I really don't believe we'll see the benefits in 4 years as outlined with this bill. 12 states already have legislature to block it with 26 more preparing legislature. A lot of state attorneys will be going after it in court; I can see two arguments that will hold water: 1) The Commerce clause of the Tenth Ammendment - There is no interstate commerce in this bill, you can only use insurance approved by your own state. 2) Congress has the power to enact pretty much any tax they please, requiring the purchase of a product from a private entity is not a tax and therefore unconstitutional. I think the requirement to buy insurance will fall here. EDIT: Oh and this poll on MSNBC of all places is pretty telling. 67% of Americans angry. This legislation will harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the healthcare system
I think that health care reform is a great idea in theory, but I have absolute faith in my government to fuck it all up and turn it into a giant mess. Whatever. When I get syphilis, I'm just gonna leave it untreated for the entertainment of those around me. That being said, I LOVE how freaked out the retarded fatass Fox News-watching tea party cretins are about this. LOVE IT. All you faggots sat there and cheerleaded for eight years while Bush raped the living shit out of the constitution, and now suddenly Fox News says "panic about this health care thing", and you're all "the end of freedom!!! the end of freedom!!! nazi health care!!! i just want the country i grew up in!!!!! waaaaaaaa!!!!!!!" Feel the fear, faggots. Feel the fear.
So... 48 of 50 states are going to block the bill that just passed. Interesting. Also, polls aren't worth shit these days unless the data sample is available. I can easily go into an insurance company's lobby, ask 5 people if they like the new bill, and then report that 90% of Americans hate the bill. (I'm pretty sure we had a thread on mundane stats some time ago.) Personally, I do not consider the bill perfect by any means, but I'm glad it went through. The debate lasted way to long, and really showed what fucking mess our political system is. I will be covered now because of my preexisting condition. And finally, (Mods delete if I'm getting too political) please drop the "socialist state" bullshit. Please explain Social Security, Public Schooling, Medicare and Medicaid, without the same argument as Public Funded Health Care.
Does this mean we can finally start killing off the old people? On a more serious note, I'm not sure what, exactly, has been reformed here. Requirement to buy insurance plus a few tweaks to the system to prevent policies being revoked or rates hiked for pre-existing conditions seem to be the thrust of the bill, as well as subsidies to help those under a certain income level to purchase insurance if they don't have it from work. Doesn't seem as enormous an overhaul as it's been called in the media, especially compared to the earlier forms of the bill (i.e. publicly run health insurance, rather than public funds paying for private insurance, which to me makes more sense).
This is actually one of the political issues I'm really not all that informed on, so I can't give an opinion yet, but I better start researching this shit soon. I don't have health insurance, the restaurant I work for doesn't provide health insurance, but who gives a shit - I went to the doctor for the first time in three years a few months ago. It was $165 for the office visit, which is fuck all less than the premiums I'd have been paying the whole time anyway. All I know is I start hearing the word "penalty" for not choosing a provider and my ears perk up. I actually had a few guys in my bar last night from the Office of the Secretary of Defense - who were for the bill - try and break it down for me, basically saying that my restaurant will have to provide it for me because we employ more than 25 people. There was more than that, but I'd go on forever. If anyone want's to pick this up in PM or help explain how this applies to someone like me, I'm all for it, because I'm relatively uninformed (pretty shamefully so).
Besides the statements Obama made about wanting a government run single payer plan, prior to election which people have claimed are spliced or edit, there are other top democrats (such as barney frank) that have gone on the record saying that the entire reason for the overhaul push was to get to a single payer government system. Coupled with this the fact that every other entitlement program far eclipsed any cost estimates originally tabulated for them, makes me wonder how massive the government and debt situation in America will go. Ive heard a lot of arguments about our social duty to help the less fortunate. This of coarse is turned into the political poison each election cycle. Should we have a system that helps the truly indigent, Im talking handicapped, mentally ill, and elderly (people who truly cannot help themselves)? Don't we have programs that already do this? Why create a whole new system for something that we already have, programs which need to be fixed in the first place? I think some of the problems might have been addressed in the current law but creating a a whole new giant program for the government to fuck up? Seems like a scary idea to me. As for the "explain the socialist aspects of x, y, z government programs" straw man argument. Are you going to tell me that our public schools as a whole aren't royally shitty? Or that Social Security isn't fucked in the ass and predicted to collapse in the next decade? Pointing your finger at every government funded program and saying "explaint THAT socialism to me!?" is not a valid argument.
America has the best health care system in the world if you can afford it. And while I don't want to see that change, the function of insurance in our country has definitely become convoluted and needed reform. Outside of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, not that much actually changes from the status quo with the passage of this health care bill. Between SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, and free emergency room visits public health services have cost a shitload for awhile now. If you actually take issue with this bill I'd like to hear an alternative that would solve the structural problems behind it. Guess we've been a "socialist state" for awhile now...
If anyone is interested, you can read the entire reconciliation part of the bill here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_reconciliation.html Certainly some of this seems reasonable: UPDATED: The 153-page bill makes a number of changes to the Senate bill. The highlights: –Increases the tax credits for middle-income families who buy insurance. –Reduces the penalty for not buying insurance from $750 to $695. But the bill also requires some people to pay a share of their income as a penalty and that number was raised from 2 percent to 2.5 percent. –It closes the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage by 2011 and gives seniors who fall into the gap this year a $250 rebate. –It eliminates the Cornhusker Kickback and covers 100 percent of the increased Medicaid costs of all states until 2016 and decreases each year thereafter. –Requires that doctors that care for Medicaid patients be reimbursed at the full rate. –Spends $250 million to fight waste, fraud and abuse. –Delays and blunts the tax on high-end insurance plans in keeping with the deal Democrats struck with the labor unions. However, it does lower the index at which plans will be taxed, making it likely that more plans will be affected over time. –Imposes a Medicare tax on unearned income for families making more than $250,000. –Includes student loan reform. But then you look at stuff like this: What this bill will do: * Increase taxes on small businesses and families * Cut Medicare by more than $520 billion * Increase unfunded mandates on states by expanding Medicaid eligibility without paying for it * Penalize married couples with higher premiums * Tax those who do not purchase insurance acceptable to the government * Expand the role of the IRS into enforcing health care mandates * Increase the cost of health insurance * Increase spending on health care And you wonder where the truth is.
I take one issue with it. It requires you to have insurance. Shouldn't I be allowed to say I no? Other than that it sounds like a pretty grand thing. If I made more than 250k per year I would be extremely angry right now. My proposed change would be to have an opt out. If I don't want insurance, I should be able to not have any. And I sure as hell shouldn't be taxed for not having it.
You should be able to opt out. The bill is far from perfect. However, when it comes to major policy issues like health care everyone's a fucking critic but they rarely have solutions to the structural public problems behind the reform. In the spirit of actual debate if you oppose health care reform lets hear your alternative solutions.
Those polls aren't worth anything. I know Reddit and 4Chan commonly skew the results of Fox News for laughs. This is probably the same thing.
I don't know anyone who has/had a problem with health care reform itself. Most agree it is/was a necessary thing. It's the way in which it was carried out. In the spirit of actual debate, there wasn't any. It was a small group of very powerful people acting on an agenda, and I don't give a crap one way or another if those setting the agenda were red or blue. No matter the "party" the way this was done was wrong, and I don't see how anyone can debate that. That is/was my only problem with health care reform. Hope this wasn't too political.
I'd like to pose a question to the Americans on the board who believe that there should be an opt-out clause, or that government-regulated, single-payer systems are unwanted. The cost of health insurance in the States can be much, much higher than anything paid for by a socialized medical system. Currently, I don't pay anything for healthcare (although my province is one notch below Communist). Even when I lived in Alberta, the land of privatization, I paid $88/month, and when I was a student I had access to subsidies. From what I understand - and I'll stand corrected if this is false - health care costs borne by the individual in America are much higher than that, to say nothing of the fact that the coverage can be cancelled (should your treatment take too long or exceed the yearly cap), or flat out denied if they can even sort of prove a pre-existing condition. No one plans to get sick or injured. However, everybody dies at the end. So, knowing that at some point in your life you or your dependants will become ill, or be subjected to an injury, it makes sense to have health coverage, right? Because should you actually have to pay for the treatment itself the costs are unrealistic for the average person. Who on this board could afford a $1 million hospital bill if their child was born three months premature? Or, when you hit 65 and are diagnosed with cancer, will you be able to afford several hundreds of thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket expenses every year? My question is therefore this: how can you justify not wanting a single-payer (i.e. "the government pays") system, knowing that you may or may not be able to get and keep insurance on your own (because what happens if you lose your job?), or knowing that at some point you will have a large, unpayable hospital bill presented to you?
