primary bs

[ikol]

The question remains: What to do with people who can't afford the health care they need? Should they be allowed to die, as Darwinism would dictate that if they didn't have the hustle in them to get a job good enough to pay for the health care they need, then they aren't worth saving? Should they be billed as such a rate that they basically become permanent indentured servants to a debt no honest man can pay? Should they depend upon the kindness of others - the Blanche DuBois plan?

 

The answer is a little bit of "yes" to all of those (ignoring the loaded phrasing, of course), but mostly the third one. I don't see what's wrong with relying on the kindness of others especially when the alternative is relying on the government.

 

My take on it is that if every other nation like ours (industrialized democracy) has some form of universal health care and makes it work, why can't we? Are we REALLY that much smarter than the Brits, Canadians, French and Germans?

 

"Everybody's doing it."

[bjorn_skurj]

The answer is a little bit of "yes" to all of those (ignoring the loaded phrasing, of course), but mostly the third one. I don't see what's wrong with relying on the kindness of others especially when the alternative is relying on the government.

 

 

 

"Everybody's doing it."

"Loaded phrasing," my ass. Either you help someone or you don't, and the consequences of not helping them are stark. I'm for helping people.

[EL the Famous]

so, you're the only one who can make sarcastic over-the-top comments on here? Gotcha.

 

yes and i'm glad we're clear on that now.

[Reni]

A dear friend of mine (and many of you here) went to the ER on January 2nd. She had no health insurance. (She had even expressed her concern about getting treatment for her flu to me before all this happened, because of her lack of insurance) She was sent home with minimal treatment. She died on January 3rd.

 

Now, you tell me.....would she have been sent off so quickly if she had insurance? Hmm.

 

Talk about stark consequences.

 

And this time, I am not being sarcastic.

 

 

This shit hits close to home on many levels.

[EL the Famous]

"Loaded phrasing," my ass. Either you help someone or you don't, and the consequences of not helping them are stark. I'm for helping people.

 

well, the problem comes in when you try to apply a universal definition to 'helpling someone' and, even in this case, it's not that cut and dry...which is my problem. seems like there is a lot of over-simplification on this issue both pro and con...it makes people like myself, who agree in theory (but worry about it fucking up my coverage), kind of nervous.

[Mr. Kinsley]

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. Both Hillary and Obama say that they want a plan that is the same as the one available to members of Congress made available to everyone. Not that everyone HAS TO use it, just that if your employer doesn't provide a plan, you can join this new plan. How is that socialized medicine? Hillary of course wants to make it mandatory that you get some form of health insurance (the congress-style plan or keep your own) so I can see where some would say the big-brother mentality portion of that is somewhat socialist, but how is the plan itself socialized?

 

Not asking to try to advance an agenda, I really honestly want to know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding something here.

[bjorn_skurj]

A dear friend of mine (and many of you here) went to the ER on January 2nd. She had no health insurance. (She had even expressed her concern about getting treatment for her flu to me before all this happened, because of her lack of insurance) She was sent home with minimal treatment. She died on January 3rd.

 

Now, you tell me.....would she have been sent off so quickly if she had insurance? Hmm.

 

Talk about stark consequences.

 

And this time, I am not being sarcastic.

 

 

This shit hits close to home on many levels.

Well said.

[ikol]

"Loaded phrasing," my ass. Either you help someone or you don't, and the consequences of not helping them are stark. I'm for helping people.

 

I was referring to you putting the options as 1) die 2) become an indentured servant 3) rely on charity, as if it's that simple. You can help people without the government forcing you to do so.

 

A dear friend of mine (and many of you here) went to the ER on January 2nd. She had no health insurance. (She had even expressed her concern about getting treatment for her flu to me before all this happened, because of her lack of insurance) She was sent home with minimal treatment. She died on January 3rd.

 

Now, you tell me.....would she have been sent off so quickly if she had insurance? Hmm.

 

Talk about stark consequences.

 

And this time, I am not being sarcastic.

 

 

This shit hits close to home on many levels.

 

I am sorry about your friend. To answer your question: I don't know. It may be a case of malpractice or negligence. Chances are the ER doc wasn't thinking about money when he/she sent her home, since such a large percentage of ER patients cannot/do not pay.

 

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. Both Hillary and Obama say that they want a plan that is the same as the one available to members of Congress made available to everyone. Not that everyone HAS TO use it, just that if your employer doesn't provide a plan, you can join this new plan. How is that socialized medicine? Hillary of course wants to make it mandatory that you get some form of health insurance (the congress-style plan or keep your own) so I can see where some would say the big-brother mentality portion of that is somewhat socialist, but how is the plan itself socialized?

 

Not asking to try to advance an agenda, I really honestly want to know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding something here.

 

Probably because it's not like actual insurance which is paid for by the insured or their employer. It's not totally socialized, but it's getting a little pink.

[Beltmann]

"I am absolutely looking to Ohio and Texas because we know that those are states where they represent the broad electorate in this country," Clinton said. "They represent the kind of voters that will have to be convinced and won over in the general election."

I guess people living in Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Hawaii, and here in Wisconsin somehow don't represent the "broad electorate" in this country, and deserve to be overlooked and marginalized. Damn, I wish I lived in Ohio so that I mattered.

[Silent Assassin]

if you know of any med schools that pay you to attend, I would love to transfer.

 

If you get a MD/PhD they do pay you.

 

 

You can help people without the government forcing you to do so.

 

But you shouldn't have to rely on the charity of other people to get medical treatment. It should be a human right, not a privilege of those that can afford it. Unfortunately, I don't think the US can begin to see healthcare as a right as until the government does something about it. But maybe that is just the socialist in me talking.

 

 

On a side note, as a recent college graduate and graduate student, I know quite a number of people that are now in medical school. Many are there for the wrong reasons (IMO); power, money, and their parents want them to be doctors. I'm not sure how that fits into the whole healthcare debate, but I'll just throw it out there. However, I also know many who are in med school because they truly want to help people.

[ikol]

If you get a MD/PhD they do pay you.

 

True, but research is not for me.

 

But you shouldn't have to rely on the charity of other people to get medical treatment. It should be a human right, not a privilege of those that can afford it.

 

Why is relying on the government preferable to relying on charity?

 

On a side note, as a recent college graduate and graduate student, I know quite a number of people that are now in medical school. Many are there for the wrong reasons (IMO); power, money, and their parents want them to be doctors. I'm not sure how that fits into the whole healthcare debate, but I'll just throw it out there. However, I also know many who are in med school because they truly want to help people.

 

This is probably less of a problem than it was in the past. Medicine is starting to lose its appeal as far as the money-power thing goes. Either way, we are going to need as many doctors as we can get with the aging population.

[bjorn_skurj]

Charity is voluntary; the government is less so, and the power of the government eclipses that of any charity. How did old people and the disabled fare in the days before Social Security? Was charity sufficient in those cases to provide a safety net? Was it sufficient to deal with the masses of unemployed created in the Great Depression?

[Silent Assassin]

Why is relying on the government preferable to relying on charity?

 

In theory its not, but the government has a realistic shot for covering everyone.

 

This is probably less of a problem than it was in the past. Medicine is starting to lose its appeal as far as the money-power thing goes. Either way, we are going to need as many doctors as we can get with the aging population.

 

I hope so, but there are still a lot of them where I think to myself, "I would never want him/her to be my doctor."

[ikol]

Charity is voluntary; the government is less so, and the power of the government eclipses that of any charity. How did old people and the disabled fare in the days before Social Security? Was charity sufficient in those cases to provide a safety net? Was it sufficient to deal with the masses of unemployed created in the Great Depression?

 

Now it's no longer a safety net, but instead an entitlement. The majority lives past 65 and thus collects SS. That's going to be a huge problem when half the country is retired. We're going to have people receiving more from the government than they put in electing our leaders.

[markosis]

I have a bone to pick with the whole primary thing: I've never voted in a primary before last week, and I was quite miffed when the woman at the voting center told me I had to pick between being registered as a Republican or a Democrat. I didn't want to choose either, out of principle, since I don't really believe people should be corralled into political parties, and I almost walked out when she told me I absolutely had to choose one or I wouldn't be able to cast a vote. I don't get it. If anything, I'm independent. Couldn't I choose Independent? Why not?

[EL the Famous]

A dear friend of mine (and many of you here) went to the ER on January 2nd. She had no health insurance. (She had even expressed her concern about getting treatment for her flu to me before all this happened, because of her lack of insurance) She was sent home with minimal treatment. She died on January 3rd.

 

Now, you tell me.....would she have been sent off so quickly if she had insurance? Hmm.

 

Talk about stark consequences.

 

And this time, I am not being sarcastic.

 

 

This shit hits close to home on many levels.

 

I don't even know how to respond to that. As I know how much it upsets you and, quite frankly, her passing upsets me...i'll just drop out of the conversation. Truly sorry for saying anything.

[bjorn_skurj]

Now it's no longer a safety net, but instead an entitlement. The majority lives past 65 and thus collects SS. That's going to be a huge problem when half the country is retired. We're going to have people receiving more from the government than they put in electing our leaders.

This is why I thought allowing people to put a part of their SS money into 401(k)s was not a bad idea. Somehow, the fund must be grown so it will not only cover the Boomers, but those of us who come afterwards.

