Obama's Healthcare Plan

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Has anyone been following this closely? I have been so busy and only slowed down this past week and haven’t had a chance to read up on it the way I should.

The way I see it there are two issues to be concerned with:

  1. Increased cost for most.

  2. Less effective health care.

I am not so concerned with #1, though I know many are. A part of me does think that everyone should have healhcare and I am not so concerned with having to pay a little more for the poorest to have it. #2 does concern me. The healthcare of the people financing the whole damn thing should NOT suffer. So, how about #2? Are benefits and ability to obtain care going to be compromised under this plan?

2

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Has anyone been following this closely? I have been so busy and only slowed down this past week and haven’t had a chance to read up on it the way I should.

The way I see it there are two issues to be concerned with:

  1. Increased cost for most.

  2. Less effective health care.

I am not so concerned with #1, though I know many are. A part of me does think that everyone should have healhcare and I am not so concerned with having to pay a little more for the poorest to have it. #2 does concern me. The healthcare of the people financing the whole damn thing should NOT suffer. So, how about #2? Are benefits and ability to obtain care going to be compromised under this plan?[/quote]

You forget one thing: health care requires resources. Resources are always scarce therefore not everyone can have health care even if the government promises to give it to everyone. Some people will still have to go without health care. Who gets to decide whom it will be who goes without?

We already have a system in place that can decide this for us. Why do we need the illusion of a yet “more fair” system when in fact the only fair system is one in which everyone works to provide their own needs?

Under government control scarce resources become even more scarce as the profit motive is replaced by “altruism”. There will be no incentive to create new, better, and possibly cheaper treatments that the West has enjoyed under a freeish (albeit, tightly regulated) health care industry. There will be no cure for cancer or any other disease under a government provided health care system.

Have fun getting sick and may your death be a sweet relief from your government sick beds.

3

LiftiMoron, it is quite obvious that a limited amount of resources ties directly to my question about compromised care. Does anyone intelligent who is not an anarchist caricature have anything to say on this issue?

4

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
LiftiMoron, it is quite obvious that a limited amount of resources ties directly to my question about compromised care. Does anyone intelligent who is not an anarchist caricature have anything to say on this issue?[/quote]

Sure…I do.

But I would rather read what you and some others have to say.

5

I remain interested in #1, because costs are not static, and will get worse - supply and demand inevitably commands that more health consumers will be chasing more health care services, and there is no provision in the current health care plan that deals with this unavoidable problem.

Take a snapshot of our aggregate health “profile”, for example - a generally unhealthy society that is entirely too dependent on consuming acute health care resources to get healthier. While I don’t support a public plan for a number of reasons, I am perfectly willing to admit I would “less against it” in the right circumstances - a society that was generally healthy and did as much as it could independently to get and remain healthy before dipping into health care resources.

As in, a society that generally ate right, exercised, had low bad habits, and treated the health care system as a “last resort” to getting healthy would be a better candidate for a public health care program. We don’t have that.

As for #2, I have problems with this as well, because it can’t be untangled from #1 - as costs inevitably skyrocket, the quality and availability of care will go down - setting aside the quite obvious problem noted commonly that a health care system run by the equivalent of the DMV would be a disaster.

6

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I remain interested in #1, because costs are not static, and will get worse - supply and demand inevitably commands that more health consumers will be chasing more health care services, and there is no provision in the current health care plan that deals with this unavoidable problem.

Take a snapshot of our aggregate health “profile”, for example - a generally unhealthy society that is entirely too dependent on consuming acute health care resources to get healthier. While I don’t support a public plan for a number of reasons, I am perfectly willing to admit I would “less against it” in the right circumstances - a society that was generally healthy and did as much as it could independently to get and remain healthy before dipping into health care resources.

As in, a society that generally ate right, exercised, had low bad habits, and treated the health care system as a “last resort” to getting healthy would be a better candidate for a public health care program. We don’t have that.

As for #2, I have problems with this as well, because it can’t be untangled from #1 - as costs inevitably skyrocket, the quality and availability of care will go down - setting aside the quite obvious problem noted commonly that a health care system run by the equivalent of the DMV would be a disaster.[/quote]

I think it is very one sided to see rising costs necessarily as a bad thing.

As a society gets richer it makes sense to spend more on health. After all, if you already have a house and a car, why not spend money to live as many years with the best health money can buy?

This is not a problem for the private sector where every new customer is welcome, this is a problem for a publicly run health care though.

Germany for example is proud that 20-25 % of Germanys jobs depend on the production of cars and yet would go apeshit when health related services were around the same percentage.

The point of all this is, seeing rising costs as a negative already means conceding the statists point that they indeed are a problem and that something needs to be done about it, whereas we would see it as a plus if any other private sector was able to grow so significantly even in a shrinking economy.

7

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LiftiMoron, it is quite obvious that a limited amount of resources ties directly to my question about compromised care. Does anyone intelligent who is not an anarchist caricature have anything to say on this issue?

Sure…I do.

But I would rather read what you and some others have to say.[/quote]

Thanks. I’ll check that thread out.

8

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I remain interested in #1, because costs are not static, and will get worse - supply and demand inevitably commands that more health consumers will be chasing more health care services, and there is no provision in the current health care plan that deals with this unavoidable problem.

Take a snapshot of our aggregate health “profile”, for example - a generally unhealthy society that is entirely too dependent on consuming acute health care resources to get healthier. While I don’t support a public plan for a number of reasons, I am perfectly willing to admit I would “less against it” in the right circumstances - a society that was generally healthy and did as much as it could independently to get and remain healthy before dipping into health care resources.

As in, a society that generally ate right, exercised, had low bad habits, and treated the health care system as a “last resort” to getting healthy would be a better candidate for a public health care program. We don’t have that.

As for #2, I have problems with this as well, because it can’t be untangled from #1 - as costs inevitably skyrocket, the quality and availability of care will go down - setting aside the quite obvious problem noted commonly that a health care system run by the equivalent of the DMV would be a disaster.[/quote]

As far as #1 goes, I don’t envision a national health care system that subsidizes poor choices. Nor do I think that everyone’s health care should be the same. If you are able to afford more (better doctors, better plans, etc…) you should certainly get it. I also believe that healtchcare costs should be tied to lifestyle and risk factors anyway, whether a public or private system.

The national health care I envision is a certain minimum level of care for those who currently can’t afford insurance on their own. So that they are not turned away from emergency rooms for lack of insurance. And kids are able to see a doctor for a general checkup once a year. I don’t think everyone should be getting health care with all the bells and whistles. But I don’t mind paying for everyone to get something.

9

Will this thing be using public funds for abortions?

10

.

11

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I remain interested in #1, because costs are not static, and will get worse - supply and demand inevitably commands that more health consumers will be chasing more health care services, and there is no provision in the current health care plan that deals with this unavoidable problem.

Take a snapshot of our aggregate health “profile”, for example - a generally unhealthy society that is entirely too dependent on consuming acute health care resources to get healthier. While I don’t support a public plan for a number of reasons, I am perfectly willing to admit I would “less against it” in the right circumstances - a society that was generally healthy and did as much as it could independently to get and remain healthy before dipping into health care resources.

As in, a society that generally ate right, exercised, had low bad habits, and treated the health care system as a “last resort” to getting healthy would be a better candidate for a public health care program. We don’t have that.

As for #2, I have problems with this as well, because it can’t be untangled from #1 - as costs inevitably skyrocket, the quality and availability of care will go down - setting aside the quite obvious problem noted commonly that a health care system run by the equivalent of the DMV would be a disaster.

As far as #1 goes, I don’t envision a national health care system that subsidizes poor choices. Nor do I think that everyone’s health care should be the same. If you are able to afford more (better doctors, better plans, etc…) you should certainly get it. I also believe that healtchcare costs should be tied to lifestyle and risk factors anyway, whether a public or private system.

The national health care I envision is a certain minimum level of care for those who currently can’t afford insurance on their own. So that they are not turned away from emergency rooms for lack of insurance. And kids are able to see a doctor for a general checkup once a year. I don’t think everyone should be getting health care with all the bells and whistles. But I don’t mind paying for everyone to get something.[/quote]

Moronic. Why would someone pay twice? Why should they have to? Why do you think it is right that losers get stuff paid for but the responsible people have to pay for it?

We live in morally bankrupt society – and you like it that way. Sad.

12

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Will this thing be using public funds for abortions?[/quote]

To a certain extent yes, but seeing as how the whole bill is in limbo, there’s no telling what will be in the final iteration. Under it’s current form somebody cannot walk in and just get an abortion on the tax payer on a whim. However, with the absolute fucking morons who are working on this bill, by the time they are done, they may require abortions so they can sell the fetuses for use in hair care products and cooking oils.
This I would not put past the unholy trinity and their undying love of abortion.

13

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Will this thing be using public funds for abortions?[/quote]

This explains it well…
Currently “Family planning” and Planned Parenthood are covered under the umbrella, but again the final draft of this thing is far from being done. Who knows what will be in it. My suspicions is that these people drafting the bill are dumber than dried up dogshit and what ever they come up with will be worse than what we have.
I think if abortion is covered in any broad sense, this bill will be defeated. It’s to hot a topic to just tell the public that their asses have to pay for abortions whether they like it or not.

15

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sent to me via email today:

A Peek Inside the ObamaCare Bill

Chairman Zero wants to ram his gargantuan healthcare bill down our throats before anyone realizes what’s in it. What doesn’t he want us to see? Some examples, from a quick inventory by Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3815/pub_detail.asp :

Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure.
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill â?? a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill â?? YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!
Pg 42 of HC Bill â?? The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you.
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill â?? HC will be provided t o ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 58 HC Bill â?? Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer.
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill â?? Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example â?? Translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill â?? Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members â?? your Health care WILL be rationed.
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill â?? Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Government Monopoly.
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill â?? Doctors/ AMA â?? The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC â?? “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill â?? Doctors â?? doesn’t matter what specialty â?? will all be paid the same.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how m uch they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion â?? Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 â?? Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)

There’s plenty more. See for yourself: PDF http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf .
This bill would drive unemployment, taxes, and the deficit through the stratosphere. It would turn hospitals into the DMV, dramatically reduce our access to healthcare, let bureaucratic slime decide when it’s time for us to die, and gua rantee that no one in his right mind goes to medical school. As for the damage this would do to individual liberty â?? let’s just say that any doubts about the Moonbat Messiah being a socialist have been put to rest.
If this nightmare bill isn’t Obama’s Waterloo, then it’s America’s.
[/quote]

We deserve every last bit of this bill. What’s hilarious is that the biggest Obamaoists will be the ones most harmed by this bill.

Looks like I’ll be looking for some medical tourism destinations.

16

Has this been posted? Come on, you can’t tell me they’re not motivated by a belief that this will lead to single payer health care.

17

What percentage of health care costs are generated in the last year of life?

18

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What percentage of health care costs are generated in the last year of life?[/quote]

TONS.

20

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What percentage of health care costs are generated in the last year of life?

TONS.[/quote]

I think it’s about 70-80%.