Hey TH! Read this and tell me what you think!
Boy, we could go all day! I think you're wrong, TH (regarding the comment on the "Health Care Reform" post). Requiring companies to cover pre-existing conditions will NOT result in outcomes 1 or 2 because the insurance companies will have substantially more customers - about 30 million or so. Also, don't talk to me like I'm a moron - I fully understand why most companies don't cover pre-existing conditions (and I'll even admit that the story I linked above may not be representative of the whole industry). But I also understand how many people with such conditions become bankrupt even though they're hard-working people who have paid plenty of health insurance premiums over their lifetime. I believe we shouldn't live in a country where you lose everything you worked so hard for just because you got sick. I'm sure you agree, TH, that we need to do everything we can to prevent what happened to Patrick Tumulty or Nikki White or LoShonda Holloway or Sarah Wildman.
Andrew, in response to your comment to the same post, I think the Republicans have made it abundantly clear by their lack of votes that they think the status quo is better than the reform bill that was just passed. You have to agree they've spent more time and energy speaking out against this bill than delineating an alternative plan. Fine, I agree that we need a cap on malpractice, but this is not gonna fix the whole frickin' system!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
which one of the republicans' suggestions (they didn't just say no) did the President take into consideration like he said he would in that dog and pony show of a health care summit? besides, it wasn't the republicans who Obama had to fight against to get this thing passed. they didn'thave enough votes to stop it. it was other democrats!
and, honestly, i do think that making incremental changes to the status quo would have been better than a HUGE bill that affects EVERYONE passed strictly along party lines. no matter the consequences, the President who claimed to be post-partisan, a great uniter, has just disenfranchised roughly half of the voting population.
-CG
I read the article, and I'm touched by the mans situation and would gladly PERSONALLY assist.
There are so many angles to argue the point from, but let me choose the most obvious:
Since I read your article, will you please read mine? It's historically interesting too, because it's about Davy Crockett. Don't read just the large paragraphs at the beginning, but follow the story to the end and remember the phrase "Not yours to give": http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
Thus, a person giving of their own volition is called charity; but having the fruits of their labor confiscated at gunpoint is called slavery.
Do you agree?
TH
I'd also like to ask you to explain how ADDING 30,000,000 new people to the rolls is going to REDUCE cost?
Aren't these the people that either can't afford healthcare, or don't want insurance?
For that that can't afford health insurance - you know, those poor destitute family's earning a paltry $88,000/year - then where is the money going to come from? Ah, yes... other taxpayers - so we'll artificially put money in the healthcare system that we're taking out of somewhere else in the economy (after skimming off the usual government "processing and handling fee").
For those that don't want Health Insurance - well too bad, bucko! You're buying it or we'll fine and jail you!!!
-----------------
Oh... those people are ALREADY on the healthcare rolls you say?! So now we'll just make them contribute.
Gee, last I heard those were the people that couldn't afford it, or didn't WANT insurance.
So, even if we have someone else pay for their insurance - or they get sent to jail, where healthcare is already at taxpayer expense - they now have "carte blanche at the buffet"?
Yup, they went from "gee I can't afford it" to "somebody else is paying for it and now I can put my snout in the trough" - and that's going to reduce the cost of healthcare?!
Please, PLEASE enlighten me!
-----------------
First, don't ever confuse me with a Republican - but what DID happen to their suggestions, presented at the Presidential Summit, which would bend the cost curve at VERY little expense? Such as: [1] removing the government restriction on purchasing health insurance across state lines; or [2] addressing tort reform so that we're not enriching trial lawyers at the expense of the healthcare system.
Are those bad ideas?
Warmest regards,
TH
While I'm on a roll, let me now comment on the following your posting, which I quote:
-------------------
I think the Republicans have made it abundantly clear by their lack of votes that they think the status quo is better than the reform bill that was just passed. You have to agree they've spent more time and energy speaking out against this bill than delineating an alternative plan. Fine, I agree that we need a cap on malpractice, but this is not gonna fix the whole frickin' system!
-------------------
Again, don't ever confuse me with a Republican - but I would say that, since the Democrats had all the votes necessary to pass the legislation, the "lack of (Republican) votes" was totally irrelevant.
Yes, the Republican put a lot of effort into clarifying the plan in the public's mind - but what choice did they have? At any point the overwhelming Democrat majority could totally ignore the Republicans and pass anything they wanted to pass. Which is what happened, even though those plans were presented numerous times - including at the Presidential summit.
So, I wouldn't characterize it as agreeing with the status quo as much as knowing that they held ZERO cards in the game and their best hope to stop what they disagreed with was to not vote for it and to educate the public about what/why they disagreed with it. What would you do in the same position?
Glad to see we agree cap on malpractice, or other serious tort reform, "is not gonna fix the whole frickin' system" - but it was totally ignored.
Instead we got Pell Grant reform?!
Do we need Pell Grant reform? Maybe - but why is that in a health care bill and not ideas that you agree with like tort reform?
Because of political sausage making of course...
TH
Treehugger, I like the passion, but perhaps you should call yourself "Corporate Hugger" instead. But caring for your fellow American? Nothing like protecting health industry profits, but better yet, nothing better than kicking sick people when they are down!! (The health care reform delivers 30M more customers to insurance companies. Not bad for in the insurance companies eh?).
How was the bill developed? The Dems took a lot of the pieces developed by the Republicans in their draft packages (see about about the 30M new customers) in order to make a bill that would have a higher chance of passing. Note how there isn't a public option? Please read up on this.
We're the richest country in the world. It shouldn't be up to charitable individuals to deliver aid to people who are ill. -K
K-
Didn't know personal attacks were the lay of the land around here - was trying to keep it more above board than that myself...
I actually prefer to think of myself as a "Liberty Hugger".
Looks like you didn't read my post regarding those 30,000,000 new customers - adding them will be the death of the insurance industry - as their options are either a huge increase in premiums or wiping out their obscene profit margin between 2% and 3% and putting everyone on a government run plan (which I believe was the original goal of the legislation).
I await your response, or Sandra Cookie's, on how adding these customers will reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone...
I'll agree with you that "it shouldn't be up to charitable individuals to deliver aid to people who are ill" - and it shouldn't be up to theft from other individuals either - it should be up to the individuals.
Because ultimately this isn't a healthcare discussion, but a debate of collectivism vs. individualism.
Collectivism won this round of the debate, which is why individualists are incensed.
Individualism imposes no active requirements on collectivists you see - but the reverse is not true!
So, would you be happy with the single amendment of allowing individuals to "opt out" of the program once and forever?
I look forward to more discussion, and less name calling (remember, whoever first compares the other to Nazis loses! *grin*)
TH
Here's an interesting list ranking industry sectors by profit margin:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
If you scroll waaaayyy waaayyy down, you can find the "record profits" of 4.4% usurped by the Health Care Plans industry.
-CG
"By law, emergency care cannot be withheld. Why pay for something you can get free? Of course, while it may be free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either in higher insurance premiums or taxes." -- Mitt Romney, April 2006
TH -- A tad defensive? Why are stocks for insurance companies soaring; isn't that counter to your argument that 30M new customers will be the death of the insurance companies? Why aren't hospitals out there protesting? Is it because more of the care they provide will be reimbursed, since more folks will have insurance? -K
CG- With health care 17.6% of the GDP today and projected to grow to 20.3% of the GDP in 2018, 4.4% in profits is no small number.
That 17.6% figure includes ALL health care spending. We're talking insurance companies. The GDP is $14.2T. The market capacity of the health insurance industry is $114B --so that is less than 1% of the GDP. Now, let's imagine some sick utopia where we could steal all the profits from the evil insurance companies. We'd have about $4.5B--a drop in the bucket compared to the Trillion dollar health care bill.
-CG
correction...GDP is per year, while the profits, etc. are reported each quarter. So, i'm a factor of 4 off. but, still a drop in the bucket, unless i've made another mistake (which is very possible).
An interesting exercise would be to divide the health ins. profits by that 30M figure. it is on the order of about $500 per person per year.
-CG
Post a Comment