General [M]ayhem

General [M]ayhem (http://www.genmay.com/index.php)
-   The Pit (http://www.genmay.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Obama care: Cliffs + inevitability of single payer system (http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=840010)

[H]ard|On 03-06-2012 05:10 PM

Obama care: Cliffs + inevitability of single payer system
 
[B][U]What it is[/U][/B]

A lot of people have a hard time grasping the whole concept and there is a lot of confusion. It's not just a mandate to have health insurance.[B][I] It's a huge list of things insurance companies have to mind now[/I][/B], designed to lessen abuse in the system. I won't bother going into specifics but everyone should take a look here:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act[/url]


[B][U]The Mandate[/U][/B]

In essence most people agree the things it offers are good regulation for the industry, but there is a lot of debate on the mandate alone. It forces people to obtain private health insurance or pay a certain amount of extra taxes. The idea is to emphasize the importance of coverage. If more healthy people get insured this will drive down premiums for all and because ideally everyone should have health insurance this is supposed to be a step in the right direction. One state already operates that way. So does japan although there is no formal penalty for not joining, just a bad social stigma or something along those lines.

The mandate portion of Obama care, which keep in mind is just one entry in a fat list of things that protect people from greedy insurance companies, has already been challenged by a district in Florida and argued over in the supreme court. It was upheld, thus far. Some people think it should be removed and the rest should stay, other people say the whole thing sucks and Obama is a terrorist.

Personally I think it brings a lot of good to the table. The mandate component, while scary and hard to swallow, does seem more good than bad. Arguing - or rather guessing - about it's effectiveness is definitely unwarranted at this point in time. If it proves to be a turd they can strike it down. I think the biggest reason i made this thread is because some people swear that's the one and only thing Obama care accomplished. Which is far from true.


[B][U]The Future (Single Payer)[/U][/B]

This brings us to "single payer" healthcare systems. That is the idea that, like in Britain, Canada, Australia or Taiwan the government acts as an insurance company where the premiums you pay are based on the needs of sick people, rather than the board of directors need for profit and $30 million dollar yachts. In short the total pool of money coming in shouldn't be much larger than the pool of money used for covering actual medical expenses. For people, by the people in essence. I support this idea but Obama care doesn't include this component unfortunately.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare[/url]

Current examples of a pure single payer system in US include the Veterans Health Administration which is very efficient and is rated very highly by various industry assessments.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration[/url]

[B][U]
Examples - by state[/U][/B]

Some states are trying to do their own thing and trying to vote in single-payer systems... In CA we tried it three times and Arnold shut it down every time. They are going to try it again for 2011 with Jerry Brown who is expected to side with it. Vermont even hired the guy who designed the system for Taiwan!

[IMG]http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/states408.png[/IMG]


Very simply put voting is a right. But you cannot die from not voting. You CAN actually die from lack of medical care. I believe medical care should be a right, not a privilege. Single payer system is in your future. Do not fear it. Give it a chance! :heart: :heart: :heart:



[URL="http://www.uploderx.net/display.php?id=137985"][IMG]http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/471px-pnhp_poster321.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Colicious 03-06-2012 05:12 PM

you might think its a right, and i might believe that is correct. however, do not tell me what i have to do (purchase), it order to live a life of happiness

[H]ard|On 03-06-2012 05:23 PM

[QUOTE=Colicious;24986926]you might think its a right, and i might believe that is correct. however, do not tell me what i have to do (purchase), it order to live a life of happiness[/QUOTE]

Same argument as "don't tell me to put seat belts on" I guess

I am not very strongly for the mandate. I think it's worth trying though. I don't think it's nearly as helpful as a proper single payer system would be but it looks like that's coming.

I can't wait not to pay $120/mo for insurance. Been with them for two years - that's $2880 I could have in a jar some place towards a doctor's visit. I know in reality that's not even half of a helicopter ride to the hospital if something bad happens so I keep paying. In theory a larger pool of healthy people will lower the premiums for all - unless of course the insurance companies soak up the extra profits into personal luxuries :p :mad:

Colicious 03-06-2012 05:33 PM

[QUOTE='[H]ard|On;24986934']Same argument as "don't tell me to put seat belts on" I guess

I am not very strongly for the mandate. I think it's worth trying though. I don't think it's nearly as helpful as a proper single payer system would be but it looks like that's coming.

I can't wait not to pay $120/mo for insurance. Been with them for two years - that's $2880 I could have in a jar some place towards a doctor's visit. I know in reality that's not even half of a helicopter ride to the hospital if something bad happens so I keep paying. In theory a larger pool of healthy people will lower the premiums for all - unless of course the insurance companies soak up the extra profits into personal luxuries :p :mad:[/QUOTE]

the thing with seatbelts though is that it can keep a body from flying around in a car further injuring other people in it


but let me amend my first statement. he federal government has no right issue this. this is a state's right. however, federal or not, the government has no right to force me to purchase something, or otherwise tax me.



but last i heard, the tax for not having insurance is actually less than having insurance. and now with this great and wonderful policy, insurance providers cannot discriminate on people with preexisting problems, meaning they have to charge the same price to a healthy person, as some poor dude with 20 diseases.

so, all the healthy people say, fuck that, ill take my tax penalty, and all the sickies stay with insurance, and the healthy people will just get their insurance when they get sick. now, what do you think happens to the cost of insurance when its only sick people in the pool?

[H]ard|On 03-06-2012 05:49 PM

[QUOTE=Colicious;24986939]the thing with seatbelts though is that it can keep a body from flying around in a car further injuring other people in it


but let me amend my first statement. he federal government has no right issue this. this is a state's right. however, federal or not, the government has no right to force me to purchase something, or otherwise tax me.



but last i heard, the tax for not having insurance is actually less than having insurance. and now with this great and wonderful policy, insurance providers cannot discriminate on people with preexisting problems, meaning they have to charge the same price to a healthy person, as some poor dude with 20 diseases.

so, all the healthy people say, fuck that, ill take my tax penalty, and all the sickies stay with insurance, and the healthy people will just get their insurance when they get sick. now, what do you think happens to the cost of insurance when its only sick people in the pool?[/QUOTE]

The way it is now, is mostly sick people in the pool. It's also not correct that insurance is forced to charge the same - people's premiums will still vary. What changed is things like being able to drop you after finding out you had something they didn't know. Insurance companies claim not being able to swindle people will negate any savings brought on by an influx of healthy people in the insurance pool. :rolleyes:

I do understand why people are upset though. Especially with sensationalists like these muddying the water/scaremongering:


[YOUTUBE]yi_56THz4SY[/YOUTUBE]

Colicious 03-06-2012 05:55 PM

[QUOTE='[H]ard|On;24986948']The way it is now, is mostly sick people in the pool. It's also not correct that insurance is forced to charge the same - people's premiums will still vary. What changed is things like being able to drop you after finding out you had something they didn't know. Insurance companies claim not being able to swindle people will negate any savings brought on by an influx of healthy people in the insurance pool. :rolleyes:

I do understand why people are upset though. Especially with sensationalists like these muddying the water/scaremongering:


[YOUTUBE]yi_56THz4SY[/YOUTUBE][/QUOTE]

irregardless (;)) of the scaremongering, having the federal govnt force to to buy something to live in this country is completely fucked up. either make it 100% a states right issue (which it is), open up medicare or whatever so everyone is eligible, or do somesort of govt spondsored enterprise for insurance (like fannie mae. but that is still fucked up too)

asa 03-06-2012 05:58 PM

[QUOTE=Colicious;24986939]the thing with seatbelts though is that it can keep a body from flying around in a car further injuring other people in it[/QUOTE]

and the thousands without health insurance don't drive up costs for everyone else?

Vote McCain! 03-06-2012 06:11 PM

[QUOTE=Colicious;24986939]the thing with seatbelts though is that it can keep a body from flying around in a car further injuring other people in it[/quote]

Oh, I'm sorry I rammed my moving 3000 pound hunk of metal into your car, but thankfully we all have this thing that we are required to purchase called car insurance just in case something like this happens, now I'm not stuck with a massive repair bill and you can get a new ride in short order.

[quote]
but let me amend my first statement. he federal government has no right issue this. this is a state's right.[/quote]

Promoting the general welfare of the public is one of the responsibilities of the government, it's right there in the constitution. I think that ensuring a healthy citizenry counts as promoting the general welfare and is just as important as defending our borders from invaders (I bring up this specific activity for a reason).

[quote] however, federal or not, the government has no right to force me to purchase something, or otherwise tax me.[/quote]

Except it does, and it has done so in the past, and if you don't believe me, answer me this: who was the first president in history to force americans to buy something? IT WAS GEORGE FUCKING WASHINGTON! That's right, the very first president of the US forced all able bodied white males (since that was the definition of an american citizen back then) were required to purchase and maintain a musket, ammo and powder for said musket, and provisions; refusal to do so meant jail time. It seems like no one has a problem with being forced to buy something as long as you can use it to conduct war, but somehow doing the exact same thing in order to ensure the entire populace is healthy amounts to socialism/communism and is anti-american. Well if Obama is a socialist, then George Washington was Joseph Fucking Stalin.

As far as the federal government being allowed to tax you, read the 16th amendment.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]

[quote]but last i heard, the tax for not having insurance is actually less than having insurance. and now with this great and wonderful policy, insurance providers cannot discriminate on people with preexisting problems, meaning they have to charge the same price to a healthy person, as some poor dude with 20 diseases. [/quote]

:rolleyes: Then don't get insurance and quit whining! All that it means is that when you get into that 4 car pileup on the highway or you get diagnosed with skin cancer, guess who'll be standing there with there head in their ass and a $200,000 doctors bill...

[quote]so, all the healthy people say, fuck that, ill take my tax penalty, and all the sickies stay with insurance, and the healthy people will just get their insurance when they get sick. now, what do you think happens to the cost of insurance when its only sick people in the pool?[/QUOTE]

I'm healthy and I have health insurance. My parents, co-workers and friends are basically healthy and they have health insurance that thay pay into and *gasp* they can afford it! Healthy people are still part of the pool and will continue to be. Your argument invalid.

s0me0nesmind1 03-06-2012 06:15 PM

[QUOTE='[H]ard|On;24986934']Same argument as "don't tell me to put seat belts on" I guess

I am not very strongly for the mandate. I think it's worth trying though. I don't think it's nearly as helpful as a proper single payer system would be but it looks like that's coming.

I can't wait not to pay $120/mo for insurance. Been with them for two years - that's $2880 I could have in a jar some place towards a doctor's visit. I know in reality that's not even half of a helicopter ride to the hospital if something bad happens so I keep paying. In theory a larger pool of healthy people will lower the premiums for all - unless of course the insurance companies soak up the extra profits into personal luxuries :p :mad:[/QUOTE]

Driving is (and always will be) a privilege. Not a right. You're comparing Apples to Oranges :rolleyes:

5ive 03-06-2012 06:20 PM

I like your optimism that single-payer is an inevitability. I'm not sure sure, though.

edit:

45,000 Americans die of preventable illness each year due to lack of health insurance. ([URL="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/"]Cite[/URL])

[URL="http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=key_workplace"]U.S. Health Care Spending: Comparison with Other OECD Countries[/URL]

Cliffs: We spend more than anybody else for overall worse care, and we still have ~30 million uninsured/underinsured.

[URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/06/04/medical-bills-are-found-linked-to-most-bankruptcies/"]Medical bills are found linked to most bankruptcies[/URL]

Colicious 03-06-2012 06:22 PM

[QUOTE=Vote McCain!;24986964]Oh, I'm sorry I rammed my moving 3000 pound hunk of metal into your car, but thankfully we all have this thing that we are required to purchase called car insurance just in case something like this happens, now I'm not stuck with a massive repair bill and you can get a new ride in short order.

