• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Health-care reform: what do we do now?

AlBell said:
Killing the goose that lays golden eggs is a Democrat specialty, so why not?
Click to expand...

how about we simply euthanize the poor, mentally ill, handicapped, and other "burdens" upon the people? that would surely reduce health-care costs.

we could call it....the T4 program.
 
leftysergeant said:
We will find essentially the same emotional arguements inserted into any thread dealing with government actions intended to alleviate human suffering out of the public coffers.

The only freedom that can be lost in a rational health care system that actually works is the freedom of the investor class to create another profit center with as little outlay of their own capital as possible.

For some reason, the investor class feels entitled to make a buck off anything they can.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the bill proposed by the Dems will eventually lead to a sane single payer program like Canada and most European Countries have had for decades? From what I have read, it's just another sell out to the insurance industry. I sincerely hope that this bill is a beginning of some "rational healthcare" policy.
 
Dandyone said:
Do you think that the bill proposed by the Dems will eventually lead to a sane single payer program like Canada and most European Countries have had for decades?
Click to expand...
Most European countries do not have a single-payer system.
 
you know, I changed my mind. we should totally start over. and then, after talking and drafting for another year, we can start over again.

wash...rinse...repeat.

that way...we can put off health-care reform for another 20 years. that way, HMOs can get richer and richer...as the American people become sicker and poorer.
 
Dandyone said:
Do you think that the bill proposed by the Dems will eventually lead to a sane single payer program like Canada and most European Countries have had for decades? From what I have read, it's just another sell out to the insurance industry. I sincerely hope that this bill is a beginning of some "rational healthcare" policy.
Click to expand...

I think I mostly agree with you, though I'd word it differently. Given that a single payer system never had much chance politically (since over something like 9 months the most favorable Congress healthcare reform we've had in at least 10 years or will likely see again for at least 10 years couldn't even hammer out a compromised version), what we've got is probably about the best we can realistically expect.

What you call "a sell out to the insurance industry" could also be called expedient compromises with the insurance industry. The fact is, we can't possibly get significant insurance reforms (covering pre-existing conditions, doing away with the practice of rescission and post-claim underwriting, removing annual and life time benefit caps) without giving the industry the individual mandate. And we can't pass the individual mandate without providing some means for those who really can't afford insurance as it stands.

So those three elements are interconnected, and can't be accomplished piecemeal. Both the Senate and the House versions of the bill would have accomplished these things without increasing the deficit. Both would have resulted in the covering of some 30 million who currently have extremely limited access to healthcare.

I think passing this is better than nothing. But--yeah--politics is a dirty business.

You could keep clean hands and do nothing, or you could make the deals and compromises and do something that will help a lot of people. And in at least some of these cases, it is a matter of life and death.

If for no other reason but to end rescission and post-claims underwriting, I would say these watered-down compromise bills are worth passing.

Similarly, if the bill did nothing else but give 30 million people a reasonable chance to have decent access to healthcare, I'd say it's worth it.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think I mostly agree with you, though I'd word it differently. Given that a single payer system never had much chance politically (since over something like 9 months the most favorable Congress healthcare reform we've had in at least 10 years or will likely see again for at least 10 years couldn't even hammer out a compromised version), what we've got is probably about the best we can realistically expect.

What you call "a sell out to the insurance industry" could also be called expedient compromises with the insurance industry. The fact is, we can't possibly get significant insurance reforms (covering pre-existing conditions, doing away with the practice of rescission and post-claim underwriting, removing annual and life time benefit caps) without giving the industry the individual mandate. And we can't pass the individual mandate without providing some means for those who really can't afford insurance as it stands.

So those three elements are interconnected, and can't be accomplished piecemeal. Both the Senate and the House versions of the bill would have accomplished these things without increasing the deficit. Both would have resulted in the covering of some 30 million who currently have extremely limited access to healthcare.

I think passing this is better than nothing. But--yeah--politics is a dirty business.

You could keep clean hands and do nothing, or you could make the deals and compromises and do something that will help a lot of people. And in at least some of these cases, it is a matter of life and death.

If for no other reason but to end rescission and post-claims underwriting, I would say these watered-down compromise bills are worth passing.

Similarly, if the bill did nothing else but give 30 million people a reasonable chance to have decent access to healthcare, I'd say it's worth it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It is pretty much what I thought. I hope they at least get some public option passed. I would like to see the Health Care insurance industry fade into the distance. What a pack of ruthless bloodsuckers.
 
Dandyone said:
Thanks. It is pretty much what I thought. I hope they at least get some public option passed. I would like to see the Health Care insurance industry fade into the distance. What a pack of ruthless bloodsuckers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think either of those things is very likely to happen. There was no public option in the Senate bill, and unless they can use some other argument (reconciliation or that it's a budget bill) that would allow it to pass through the Senate by simple majority, it won't pass.

And, unfortunately, one of the biggest drawbacks of the bill is that it is more accurately a health insurance reform bill, and it will deeper entrench the insurance industry as the way we do healthcare. (The individual mandate, for one, will make chance of the insurance industry fading away a pipe dream.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom