Health Care Reform
I guess a lot of people are going to want to put in their two cents and info on how Health Care Reform effects cyclists so here you go.
Views: 146
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jessica on
-
You don't see how it will drive them to bankruptcy? You don't see how it won't work?
You don't think people will pay the fine until they're sick, then start paying regularly? I wish I were so idealistic. The insurance companies need the steady money flow to come out on top. The can't just pay for someone's injury out of pocket, and then the person starts paying their measly X dollars per month. How can they stay in business like that?
The article was written by a federal employee I am familiar with. (FBI)
Why can't a business make a profit? You car insurer does, house, etc etc. Why not medical care? So doctors shouldn't make money (and lots of it given the schooling, and sue happy people)? How on earth is that fair? I don't understand the motive.
The hospitals charge out the ass for people who are uninsured. The big healthcare companies are big enough to bargain that price down.
It doesn't matter. The funding will be cut to the bill asap. I'm an independent, BTW. I support universal healthcare, but this bill doesn't cut it. Again I ask, what is the rush? Why shove it though congress without reading it? Why not just tax people so EVERYONE pays? (like education, everyone is taxed, if you want private schooling, it comes out of your pocket).
Canada should be our model. We should study their system, and take the good, and improve the bad.
One more time, I am FOR universal healthcare, but this bill SUCKS.
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle Green on
-
+1. +1 billion.
Kellie said:
I fear the fear mongers more than the legislation.
Jessica said:No sir.
Does anyone see how there WILL BE NO PRIVATE OPTION? There are intentionally bankrupting them, within the scope of the 'law'. What a load of bullshit.
Put a cap on malpractice lawsuits. THAT'S a way to reform. Remove state borders so they can compete across the US. THAT'S reform. What they're doing now is terrifying, considering they don't even know what exactly the bill contains! Then they're shoving it down my throat.
For the love of god, just TAX PEOPLE if you want them to pay. People aren't going to pay for monthly insurance if they can't be denied coverage when something bad happens. Of course you'd elect to pay the $300 fine rather than $100 a month. People aren't dumb. Then when they get run over by a bus, quick call and instate your insurance. The insurance companies can not run like that. Period.
FTR, I'm 100% supportive of the healthcare system in Canada, and Europe. What we are attempting to do is NOTHING like it. Obama is so desperate to be able to say that he 'did something' that he's trying so hard to push this through. What on earth is the rush? Take a second to actually think about things, and maybe work on the inflation rate and jobs for awhile. (Well, since he's printing more money to make this happen, I doubt he gives a rip about inflation...) The way it is written will crush what they *say* they're trying to do.
T.C. O'Rourke said:"I did not write this..."
O.K., I'll guess: Rush Limbaugh?
-
Permalink Reply by Pablo on
-
Everything government gets involved in becomes more inefficient and more expensive. This bill adds more bureaucracy to an industry already saturated by government intervention.
-
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on
-
Pablo said: Everything government gets involved in becomes more inefficient and more expensive. This bill adds more bureaucracy to an industry already saturated by government intervention.
You say that like it's a fact. But it's not. You're speaking from a biased world view without really examining the data behind the premise.
There have been multiple evaluations of the argument that privatization is a vehicle for efficiency. They all start by looking at the theoretical and empirical economic data. Just about all of them are either inconclusive or conclude that this is a myth. Efficiency is not a simple matter of who owns what, but rather, it requires a complex mix of organizational/internal/social/commercial values and variables.
In other-words, It depends on what you are talking about. A government is nothing more than a corporation with dominion over land and violence; all the corruptions and inefficiencies that infect government also infect private industry. There are so many (psuedo-)corporations that are bloated, corrupt and inefficient (think GE) and then there are the (psuedo-)governmental programs that do A LOT with very very little money (think Planned Parenthood, which is underwritten by more than $300 million in government funds annually).
So -with that said- what does cause inefficiencies in the public sector is that "our" government at least on a superficial level indulges in the pretense of being democratically controlled by those whom it claims to serve.
Now you're not ENTIRELY wrong. It is true that smaller businesses are more efficient that bigger businesses and of course large governmental institutions. And logically small governmental institutions are as efficient as smaller business.
ERCHLVRSN, you are a heartless moron blinded by your own privilege. Just do the math and your self serving ass will come to the conclusion that it's economical to have a system of universal coverage.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
I guess a lot of people are going to want to put in their two cents and info on how Health Care Reform effects [sic] cyclists so here you go.
I don't see how the effects this legislation may or may not have on cyclists can be measured by any objective means since cyclists generally don't all share the same social and economic backgrounds. I predict an unproductive and unremarkable discussion that's at least eight pages in length.
-
-
Sorry I want to add to this...
...So -with that said- what does cause inefficiencies in the public sector is that "our" government, at least on a superficial level, indulges in the pretense of being democratically controlled by those whom it claims to serve... This results in drastic policy shifts which often reflect public sentiment. A corporation typically will not shift their policy if they believe it'll hurt efficiency and by extension profit. Maximizing efficiency and profit isn't necessarily the best objective for any decision making process because often this comes at the cost of moral/social choice. Take any large multinational and I will show you where they have chosen to maximize profit and efficiency by externalizing the cost of doing business to the social system. If most companies were forced to pay for the total cost of doing business they would be insolvent. We let companies appear to be more efficient because we let them steal money from us.
-
-
Jessica said: Economical for who?
Do some research. You'll find a plethora of studies. Here is just one...
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/2/211.pdf
The Uninsured ‘Access Gap’ And The Cost Of Universal Coverage
by Stephen H. Long and M. Susan Marquis (Two right wingers from the RAND Corporations)
Abstract: This study estimates the effect of uniersal coverage on the use and cost of health services by the uninsured. Adults lacking insurance for a full year have about 60 percent as many ambulatory contacts and about 70 percent of the inpatient hospital days they would have if they were covered by insurance. This “access gap” is only slightly smaller for children. Providing universal coverage would increase ambulatory contacts and inpatient days by less than 4 percent a year. The dollar cost of these new services is estimated to be $19.9 billion–a 2 percent increase in total health spending.
----- I am going to stop following this thread and get some work done. I will probably not respond again so please, flame on. -----
-
Permalink Reply by Jack on
-
I find the idea of changes in the health care system interesting. I also find it interesting that both sides (political parties) think the other is sooo completely wrong. Are there inefficiencies in the current system? you bet your behind there are. Are there problems with the new reform? Darn skippy. I just wish the government Dems, GOP, whoever, would improve things in a measurable way in phases. Blowing up a whole system to do it another way with new objectives and fuzzy math for finanical viability is not the way to do it. Leaving the system alone and applying fuzzy math doesn't solve the problem either.
Usually, the people in elected seats of the government are working towards one thing: re-election. Everyone wants the authority to make a change/rule/call, but NO ONE wants the responsibility that comes with it. What would happen if this healthcare reform starts to rollout and everyone realizes "hey, this is WAY to expensive and impractical". Would the brake be put on spending or would the time be taken to find a better way of doing things? I doubt it. If things are really less expensive than opponents of the bill think they will be, would these republicans step up and support the system? