Get APLawrence.com by RSS(OLDER) <- More Stuff -> (NEWER) (NEWEST)
Home > Opinion > national health care
Printer Friendly Version
National Health Care
I've talked to a lot of people about Health Insurance over the past few weeks and am honestly sickened by the degree of ignorance exhibited by those opposed to this.
It's not "socialism"
All plans being considered simply require everyone (with some possible exceptions in some versions) to purchase health insurance. That's "purchase", as in pay for. Yes, people who can't pay high premiums will pay less or get credits to help them. That's not "socialism" - that's simply asking those of us who are more successful to help those who are not.
All group plans do something very similar now. If you are a part of the group, you pay one rate regardless of your medical conditions or needs. That's all this is - a larger group (or groups, more likely).
Government won't be deciding what care you can get
None of the bills being considered want anything that even comes close to that. They do set minimum standards for insurance plans - basic coverage that must be provided. The insurance companies, not the Government, will be setting the premiums for that care and for any higher level plans they may offer, and will be controlling what you get for that premium (beyond the minimum), just as they do now.
What about the "Government plan" that supposedly will drive out insurance companies, leaving us with only one bureaucracy laden choice? It's doubtful that will be in these bills anyway - the health insurance lobbyists are fighting it tooth and nail. But if it were, once again it would be a minimum care plan with nothing stopping private insurers from offering a better plan at higher cost. If "Government run" insurance is truly so horrible and distasteful, no one would willingly choose it and the private insurers wouldn't lose anything. But what's really laughable about this is that the people who might opt for the public plan are probably just the people the private insurers don't want anyway and will be forced to take if we don't have a public option.
It's not going to kill small business
Every bill under consideration takes notice of small business, either exempting business under a certain size entirely, or providing tax credits to offset the cost of health insurance.
This will HELP small business by putting everyone on a much more level playing field. Right now, many small businesses find it hard to attract employees if they can't offer health insurance benefits. These bills won't fix that entirely (big business will always be able to offer more), but it will narrow the benefit gap.
The cost figures are lies
When those opposed scream about the costs of these bills, they never mention what the uninsured already cost us. They never mention the existing bureaucracy of private insurance providers or the costs extracted by their excessive profits. The Obama administration has done a lousy job explaining that - I think they have the feeling that it's all too complicated. Well, maybe it is, but the basic facts are plain: we're paying already and we'll be paying much more in the future if we don't get it under control.
There will be things you don't like
I live in Massachusetts, where mandatory health insurance has been in effect for a few years now. I buy my insurance through Harvard Pilgrim and it's a pretty poor plan - it doesn't cover much, has high co-pays and so on. That was, however, my choice. I'm very healthy and if I could, I'd buy even less insurance. That's just what I did before the law went into effect: I had low-cust, very high deductible insurance, basically only covering real medical catastrophes. Massachusetts forces me to a minimum standard above that, so that's what I bought. I could have bought a plan with more coverage, but I don't want to spend the extra money. My CHOICE.
The new plan costs me about $150.00 a month more than my catastrophic plan. That's hardly an unbearable burden and I like to think that my extra premiums help to pay the way for the many needy people who couldn't afford any insurance before now. I'm willing to do that because I'm not a greedy s.o.b. only concerned about whether I get to enjoy my own life.
That's part of what this is all about - being willing to help others, and setting a minimum standard of care that they and all of us will get. The other part is raw finance: the current system will cripple us if we don't change it.
Educate yourself
Some of the people I talked to didn't even watch Obama's speech and press conference earlier this week - they just watched the clips on Fox News. Almost no one I talked to had read even excerpts or summaries of the various bills being floated. That's disgusting. Plenty of impassioned rhetoric about how awful this is, but very little understanding of what is actually being planned.
Please, please, please take the time to educate yourself on what these bills actually contain. It's not easy - the bills are complicated, laden with industry and Government jargon and frequently reference other bills and laws that aren't necessarily easy to find without effort. There may be things you don't like - maybe you employ 30 people and don't like that "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" would only exclude employers with under 25 employees. Maybe you think the small business tax credits of the alternative "Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans" bill makes more sense. Maybe you don't like that psychiatric care is included as minimum coverage or that people over 65 would be exempt from premium increases regardless of income in some versions. There will always be something that somebody doesn't like.
But that's the reality of politics. It's give and take. Yes, there will be ugly fat squeezed in here: the insurance companies aren't going to give up all their excess profits easily. Yes, there will be some level of bureaucracy - you can't avoid that. You have to look at the big picture: we need this and it's far, far past time for us to do it.
Let's get started. We can adjust anything after the fact - that's exactly what Massachusetts is doing now. We passed the initial law without concern for cost and now we need to work on that. We can do the same thing on a national level.
Let's get started. It's shameful that we don't have this now. It's disgusting that so much mis-information circulates as fact. It's time to act.
If this page was useful to you, please click to help others find it: Your +1's can help friends, contacts, and others on the web find the best stuff when they search.
Inexpensive and informative Apple related e-books:
Take Control of TextExpander
Getting Started with Dreamweaver
Take Control of Media on Your iPad
Take Control of Mail on the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch, Third Edition
Syncing Data in Snow Leopard
More Articles by Anthony Lawrence - Find me on Google+
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
Buy Kerio from a dealer who knows tech: I sell and support
Kerio Connect Mail server, Control, Workspace and Operator licenses and subscription renewals
Click here to add your comments
Sun Jul 26 14:00:58 2009: TonyLawrence
I also recommend that you download http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP and read the section on Health Care beginning on page 36. It was my oldest daughter who provided me the link to this - it is a clear and easy to understand analysis of what we are facing if we do nothing.
Sun Jul 26 14:26:40 2009: DaveGillam
http://www.davegillam.org
My thoughts....
Employers must pay 1/2 of SS (~8%), about 2% (of a reasonable employee salary) for health insurance, some money for unemployment and other insurance, and set aside enough money for pensions. The result is that an employee actually costs the employer about twice the employee's salary. Pension funds tend to be underfunded, as many tricks are employed to "guess" at the real liability.
If an employee loses a job, the company generally keeps the pension money. People lose their pension potential, and also their health coverage.
By having employers pay annually into a centralized pension fund for the employee, the employee keeps the pension fund across employers.
By centralizing the pension fund, and tying it to the worker (instead of each company the worker may work for during the career), Old age Social Security costs are more easily kept low. Unemployment costs also are reduced, if this pension fund can be used during times of unemployment. The payment formula would be simple:
(Years of Service * 2% of Salary * 40) - Already contributed = Pension Payment
in other words, 80% of Salary = Pension Payment
If you pay by W2, you should follow the above formula. If you pay by 1099, the contractor should provide additional funds for him/herself according to the above formula in the contract agreement. Self-employed (or form 1099 contractors) would also pay into this centralized pension fund for themselves.
Example minimum-wage ($7.25) pension scenario:
$7.25 * 2080hrs/yr = $15,080/yr income
80% of $7.25 * 2080hrs/yr = $12,064 per year into fund. (person starts working at age 16)
$12,064 * 50yrs = $603,200 (person retires at age 66)
Assuming the person lives to age 86, the person can withdraw $30,160 per year until expiration.
Example at $30,000/yr average salary:
80% * 30,000 = $24,000/yr into fund (person starts working at age 16)
$24,000 * 50yrs = $1,200,000 (person retires at age 66)
Assuming the person lives to age 86, the person can withdraw $60,000 per year until expiration.
This is twice the average annual income the person experienced through her life. Any investment dividends of the fund would pay for fund maintenance.
Any money left in the pension fund for an individual after that individual expires would go into a general emergency fund for Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid (Social Services). Costs to businesses would not go up; they may, in fact, go down. The emergency fund would also supplementally care for those who cannot put in enough working years to fully fund their own pensions.
By having employers pay into a centralized health care fund for the employee, the employee keeps the health coverage across employers.
By promoting publicly funded minor-care clinics, the government will promote preventative health care, thereby reducing overall health costs, as people will more likely have regular checkups, and avoid emergency health conditions (which are very expensive). Private health insurance would be paid out of the central care fund, and take care of exceptional health conditions. Perhaps a record of preventative care visits could be used to keep potential cost concerns in check.
Self-employed (or form 1099 contractors) would also pay into this centralized health care fund for themselves.
Pharmaceuticals need to be more tightly regulated in regard to pricing structure. The claim "we must have high prices to fund new drug research" has been proven specious, as other countries control costs and still have high health rates. Also for every type of drug, there are many variants that all do essentially the same thing. Reducing these counts to more reasonable levels will not adversely affect societal health.
Just my simple thoughts on how to solve the two problems of pensions and health care. I'm sure many can poke holes in my arguments, but that's how really good ideas are forged!
Sun Jul 26 14:39:58 2009: TonyLawrence
I suspect businesses large and small would fight that. But I agree that eventually we need to do something like that.
Right now, we have Health Insurance on the table. The health industry is on board, AARP supports this - all the usual nay-sayers are saying we need to do it. The opposition comes from Republican politicos who want the Democrats to fail and don't care at what cost, ignorant people who don't actually understand what the rest of us want to do, and those who just want wild west capitalism to do whatever the hell it wants.
It's time. Let's get this done.
Sun Jul 26 14:43:41 2009: anonymous
Please, please, please take the time to educate yourself on what these bills actually contain
Because Fox News sure as hell isn't going to tell you!
Sun Jul 26 22:17:32 2009: drag
What I don't understand is why people concentrating so much on the insurance side of things rather then address the real problem. The real problem is not the insurance, but the cost of health care in general.
Because:
A) To me insurance is something that you get in the chance of unexpected problems. It does not make sense to me to have a system were you need to pay insurance in order to be able to afford regular check-ups. People know that they are going to get sick time-to-time.. they know that occasionally a kid is going to break a leg or something like that.
That is normal expenses that people have to take into account in their daily lives. Paying insurance companies to pay normal living expenses is just fantastically inexpensive. This sort of thing is why I prefer very high deductible insurance plans. The insurance should kick in if you were injured in a car accident or get a stroke or something dramatic and unexpected.
B) Putting people that are uninsured on insurance is going to accomplish what exactly?
If they can't afford to pay for insurance and you force them to get on insurance and then have other people pay for that insurance... then how is that better then just having us pay the current way? It is not going to lower the burden.. it is just going to shift the cost from one system to another.. your essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul and are accomplishing absolutely nothing.
It seems that its mostly a plan to get everybody on insurance for the pure sake of getting everybody on insurance. What is that? The "make insurance companies richer" scheme to government mandated health care?
Sure there is a small number of people that can afford health insurance, but do not get health insurance and end up getting sick or hurt and have other people pay for it... but that's such a tiny minority.. who cares? Its background static compared to the real issues. The biggest problem of "uninsurance"-ness comes from either the elderly and the poor.... which we will end up footing the entire bill for regardless of whether they carry around a little piece of paper claiming that they have insurance.
The _only_ thing I see that comes close to addressing and solving any thing remotely associated with reducing the cost and burden of health care is some hand waving about cost savings associated with electronic medical records and other either unproven or minor things.
Sun Jul 26 22:53:15 2009: TonyLawrence
No, the people without insurance don't get early detection and end up in emergency rooms where they do get treated for "free" - except, of course, that really we paid for it. Their care is more expensive than it should have been.
If they HAD insurance, more would visit doctors instead of emergency rooms. Of course the doctors have to be available, and the poor have to understand that they need to visit doctors before they are deathly ill - all that hast been less than perfect in MA, but that's a different problem.
Sun Jul 26 22:54:02 2009: drag
Let me put this another way....
Lets say you have a town of 200 people. Those people eat nothing but bread. But there is only enough bread for 120 people. So the bread is very expensive and only the wealthier people can afford it.
Giving people 'bread insurance' and taking money from the rich people to the people can't normally afford bread is not going to solve the bread shortage problem. It's not all of a sudden going to produce another 80 loafs of bread to make sure everybody gets fed.
So the problem we are dealing with isn't not a insurance problem. It's a affordability problem. The cost of health care is too high for people to afford... if it was not then anybody could get enough affordable insurance.
So as I understand it there are not issues with hospitals with empty beds while the poor die in the streets. There is not issues with people stockpiling massive amounts of drugs or nurses and doctors going unemployed as the evil corporate people control the market to inflate the prices and things of that matter.
So the issue is one of scarcity of health care.
So.. I see there are different ways to address this issue.
* You can ration health care. In order to keep costs low you purposely deny health care to people whose conditions are very expensive and will not have much chance of benefiting from it long-term.
* you can reduce the overhead in other places. Free up doctor's time in the hospital to see more patients. Reduce the time and expense it takes for new and improved drugs and forms of health treatment to reach the market. Find alternative forms of care to reduce the overhead and cost of treating many conditions. Eliminating the middle-men.
* figure out how to encourage society to produce more health care.. make it more profitable to be a doctor. Introduce programs to produce more hospitals, produce more drugs, make providing health care more profitable somehow, encourage more research into more effective treatments.
Most countries seem to be happy to take the rationing approach. To regulate the amount of health care is provided to keep costs low and keep things universal. That is the biggest fear Americans have.. it's not that poor people are going to be given a free ride or that their taxes are going to go up.. they are afraid that instead of some people getting very good health care and other people getting poor health care we are going to get everybody getting poor health care. That way we all can be 'equal'.
I was looking at some statistics lately on quality of health care and all that... The stuff with cancer is the most telling:
(I believe that this is based on 5 year survival rates)
* American men have 99% chance of surviving prostate cancer.. European men have 78% chance.
* For 16 different types of cancer considered American men have 66% survival rates, American Women have 63%.. while European men have 47% chance and European Women have 56%.
And it does vary quite a bit from country to country of course. The UK is pretty poor at 44% survival rate for men for 'all cancers' while Sweden is very close to USA with better then 60%.
Both those countries have socialized medicine. (which I understand that right now Obama and friends are pushing insurance laws, not socialized medicine... but the problem we face is one of cost, not insurance and approaches to lowering costs are the same irregardless of what form of governance you choose).
The major difference is that UK is very centralized control, while Sweden goes for a very distributed model of socialized health care.
So I am thinking that if people want to solve real issues then having a decentralized system similar to Sweden is the way to approach it... they are the ones that come closest to the USA's capolistic model in terms of quality. At least for cancer survival rates.
Mon Jul 27 02:27:31 2009: jtimberman
http://twitter.com/jtimberman
My real problem with the whole deal is that the bills under review for legislation are all focused health insurance and related costs, vs health care and its high prices - which are largely brought about by high amounts of health insurance paperwork and costs.
I have a friend that works for a large HMO, and he studies this topic a lot more than anyone I know. He told me that France has the highest level of health care available per the WHO, along with the lowest correlated cost. "Whatever France is doing [wrt health care], we should be doing that", is what he says. I don't know how accurate that is, other than I've checked and http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html apparently France is #1 on the WHO rankings.
Personally I don't think that whatever the government does is really going to improve the problem that much. They're treating one symptom of the greater problems, and they may not even be treating it well. I'm not naïve to think that the conservatives are remotely accurate when they talk about a government bureaucrat will get between people and their doctor/care. There's already insurance bureaucrats in the way now!
Mon Jul 27 10:49:19 2009: TonyLawrence
I believe he is correct about France.
One of the things they do is put a value on life. If I have my facts and conversions right, it's somewhere around $40,000 a year. So if a procedure costs $100,000 but should give an average 5 year survival rate, that's under $40,000 and worth doing. If it has a six month survival average, it's not worth doing.
The US probably isn't ready for that, but we do need to get there eventually.
Mon Jul 27 10:58:06 2009: TonyLawrence
About the bureaucrats: as you note, insurance company bureaucrats set policies now.
If you don't like the cost cutting policies of a private corporation, you don't have much power. You can bitch, but the company has a right to maximize their profits.
With government, you can lobby for change. You still may not get it, but you actually have the RIGHT to request it and the power to vote for representatives to change the law and the policy.
With a private insurer, the only "vote" you have is your feet and your dollars. Even if you become a shareholder, your possible influence is very small compared to other stockholders holding larger amounts of stock. As citizens, we each (at least theoretically) have the same amount of "voting stock". Yes, some people do have more effective power, but even with that we have more ability to effect change.
Mon Jul 27 11:22:55 2009: TonyLawrence
Although these bills are trying to address costs. Obama used the red pill/blue pill analogy, but what he really meant is that if it costs too much money to save your life, we need to let you die.
People don't like that, but we have to do those things. As I understand the current bills, they don't go that far. Eventually, we have to.
Mon Jul 27 12:20:29 2009: TonyLawrence
By the way, I'm not sure that US figures for cancer survival rates are necessarily accurate.
We tend toward very early detection, and we're now learning that some of that may be wasted effort: the small cancers either never matter or go away by themselves. I don't know this for fact, but any "cancer survival" rates could easily be distorted by our doctor's zeal.
Mon Jul 27 12:25:54 2009: TonyLawrence
Yeah: quote from http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer
Those are exactly the types of things that can sometimes be left alone and that US doctors (sometimes) over-treat. "Survival rate" doesn't mean anything if you would have survived anyway - you just added some money to a surgeons pockets.
From http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/157374.php
Experts say that overtreatment of cancer occurs wherever there are widespread screening programs, including in the U.S. Some cancers develop too slowly to ever cause symptoms or death, the AP/Google.com reports. However, it is impossible to determine which cancers will be deadly, so all detected cases are treated. Jorgensen said that there is "significant harm in making women cancer patients without good reason" and that the "information needs to get to women so they can make an informed choice."
Mon Jul 27 12:35:54 2009: TonyLawrence
Giving people 'bread insurance' and taking money from the rich people to the people can't normally afford bread is not going to solve the bread shortage problem. It's not all of a sudden going to produce another 80 loafs of bread to make sure everybody gets fed.
Actually, that's not true. Bread subsidies get more money to the bakers. Towns that never had a baker now get one. Towns that now require more bread will cause bakers to ramp up baking.
There are now places without "bakers". That's one of the problems we've seen here in MA - the newly insured poor are still using emergency rooms, probably partly out of habit but also because they can't find doctors (and of course because preventative care will take years to trickle down to affecting that).
A survey of these people found 20% said " they have been told in the past 12 months that a doctor or clinic was not accepting new patients or would not see patients with their type of insurance. ( http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/mass-health-plan-lessons-for-obama-care/ )
That's a "baker" problem.
Mon Jul 27 13:15:53 2009: RickBrandfass
Were do the millions of "undocumented workers" and their families fit into these bills?
Mon Jul 27 13:24:03 2009: TonyLawrence
The issue of illegal immigrants has been discussed and it's very difficult.
Would you turn a sick child away?
How about an adult with an infectious and virulent flu?
Obama made his feelings known: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5178652.shtml
My feeling is that unless you are willing to hunt "illegals" down and shoot them dead, you have to face the problem. Most of these people ARE contributing to our society - often being abused by dishonest employers, but still contributing. If they are a part of our society, they shoould be treated like everyone else. They should be treated as humans.
Or shoot them. Why not - they are "illegal".
