Obama's health plans

[joe hx]

something I read today that I thought was interesting:

if we're going to insure the so-many million uninsured, obviously we're going to have much longer lines for treatment. thus, we're also going to need a lot more doctors.

just a point in the whole debate that I hadn't thought of.

[BroomJockey]

Obamacare

To me, this word encapsulates the entire issue. People aren't against it because they're against it. They're against it because it's coming from a Democrat. After all, if it was Government Health Care they were against, they wouldn't be personalizing it, and tying it to a specific figurehead. That's also why it's a political issue, not a social one.

National health care in Canada was brought about by Tommy Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan. Yet it was never referred to as "TommyCare," or anything like that. He was a member of the NDP. These people tend to make hippies look conservative. And yet this idea wasn't ever tied specifically to the person or party advocating it, people went ahead on actual merits. They discussed ways in which it COULD work, or COULD fail, not "government fucks up all the time, so why give them the chance?"

Honestly, I've never seen a real argument against a national health care plan in the US. It's either "I don't want larger government," or "the government screws up all the time," or some variant thereof. No actual arguments in there. After all, if the government *does* screw up all the time, then simply make them a rubber-stamper for the project. Instead of health care insurance companies, hospitals and doctors bill the government. At no point does the government get a yay/nay vote on any regularly performed procedure (no experimentals, in other words), same as your insurance company. Then, instead of you paying an insurance company, the government just works out a tax to apply to everyone. After all, the entire concept of insurance is a group of people pays in to it on the assumption that not everyone is going to be pulling out from it at once, so a larger pool size makes an individual a smaller risk. The government's in the position to have the largest pool possible, so they'd be able to have the lowest rates.

[BroomJockey]

if we're going to insure the so-many million uninsured, obviously we're going to have much longer lines for treatment. thus, we're also going to need a lot more doctors.

Hey, finally, an actual argument! And one minute before my other post!

However, I rebutt it thusly: If people were insured, they'd be able to go to the doctor earlier, and receive care for issues before they turn in to emergencies, thus relieving strain on emergency rooms, and lessening the required amount of medical resources to fix that problem, so the number of doctors needed would increase, but not as much as would probably be projected.

[Rapscallion]

something I read today that I thought was interesting:

if we're going to insure the so-many million uninsured, obviously we're going to have much longer lines for treatment. thus, we're also going to need a lot more doctors.

Depends on the treatments that are on offer. As I said somewhere or other, it really depends on what limits you're planning to set.

There are stories in the press over here about the ridiculous treatments sometimes given, such as breat reduction or inflation. They're the exception rather than the rule. What you need to do is decide what you can afford.

Emergency services - car crash, dig them out, patch them up, get them back into the workforce faster and back to their role in the economy. Simple in basis, yes?

Maternity care - make sure mother is healthy as possible and child gets into the world fine, then out there and back to raising the child rather than an extended stay in a 'hotel'.

"Oh, my self esteem will be ruined if I don't lose an extra couple of pounds through liposuction and I'll be psychologically traumatised for ever!" That's elective and where the health businesses can make their money instead.

Sensible limits - they're not hard to price up and work out what you can afford.

Rapscallion

[joe hx]

They're against it because it's coming from a Democrat.

that is so true, and it works both ways. I guarantee that if Bush had an identical "BushCare" then there would be people against it because its coming from a Republican.

which is why I hate political parties. all our congressmen don't represent us, the represent whatever party their from. in fact, they pass laws that make if very difficult for independent and third-party candidates just to appear on the ballet?

like in Ohio - you have to fill out a form and pay $80 just to be a write-in candidate
otherwise those votes for write-in candidates don't count

[BroomJockey]

which is why I hate political parties. all our congressmen don't represent us, the represent whatever party their from.

Okay, I'm getting off topic, but the Canadian system? You're literally voting for the party, not the candidate. A candidate can *say* whatever they want, but they have to toe the party line when voting on the majority of issues, or they can (and have been) disciplined, up to and including being removed from the party caucus (essentially making them an independent, with no funding or anything else that comes with belonging to a political party).