Direct impact: I'll quit smoking a lot sooner as the new bill allows insurance companies to hike your rates by 50% if you smoke. I been in the contemplation stage long enough, so I see this as the final impetus to do it. The bill also does away with the flexible spending account which sucks.
The good: My Uncle made a good living in New England working in the finance industry. He lost his job in the recession when he was 59, and therefore lost his health insurance with it. He is now 61, and has been unable to get insured since losing his job. He will now be able to get insurance, and this will be one of many recurring positive sentiments throughout the country. The bad: Without question, providing health insurance for employees is going to become much more expensive for businesses. Where is this money going to come from? My pay increases. My bonuses. I completely understand how shallow that sounds, but fuck it, that's the reality of it. No, of course I don't want people to die because they can't get health care. Yes, of course I want to make as much money as possible - I bust my ass for it. I'm going to lunch with our COO tomorrow, so I'm going to bring it up and ask what to expect. I'm also not thrilled with the prospect of extended waiting periods to see my PCP, but like money situation, that remains to be seen.
If they're already providing you with coverage I doubt this will impact your pay much, unless they have a really crappy policy.
I believe that one of the few responsibilities government has is to protect our borders and our interest abroad so that we can freely work to increase our own individual prosperity. America is a country where citizens are free to succeed or fail. Entitlement by force is wrong. I do not have any answers for the dialectic arguments that will result from my opinion, so don't ask. Personal note: I have been self employed as a contractor for a direct marketing company for the last ten years and I also own a retail storefront business which has been open for the last fifteen years. Things are really tough right now. Do I have cable T.V. at home right now? No. Do I have broadband internet at home? No. Do I eat out as much? No. Do I cook crockpots full of beans or chili or whatever and freeze leftovers for later use? Yes. Am I working much longer hours for less money than I used too? Yes. Do I have insurance? Yes. If there were nothing left to cut back on, would I wash windows with a squeegee underneath an overpass on weekends to maintain it? Yes. Would I spray paint curb numbers in affluent neighborhoods for $5 each? Yes. Would I even be willing to mow a few lawns? Yes. Anyway, I could go on and on. At least I can still afford beer in the afternoon on a Wednesday.
This healthcare reform means absolutely nothing for my family, and am almost certain that our government will fuck this up. However, in principle I think my countrymen should have access to affordable healthcare (wrt their income level) and should not be excluded based on a preexisting conditions. In any event I still think there's an unmitigated disaster afoot.
Dcc001 -- as a Canadian living in the US (with insurance), I'll try to explain why I object to the single payer system. I have had direct and indirect experience (family, friends) with both systems. As I see it, people look for quality, convenience and cost in their health care. US far exceeds Canada on quality and convenience. I not suggesting that the medical care in Canada is bad, just not as good as the US. Who has better cost I believe is up for debate when all factors are considered. I think the single payer system is the reason Canada lags behind the US for several reasons. One is technology. Since the hospitals in Canada are funded by the government and are not allowed to make a profit, there is very little room for investment in cutting or bleeding edge technologies. In some cases, established technology can be hard to come by. For example, in New Brunswick there is one machine in the province to remove kidney stones. It is shared between three hospitals in three different cities. US hospitals have more ability to experiment with new technologies. As more hospitals invest, the prices will drop. I speculate most of the world benefits from the experimenting of US hospitals because it is easier to decide on what to buy when someone else has tested it first. Another is the lack of competition. Since there is generally only one employer for doctors and nurses, the salaries tend to be much lower. Since a nurse cannot go to another hospital for a salary increase, they are generally left to go on strike. While many enter the field for altruistic reasons, others want to get rewarded for their hard work and skill. This is why the US tends to attract some of the world’s best doctors. By offering competitive salaries, the US attracts more doctors. More doctors means there is less change of shortages and long waits. These are both current problems with the Canadian system These are just two reasons. I could go on but it is getting too long. If we want medicine to continue to advance we need the ability to invest in people and technology. Single payer systems tend to slow this progression because they simply don’t have the money to take risks. While it is nice to have the safety net, I believe the risks taken by free market US system is a big reason why medicine has advanced this far. I fear if the US were to adopt that system, advancement would decrease. I would like to add, I do think reform of the insurance industry is needed.