So Obamacare is going well.

[blackgold]

Congress should have done away with for profit insurance companies if they wanted to fix healthcare. Instead, they made it a bigger payday for insurance companies by vastly expanding the customer base. Obamacare sucks. Stop kidding yourselves. Follow the money. The insurance companies gave a crapload to Pelosi and Reid and their liberal goons in Congress.

 

[WakeandBake]

^ who is this hat?

 

[ONW]

I don't support charity at all and I am not afraid to admit it. I'm not one of those libertarian fools who believes the free market and charity will take care of the lazy. I just don't care. As soon as we stop holding their hands, they'll start taking care of themselves.

Good call. I see plenty of homeless/uninsured/poor people/immigrants self-diagnosing each other and then applying appropriate medical care.

 

[deacdiggler]

^ who is this hat?

he's new and either a parody or a real asshole. he wants to keep [Redacted] for god's sake.

Anyway, the way to keep costs down is to have people make their own decisions about health care expenses, with catastrophic coverage. Just like car insurance or homeowners insurance. Insurance is supposed to "insure" against catastrophes. Unfortunately, our health insurance system has become simply a mechanism for spreading almost every single dollar of costs across our society, and this law was simply a way to make sure that everyone shared in that pain.

A much better law would provide reasonable deductible options, with correspondingly adjusted premiums. It would repeal the tax incentive to get insurance through employers, and replace it with a tax credit to offset that tax impact. People would shop around a bit for health care when it was time for a big procedure.

To head off rj's inevitable attack on this, YES, there are a number of details to be worked out. We'd have to monitor shady health care operations which promise low costs but cut corners. For a period of time, employers would have to agree to compensate employees an amount equal to the premiums that they're no longer paying. I agree that some serious planning and thought would be necessary. But in the end, I'd have a health insurance plan that makes sense for me, and so would you, and the people who don't have it now because their job doesn't offer it would have a tax credit of thousands of dollars which would allow them to get some basic coverage as well.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

I don't support charity at all and I am not afraid to admit it. I'm not one of those libertarian fools who believes the free market and charity will take care of the lazy. I just don't care. As soon as we stop holding their hands, they'll start taking care of themselves.

Libertarians don't support charity for the lazy. We support charity for those who truly need it. If the lazy were not enabled by government force on the industrious they would voluntarily get off their butts.

 

[WakeandBake]

Libertarians don't support charity for the lazy. We support charity for those who truly need it. If the lazy were not enabled by government force on the industrious they would voluntarily get off their butts.

what the fuck are you people talking about? good lord....

 

[WakeandBake]

I don't support the stupid. As an intelli-tarian, I elect to not support the dumbasses, therefore I support the mandate to force the dumbshits who don't go out and electively buy health insurance to do so.

 

[WakeandBake]

he's new and either a parody or a real asshole. he wants to keep [Redacted] for god's sake.

Anyway, the way to keep costs down is to have people make their own decisions about health care expenses, with catastrophic coverage. Just like car insurance or homeowners insurance. Insurance is supposed to "insure" against catastrophes. Unfortunately, our health insurance system has become simply a mechanism for spreading almost every single dollar of costs across our society, and this law was simply a way to make sure that everyone shared in that pain.

A much better law would provide reasonable deductible options, with correspondingly adjusted premiums. It would repeal the tax incentive to get insurance through employers, and replace it with a tax credit to offset that tax impact. People would shop around a bit for health care when it was time for a big procedure.

To head off rj's inevitable attack on this, YES, there are a number of details to be worked out. We'd have to monitor shady health care operations which promise low costs but cut corners. For a period of time, employers would have to agree to compensate employees an amount equal to the premiums that they're no longer paying. I agree that some serious planning and thought would be necessary. But in the end, I'd have a health insurance plan that makes sense for me, and so would you, and the people who don't have it now because their job doesn't offer it would have a tax credit of thousands of dollars which would allow them to get some basic coverage as well.

This implies that everyone wants to go buy health insurance. There are people who, left to make their own decision, wouldn't buy insurance with the extra tax break but would still be unable to cover the cost of any real procedures with it out of pocket. To some, that equals 'freedom' or 'liberty.' To me it equals fucking idiot. Not only are they risking their entire fortune, which is their own business, but they are not paying for goods and services rendered. This nonpayment is their responsibility, and furthermore it fucks up my insurance premiums. So we either let people die on the streets without coverage, or we make everyone get some skin in the game by law. I don't think anyone wants Americans dying on the streets.

except maybe these pseudo tough-guy mommas boys who have never wanted for anything, except for maybe a new collar to pop or a North Face fleece, who go around with their dicks in their hands calling people lazy because they heard their daddies saying it. They've never worked a day in their lives except maybe life guarding at the country club in the summer or carrying faxes around at daddy's firm. they think that if the 'lazy' are threatened with dying in the street they'll hop to it and get to work! they might be right, who knows?

 

[DeacMan]

This implies that everyone wants to go buy health insurance. There are people who, left to make their own decision, wouldn't buy insurance with the extra tax break but would still be unable to cover the cost of any real procedures with it out of pocket. To some, that equals 'freedom' or 'liberty.' To me it equals fucking idiot. Not only are they risking their entire fortune, which is their own business, but they are not paying for goods and services rendered. This nonpayment is their responsibility, and furthermore it fucks up my insurance premiums.

The nonpayment totally screws up their life. But all sorts of things that have nothing to do with those who don't pay screw up your insurance premiums. People who have insurance and over eat, who never exercise, who forget to fasten their seatbelt, who light fireworks and forget to throw them out of their drunken hands, who get drunk and drive cars or who do illegal drugs and OD. Are you going to regulate all those things too - or just the ones that are presently illegal?

 

[deacdiggler]

This implies that everyone wants to go buy health insurance. There are people who, left to make their own decision, wouldn't buy insurance with the extra tax break but would still be unable to cover the cost of any real procedures with it out of pocket. To some, that equals 'freedom' or 'liberty.' To me it equals fucking idiot. Not only are they risking their entire fortune, which is their own business, but they are not paying for goods and services rendered. This nonpayment is their responsibility, and furthermore it fucks up my insurance premiums. So we either let people die on the streets without coverage, or we make everyone get some skin in the game by law. I don't think anyone wants Americans dying on the streets.

except maybe these pseudo tough-guy mommas boys who have never wanted for anything, except for maybe a new collar to pop or a North Face fleece, who go around with their dicks in their hands calling people lazy because they heard their daddies saying it. They've never worked a day in their lives except maybe life guarding at the country club in the summer or carrying faxes around at daddy's firm. they think that if the 'lazy' are threatened with dying in the street they'll hop to it and get to work! they might be right, who knows?

i should have added that you only get that tax credit from the government if you're using it to buy insurance. so there's no incentive not to have insurance....you could buy a policy whose premiums equal the credit. In that situation I'm hard pressed to think of any rational person who wouldn't get insurance to cover emergency care, etc.

 

[CHDeac]

The nonpayment totally screws up their life. But all sorts of things that have nothing to do with those who don't pay screw up your insurance premiums. People who have insurance and over eat, who never exercise, who forget to fasten their seatbelt, who light fireworks and forget to throw them out of their drunken hands, who get drunk and drive cars or who do illegal drugs and OD. Are you going to regulate all those things too - or just the ones that are presently illegal?[/QUOTE]

All of that is just an unnecessary diversion which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

Um, yes it does. These things drive medical trend more than uncompensated care.

 

[WFU71]

I just read the article you linked - it's obviously a fluff piece. after checking some of the articles on that site, it is easy to say it's a left-leaning equivalent of Fox News. Here's a counter POV from National Review http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm

I imagine the truth about the Cuban healthcare system is somewhere between the two articles. Where in between? Who knows?

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

I just read the article you linked - it's obviously a fluff piece. after checking some of the articles on that site, it is easy to say it's a left-leaning equivalent of Fox News. Here's a counter POV from National Review http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm

I imagine the truth about the Cuban healthcare system is somewhere between the two articles. Where in between? Who knows?

The idea that one could truly have a better health care system in the long run by forcing one person to pay another person's bills is manifestly stupid. So when some brainwashed government dick sucker points to Cuba as an example of a good system they ignore the inevitable consequences of the force: those using the force get the benefits, the rest of the population can't find an aspirin and are herded into camps if they have HIV.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

What is "better"? If your mother is suffering debilitating pain and exercise intolerance from heart trouble, it doesn't extend the nation's average lifespan to perform an expensive bypass on her. Begging Castro's apparatchiks won't help: they save the resources for their own families. I would like to at least have the opportunity to help my family.

It can't work, bob. It can't ever really work to force people to pay a dictator whether it is Castro or the 'Crat party.

 

[ConnorEl]

From E.J. Dionne: link. [don't think the particular article has already been posted here]

Quote:
--------------
The court’s right-wing justices seemed to forget that the best argument for the individual mandate was made in 1989 by a respected conservative, the Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler.

“If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street,” Butler said, “Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services — even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract.”

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to reject the sense of solidarity that Butler embraced. When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli explained that “we’ve obligated ourselves so that people get health care,” Scalia replied coolly: “Well, don’t obligate yourself to that.” Does this mean letting Butler’s uninsured guy die?

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick called attention to this exchange and was eloquent in describing its meaning. “This case isn’t so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms,” Lithwick wrote. “It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another . . . the freedom to ignore the injured” and to “walk away from those in peril.”

This is what conservative justices will do if they strike down or cripple the health-care law. And a court that gave us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology.
--------------

 

[CHDeac]

I think that one big difference between the two systems is that one system is geared to having some individuals (and companies) making huge salaries & profits, while the primary goal of the other system is to provide the best care possible for the most people possible at the best price possible. As always, the United States leans toward a system where the few benefit at the cost of the many. If you are one of the fortunate ones in this country, I'm sure that our healthcare system is as good as any in the world....but if you aren't one of the fortunate few where cost is of no importance, many healthcare systems in the world....including Cuba's....are doing a better job than we are in the U.S.

When I was getting my graduate degree in health policy from UNC, we spent a fair deal of time looking at comparative health systems. While its a fun game to play, you really need to examine the models through a political, economic and cultural filter thereby making simple comparisons largely invalid. Having spent some time studying this, I'd welcome a national debate setting Cuba as the model to aim for. I'd settle for a general discussion on the merits/shortcomings of single payer so long as we look at it completely and through the US filter. The studies I've sen suggest that the latter article on Cuba are closer to reality than the utopia thats portrayed by some.

I don't doubt we have a two tiered system (no one does) but the reality is for 80% of us, we get great care. Our issue is the other 20% and the of course the cost.

Where your "analysis' consistently falls short is its failure to look at the demand side. I read yesterday that 70% of demand is driven by smoking, obesity and diet alone. Thats amazing, and preventable from a public health perspective. There are mountains of data on this issue but its not politically smart to address. Bashing "profit" and the 1% (or in this case the 80%), is much easier than suggesting we have a demand issue.

 

[Shooshmoo]

From E.J. Dionne: link. [don't think the particular article has already been posted here]

Quote:
--------------
The court’s right-wing justices seemed to forget that the best argument for the individual mandate was made in 1989 by a respected conservative, the Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler.

“If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street,” Butler said, “Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services — even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract.”

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to reject the sense of solidarity that Butler embraced. When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli explained that “we’ve obligated ourselves so that people get health care,” Scalia replied coolly: “Well, don’t obligate yourself to that.” Does this mean letting Butler’s uninsured guy die?

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick called attention to this exchange and was eloquent in describing its meaning. “This case isn’t so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms,” Lithwick wrote. “It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another . . . the freedom to ignore the injured” and to “walk away from those in peril.”

This is what conservative justices will do if they strike down or cripple the health-care law. And a court that gave us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology.
--------------

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

This kind of says all you need to know about conservatives:

"Liberals should learn from this display that there is no point in catering to today’s hard-line conservatives. The individual mandate was a conservative idea that President Obama adopted to preserve the private market in health insurance rather than move toward a government-financed, single-payer system. What he got back from conservatives was not gratitude but charges of socialism — for adopting their own proposal. "

 

[PhDeac]

Conservatives don't compromise. That's the lesson. It's not worth trying.

 

[ONW]

When I was getting my graduate degree in health policy from UNC, we spent a fair deal of time looking at comparative health systems. While its a fun game to play, you really need to examine the models through a political, economic and cultural filter thereby making simple comparisons largely invalid. Having spent some time studying this, I'd welcome a national debate setting Cuba as the model to aim for. I'd settle for a general discussion on the merits/shortcomings of single payer so long as we look at it completely and through the US filter. The studies I've sen suggest that the latter article on Cuba are closer to reality than the utopia thats portrayed by some.

I don't doubt we have a two tiered system (no one does) but the reality is for 80% of us, we get great care. Our issue is the other 20% and the of course the cost.

Where your "analysis' consistently falls short is its failure to look at the demand side. I read yesterday that 70% of demand is driven by smoking, obesity and diet alone. Thats amazing, and preventable from a public health perspective. There are mountains of data on this issue but its not politically smart to address. Bashing "profit" and the 1% (or in this case the 80%), is much easier than suggesting we have a demand issue.

Take politics away (I know, not possible), but what types of solutions did you and other people in your program come up with? Not being combative, just curious.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Conservatives don't compromise. That's the lesson. It's not worth trying.

Even worse. They compromised and then fucking Lucy'd the dems. Soulless bastages.