Mon Jul 27 13:34:37 2009: TonyLawrence
But to more directly address your question: the very small businesses that employ these folks will be exempt from being required to provide coverage, so no, they wouldn't get coverage that way. If they are "undocumented", they'd have no other way to get coverage either - except for emergency rooms.
Of course that will cost us more. But never mind that - we don't want those damn illegals getting any health benefits even if it does cost us more!
Mon Jul 27 14:04:52 2009: TonyLawrence
I know I'm being a bit bitchy above, but let's be realistic.
It's easy to ignore people in the abstract, but it's hard to do in the flesh. That's why emergency rooms treat people without insurance. It's just normal humanity - very few of us could turn our backs on another human needing help.
But this silliness costs us dearly. Emergency room care costs more, both in terms of service provided and often because illness has progressed farther than it should have - if we had provided less expensive care earlier, we would have paid less for our humanity.
It also can cost you directly: an emergency room clogged with people who shouldn't be there under a better system could keep YOU from urgent care when you need it.
We need to look at this stuff rationally and not emotionally.
Tue Jul 28 18:07:26 2009: BrettLegree
http://6weeks.ca
You hit the nail right on the head with your last couple of comments, Tony.
It isn't the child's fault that his or her parents don't have health insurance.
To anyone who could say (even in jest) "who cares?" or "not my problem", I would say, "would you have been willing as a 3-year old to take responsibility for every mistake your parents had made?"
Giving everyone access to health care is for everyone's benefit, for many reasons e.g. that sick person may not make you sick, or that sick child may go on to make some world changing discovery in nanotechnology or fusion power or something.
I admit - there are times when I have wished we had the ability to pay for medical in Canada to "get to the front of the line", but I'd gladly pay *more* tax to improve the base service for all.
Meanwhile, our short-sighted government keeps giving us tax breaks... and our service gets worse... surprise surprise.
Tue Jul 28 18:10:35 2009: TonyLawrence
Well, everything proposed down here would let you buy higher insurance if you want to. In fact, one idea is to tax those expensive plans to help pay for the lower cost basic plans.
Tue Jul 28 19:08:16 2009: TonyLawrence
Which reminds me:
One thing I constantly hear from the ignorati down here is that they "have friends" or "relatives" in Canada who hate their medical care and warn Americans not to allow this.
First of all, I find it amusing that so many people have these unhappy friends, but more annoying is that we aren't planning anything even vaguely like Canada's health system.
Tue Jul 28 23:41:40 2009: BrettLegree
http://6weeks.ca
That is rather amusing, I agree - I don't think I know anyone who would say that (and as you say, totally different systems).
In the past, when I've been out of work or not had much in the way of savings, I've been pretty happy to have what we do. Though I may have complained about the wait once or twice, we do have it pretty good, and if there's one thing we Canadians are good at doing, it is complaining :)
Sun Aug 2 17:41:49 2009: TonyLawrence
An astonishing example of ignorance: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/1/17054/97533
Tue Aug 4 09:48:16 2009: anonymous
As someone who hasn't seen a doctor since 1985. I now have chronic health problems now as a direct result of this. I have never had a job which offered health care since the USAF.
I don't want health insurance. I want health care.
We pay taxes, the taxes should pay for health care. It if costs too much then raise the tax to match the cost.
Health Insurance should be outlawed, it's what has created a fascist situation, loaded with fuzzy math, dirty politics, lies and death.
And finally legalize pot. It does take the edge off chronic pain.
Tue Aug 4 10:08:24 2009: TonyLawrence
We do have that - unfortunately, you have to wait until you are 65 to get it and even then you'll need to buy supplemental insurance.
Realistically, a single payer plan just won't fly in this country. Part of that is from political interests having too much power but a lot is just in the general psyche - most people don't want it because they fear that voters will restrict care to keep costs down.
We have to take what we can get - if we can even get this much!
