Should the US have universal healthcare?

Whamo wrote:

<quoted text>
People have to eat. They don't have to take recreational drugs. If people ate fruits and vegetables, and less wheat, Diabetes wouldn't be such a huge problem. At least that's what I've read in Dr. West's newsletter. Part of the problem with the modern diet is advertising. People are inundated with advertising promoting unhealthy foods.

Dr. West?
See a REAL Doctor.

Part of the problem is people getting their information from web sites shilling dietary aids and 'natural' supplements.

Oh, and from watching the Today show.

Disable Vet wrote:

What about old people, children, or disabled veterans wounded serving in the military.

My father was one of them.......... but from WW1.
Back in the days when the VA had unlimited budgets, new hospitals and badly needed patients to fill them up.

They nearly doctored my father to death! Eventually they sent him home to get his house in order and make peace with his maker, as he had six months left, they told him.

He changed his ways drastically, refused to ever go back to a doctor again, and lived another 40 years.

Injured, sick and needy people will always get some care, and the more urgent, the more care they will get.

What America needs most of all is a population that lives a clean drug free life and abhors prescription medication.

onebeeswax wrote:

<quoted text>
What America needs most of all is a population that lives a clean drug free life and abhors prescription medication.

No, we need a new Congress & President.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
This has already been debunked. I guess you just didn't understand that.

You, don't understand. This bill, if it becomes law destroys our medical system, which happens to be the best in the world NOW!

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
LIAR! They DID NOT discuss cutting treatment and patient testing. You lied and got caught AGAIN!

On TV yesterday, your boy said he is setting up a group of " health professionals" to decide whether blue pills or red pills should be used. Those countries using similar plans take from 30 to 36 months to make similar decision. Decisions on life saving procedures for those over 70 are hardly ever made in favor of the patient, and never are made on a timely basis. You must be very young, and stupid to support him and his plan.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
This has already been debunked. I guess you just didn't understand that.

It's Not An Option By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.--------- IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure ---------- When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee. It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage. The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether." What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law. The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs. With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed. The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny. Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives. It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

onebeeswax wrote:

<quoted text>
My father was one of them.......... but from WW1.
Back in the days when the VA had unlimited budgets, new hospitals and badly needed patients to fill them up.
They nearly doctored my father to death! Eventually they sent him home to get his house in order and make peace with his maker, as he had six months left, they told him.
He changed his ways drastically, refused to ever go back to a doctor again, and lived another 40 years.
Injured, sick and needy people will always get some care, and the more urgent, the more care they will get.
What America needs most of all is a population that lives a clean drug free life and abhors prescription medication.

I'm one of them wounded in Vietnam 1965 now I'm old I would like to have health care I can depend on. The nearest VA hospital is 200 miles away. But I'm not depending on the Muslim king Obama for help.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama is puishing for change NOW. You're berating the man because of your personal agenda. You're on your way out the door in a couple of years, and you don't want to have to deal with the change in healthcare policies before you go. Not even if it means a better system for everyone.
It's all about you, isn't it.....

.....

Not really but so what if it is? I have just as many rights as you and I have the right to voice them for the time being. I would imagine that Mr. Obama might eventually attempt to remove them too.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read yesterdays posts, I explained this in much fewer words.
If you have an insurance policy when the new bill goes into effect, you can choose to keep it. Neiter you nor your insurance co. can make changes to it after the bill goes into effect.
If you choose to drop your coverage and pick it back up after the bill goes into effect. The policy you purchase will have to fall under the guidelines of the reform bill
IT WILL NOT BE ILLEGAL TO BUY PERSONAL INSURANCE AFTER THE BILL GOES INTO EFFECT.

Oh, I get it. Impossible is a lot better than illegal. Thank you sooooo much! I feel soooo much better now! Jutst wondering, what about those who want to come on board after enactment? I'm sure they will have dozens of choices and will be able to comparison shop just as we can now, right?

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read yesterdays posts, I explained this in much fewer words.
If you currently have a policy and you choose to keep it you can. However, neither you nor your insurance comapny can make changes to your policy after the date the reform bill is implemented.
If you choose to drop your coverage and pick it back up after the bill takes effect, you have to purchase a policy that falls within the guidelines of the the reform bill.
IT WILL NOT BE ILLEGAL TO BUY/SELL INSURANCE AFTER THE BILL TAKES EFFECT.

Do you get paid for this?

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read yesterdays posts, I explained this in much fewer words.
If you have an insurance policy when the new bill goes into effect, you can choose to keep it. Neiter you nor your insurance co. can make changes to it after the bill goes into effect.
If you choose to drop your coverage and pick it back up after the bill goes into effect. The policy you purchase will have to fall under the guidelines of the reform bill
IT WILL NOT BE ILLEGAL TO BUY PERSONAL INSURANCE AFTER THE BILL GOES INTO EFFECT.

......

Like most issues, you have your opinion and I have mine. So far, it appears the American people are split just like us. So, since neither of us is a lawyer, Congressman, or Senator, we will need to wait and see what that section means. I believe the attorneys who say it removes commercial insurance for new or changed policies after the first day of the law. You believe it does not say that.

Let's wait and see. As I said, the House Ways and Means Committee in Congress confirmed that the intention of the bill is to remove "new" and "changed" commercial policies. I guess we will see unless one of us goes back to college and gets a JD degree. I'll tell you what. If you get a law degree, I'll accept your explanation. But until then, I will leave it to the experts.

Clyde Nocar wrote:

<quoted text>Oh, I get it. Impossible is a lot better than illegal. Thank you sooooo much! I feel soooo much better now! Jutst wondering, what about those who want to come on board after enactment? I'm sure they will have dozens of choices and will be able to comparison shop just as we can now, right?

