Is anyone else following the healthcare reform debate? I'm kinda freaking out because the whole law could be dropped. Even if the whole law isn't dropped and only the individual mandate is, the provisions forbidding insurance companies from denying those with pre-existing conditions and making the insurance rates more uniform would be dropped too.

This SUCKS! I was hoping to have the pre-existing condition provision as a safety net. Like if I ever got too sick to work, I could still have the option of health insurance through the state exchanges, or have another option if I didn't like my job's insurance offer. Not to mention that it would be nice to have lower insurance rates.

www.npr.org/2012/03/28/149556741/for-health-care-will-one-parts-end-be-the-end-all

Yeah, I don't want to debate back and forth, that's what political blogs are for, plus no matter how we see it, for this group UC/CD is the enemy and we are united against that. Debating this topic is fighting on the same team finding the best way to defeat UC/CD :)

I work at a small business with about 45 employees. In discussions about the topic, I have voiced my opinion that we drop coverage for all employees, including myself, because the numbers don't add up, which we have looked at extensivley. Better to have a job and no incurance than no job and no insurance. I truly believe we would be better off without the PPACA than with it.

I am on pins and needles hoping this thing gets repealed in toto. At best you could say the legislature has good intentions in mind, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Look at the boondoggle of Medicare, which the Republicans (GWB) and Democrats have created. If the constitution were followed (which is still the supreme law of the land) this thing would never have made it this far, where the future of limited government, the American experiment, apparently hangs in the balance of ONE supreme court justice.

This law was not thought through and was passsed way too quickly. Thank God. They entire Congress forgot to add a severability clause to the bill, so if the individual mandate is struck down, most likley the whole bill will be due to this oversight.

Plus, the congressional budget office said just two weeks ago that the cost is more than double what we were told two years ago when it was voted on (1.7 t/10 years, I believe.) With a national debt of 15,500 billon dollars, this economy can't absorb this especially as the debt is already over 100% of our GDP. If you include the unfunded liabilites of SS and Medicare, we owe over 900% of our entire GDP, slightly more than Greece. If you watch the news, you will see congressman Paul Ryan's budget proposal being eviscerated as overly Draconian even though it doesn't not balance the United States budget until the year 2040. I'm not saying boo Democrats, yay Republicans because I think both sides are completley (economically) insane, unwilling to look out for their constituents welfare decades down the road in fear of losing there current power.

Politicians are just like CEO's of most companies. The CEO's will do whatever it takes to make the stockholders happy for the next shareholder's meeting. To get that price up immediatley, the impact it has on the long term stability of the company be darned. If you compare how our dollar has matched versus Canadian dollars, kroners, Austrailian dollars, etc., we have seen a precipitous decline of our welath due in a very large part to our debt. Health care only magnifies that to a much greater degree. The ability to fund cutting edge research, get new products to market, and even maintain the status quo is directly proportional to the state of the economy. If the supreme court upholds the PPACA it will lead us closer to insolvency, and a United States government with exponentially more power than it had one second before the supreme court voted to uphold the bill (which thank God, justice Kenedy acknowledged yesterday) which is most assuredly a lose lose for every one, American or not. Unless you're in Congress, the members of which are conicidentally exempted from the PPACA. Funny how that works.

Post Edited (Levi) : 3/29/2012 6:24:36 AM (GMT-6)

I'm pro single-payer healthcare. I believe that one's health is integral to the rights to life, liberty and happiness, and that one's money shouldn't be the primary factor in medical decisions.

I agree. If the Democrats had originally decided to go the single-payer route then all this controversy in the Supreme Court about forcing people to pay for health insurance would have been a moot point.

But then they probably would not have been able to collect campaign contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries along with the Republicans. When Obamacare was passed by congress last year the stocks of drug and health insurance companies went sky-high anticipating huge profits.

