Political Discussions
Best option for health care reform?
Posted by satijournal • 6/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: health care, politics
What do you think is the best option for health care reform? As far as I can tell, there are three being proposed:
Single payer
Co-ops
Public option
User Comments
-
By co-ops you mean a kind of a public option that isn't overtly public, right? Care to explain more?
Regardless, I'm all for a mixed system that includes some sort of option for those of us not able or willing to deal with the profiteering health insurance companies that charge an arm and a leg and give nothing in return. And I'm all for keeping those private companies, because some people will prefer them, depending on their needs.
One thing I noticed when I was still living in Germany: the two quasi public health insurance entities, Barmer and AOK, were both more expensive than the private; however, the private were organized in a rather strange way. Risk was spread among limited age cohorts. That made it really cheap for young people, but possibly perilously expensive for older groups. At least that was the implication. It's been years, and I haven't been following developments over there, but how you pool people and share risk is part of the problem, regardless of which option you choose. I should think any of the three options you offer could be equally good or equally bad, depending on how they are set up. -
Whichever is hardest for Pinochetists to f--- up when they eventually retake power-
Reform is needed. Government is NOT the answer. Why won't they fix Social Security and Medicare first? The Government couldn't run a flea market and they want to take over our health care??
-
-
I'm for total nationalization as unreasonable as that seems given the climate. Dead ideas are killing this country it's time to let them go. -
I had a whole reply typed out, and then my computer decided it was time to visit my profile
I opt for public options. That way everyone can see for themselves how not bad it is, because they will make direct comparisons.
At which point, we can move on to even better policies. -
A fully single payer system, with the government paying all bills and capping payouts to limit costs. Make a governmental monopoly on healthcare, outlaw private insurance, and voila, health care is better. In a climate like today, even making such a thing a choice will leave it open to guttering thanks to special interests in years to come. Instead, close that path off and simply do what is best for the greatest number.
-
Ah yes, the Star Trek version of health care. One thing about your utopian vision, Brandeisian - how are you going to pay for it?
-
Taxes. Just raise them across the board. Simple enough. Get a service, pay for it. You may pay more than you receive, maybe less. But a pooling of resources. And if worst comes to worst and costs get out of hand then there is always the option to draft doctors into governmental service and pay them a fixed salary rather than per patient.
-
Yes, that is who I want taking care of me or my children. A person forced to become a doctor! Do you actually think through the things you say? You can draft people into the military. That has been done throughout the history of human existence. But to propose that you draft people into service, forcing them to become doctors, well that is just stupid. It takes 12 years to become a doctor. Who in the hell would go through 12 years of college, med school, internship, etc... for a LOW GOVERNMENT SALARY?? Furthermore, what patient in his right mind would want such a person to attend to their medical needs?
Let's follow the logic -
"Taxes. Just raise them across the board."
This from the Washington Post - "President Obama's plan to expand health coverage to the uninsured is likely to dig the nation deeper into debt unless policymakers adopt politically painful controls on spending, such as sharp reductions in payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers, congressional budget analysts said yesterday."
Already just implementing Obama's plan - which he admits doesn't even cover every American - will cost upwards of TWO TRILLION DOLLARS. There aren't enough taxpayers in the country to "just raise" taxes on to cover this cost.
Lowering costs will lead to rationing health care and medicines. Is that what you want? A rationing body telling you that you or your child cannot have that cancer drug because it is too expensive?
"Get a service, pay for it."
What about people that have no job? The disabled that cannot work? How do they pay for it? -
I take it you would never, ever go to a VA hospital then, because those government employees are such terrible doctors. That's why we stick servicemen with them, huh. No one is saying that they wouldn't be compensated fairly; the salary would of necessity be higher than that average civil servants to encourage people to enter the field.
Costs are high because people are charged exorbitant amounts of money for things; if such costs were lowered due to the removal of a profit motive, and prices set by regulators rather than companies, there would be a major reduction in costs. The Obama plan (which really doesn't exist yet; it's a combination of a bunch of committee proposals at this point) is fairly well idiotic in my view; it tries to fix a broken system rather than just wipe it clean and do things as they ought to be done.
As to those who don't have a job or are disabled, there is no way not to cover them; were they to earn income, they would pay taxes on it and that would go towards care. When they do not have taxable income, then they simply are covered anyway, because it is the right thing to do. -
Brandeisian, your logic, or rather lack of it is very telling. When you take away incentive from people, NOTHING HAPPENS. Socialism just does not work. Never has, never will. Consider the Pilgrims' plight in the new world.
"Their intended crossing to Virginia strayed off course, and they instead landed on Cape Cod -- outside the territory covered by the King's Charter. Thus, the Pilgrims were responsible for their own governance. Following the nine-week journey, the Pilgrims composed an agreement that would establish just and equal laws for all members of the new community. Indeed, the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact were derived from none other than the Holy Bible.
Only then, on November 11, 1620, did the Pilgrims leave the Mayflower. A cold and barren wilderness awaited them. There were no friends to greet them, no houses to shelter them, nor stores of food to sustain them. That first winter was perilous, as half the Pilgrims died of starvation, sickness, or exposure.
What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.
William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.
Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable."
forum.isi.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3830054552/m/1850052092
Your utopian vision is admirable, but not realistic. You cannot draft people and force them to become doctors. That is ludicrous and a very immature idea. This is not the Soviet Union, this is America. Just to remind you - HEY THIS IS THE UNITED STATES, WE CAN CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT TO BE WHEN WE GROW UP!! So when you grow up Brandeisian, you can choose to be what you want. How would you like the government stepping in and telling you that you were going to be a garbage collector for the rest of your life? Or a dish washer? Or an accountant? Or God forbid a politician?
So I put it to you, Brandeisian - I challenge you to offer ONE EXAMPLE of a society thriving on Socialism. -
Social Democracy has worked in Europe, and especially Scandinavia. I would quantify that as mostly socialism. And really, who knows how the Soviet Union would have turned out had Stalin not come to power.
Anyway, the society I look forward to has not yet come about. People need to transcend this idiotic, selfish notion that what they do is for themselves alone; rather, it is for the good of all that one must work. It is a society of better people that will one day succeed. If you need a personal incentive, then I just don't want you. -
So in other words, you didn't read that article and you can't point to a certain successful socialistic society? Vague references are enough for you?
You claim to be all about helping others. Tell me then, why do Liberal billionaires like Warren Buffet just divest themselves of their money? I mean if it is for the good of their fellow man, why do they keep their money?
And how is a nation of self motivated people all working contributing to society equal a bunch of selfish "libertarian pricks?" I think it has more to do with you being able to look down your nose at anyone who doesn't agree with you.
More power to you, Comrade. -
Countries that are as SOcialist as they can be while still being able to call themselves some form of democracy (off the top of my head):
Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark - these countries use the tax system to pay for medical costs, schools including college, daycare, social programs such as groups and meeting events (bowling, whatever, dance troups), and all social needs. The industries are heavily regulated as are the markets - the wage disparity is low, and very small portions of them are massivily wealthy or very poor (most are in the middle), some require mandatory military service, Iceland does not have a military. Even daycare is paid for by the governments in some of the countries.
They are regularly listed as the top countries in the world to live in. Denmark was rated the happiest country on Earth two years ago (maybe one year ago) and these countries are infamous for their low levels of crimes, low levels of poverty, high levels of education, high levels of good health, lowest levels of man made pollution, and general citizenship that is happy, and accomodated for.
They are regularly ranked as the top countries to live for humanitarian and ecological living standards. Women, men, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and all manner of people find freedom and equal rights in those countries.
I'd say they are pretty gosh darn succesful. In fact, my husband and I were trying emmigrate to first Switzerland, and then Iceland - but Iceland closed it's borders, and Switzerland is very hard to get into. We may look to Denmark, or possibly even to where my sister in law lives - at least we'd have family close by
-
-
I think it may be instructive to see what other countries do well, and see which those measures might be practicable here.
The problem with the process now is that too many special interests are meddling. Why aren't the people standing up and demanding real reform!-
Maybe because the people have seen their Government rob the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare and realize that the best way to ruin our present health care system is to give it over to the government.
You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." -
to me, there is a separate issue of REFORM--which involves regulating the operation of the insurance companies--and covering the uninsured. Unfortunately the two have been lumped together. They should be separate issues, and separate legislations.