[ikol]

This is why I thought allowing people to put a part of their SS money into 401(k)s was not a bad idea. Somehow, the fund must be grown so it will not only cover the Boomers, but those of us who come afterwards.

 

Agreed.

[Reni]

I don't even know how to respond to that. As I know how much it upsets you and, quite frankly, her passing upsets me...i'll just drop out of the conversation. Truly sorry for saying anything.

 

No need to drop out of the conversation.

 

My point was that this debate really hits home for people. It can be, and is, a matter of life or death. And someone I know and cared about a lot is gone because she didn't get the care she needed. And here's a person who was dedicating their life to the care of mom's and babies.

 

Hell, just a couple months ago a girl died waiting for a liver transplant that her insurance company denied her. After a public outcry, the company gave in, she got the liver, but it was too late. And she HAD insurance. It just shows that this system is corrupt and a disaster.

 

The health care system has a weighted value on human life. I don't think there is any question about that no matter how much we may try and deny that reality. We build fancy, luxury medical facilities, yet people die and have lifelong financial ruin from being ill......something is wrong with this picture.

[Mr. Kinsley]

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. Both Hillary and Obama say that they want a plan that is the same as the one available to members of Congress made available to everyone. Not that everyone HAS TO use it, just that if your employer doesn't provide a plan, you can join this new plan. How is that socialized medicine? Hillary of course wants to make it mandatory that you get some form of health insurance (the congress-style plan or keep your own) so I can see where some would say the big-brother mentality portion of that is somewhat socialist, but how is the plan itself socialized?

 

Not asking to try to advance an agenda, I really honestly want to know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding something here.

 

 

Probably because it's not like actual insurance which is paid for by the insured or their employer. It's not totally socialized, but it's getting a little pink.

 

Are you just worried that it might be "a little pink" or is it a little pink? Not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm really not seeing where the 'medium-rare' is in these plans and as much as I want health care for all, I really don't want crappy health care for all.

[ikol]

Are you just worried that it might be "a little pink" or is it a little pink? Not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm really not seeing where the 'medium-rare' is in these plans and as much as I want health care for all, I really don't want crappy health care for all.

 

It is a little pink (IMO, obviously). I honestly don't know the specifics of either plan, but I'm guessing they both involve large subsidies (if they don't just outright pay for everything). While you may have a choice of whether you want to adopt the government plan, you don't have a choice on paying the taxes that are going to fund it. A less pink option would be to offer tax credits for buying insurance. That keeps the government out of the actual plan while saving consumers some tax money that they can use on it.

[Mr. Kinsley]

It is a little pink (IMO, obviously). I honestly don't know the specifics of either plan, but I'm guessing they both involve large subsidies (if they don't just outright pay for everything). While you may have a choice of whether you want to adopt the government plan, you don't have a choice on paying the taxes that are going to fund it. A less pink option would be to offer tax credits for buying insurance. That keeps the government out of the actual plan while saving consumers some tax money that they can use on it.

 

From the Obama site:

Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

 

So... yes, but not subsidies for all. So,yeah - a little pink! But isn't this going to cost less than people going to the ER with no insurance?

 

Also, I think I just answered my own question while looking for the subsidy info. (Did I spell that right? It looks weird.) Didn't notice this part before.

Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Participating companies implies that it isn't a gov't run healthcare system. It merely puts the kabosh on withholding kidneys and such.

[Silent Assassin]

It is a little pink (IMO, obviously). I honestly don't know the specifics of either plan, but I'm guessing they both involve large subsidies (if they don't just outright pay for everything). While you may have a choice of whether you want to adopt the government plan, you don't have a choice on paying the taxes that are going to fund it. A less pink option would be to offer tax credits for buying insurance. That keeps the government out of the actual plan while saving consumers some tax money that they can use on it.

 

I have one question about the tax credit option. I could be wrong, but a large proportion of people that don't have health insurance probably are paying very little in federal taxes as it is. So giving them a tax credit would effectively do nothing?

[ikol]

I have one question about the tax credit option. I could be wrong, but a large proportion of people that don't have health insurance probably are paying very little in federal taxes as it is. So giving them a tax credit would effectively do nothing?

 

A large number of them make over $50,000 per year, and individuals should get the same tax breaks that employers get for providing insurance. There are other things that could be done to make the actual insurance more affordable. Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and cutting back on arbitrary regulations that say what insurance companies have to cover would help.

[Silent Assassin]

A large number of them make over $50,000 per year, and individuals should get the same tax breaks that employers get for providing insurance. There are other things that could be done to make the actual insurance more affordable. Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and cutting back on arbitrary regulations that say what insurance companies have to cover would help.

 

I understand how people make $50,000 a year will be helped. It's the people hovering around the poverty line (~$20k family of 4) that I just don't see how giving them a tax credit would work.