Whatever system or plan we eventually go with has to be one that is not going to bankrupt the country, and controls costs. Both the current system and the one now being debated by the SCOTUS do not address the exponential rise in costs- medical inflation is much greater than general inflation, and the waves of retiring boomers will soon saturate medicare and medicaid. We need a system that provides health, not health care. The US system spends vastly more than any other developed country while in many respects providing inferior outcomes, on average. But any affordable "free" system that wont grow out of control in cost will have to have significant caps and rationing- there is no such thing as a free lunch, if one takes into account the fiscal can being kicked to future generations.

I have to say that I'm quite surprised at the reaction. I figured that those of us with pre-existing conditions would support it. How do you pay for meds w/o insurance? Remicade would cost me my entire salary!

Few points:
1. a single-payer system would have NEVER passed in this country. Look at how much trouble the final health reform bill is causing and it's just altering the current system, not overhauling it. The "socialist" cries would have been much louder because government would have been controlling everything...no way would people allow that.
2. the reason for the individual mandate is to 1) make sure people are covered and therefore reducing future costs by making sure they have preventive care and controlling costs during an emergency (the costs of those that don't have insurance affects the rest of us--we have to pay for it); 2) add healthy younger people into the risk pool so it can become financially feasible for insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions
3. businesses with under 50 employees are not required by the law to provide health insurance. However, if they do decide to provide insurance, they will receive a tax break.
4. I haven't heard anything about the Congress being exempt from the law. If they are, it's probably because they already get good health insurance. Other groups are also exempted from the law because they have their own health insurance systems (e.g. veterans, Native Americans)
5. The reason that health care costs are so high in the US is because it's a free market--insurance companies can charge whatever they want. In many other countries--even those without a single-payer system--insurance companies are regulated by the government. The reason that the US has inferior outcomes is because the not everyone has health insurance, and medical costs are still expensive for those that do. We have a "sick care" system, not a health care system.

I'm not as well-versed on the economic side of things, but I'll say this: the point of health care reform is to reduce costs over the long-term by regulating insurance companies and preventing large medical costs b/c more people are insured.

Regardless of your political affiliations, please be accurately informed about this. The Kaiser Family Foundation (not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente) has great, unbiased information about the health care reform: healthreform.kff.org/. A great book to read that covers many countries' health care systems is T.R. Reid's The Healing of America (I promise it is not boring!).

Good thing I live in Canada where the healthcare is free.

Where is our health care money going? I have heard this question asked over and over but I have never heard a straight answer.

The U.S. has the world's highest health care costs, $7,290 per person each year. This uses up 16 percent of our GDP. Norway is 2nd in health costs, $4,763 per capita that requires 8.9 percent of their GDP. The rest of Europe, Canada and Japan are lower. And with all this money we spend we rank 36th in the world for life expectancy. Where is the money going?

bookworm21:


I agree, it's great to disagree so much and still be able to talk rationally and listen to opposing ideas!
I will respond to 1 and 2:

1. OK, yeah you are right about Germany I suppose and they have had government health care for a LONG time, I'd have to look into that to argue with you more ;)
2. I disagree for a few reasons. Car insurance pretty much protects others from my negligence or protects myself from my negligence.

I don't have to drive. If I don't want to drive I don't have to have auto insurance. I think this is the crux of the difference. We are guaranteed as American citizens the right to life. Life is not a privilege, but a God given right. Therefore, statists have no authority to impose any condition upon living, which the PPACA does. The state mandates you buy something if you are a citizen if the SCOTUS upholds the law. Driving a car is a privilege which we do on state property, so the state can impose conditions on driving if we take part in the privilege of driving.

I guess this is about all I have to say on the issue. I'll let you know when Kathleen sends my wavier :)

Post Edited (Levi) : 3/29/2012 6:24:52 PM (GMT-6)

Levi,

Here's the problem to that driving rebuttal argument. Everyone, at some point in their lifetime, WILL use healthcare. There is just no way around this. Not everyone in their lifetime MUST drive. Moreover, if one doesn't have insurance but obtains free health care (whether they don't pay, go bankrupt, get charity care), it causes all of our insurance premiums to go up. The same isn't true in regards to someone driving without auto insurance (doesn't impact auto insurance premiums on a whole).