[AFPheonix]

Because I don't want the US Government fucking something else up. Yes, what we have currently is broken, but, I don't want the government taking it over as the federal government has a history of not setting plans up correctly and actually making whatever worse with a lot of paperwork, red tape and ridiculous rules.

Like Illinois' idiotic smoking ban. The state set it up, put it into effect, THEN tried to figure out who would enforce it, fines and the appeals process. It went into effect January 1, 2009. They finally figured out the specifics this past week. Why not figure everything out THEN put it into effect?

The current Illinois provided medical insurance is way past fucked up. They said the only available dentist for my area is in Chicago - three hours away. Uh, no. If you're providing care for Illinoisans, provide care for downstate as well, local to us. Doctors? A little more reasonable, but, almost none in my local area (within about 25 miles) are taking new patients. The doctors who ARE taking new patients aren't covered by the insurance.

Plus, I've seen the government deny a truly disabled person SSI because (according to the state) she could still drive a bus (former job) even though her knees were so shot she couldn't get in the bus to even attempt driving it. Yet some person can eat themselves into being bed ridden can get SSI because they have "a problem".

So, no, I don't want the government to take over healthcare. Do I want something done about the current situation? Yes. This country needs LESS government intervention, not MORE.

So what you're saying is that since Illinois government sucks slightly, then all government, regardless of state or level sucks?
You realize state politics are much easier to manipulate, yes? Get involved if you don't like something they've done. Run for a representative spot.

UHC has been implemented in so many other countries in many really well-thought out ways. We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. We can take parts from other countries' plans that work and disregard or revamp parts that don't work.

Besides that, you're missing all the things government does really well and for far cheaper than a private company could do: mail service, libraries, fire, police, parks and recreation, etc etc etc.

[guywithashovel]

"I don't want larger government"

This argument is rather odd, considering the people it usually comes from (Republicans). Many of them have no problem with the government dictating who can and can't get married, and many of them have no qualms about teachers in government-run schools leading mandatory prayer times. On top of that, if you ask any of them if we need more police or more military spending, the answer will be a resounding "Yes!"

So, you want a government that dictates who can and can't enter into marriage. You want a government that forces religion on people. You want huge military that is never huge enough, and you want more police, and somehow you come out with a "small government?"

I know I've said this before, and I also know that it has the potential to derail the thread, but I think it's somewhat pertinent at least.

[Mr Slugger]

However, I rebutt it thusly: If people were insured, they'd be able to go to the doctor earlier, and receive care for issues before they turn in to emergencies, thus relieving strain on emergency rooms, and lessening the required amount of medical resources to fix that problem, so the number of doctors needed would increase, but not as much as would probably be projected.

As I said in a post before my state already has mandatory health insurance laws. Trust me our system is strain out big time. The emergency rooms actually aren't the problem, because they're patching you up and sending you on your way to your doctor asap. My wife after she had the baby developed some bleeding veins from the baby. One day one of the ones near the surface just popped and she bled everywhere, a day later another one popped and I'm telling you she could have hit a target 6 feet away. We took her up to the ER they basically put a bandaid on it and told her to see her doctor. Her doctor's office the eariest appointment was a month later. Then she had to go to a vascular surgeon. That was a 3 month wait. She finally had the surgery to fix it 8 months after these veins started rupturing. Not really what I call speedy service.

[BroomJockey]

Trust me our system is strain out big time.

Yeah, but how's the pay for the doctors? Is it just that your area doesn't have the necessary ability to attract them? If the whole nation went, then doctor's salaries would be relatively static from place to place, since the government would be paying, and they'd not okay an extra $500 on a procedure to help pay the doctor, so there'd be less incentive for doctors to leave areas. It's actually an issue that might be helped by everyone else going to the same system, as then doctors wouldn't remain places where there's a lot of them. Supply vs. demand.

[Mr Slugger]

Yeah, but how's the pay for the doctors?

I would believe Boston pays doctors quite well we have some of the best hospitals around as far as treatment goes. And in reality probably in a couple of years they may be able to level off things a tad, but I know that MRi labs are running 24/7, like my sister had a MRI scheduled on a sunday, which never happens, but there was a cancellation, and it was either that or wait 3 months, because that machine is booked until then. Now maybe at some point someone will buy another MRI machine, but this universal healthcare was known about for like 2 years before it came, and it's been around for 2 years now basically. Things haven't got any better.

[joe hx]

"I don't want larger government,"

This argument is rather odd, considering the people it usually comes from (Republicans).

this quote from BroomJockey confused me for a bit until I read BroomJockey's original post.

anyways, Republicans seem to only hate government growth when the Democrats are doing the growing.

[Fashion Lad!]

I'd be for insuring all of American citizens. But, they'd actually pay for it. Some people get all the tax money they paid in through the year, plus additional money because they didn't make enough.

I got a window tint ticket a couple of months ago. My actual fine was $85. After administrative costs, I paid $135. Administrative costs was 59% of my actual fine. That's the government, it costs money to keep the government in business.

I am against universal health care, because I'm against a single payer system. If a Republican stood up and said, "let's have universal health care" I'd be tearing them down as well. We call it Obamacare, because it's his pet-project. Not because he's a Democrat.

On the constitutional side:

The powers of Congress (Article 1 section 8)

Lay and collect Taxes, to pay the debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States of America; to borrow money - regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian Tribes. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization. coin money, regulate the value thereof. Provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States. To establish post office and post roads. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme court. To define and punish Pirates and Felonies committed on the high Seas. To declare war. To raise and support Armies. To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces. To provide for calling forth the Militia. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over [The District of Columbia] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the Execution of the foregoing Powers.

The constitution does not authorize the federal government to establish a national health care system like the one in England and Canada. Now there's nothing saying the states can't create their own Universal Health Care system. Now, the state governments are preventing us from purchasing health insurance from companies out of other states. In doing that, it weakens competition. Blue cross in Minnesota is not the same as Blue Cross in Wisconsin. Drives prices up... maybe a little... just a hair?

If a Universal Health Care system is created, it would have to be created at the state level and not the federal level. Because at the federal level, it is unconstitutional.

Is health care a right?... depends. From the perspective of the government, a right is something that can be ensured to one citizen without taxing (in the broadest sense) another citizen.

We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We also have the right to own a gun. Now, the government isn't required to buy me a gun, they just can't prevent me from getting a gun without due process of law. We Need flood, clothing and shelter. It's not the government's responsibility to provide that for us, they just just can't stop us from pursuing it.

You need health care, everyone does. But in order to provide it, the government has to take from someone else.

I'm all for getting the uninsured, insured. As long as they pay for it.

[Fashion Lad!]

I would believe Boston pays doctors quite well we have some of the best hospitals around as far as treatment goes. And in reality probably in a couple of years they may be able to level off things a tad, but I know that MRi labs are running 24/7, like my sister had a MRI scheduled on a sunday, which never happens, but there was a cancellation, and it was either that or wait 3 months, because that machine is booked until then. Now maybe at some point someone will buy another MRI machine, but this universal healthcare was known about for like 2 years before it came, and it's been around for 2 years now basically. Things haven't got any better.

That really sucks. I went in for another check up on my ankle after spraining it in beginning of May. Doctor ran a few tests and said I needed an MRI. 3 hours later, I was in getting my MRI. I've heard that since changing health care in Boston, wait times have skyrocketed. I guess the average duration for the wait of treatment was something like 59 days. I don't know the specifics (i.e., what kind of treatment and such) but to do the same thing in Atlanta Georgia, it was 11 days.

[the_std]

I guess the average duration for the wait of treatment was something like 59 days. I don't know the specifics (i.e., what kind of treatment and such) but to do the same thing in Atlanta Georgia, it was 11 days.

I would love to know where you're getting these numbers from, and how you can say "the same thing" if you don't even know what kind of treatment it's referring to.