The line is probably blurred by SOME of the reforms involving WHO can be denied. This would effect coverage, but others are not covered because they can't afford insurance. This should be handled differently, in my opinion, perhaps by providing block grants to the states to operate the systems according to each state's needs. -
-
-
The problem with all this is that 90% of the people are happy with what they got health care wise. 10% are not. So in truth, why are we destroying the 90% to fix the 10% who have bad care? They should be focusing on this 10% instead of the entire system.-
what source do you cite there?
-
its called an analogy
-
If 90% of the population is happy with their health care, then why is the majority of the US population screaming for reform, and why are small businesses cutting out employer based insurance for their employees?
Because they love their insurance providers?
i don't think so -
by "analogy"... yes they do
-
@Anok - "If 90% of the population is happy with their health care, then why is the majority of the US population screaming for reform..."
If you are referring to the NY Slimes health care poll, then you have bad info. It was skewed to give a favorable slant to Obama.
Here is the poll -
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
Here it is shown to be bordering on fraudulent -
"But critics including pollster Kellyanne Conway say the results are inaccurate because they are heavily skewed toward those who voted for Obama in the 2008 presidential election."
www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49999
In reality, less Americans favor government health care now than did in the early 90's when Clinton tried the same thing.
"Most Americans believe that the nation’s health care system is in need of substantial changes. Four-in-ten (41%) say the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt, while 30% think it needs fundamental changes. About one-in-four (24%) believe that the health care system works pretty well and needs only minor changes.
But there is less support for completely rebuilding the health care system than there was during the early stage of the Clinton administration’s unsuccessful effort to revamp health care. In April 1993, a majority of Americans (55%) said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt. As discussion of Clinton’s proposals progressed, support for completely rebuilding the health care system declined. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt."
people-press.org/report/?pageid=1534
So lets not let emotion overrun our discussions. As Jack Webb was fond of saying, "Just the facts, Ma'am." -
Anok- a majority of the American people aren't screaming health reform!! just Obama and the people who want to mooch off other citizens.
-
They are not moochers, they are less fortunate who find it easier to have the collective pick up the tab. Have a little compassion man. -
The whole point of what Obama is proposing is to give everybody health care. Well....the way he is going to do it is to take from some and give to another. Why should a person rich in money have to forcefully take money out of their pockets and give it to someone else? That's not the purpose of government and no one is entitled to someone elses hard earned money. Anyone who believes that this in fact is morally right needs to read the constitution. The fact is that many of these people are MOOCHERS and want free health care given to them because they don't feel like putting in the work to make money. This is what Obama based his campaign on and partially how he got elected.
-
Where exactly does the Constitution say that government can't collect money and redistribute wealth should duly elected official so choose to do so? I thought the 16th Amendment says that they can collect income tax, the Commerce clause allows the regulation of commerce, and that there is nothing at all about the untouchable nature of private property anywhere in the document whatsoever.
We "moochers" don't want it given to us; rather, we want to contribute our fair share (as much as one can afford), have everyone contribute their fair share, and then have everyone get what is morally required. Pure, evil mooching, huh. -
And pray tell, who determines moral equivalency? You, perhaps? We've had discussions before about your Veil of Ignorance and the social cost of your redistributive methodology. It is logically ill-formed and you did not provide a significant refutation my counter argument. With regard to your reference of the Veteran Hospitals I reiterate your assertions are ill-formed. My brother goes to the VA hospital here and the treatment he receives is terrible. I sit in the waiting lobby and listen to others describe their horror stories. How about the 92 veterans that received incorrect radiation doses in a common surgical procedure to treat prostate cancer. Four men have died since, here is the link to the story.
news.aol.com/health/article/va-cancer-treatments/537549
If you choose to speak do your research first. Have you forgotten the Walter Reed Hospital tragedy? I am sure you have. And to draft doctors? I tend to believe that your responses are a joke because they are markedly subnormal. How generous of you redistribute the wealth of other people, that's very draconian of you. -
Just the facts from CNS? You have got to be kidding! lol!
-
@Brandeisian - The Commerce Clause?
"There can be but little question that the chief and possibly the entire purpose of,the Commerce Clause was, with reference to interstate commerce, to empower the federal authorities to prevent the States from interfering with the freedom of commercial intercourse between themselves..."
And that has to do with redistribution of wealth, how? -
Who is that a quote of? Anyway, the Court has held differently since Gibbons v. Ogden and the affirmation and expansion of such Congressional powers in New Deal cases such as Schechter and Carolene Products. Anything that involves commerce, such as according to Sen. Daniel Webster, everything in life, can be regulated and controlled by Congress.
-
@Brandeisian: "I don't take the time because a worthless libertarian prick like you will never be convinced that anyone else in the world requires your aid; rather, everything you do is for yourself."
Wow, you're an angry Bolshevik, take it easy Comrade. If you're not careful you will fry the few remaining synapses you have left. With regard to selfishness, you posit a position based upon information you do not have. As with the majority of your posts they are a reflective construct of malformed cognitive content. Your viewpoints are almost entirely suppositional and contain a hint of sentimentality.
I am the antithesis of selfishness, for degrading libertarianism does not constitute reasonable evidence for persecution. What you seem to have missed is that I do engage in charity, I am not an elite philanthropist but I do what I can to help people better themselves. The information you cannot grasp, either by choice or ignorance, is that my involvement in charity is "my" choice. I choose to give and my actions are not mandated by the government. When choice is abrogated you are left with your dystopian dynamic. When comparing the United States to other countries we rank among the highest in charitableness, and again, it is because there is choice within the equation.
Now I could go into further explication of liberty and individual sovereignty but it would be an exercise in futility. Again, as to my aforesaid statements you provide no refutation, but instead rely upon redirection and fail to address the issues at hand. How trite. And lastly,
"And really, who knows how the Soviet Union would have turned out had Stalin not come to power."
Really? That's what you come to the table with? My God man. -
@liberty - Nice retort! Eloquent and to the point.
@sati - I don't care that you don't like CNS. And this coming from someone who constantly uses dailykos as a source... -
The majority of AMericans are certainly screaming for health care reform. What kind of reform the individual groups want is up for debate - but they want reform, and they want it now.
The small business are also screaming for reform, because they can no longer provide insurance for their employees. Right now is an all time low for employer based insurance - meaning, fewer small businesses offer employer based insurance than ever before.
As the health care reform platform of Obama's presidential race played a huge part of of his race, and all polls indicated that economy and health care was at the top of voter's lists of priorities - and Obama won by a landslide - I'd say that yes, America is screaming for reform - regardless of what the conservative party wants people to believe.
We are not happy with privatized care! -
Just face it Anok, you are a moocher and you want others to pay for your health insurance. If you support this, you should just put a big sticker on your head saying I FAIL AT FINDING GOOD HEALTH INSURANCE SO GIVE ME YOURS.
-
Don't get mad at me because I'm right It's clear you have no understanding how the insurance industry works. Please explain to me how it works, OK? To the best of your ability, explain to me what insurance is, what it does, how they make their money, and the difference between group and individual plans.
I have government health insurance as we speak, because the private industry has me down as "uninsurable" because I had the misfortune of getting cancer. Not that I could afford the current premiums, anyway.
Now tell me how that's a good policy, the kind I should support?
You'll find out once you're off your parent's insurance *sigh*. -
Haha you said you were right. wow thats funny.
-
@Brandeisian - "There can be but little question that the chief and possibly the entire purpose of,the Commerce Clause was, with reference to interstate commerce, to empower the federal authorities to prevent the States from interfering with the freedom of commercial intercourse between themselves..."
That is a quote from the book, "The Constitutional Law Of The United States", by Westel Woodbury Willoughby.
Now before you get all excited, let me tell you who Westel Woodbury Willoughby was.
He graduated with an A.B. from Johns Hopkins University in the class of 1888, continued with graduate work and received his Ph.D from Hopkins in 1891 at a time when political science was not yet recognized as a separate discipline. His degree was awarded by the combined departments of history and economics.
He joined the faculty of Johns Hopkins University in 1898 and urged the University to create their first Political Science department.
He helped to found the American Political Science Association and served as its 10th President. Some have referred to him as the father of modern political science thanks to his prolific writing. He published many books over the span of his career at Hopkins. His first, entitled The Nature of the State was published in 1898. From there, he went on to establish himself as one of the foremost authorities on Constitutional Law and the workings of the Supreme Court of the United States."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westel_W._Willoughby
I'm sure you knew that, but were only testing me, right? I mean someone as smart as you, with ALL the answers should know who Willoughby was. -
@Anok - can I get on your parents' insurance? I have an Photo ID.
*points to sassy new avatar that sati sent him* -
Oops! I meant "a" Photo ID.
-
Antics, you'd have to get on J's. He's still young enough to be on his parent's insurance. I'm way past my prime on that
(And yes, your avatar is freaking me out - I HATE clowns! ARgh!!!!) -
Sorry it bothers you, but sati sent it to me. I mean he is even trying to find out where I live. He is creeping me out, I've never had a cyber-stalker before.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/thread-of-shame-a-log-of-persona...
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/thread-of-shame-a-log-of-persona...
Maybe I could get a ninja mask like yours and he would be scared and leave me alone...
-
-
I was thinking about this while I was out mowing the lawn a little while ago and it occured to me that the only real solution is a single-payer system, but that's apparently off the table. Co-ops will help the uninsured get more affordable insurance, but it's not going to help much. The only solution is to take the profit and abuse out of insurance.
Something they could do is expand Medicare to cover more people. Another option might be to allow insurance companies to operate as regulated non-profits. Maybe offer a single payer system for catastrophic illnesses and injuries.-
Not politically feasible, and in the end private options have to be available, but a muscular public option would certainly be desirable.
But about politics: Obama made major health reform a signature issue during the campaign, and he won a commanding victory. He has a mandate for major change, so he needn't be too timid.
-
-
Here's the answer to the issue raised that the government health care could operate in the red:
Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/06/why-the-criti...
Okay, I can support that.-
Well, that's a nice opinion piece. Not solid facts or anything, but a nice opinion piece.
-
-
Here's another op-ed that pushes for large scale private insurance:
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/opinion/25enthoven.html
Sounds like an idea that would lead to another entity that could become "too big to fail." Bad idea. There's enough abuse of the current private insurance. This has the potential to make a bad system even worse.
It's been demonstrated that private companies providing necessities for the commons doesn't work. The people at the top get rich, buy influence, cut corners, provide poor quality service, and the middle class gets screwed. Somebody who makes a profit by denying treatment shouldn't be making decisions regarding what kind of treatment patients are eligible for. It's time for a public option.-
thats simply not true and I believe you want us to have a marxist system.
-
How would you describe a Marxist system, j?
-
simple.....the one that Obama is implementing.
-
Obama isn't implementing anything. Some ideas are being proposed and when one is approved, Congress will implement it.
-
He is setting the agenda.
-
Circular argument, J.
Define a Marxist system first Then compare and contrast. I know it has been a while since I have been in formal education - but I'm sure they still use the same old compare contrast method for logical arguments. -
Why do I have to define a marxist system to you? I know what it is and I don't need some ninja teacher trying to explain it to me. (who by the way is an anarchist)
-
Because you have made a declarative statement that is being challenged, and been asked to define what it is. your answer included a circular argument.
B is A!
What is A?
A is B!
It doesn't work that way. -
go find a job
-
I'm afraid that you have answered incorrectly. Please try again.
-
as I said before go find a job
-
Are there jobs still out there?
-
I'll interpret your answer as such:
you have no idea what Marxism or Socialism actually is, because you've been parroting right wing radio talking points again without actually doing nay research for yourself, hence your only reply when asked to explain what it is is "go get a job".
Thank you for confirming your factose intolerance problem. -
under marxism, the state would assign "lazy mooches" a job...
just sayin' o_0 -
Ok Anok it is government control of the market and virtually every aspect of your lives. Wll you shut up now?
-
Actually no, that is not what Marxism is. That is a gross over simplification of Communism run amok. Which is not Marxism in the slightest.
Keep reading and researching, and then form an opinion. -
You mean we have to read AND form opinions here?! Damn, that is almost like doing school work!
-
-
Check out these videos:
Healthy Americans Against Reforming Medicine
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhpUG4apgrE&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzDwXr9szxw&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoHCmq2lhe4&feature=related-
nice acronym
-
-
I think the best option for health care reform starts with us an individuals. But as far as government is concerned I would support the public option. I've recently written a blog article on the specific steps I would take to reduce overall costs to the system. I hope everyone would take the time to read it. I work as a clinical staff pharmacist at my local hospital and see a lot of what is hurting the system everyday.
Read this to learn more - rxvette.blogspot.com/2009/06/biggest-key-to-health-care-reform-in-us.html
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