Thu Aug 6 22:17:35 2009: EileenKCarpenterMD
http://eileenkcarpenter.blogspot.com/
I'm a primary care doctor, and I can tell you we ARE going to have health care reform. Keeping the current system isn't even an option. It is collapsing. The costs are going up fast because healthy people are deciding it's too expensive and "going bare." Then the medical expenses are spread among a smaller pool of sicker people, and the rates have to be increased further. That causes even more people to drop out. Insurance premiums are now on the infamous hockey-stick graph.
People need to make their preferences known and participate in productive dialog, not just scream and pout and say they don't want change. No one in Washington can stop things from changing, because they're already changing on their own. But the longer we wait to make reasoned choices, the fewer options there are going to be.
Fri Aug 7 02:29:00 2009: TonyLawrence
The "Fox News" crowd is, frankly, just too ignorant (not stupid, ignorant) about this part of the issue. They do not understand that they will get squeezed out of care if we keep beating reform down.
We need this for both moral reasons and financial reasons. It's a no-brainer that should have been done back when the Clintons were in office.
Fri Aug 7 18:28:06 2009: jtimberman
http://twitter.com/jtimberman
Eileen,
Healthy people are going bare, on what, insurance? or care? Why should healthy people have to pay for sick people's care? Especially when so many people are sick because of the lifestyle choices *they* made (smoking, overeating, etc).
So many people seem to have confused *care* with *insurance*. There's a difference, and this is a good writeup about the topic of insurance:
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/08/05/you-do-not-have-health-insurance/
Fri Aug 7 20:22:58 2009: TonyLawrence
Why should people who don't drive have to pay taxes that pay for highways?
Because highways benefit all of us.
Same with health care. If you can't be reached with an appeal to your basic humanity, then perhaps we can convince you with cold finances: it costs MORE to leave people uninsured.
As to the smokers and obese, my feeling is that almost all of that is from poor education. You don't punish people who don't understand why their choices are bad for all of us.
Sat Aug 8 07:35:40 2009: jtimberman
http://twitter.com/jtimberman
Every person I've met that smokes knows its bad for them.
*Most* people I've known that eat a lot of fast food know its bad for them.
It's [largely] not a consumer education thing, its a corporate marketing machine thing. And in the case of fast food, it's often a cost vs convenience thing. There's a lot of issues with people's diets that are largely an education problem, but fast food is the most prevalent and common, so I'm mentioning it primarily.
Sat Aug 8 07:37:59 2009: jtimberman
Also, forgot to mention in the previous, guilt doesn't work on me. Yeah, there's people who are sick and suffering and that's lame. But for those who are in that position through their own choices? Why should I have to pay for them to get better? I have a very serious problem with paying for someone else's stupidity through extortion^Wtaxes.
Sat Aug 8 12:17:26 2009: TonyLawrence
I disagree. What I hear from people is variations on "Everything in moderation", "Something has to kill you", "Life is too short" and so on.
People really don't understand the importance of healthy food and regular exercise, or if they do understand, they rationalize it away.
I'm sad that you don't care about other people but if that's your feeling, there it is. The problem is that you pay for those people now and you pay MORE than you would with a universal plan.
Sat Aug 8 14:12:55 2009: jtimberman
I didn't say I don't care about other people. I said I have a serious problem with paying for their stupidity. Yes, I realize that I'm forced to pay more as a result, and that's exactly the problem. That won't go away with "reform" because I'll end up paying more in taxes instead, or in addition.
Mon Aug 10 15:32:54 2009: TonyLawrence
Not that it matters to all those people with friends in Canada, but http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
Of course the Fox News crowd will say that's all lies.
Wed Aug 19 11:37:15 2009: TonyLawrence
Another thing that annoys me is Republican moaning about a "public option" that (according to them) will cripple the ability of private insurers to compete, driving them out of business and ultimately leaving us only with the (presumably crappy) public plan.
Could one of you explain why the Post Office hasn't driven UPS out of business?
Also - we already have a public care plan: Medicare. My wife is on that, and she, like most Medicare folk who aren't dirt poor, also buys supplemental *private* insurance.
A public option won't cripple anyone.
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar