"Middle Class Americans" behind Healthcare protests

[squishyx]

Are you suggesting an amendment to the constitution for healthcare? Or are you suggesting that the constitution is just a set of guidelines that we should try to stay within but if inconvenient we can go around it?

Neither.

The constitution protects the people from the potential tyranny of government. When they wrote the constitution the biggest fear was that they would turn into England, the whole thing was designed to protect a few basic civil liberties not govern the people for ever.

We the people decide how we want to live via democracy, there is nothing in the constitution or DOI that says we are entitled to health care, thats something we as a nation are trying to figure out if we want or not, and I for one support it.

Edited August 18, 2009 by squishyx

[thegame346]

Words from my DI "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

And I mean this Thank You for all of your and your families sacrifices.

I understand where you get your logic from. When we think of our own life we have to ask ourselves the ultimate question...

"Do I do what I know is wrong and survive, or do I do whats right and die?"

I don't think there is a correct answer when you boil it down to the individual being asked the question. When you serve your country you are bound by the rules and law of the Geneva convention, Uniform Code of Military Justice, the rules of engagement, the code of conduct, and law of armed conflict. You are expected to abide by these laws even when faced with death. Its not something I like to think about because in hindsight we can all sit here and say what we would do not knowing exactly how we would think or feel in that moment.

The only thing I do know is that if we do to our enemies the same unlawful practices that they do to us then we make it easier for them to quantify and validate their own viscious acts of inhumanity. I do not wish to give them a reason to validate flying airplanes full of civilians into a building full of civilians because I decided that a village of innocents deserved to die on the off chance they might be terrorists, or decided to be inhumane and torture people.

Like I said... being an American is complicated. Its advanced citizenship. It's more then just freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. It's more then the right to due process, or the right to privacy. It's a lot of different things and can not be defined by a few simple statements. It can't even really be defined by the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independance. These documents are just guidelines to acheiving a free society. We must always be mindful of the right and wrong things in life. Yes we must adapt to an ever evolving future but at the same time we must adapt without losing the very ideals that got us here in the first place.

People always ask "what will be the downfall of America?". I hear many different opinions such as severe economic collapse, massive military might opposed to ours, nuclear holocaust, natural disaster... the list goes on and on but I firmly believe that the real downfall of America will be when we as citizens give up on those values that got us here. When we just arrogantly throw away everything we have been taught about right and wrong in the name of "protecting our society" and instead do what gets us by in the heat of the moment is when this country truly will fail.

I only pray that it will not be on my watch... or lifetime.

[metallidevils]

suing people who downloaded like 20 songs for 80 grand each is worse than what any middle eastern country allows

[thegame346]

suing people who downloaded like 20 songs for 80 grand each is worse than what any middle eastern country allows

LOL. As far as what I learned that woman was given the opportunity to settle out of court for some measly little amount of money, (for some reason I remember it as $2000)but she chose to go full out balls to the wall with the trial to be ruled innocent and it backfired. Its nobody's fault but her own.

[Devilish34]

I understand where you get your logic from. When we think of our own life we have to ask ourselves the ultimate question...

"Do I do what I know is wrong and survive, or do I do whats right and die?"

I don't think there is a correct answer when you boil it down to the individual being asked the question. When you serve your country you are bound by the rules and law of the Geneva convention, Uniform Code of Military Justice, the rules of engagement, the code of conduct, and law of armed conflict. You are expected to abide by these laws even when faced with death. Its not something I like to think about because in hindsight we can all sit here and say what we would do not knowing exactly how we would think or feel in that moment.

The only thing I do know is that if we do to our enemies the same unlawful practices that they do to us then we make it easier for them to quantify and validate their own viscious acts of inhumanity. I do not wish to give them a reason to validate flying airplanes full of civilians into a building full of civilians because I decided that a village of innocents deserved to die on the off chance they might be terrorists, or decided to be inhumane and torture people.

Like I said... being an American is complicated. Its advanced citizenship. It's more then just freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. It's more then the right to due process, or the right to privacy. It's a lot of different things and can not be defined by a few simple statements. It can't even really be defined by the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independance. These documents are just guidelines to acheiving a free society. We must always be mindful of the right and wrong things in life. Yes we must adapt to an ever evolving future but at the same time we must adapt without losing the very ideals that got us here in the first place.

People always ask "what will be the downfall of America?". I hear many different opinions such as severe economic collapse, massive military might opposed to ours, nuclear holocaust, natural disaster... the list goes on and on but I firmly believe that the real downfall of America will be when we as citizens give up on those values that got us here. When we just arrogantly throw away everything we have been taught about right and wrong in the name of "protecting our society" and instead do what gets us by in the heat of the moment is when this country truly will fail.

I only pray that it will not be on my watch... or lifetime.

OT

I understand your point just when I read it that came to mind... I knew you would understand it as I understand yours.

I had a nice conversation with a father(from Germany) at one of my daughters friends B-day party. After all the talk

about HC and politics he said to us " No matter what you all think of your past or present government this is still

the best country to live in. He than thanked everyone who had family who fought to save Europe."

Back on topic he also said the HC in the states was better here(for him) than in Germany.

[SC Devs Fan]

The quality of healthcare is a funny thing, so tempered by individual experiences. Did you have an elderly relative who ran out of money when they got ill or could not afford their prescriptions? Did they just need well check exams? Do you know someone who got into a terrible accident and was bankrupted by the care? Do you have healthy children who need the basics (tonsils, tubes, etc.) or were born severely ill? Were you personally the victim of poor care or, conversely, great care?

As with any statistics you can make the case that healthcare in the US is not very good, but personally I'd be scared to death to get treatment for an illness out of the country but feel confident that those who vacation here would get excellent care.

[devilsadvoc8]

A nice opinion article on Obama's positions on healthcare. Simplifies the issues a bit much but I think accurately identifies some of my major issues with the presidents "plans".

link

He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won

[squishyx]

The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit.

If Caroline wrote something similar about Bush then I think she is justified in making this comment; if she didn't then this is just another political hack piece.

The idea that a public option would lead to rationing is laughable since that's exactly the system we have right now. I understand people like SC getting all bent out of shape since they are the ones who will pay for it, but why the middle class thinks that keeping their insurance they have now will some how lead to rationing is beyond me. Nothing is going to change for these people, but I guess chalk that one up to fear propaganda. Right up there with those death panels, the same "death panels" the republicans passed in 2003 with Medicare part D.

On the whole, Obama and the democrats, especially the senate have really dropped the ball of health care reform. They are all over the place, and this latest drama with the public option ("we need it" "ehh, we could live with out it", "no wait we didn't mean that!") is getting circular. They can't seem to stay on point, and change what they want to focus on weekly. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum as Clinton was, the latter failed because he refused to negotiate with congress, Obama is doomed to fail because it's too unorganized with too many parties. I fear what comes out in September won't have the teeth that real reform needs and will cater to too many groups who want to get their "critical" piece into the package.

I am a strong believer in a public option, or a major system overhaul in general, but I'm no longer confident that congress is going to come back with something that works. And even if they did they won't have the votes or support to pass it. Obama and company should settle for small more tangible reforms like not allowing insurance companies to drop sick patients or to to set lifetime caps, extending COBRA benefits, remove restrictions on pre-existing conditions and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.

That will save them face without passing major reform something for the sake of passing something. Then retool and come back and do this right in a year or so. A good start would be following up on some of those good promises given like broadcasting health reform talks to the public, I think it should also include tort reform and figure out a way to get significant conservative, AARP and AMA support. Since i'm being mildly unrealistic right now might as well throw in a balanced budget too.

Edited August 19, 2009 by squishyx

[devilsadvoc8]

The rationing argument comes from the fact that you are covering more people (universal coverage) along with less supply (since lowered reimbursements will reduce suppliers) and a government panel which decides what procedures are allowed will result in rationing. More demand and less supply with price controls = rationing no matter if you are talking about healthcare or apples.

[squishyx]

The rationing argument comes from the fact that you are covering more people (universal coverage) along with less supply (since lowered reimbursements will reduce suppliers) and a government panel which decides what procedures are allowed will result in rationing. More demand and less supply with price controls = rationing no matter if you are talking about healthcare or apples.

The argument is that we shouldn't insure the 50 million people because there will be less doctors for the other 250 million? Even if you accept that to be true, how is that not rationing health care right now?

Whats the difference between a government panel deciding whats covered by their universal plan and an insurance company doing the exact same thing?

Why are you assuming lower reimbursements?

[Devils731]

The argument is that we shouldn't insure the 50 million people because there will be less doctors for the other 250 million? Even if you accept that to be true, how is that not rationing health care right now?

Because under the current system if those extra people came into healthcare they would increase the money available to suppliers who would then increase supply.

Whats the difference between a government panel deciding whats covered by their universal plan and an insurance company doing the exact same thing?

Because with private insurers I have the option to go somewhere else or pay out of pocket. With a government system I will have less options on what to do if unhappy with the governments choice.

Why are you assuming lower reimbursements?

It either has to be lower reimbursements or more being spent. We can't get more care for the same amount of money unless we spend less per unit of care.

[Devils731]

I know that a lot of talk is about "preventative care" will save money in the long run but it doesn't appear that the CBO agrees.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTA3MTVjOWM4MWVkNTk3NDQ0Mjg3MDVkMGY4M2EwMWY=

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an August 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO director Doug Elmendorf writes:

[squishyx]

Because under the current system if those extra people came into healthcare they would increase the money available to suppliers who would then increase supply.

A public option for 50 million people would have the same effect, and use rich peoples money to pay for the poor's insurance. The poor will still pay premiums to get insurance, it will just be subsidized, you are creating more demand thus that increases supply under the same line of thought. That still doesn't answer the question I proposed though, how are we not rationing health care right now if 250 million have health care and 50 million don't?

Because with private insurers I have the option to go somewhere else or pay out of pocket. With a government system I will have less options on what to do if unhappy with the governments choice.

What do you mean you have less options? you have more, at least 1 more. Go to private insurance if you don't like the government option. The public plan will just be an additional choice.

It either has to be lower reimbursements or more being spent. We can't get more care for the same amount of money unless we spend less per unit of care.

We are getting more coverage for more people by having them pay some of the premiums they can't afford now and subsidizing the rest that they can't. There is nothing to suggest the government supported option will pay less then other insurance companies.

Edited August 19, 2009 by squishyx

[squishyx]

I know that a lot of talk is about "preventative care" will save money in the long run but it doesn't appear that the CBO agrees.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTA3MTVjOWM4MWVkNTk3NDQ0Mjg3MDVkMGY4M2EwMWY=

I was actually reading the directors "blog" this afternoon, funny you bring that up. It was a good read.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=345

This is the pdf to the whole study, I can't open it up at work though for some reason

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Edited August 19, 2009 by squishyx

[Devils731]

What do you mean you have less options?

Squish, a public option eventually crowds out many of the private choices. How many insurance companies will continue to exist if many of the companies that pay them drop their coverage to make their employees go on the public option?

The Democrats believe a public option is the first step in an inevitable conclusion to single payer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=related

That still doesn't answer the question I proposed though, how are we not rationing health care right now if 250 million have health care and 50 million don't?

It's not rationed right now. Those 50 million people can all go get their own insurance if they want. Rationing would come in under a gov't option because there won't be competition for coverage so the gov't either provides lower per person spending or increases the taxes for this, which would not be a popular sentiment. People proposing healthcare can't have it both ways, they can't say the level of care will be the same per person and that costs won't be greater for healthcare after than before.

We are getting more coverage for more people by having them pay some of the premiums they can't afford now and subsidizing the rest that they can't. There is nothing to suggest the government supported option will pay less then other insurance companies.

Well there is if you keep the same level of funding, which is what the gov't was trying to tell us early on. If they say they'll do this for a trillion dollars over 10 years, that's fine, but be up front with it, don't act like you can increase the amount of people covered, provide the same care, and do it for no extra dollars because that's a falsehood.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Devils731

[PeteyNice]

Whats the difference between a government panel deciding whats covered by their universal plan and an insurance company doing the exact same thing?

Simple. Because when an insurance company decides not to cover something, they are doing it for the most noble reason of all - profit. When the government does it it is simply because they are evil.

I am glad the White House is *finally* realizing that negotiating with the Republicans is futile. The only meaningful reform comes with a strong public option and that is only going to happen if the Democrats use reconciliation to get it through. Then all of the Republicans and hard line corporatist Democrats can vote against it and it will still pass. It is the only way.

The Democrats believe a public option is the first step in an inevitable conclusion to single payer.

It is the goal. Real, Canadian/British style Universal Healthcare has been part of the Democratic platform for decades. A strong public option is the first step. The insurance company and pharma lobbies know this which is why they are fighting so hard against it.

Squish, a public option eventually crowds out many of the private choices. How many insurance companies will continue to exist if many of the companies that pay them drop their coverage to make their employees go on the public option?

Just like how the Post Office has crowded out UPS and Fedex? When I worked in the corporate world we almost never sent anything by regular mail. Why? Because FedEx undercut them substantially.

It's not rationed right now. Those 50 million people can all go get their own insurance if they want.

And this is where the disconnect is. You really believe that? It is rationed today based on ones income/wealth. If you don't understand that then everything else in this debate is futile.

Edited August 19, 2009 by PeteyNice

[squishyx]

Squish, a public option eventually crowds out many of the private choices. How many insurance companies will continue to exist if many of the companies that pay them drop their coverage to make their employees go on the public option?

The Democrats believe a public option is the first step in an inevitable conclusion to single payer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=related

Wheres your capitalist spirit? Wouldn't more competition just kill off the weak insurance companies? It would leave the best and greatest, the ones offering the best policies for the lowest premiums.

Never the less that argument is very muddled; a) totally ignores that we ration health care now (I guess we differ on what rationing means) and b) is dependent of insurance companies folding and the remaining ones offering worse packages then the government option.

I don't know how I feel about a single payer system, I certainly think it's "fairer" (that a word?) then what we have now. But I'm not sure I would support it overall, I know I have said before I personally prefer something closer to the Swiss system of mandatory coverage but with private insurance companies, but neither is being discussed right now. Right now its "is a government option a better system then one without" and I think it is.

Edited August 19, 2009 by squishyx

[Devils731]

Wheres your capitalist spirit? Wouldn't more competition just kill off the weak insurance companies? It would leave the best and greatest, the ones offering the best policies for the lowest premiums.

Never the less the argument is very muddled argument that a) totally ignores that we ration health care now and b) is dependent of insurance companies folding and the remaining ones offering worse packages then the government option.

So my capitalist spirit means I should want gov't controlled systems? I don't think that's the normal thought.

A gov't option isn't competition, at least not on a level playing field. The insurance companies have to operate on what people will pay them and the level of coverage they can offer. A gov't option can draw on any amount of funds because people are required to pay it regardless of what level of usage they want from the gov't.

How many companies are going to want to continue to pay for healthcare, at any cost or level of coverage, if they can save the money and still have their employees receive coverage elsewhere? Very few and no matter how great the insurance companies are without customers they can't exist.

[squishyx]

It's not rationed right now. Those 50 million people can all go get their own insurance if they want. Rationing would come in under a gov't option because there won't be competition for coverage so the gov't either provides lower per person spending or increases the taxes for this, which would not be a popular sentiment. People proposing healthcare can't have it both ways, they can't say the level of care will be the same per person and that costs won't be greater for healthcare after than before.

Those 50 million can't go out and get health insurance if they can't afford it. Money or being able to "afford" something, is a form of implicit rationing.

Well there is if you keep the same level of funding, which is what the gov't was trying to tell us early on. If they say they'll do this for a trillion dollars over 10 years, that's fine, but be up front with it, don't act like you can increase the amount of people covered, provide the same care, and do it for no extra dollars because that's a falsehood.

I don't really think people are saying you can, although that seems like a dangerous claim to make given how crazy the democrats have been on this. I'll say this because I can't speak for others, I never got the impression that we were getting more health care, more covered for what we are paying now. At the end of the day thats what the tax was for, it was coming from somewhere.

[Devils731]

And this is where the disconnect is. You really believe that? It is rationed today based on ones income/wealth. If you don't understand that then everything else in this debate is futile.

So these 50 million people are limited in how often they can go to the emergency room? They can't go to see a doctor whenever they please? I can't buy a yacht, is the country currently yacht rationing against me?

Just like how the Post Office has crowded out UPS and Fedex? When I worked in the corporate world we almost never sent anything by regular mail. Why? Because FedEx undercut them substantially.

So let's have the Post Office go away, since it does a crappy job, instead of it being federally protected, regardless of crappiness and cost. Gov't run healthcare will probably be the Post Office of healthcare with the difference being, without having hard numbers, the Post Office costs me much less for the gov't to maintain for my use than a healthcare system would. I can afford to pay for both FedEx and the Post Office much easier than I can afford to pay for gov't healthcare I choose not to use and private health insurance which is now more expensive because there is a smaller economy of scale for the insurer.

[squishyx]

So my capitalist spirit means I should want gov't controlled systems? I don't think that's the normal thought.

That's not what I said. You are assuming that a public option would put some health insurance companies out of business thereby lowering the amount of choices you have. I'm not sure I agree with that, but even if it did wouldn't the best private health insurance companies with the best packages come out of that? If you are going to argue that you will have less choices fine, why can't we continue the hypothetical thought line and say you will have fewer choices but they will be far better, lower costing and provide more coverage then the myriad of options you have now?

A gov't option isn't competition, at least not on a level playing field. The insurance companies have to operate on what people will pay them and the level of coverage they can offer. A gov't option can draw on any amount of funds because people are required to pay it regardless of what level of usage they want from the gov't.

How many companies are going to want to continue to pay for healthcare, at any cost or level of coverage, if they can save the money and still have their employees receive coverage elsewhere? Very few and no matter how great the insurance companies are without customers they can't exist.

It works in the postal system, despite Obama's comments. Private schools keep up with publicly funded ones, why couldn't it work here?

[devilsadvoc8]

It is the goal. Real, Canadian/British style Universal Healthcare has been part of the Democratic platform for decades. A strong public option is the first step. The insurance company and pharma lobbies know this which is why they are fighting so hard against it.

Just like how the Post Office has crowded out UPS and Fedex? When I worked in the corporate world we almost never sent anything by regular mail. Why? Because FedEx undercut them substantially.

Wow, a target rich environment. I'll just pick up two for the moment.

Your first quote: How are those systems working out? Look a page or two back. I listed an article where the canadian system is close to collapsing. Is that really where you think we should go?

Second quote: From what I understand the USPS has a government granted monopoly on first class mail. Do you think that might keep fedex from taking over? Hmmm? Hmmm?

[PeteyNice]

So these 50 million people are limited in how often they can go to the emergency room? They can't go to see a doctor whenever they please? I can't buy a yacht, is the country currently yacht rationing against me?

So let's have the Post Office go away, since it does a crappy job, instead of it being federally protected, regardless of crappiness and cost. Gov't run healthcare will probably be the Post Office of healthcare with the difference being, without having hard numbers, the Post Office costs me much less for the gov't to maintain for my use than a healthcare system would. I can afford to pay for both FedEx and the Post Office much easier than I can afford to pay for gov't healthcare I choose not to use and private health insurance which is now more expensive because there is a smaller economy of scale for the insurer.

A crappy job? The Post Office does an amazing job! I can send a letter from my house in Atlanta to my parents in NJ and it is there the next day or two days tops! For less than $0.50! If the Public Option is the Post Office version of Health Care the service it provides will rock.

[squishyx]

So these 50 million people are limited in how often they can go to the emergency room? They can't go to see a doctor whenever they please? I can't buy a yacht, is the country currently yacht rationing against me?

Yes, the country is. Only we don't care because you having a yacht has no bearing on your quality of your health over the course of your life. I'm fine with saying only rich people should have finer bigger and shinier things, I'm not fine with saying you need money to have basic health care in this country. Emergency care is not health care. I've been to an emergency room when you need basic care, I assure you it is not the same as having coverage.

Edited August 19, 2009 by squishyx

[squishyx]

So let's have the Post Office go away, since it does a crappy job, instead of it being federally protected, regardless of crappiness and cost. Gov't run healthcare will probably be the Post Office of healthcare with the difference being, without having hard numbers, the Post Office costs me much less for the gov't to maintain for my use than a healthcare system would. I can afford to pay for both FedEx and the Post Office much easier than I can afford to pay for gov't healthcare I choose not to use and private health insurance which is now more expensive because there is a smaller economy of scale for the insurer.

You can't. I'm not sure if you were serious or not but it's part of the constitution and thus would require an amendment to get rid of it, as I recall thats what, 3/4 states to ratify it? Good luck, the senate can't even get 60% to agree on something and they are from the same party.

Additionally the private system complement the public system very well. One reason we have a public postal system is because private companies would eventually ignore smaller and more remote routes in the country in favor for the profitable ones. So as Petey pointed out private companies are usually a lot better for shipping packages, probably because they can focus on the most profitable routes while the government can make sure there is access for everyone.

That ends up being pretty analogous to health care actually...

Edited August 19, 2009 by squishyx