Therefore, there are really three options to avoid premiums from rising due to unpaid health care:

1) Everyone has to get healthcare (whether its through a single payer system or mandating it so we purchase via the private insurers like the current law)
2) Stop allowing people to get free health care
3) Increase revenue (taxes?) to help pay for the free health care people have received

Personally I choose #1 as I feel #2 is unethical and immoral and #3 I feel just entices people to get away with their "free loading". Is #1 the best option? Probably not, but I haven't seen anything better to help control costs.

Let me know what you think!

Post Edited (NiRo) : 3/29/2012 7:31:20 PM (GMT-6)

I personally want to see private insurance companys go away. I agree with imagardener: We do not need insurance companies!!! Of course, I can't see a capitalist economy like the US ever allowing these big money-makers to dissolve. I wish I could move to Europe. I hope I am able to in the future. I dread the idea of geting old here.

It beats me why people come to a health topic forum to express their undying devotion to free markets. Laissez-faire (i.e., unregulated) capitalism = economic Darwinism, or, the fat cats get fatter while the middle and lower income people sink. There has to be some logical and rational regulation of markets because pure competition is ruthless. Thanks to Imagardener2 for citing our past national experience with needed socio-economic reform! The "limited government" proponents seem not to notice that the U.S. population has passed 300 million and can no longer simply move westward to new territory/opportunities when economic hardship strikes. Old Hat (31 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)

OldHat-I certainly am not trying to offend anyone, I hope I haven't offended you with my statements. You said "pure competition is ruthless." Exactly! That's the point. I work as an engineer at a small business making metal stampings. We compete in a cutthroat environment were we make very intricate and sometime large parts for anything from 2¢ to a dollar or so per piece in labor. This is what the market allows. Were it not ruthless we could charge exactly what the market would bear, and maybe sell a few less units but would hit the Comstock lode of profits. Instead of charging what the market will bear we can charge only what the competition will allow: bad for business, good for consumers.

This is how health insurance should be. Alas, becuase of government regulations, they cannot compete across states lines with other insurance companies in almost all cases. If they could they would be battling tooth and nail with each other like I have to do when I quote parts, and you and I would be the beneficiaries of this ruthless competition.

NiRo, I think we are also closer to the same page than it seems: we know there is a big problem. I just think making someone buy something if they don't want to is a volation of individual liberties and the constitution. I agree though-reforms need to be made. Also, auto insurance is handled buy states, not the Federal gov't. Maybe not a big point, but it is if you are into state's rights.

Let's just say I agree that single payer is the way to go for the sake of argument-I still don't see how we can do it. Despite the prevarications of Republicans and Democrats (I haven't singled out Democrats yet on this thread) Medicare (yes I meant to say Medicare), Medicaid and SS have enormous funding problems now and even worse in the not too distant future. Our spineless, poltroon, lily livered, chicken politicians care more about thier next election and kickback to do anything about the "third rail" of American politics. Two point two pc is the average US Treasury interest rate right now on debt, $454 billion is the interest just on PUBLIC debt for 2011 we have to pay, and $6,000 billion dollars of debt will be added in five years. If these artificially low interest rates rise just a little this economy is in for a massive immolation. After the recession, caused by governments and banks encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford, our wise leaders have pumped 8.7 trillon new dollars into the economy! Combine with already shaky social programs and a new one that has six years of benefits and ten years of taxes and already costs $1.7 trillion dollars, we have a recipe for disaster. Around 2015 the nation of China will be able to finance their entire military, the WHOLE defense budget, just on the interest we owe them. Sort of off topic-but just wow.

I don't think I'll convince anyone, so I'll just go back to talking about Crohn's and UC here. I'll just end with this: we all agree there is a problem. That's a start. I am a pro-life person for the unborn and I am also a passionate believer in individual liberty and equality for all people. I do not believe you can even conceive of talking about protecting individual liberty without first fighting to protect life. I also do not believe you can rightly protect life and health without also protecting liberty.

My 3¢ [added a penny for inflation ;)]

 

Post Edited (Levi) : 3/30/2012 6:06:38 AM (GMT-6)

politics on this forum now -really?