US Healthcare reform

Post Reply New Topic

Orwell, you're way off topic. Ruveyn has said why he opposes this Health Insurance bill. Why, specifically, do you oppose this legislation? What aspect(s) of it do you disagree with, and why?

I oppose government monopolies. If the government provides universal health coverage, this will crowd out private solutions. Claims that people who want private insurance could still get it are simply false. I also doubt the government's ability to run healthcare efficiently. They have failed in education, in delivering mail, and in virtually everything else they have attempted. Why would we trust them with healthcare? I basically think that this bill is likely to hurt the majority of Americans who already have health coverage more than it helps the minority who do not.

This bill doesn't create a government monopoly.



If, as you say, private health insurance is better, then it wouldn't be crowded out by the "inferior" government health insurance option.



There you go, changing the subject again. This bill has nothing to do with health care, only health insurance.



Why? How would it do that?

All of the proposed bills on this issue take away options in favor of government-mandated standards (which are abysmal and overtly intrusive). You could simply expand the coverage of Medicaid for the "working poor" and "solve" the "crisis" in America, but that would not give the government expansive control over every American's life...only those who sign up for Medicaid.

This is not about helping people, it's always been about grabbing more power and denying choices to the people.

The crucial and fundamental point about current health insurance in the USA is that it is a business that exists primarily for profit and any policy that does not prove profitable is not interesting to an organization only concerned with the bottom line. This is not to criticize these private concerns for their orientation as that orientation is the logical basis for business. The sensible question is why such an organization ill fitted to be primarily concerned over the health of its subscribers should be employed for such an end as taking care of people who are desperately ill but cannot be milked for profit. Long policies by commercial insurance companies of denying vital medicines and services to deprived people and cherry picking people unlikely to need medical services are clearly on record. If, as some believe, those without sufficient funds should be left to suffer and die in the name of profitable business, then for profit organizations are the logical choice. Others think otherwise.

That's simply not true.



You're contradicting yourself... first you say the bills would "prohibit new policies," then you say the idea is to allow private insurance. Which would it be?

And who are these "brain trusts behind national health care?" Can you prove that they (whoever they are) "admit that allowing private insurance would be a necessary step to imposing mandatory national health care?" And if they allow private insurance, how can it be called "national health care?"



You're trying to scare us. No monopoly is created. If a bill comes along that does create a government monopoly, then use your arguments on that bill.



If the government is so inept, then you have nothing to fear, for everyone would take the private option.



So you'd rather have these decisions made by a private carrier? Since their duty is to their stockholders, not their policy holders, they have a vested interest in denying health care and dropping sick people. This has been demonstrated over and over.



No reason. If you are wealthy enough to self-insure, then do that.



if, if, if... you're trying to scare us again. We aren't going to a health care paradigm, at least not with this bill. If someone proposes a bill that does change this to a health care paradigm, then fight that bill.



I don't really understand what you're saying here. I think you're saying that you're wealthy and don't need any health insurance Is that what you mean?



The only options this bill takes away are the insurance companies' options to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and drop people who require expensive treatment.



It's a lot more than just the working poor that can't afford insurance. Besides, you're suggesting an expansion of socialized medicine, which is exactly what you say you fear most. Also, that does nothing for the people who are denied coverage.



Not true... this bill expands choices, not deny them.

Ed, you are 100% wrong on the crowding-out issue. If the government were to offer a health insurance program, undoubtedly many (most) employers would quickly drop the healthcare plans they currently offer their employees, forcing those employees into the government program, even if the government program is of inferior quality. As this trend continues, private insurers will be driven out of business and the only option left will be government healthcare.

Side note to zer0netgain's comments on the USPS: in my senior year of high school I applied for a scholarship sponsored by the US federal government. The website for this program explicitly instructed me to use a private mail carrier rather than the USPS. Even the government does not trust the government-run agencies. And Ed, while such remarks may be "off-topic" they demonstrate an important point: the US government, historically, has a pretty lousy track record in attempting to replace private sector functions. That is why analogies to the public education system are relevant: in education, an inferior public option has crowded out private options (very few will pay a few thousand dollars a year when the public schools are "free") and resulted in an overall lesser quality than would otherwise be available.

Private Health Care Insurance Providers vs. Public Health Care Provided through Govt.

Two key words that jump out here to me, Private and Public.

Some may think this is too simplistic but personally I don't want my health care information under the control of the Govt. We saw what happens when politics gets involved with the "Joe the Plumber" guy and how his financial information was obtained by Govt. employees and then leaked to the press because of politics.

Sure, you want less ethical storage of important information for a system that will surely increase costs through the roof (CBO Report) and still not cover 30 million people. This legislation is a Trojan Horse. B

But, since any public debate is now subject to being reported to the White House (which is by law, required to establish what they intend to do with this information before implementation) I'll will no longer comment on this subject or on this site. It is a sad day, indeed.

Whatever the storage of health information involves, I find the trust in private companies naively amusing. Time and again commercial holders of private health information have yielded to the desire for profit in selling personal information to whoever might pay a good price. Money is their reason for being in business.

That would in effect be a pay cut. Typical of the way private industry works.



Actually the government would offer several plans, with different coverage and premiums, just like the private companies.



Conservatives are quick to say that private companies can provide a product cheaper and more efficiently than the government. This sounds like a pretty good test of that theory.

Public schools didn't crowd out private schools... public schools were here first, private schools came later. Here in Massachusetts we have another option, charter schools, and it seems that on the whole they are providing a good alternative to public schools.

huh? You sound like a conspiracy theorist to me. I disregard all comments from such people.

Personal Attacks I can comment on.

Naming someone a conspiracy theorists is a tactic for people that can not argue based on fact because they are too busy pushing misinformation and all out lies. Claiming someone sounds like a conspiracy theorists is pretty lame in my book. Considering the amount of crap and total BS in this post it is quite amusing to say the least.

I stand by my words that the public option will erode any sense of the right to medical information privacy as stated by current regulations. Please feel free to show proof, name page numbers of the current bill or show otherwise. Thank You.

...then please explain the paragraph I quoted:

That's not how it works, you are the one to make the claim, therefore it is you who need to back it.

I can not explain the fact that the news cycle lags somewhat overseas and socialistic liberals do not for some reason look at news from other opinions. My best explanation is editorial choice and group think.

Send an email to the White House tattling on anyone that has an opinion that is different than the President's or his lackeys.

Obama wants citizens to report

Senator Accuses Whitehouse

Is the White House responsible for collecting data, email addresses, IP addresses from people now that oppose their viewpoints? Is this a form of warrantless wiretapping that sidesteps current law? Is this part of the duties of the President? And, when the Govt. collects this information on a .gov websites is there suppose to be a privacy warning? Did Bush stoop to this low of a level? Has any president in the history of the U.S. done this?

It is one thing to ask the citizens to be on the lookout for things out of the ordinary after being hit by a terrorist attack, it is a completely different animal, indeed, to ask the same but based solely on political differences and have the information sent directly to the president instead of a law enforcement branch.

And, according to some here if an organization is "for profit" then they lack morality and therefore subject to baseless accusations centering on "profiteering". But, at the same time some here hold a "non profit" to a higher light simply because their "motivations" are not making money but have something to do with sunshine, a straw and the arse of someone with more influence.

The issue here is a private organization working under the regulations and laws set forth by the Fed. and Local Govts. vs. an organization that makes the current regulations and laws. If the private organization, say leaks information on someone, then that person has the option to seek justice in a court setting. However, if the Govt. organization leaks information for whatever reason then the person has no recourse, because suing the Govt. is not an option. Organizations are made up of people and it is naive to think of them as anything else.

ACORN for example is a non profit that has evidently tried to hide a $1 million dollar embezzlement scheme by one of the boards brothers by creative accounting. I'm really glad the people running that organization are out to help people and not embezzle money or make a profit from bilking the Govt. for funding high paid salaries while the lowly worker is subjected to ridiculing bosses and impossible deadlines and assignments, because that would be just like the corporate world, right?

So have I shown how the whitehouse is asking for its supporters to inform on people with differing views on this health care subject? It is interesting when a "community organizer" get his panties in a wad when communities organize. Some might even call this "projection" as mentioned in one of the articles.

I wonder what strange mental pathways would indicate that a non-profit has been found enmeshed in illegal activities so therefore profit oriented business can be trusted. A plethora of instances are revealed almost daily of profit oriented businesses engaged in illegal destructive activities because of the reluctance of government or the inability of government to enforce legalities. The whole damned financial mess is due to the destruction of the regulations of the Glass Steagall Act and this concerned a whole mass of huge profit oriented businesses. The food preparation industries are in continual hot water for poisoning people because there are not sufficient government regulators to investigate and the conditions promote profits. Mining industries are notorious for destroying the countryside as are the lumber companies. If you are blind to the human destruction caused by the profit hungry pharmaceutical and health insurance companies then I am no miracle worker to restore your vision.