..........

Excellent excellent excellent point.

Either way, you loose. If commerical insurance won't be illegal and you want to change or buy a new policy, the policy must adhere to government rules, regulations, and controls. Under that circumstance, it is by definition a government policy, commerical or not.

What good is being able to shop for health insurance if they can drop you if you get sick? Did anyone notice health care costs began to rise when insurance parasites got involved? Something has to be done because hospitals are going broke! They have to give free care to illegal aliens, the rising number of unemployed, and indigent.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
Voice them, but now that we have your agenda on the table, you can discuss without bias the good and bad of the plan.

..........

If working in healthcare for 20+ years and seeing what problems Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and the VA have now is bias, then fine.....I'm biased.

I laugh hysterically when I read you or others say they are tired of denied coverage for procedures and meds from commerical insurance. Your solution is a government program. Well, as I have said before, Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare has just as many denials if not more than commerical insurance carriers.

Our doctors complain constantly that the government programs deny "normal" Standard of Care situations. At least the commerical carriers adhere to the "normal" Standard of Care. The commerical carries have to adhere to the Standards or they get sued. You cannot sue the government.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure where you're going with this post. But if you mean coming on board the public option, I've said all along to wathc the people that are against it now, flock to it after the law is changed.

..........

This statement is idiotic. Why wouldn't they "flock" to it once it gets going?

Would I pay BCBS $600 a month plus increased taxation for other's healthcare? Of course not. I would drop BCBS and take advantage of a government program since my tax dollars are paying for it. This situation is precisely why commercial insurance will cease to exist within a decade of a government public program and Mr. Obama knows that. Viola!!!! A back door single payer system takes over!!!

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's put it this way. Remember last week when the insurance companies hired HUNDREDS of lobbyiasts and were spending 1.4 million a day to get their input into this legislation? You don't thinl ALL that money went for nothing, do you? If it comes down the way you think, the insuerance companies would already be taking inventory and rolling up the carpets right now.

.......

The question is: Who did they spend that money on during the lobbying?

The Republicans? Nope, they don't have the votes to stop it.

The Democrats? You bet. And they gladly took the money just like you say the Republicans did over the past 8 years.

The system is corrupt. And that is why I don't want government run healthcare. They will get rich while me or my family might need life saving healthcare, not waiting lists or government lackeys making decisions.

Observer makes some good points. There's no simple answer to this problem. The health care industry complex of drugs, insurance, and health providers have driven costs skyward. I hate the drug companies, but they're a necessary evil. The insurance companies add nothing to the mix. The health care providers earn their money.

-Drake- wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure where you're going with this post. But if you mean coming on board the public option, I've said all along to wathc the people that are against it now, flock to it after the law is changed.

..........

Listen Drake, at the risk of stopping this back and forth debate permanently, I will agree with you on one subject.

I hate the monthly BCBS premium just as much as you. We need healthcare reform in as much as getting the coverage issues and costs under control. But I believe the governmnent will worsen the problem and you believe the government is the answer. We just fundamentally disagree on that main point.

I look at other government programs that are over-spending, inefficient, wasteful, easily frauded, and not actually accomplishing its goals and I say no. No, I don't want another government program failure and especially with my healthcare, your healthcare, or my family's healthcare. Government does some things well like the military. But they do many things very poorly like Welfare, food stamps, and disability. So, the fundamental difference between us is you believe they can run healthare better than their social programs. I say they can't and their history proves that to me.

Observer- wrote:

<quoted text>.......
The question is: Who did they spend that money on during the lobbying?
The Republicans? Nope, they don't have the votes to stop it.
The Democrats? You bet. And they gladly took the money just like you say the Republicans did over the past 8 years.
The system is corrupt. And that is why I don't want government run healthcare. They will get rich while me or my family might need life saving healthcare, not waiting lists or government lackeys making decisions.

It's amazing how many are drinking obama's koolaid. What they don't realize if this actually passes, the herd the rich will support on this health care, will not have the quality of life they think they will get. This is a system to eliminate the baggage. It's like the rich will have legalized hitmen to reduce the numbers of moochers. The mega rich will have their own health care.

Whamo wrote:

Observer makes some good points. There's no simple answer to this problem. The health care industry complex of drugs, insurance, and health providers have driven costs skyward. I hate the drug companies, but they're a necessary evil. The insurance companies add nothing to the mix. The health care providers earn their money.

..........

First, if you knew the litigation costs of pharma companies, you'd fall over dead in your tracks. The cost of research, manufacture, delivery, and litigation are staggering.

Second, the insurance industry has become corrupted by the very government Drake and others want to run healthcare. Let me give you a short history.

Originally health insurance covered major medical issues like catastrophic illness and injury. Then the government stuck their noses in and said, let's try preventive care using Health Maitenance Organizations. "In 1973 President Nixon approved the HMO act that the left wing was promoting to help make insurance available to everyone."

Once insurance carriers were responsible for healthcare from a common cold to a heart transplant, the system fell apart. People today view their healthcare insurance as NOT INSURANCE but as their personal bill payer. People pay in hundreds but want thousands of dollars in health office visits and procedures. How long could your house survive if you spent a thousand for every ten dollars in salary you made?

The providers, like us in my office, could caught in the middle. We were required and are required to give care with less and less reimbursement payments. For example, under Medicare and Medicaid, we are being paid today the exact dollar amount we were paid in 1999. Office staff salaries, rent, electric, taxes, etc have all gone up as our office income has remained steady and in some cases declined.

Yes, the system is failing but it is failing because of government. Government will not make it better for sure and I believe it will make it worse in the long run. They have so far.