[COLOR="Red"]car insurance is required by states, not the federal government[/COLOR]

Promoting the general welfare of the public is one of the responsibilities of the government, it's right there in the constitution. I think that ensuring a healthy citizenry counts as promoting the general welfare and is just as important as defending our borders from invaders (I bring up this specific activity for a reason).

[COLOR="Red"]promoting, not forcing[/COLOR]

Except it does, and it has done so in the past, and if you don't believe me, answer me this: who was the first president in history to force americans to buy something? IT WAS GEORGE FUCKING WASHINGTON! That's right, the very first president of the US forced all able bodied white males (since that was the definition of an american citizen back then) were required to purchase and maintain a musket, ammo and powder for said musket, and provisions; refusal to do so meant jail time. It seems like no one has a problem with being forced to buy something as long as you can use it to conduct war, but somehow doing the exact same thing in order to ensure the entire populace is healthy amounts to socialism/communism and is anti-american. Well if Obama is a socialist, then George Washington was Joseph Fucking Stalin.

As far as the federal government being allowed to tax you, read the 16th amendment.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]

[COLOR="Red"]source to george washington fact? and my comment 'or otherwise tax me' was referring to taxing me as a penalty, not that they cant[/COLOR]

:rolleyes: Then don't get insurance and quit whining! All that it means is that when you get into that 4 car pileup on the highway or you get diagnosed with skin cancer, guess who'll be standing there with there head in their ass and a $200,000 doctors bill...

[COLOR="Red"]if that happens, ill just jump into the pool[/COLOR]


I'm healthy and I have health insurance. My parents, co-workers and friends are basically healthy and they have health insurance that thay pay into and *gasp* they can afford it! Healthy people are still part of the pool and will continue to be. Your argument invalid.

[COLOR="Red"]but if the penalty is cheaper then carrying insurance, and an insurance company cant deny you, then why carry it?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

.

Colicious 03-06-2012 06:25 PM

[QUOTE=5ive;24986977]
45,000 Americans die of preventable illness each year due to lack of health insurance. ([URL="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/"]Cite[/URL])[/QUOTE]

so instead of promoting and teaching people how important it is for them to obtain health insurance, you're just going to force everyone to buy it



ideas so good, lets make them mandatory :cool:

pyramid 03-06-2012 06:27 PM

[QUOTE=Colicious;24986978].[/QUOTE]

They "promote" the general welfare with the laws that they pass. Laws are not optional.

The constitution does not mean "promote" as in cheer for. It means "promote" as in Legislate.

pyramid 03-06-2012 06:33 PM

[QUOTE=Colicious;24986939]but let me amend my first statement. he federal government has no right issue this. this is a state's right. however, federal or not, the government has no right to force me to purchase something, or otherwise tax me.[/quote]

:wtf:

The first president of the US mandated that all able bodied males purchase, own, and maintain proficiency with muskets. This is far from the first "mandate" by government, federal or otherwise.

[quote]but last i heard, the tax for not having insurance is actually less than having insurance. and now with this great and wonderful policy, insurance providers cannot discriminate on people with preexisting problems,[b] meaning they have to charge the same price to a healthy person, as some poor dude with 20 diseases.[/b] [/quote]

I really don't think that is what the health care law says. They just can't be denied coverage at any price, which was the practice before.

Also, [url]https://www.pcip.gov/[/url]

[quote]so, all the healthy people say, fuck that, ill take my tax penalty, and all the sickies stay with insurance, and the healthy people will just get their insurance when they get sick. now, what do you think happens to the cost of insurance when its only sick people in the pool?[/QUOTE]

Sure, you can totally buy insurance after the fact when you get wheeled into a hospital unconscious...

it's just not going to save you from that $250k bill you already racked up.

pyramid 03-06-2012 06:38 PM

[quote]what do you think happens to the cost of insurance when its only sick people in the pool?[/quote]

so...


[IMG]http://www.uploderx.net/dphrag/15750807375.jpg[/IMG]


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2002-2015 CrowdGather, Inc.