like shit a voice.

No sir, I don't like it I admit that. But if that's what it takes to be a different breed of human then so be it.

[tyven]

i mean, its just cuz the finance committee is taking too long. E&C has had to cancel their markup two days in a row now but i think thats because of the Blue Dogs. its just a shit show in general right now

[Suited Aces]

He's not gonna just ram shit through without any input from the other side.

lol only two bills too late.

[Stiker]

Ok, I normally wouldn't ever post something like this, but it is just too damn funny to me. Thanks to the wonders of Facebook, I see a friend post the following link:

Take 2 aspirin and call me when your cancer is stage 4

http://www.wnd.com/images2/acoulter.gifhttp://www.wnd.com/images2/acoulter.jpg http://www.wnd.com/images/header_commentary.gif

Take 2 aspirin and call me when your cancer is stage 4
Posted: July 22, 2009
5:45 pm Eastern

© 2009

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes – the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care – all government creations.

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.
The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary – which you ought to pay for yourself – and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments – which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes – as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat – but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance – and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down – not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care – especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.
Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster – less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.
Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care – and health insurance – on the free market.

Comments on the bold:

1) lol at comparisons of healthcare with electronics

2) I love how people that choose to be uninsured is the actual problem and not, oh I donno, the fact that people can't afford it. Also, I guess all those uninsured children that are under 18 should've signed up for it.

3) Yeah...because we don't already do this thanks to the current system.

4) Besides just lol, I'm sure Canada, England, and Sweden have something to say about that.

5) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what Obama is trying to do with the public option?

Just wow.

[pohibaba]

The problem here is that health care is a necessary fact of life, and in some cases it's considered a basic human right (and it should be in this country but it isn't). Either way, you can't ethically balance the needs of the free market against people's lives, because when you do that PEOPLE DIE. Do the proposals currently being debated now satisfy that ethical dilemma? No, probably not I'll admit that much. But they're a LOT better at reaching that goal than doing nothing at all.

I've been split on this issue for a long time and I was hoping that I was going to be able to come up with an argument for this thread that would convince myself; I couldn't do it. I'm going to have to agree with you and even admit that you helped change my opinion. I'll even use the argument that Ayn Rand once used herself: The only role that government has is to protect its citizens; leaving people without healthcare to die is in no way protecting them.

[Skyylya]

so if this is the health care thing that's going to force small business owners etc... to give their employee's health coverage this is the thing that i'm against. If it's not then it's something else i havent looked into and ignore what follows.

But i'm against this bill if it's what i think it is. giving coverage to your employee's is not cheap, especially for small business owners. They don't drive around in porches and mercedes and generally even if you have a 3-6 employee business the cost of providing health care is in the 10's of thousands. that is more than enough to cause most of these business' to go out of business simply because the only fix would be to increase their prices which in this economy is the short road to going under.

Socializing health care is just one of obama's many bad socialist idea's. I'm sick and tired of working hard so that they lazy people in this country can get shit for free. Get a damn job and pay your 100-400 dollars a month for health insurance. There is plenty of work out there people need to stop saying they won't do this or won't do that and just get a damn job.

The socialist mindset this country has is disgusting. This might very well give people more access to healthcare, but in the long run they're gonna need it cause un-employement is going to skyrocket if and when this passes. Private insurance companies will not be able to compete which is in the hundreds of thousands of jobs, on top of the small business' and their employee's that will lose their jobs. Cool you can get a prescription but what about everything else that people need to live.

[Jeryhn]

There is plenty of work out there people need to stop saying they won't do this or won't do that and just get a damn job.

Really? The unemployment rate in my state, California, is now at 11.6% according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Plenty of jobs, huh?

Not to mention, the CSU system in California is now on complete lockdown on accepting new students into the university system because the state is losing money due to people being unable to contribute in income taxes or other miscellaneous fees. My girlfriend is one of these affected people - she was looking forward to transferring to CSUSF in the winter. She'll now have to sidegrade her degree pursuits to go for various AAs instead of the BA she desires. State workers are now on mandatory 3-day furloughs per month, and lawmakers in the state are anticipating increasing this to 4-days a month - an effective 20% paycut for state workers statewide.

Fact of the matter is, we're going to have a lot of sick people to take care of in California (and this is just California, folks) soon because no employer that hires largely unskilled workers is going to foot the bill for insurance coverage (not including things like worker's comp). Either way, the government is going to have to deal with all this, so setting up a public option before the proverbial shit hits the fan seems like a damn good idea, no?

[Maxxthepenguin]

so if this is the health care thing that's going to force small business owners etc... to give their employee's health coverage this is the thing that i'm against. If it's not then it's something else i havent looked into and ignore what follows.

But i'm against this bill if it's what i think it is. giving coverage to your employee's is not cheap, especially for small business owners. They don't drive around in porches and mercedes and generally even if you have a 3-6 employee business the cost of providing health care is in the 10's of thousands. that is more than enough to cause most of these business' to go out of business simply because the only fix would be to increase their prices which in this economy is the short road to going under.

Well, if the small business owner don't provide health care that means one of two things: He has to pay the employees enough to get their own or his employees don't have health care. One ends up saving no money. The other means the employees have no health care, which is bad for obvious reasons. If a tax based health care plan is what gets created, then the employees, who likely aren't making a ton of money, will get taxed a small % of their income. If the employer raises wages to equate that into the same amount of money the employee pays after taxes, it's still a lower cost than paying for the absurd amounts that insurance companies charge small businesses.

Socializing health care is just one of obama's many bad socialist idea's. I'm sick and tired of working hard so that they lazy people in this country can get shit for free. Get a damn job and pay your 100-400 dollars a month for health insurance. There is plenty of work out there people need to stop saying they won't do this or won't do that and just get a damn job.

Get a job and pay for health care unless you want to work for a small business? And lol@plenty of work when you're saying that all these small businesses are on the brink of dying right now (and they are). You can't use both arguments. If businesses are dying, then there probably isn't much work.

The socialist mindset this country has is disgusting. This might very well give people more access to healthcare, but in the long run they're gonna need it cause un-employement is going to skyrocket if and when this passes. Private insurance companies will not be able to compete which is in the hundreds of thousands of jobs, on top of the small business' and their employee's that will lose their jobs. Cool you can get a prescription but what about everything else that people need to live.

You really don't know that much do you. You don't even know what socialism really is. You don't understand that if the private companies lose jobs than the alternative plan that put them out of business will probably gain those jobs because of the new people it has to take care of.

You REALLY don't get it.

[Tristam]

My favorite argument for health care reform is that we're actually wasting money. If you were a shopping for health care, getting it in the US would be considered a gigantic rip-off.

Why Does U.S. Health Care Cost So Much? (Part I) - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

it's actually going to be near-impossible in the future for a middle class family to support a family of 4.

Is Health Care Reform Worth $1.6 Trillion? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

Put simply, something HAS to happen.

[Skyylya]

Well, if the small business owner don't provide health care that means one of two things: He has to pay the employees enough to get their own or his employees don't have health care. One ends up saving no money. The other means the employees have no health care, which is bad for obvious reasons. If a tax based health care plan is what gets created, then the employees, who likely aren't making a ton of money, will get taxed a small % of their income. If the employer raises wages to equate that into the same amount of money the employee pays after taxes, it's still a lower cost than paying for the absurd amounts that insurance companies charge small businesses.



Get a job and pay for health care unless you want to work for a small business? And lol@plenty of work when you're saying that all these small businesses are on the brink of dying right now (and they are). You can't use both arguments. If businesses are dying, then there probably isn't much work.



You really don't know that much do you. You don't even know what socialism really is. You don't understand that if the private companies lose jobs than the alternative plan that put them out of business will probably gain those jobs because of the new people it has to take care of.

You REALLY don't get it.

Whether the employer increases wages or pays for health care his cost will be relatively the same, still enough to put him out of business. If he goes out of business his employee's will lose more than they'll gain by free health care.

These so called jobs you speak of when healthcare is socialized will be run by the government, you really think that people will get the treatment they need rather than being looked at quickly to move on to the next person or being told the important surgery they need is on a 6-10 month wait? So everyone 'can' get health care, that doesn't mean it will be good health care, let's be real this new plan will be run by the government.


and there is a lot of work available, i'm not saying that there is a job for every person out there and that it pays 80k a year. But there is work, people are just to proud to do 'any' job even if it means paying the bills or working 2 jobs.

You can say what you want about me cause you don't know any more about me than you know about anyone else or the business' that i'm talking about or the people employed by them.

This might sound good in theory but in practice it will do more damage than good because of what will need to be sacrificed to get it.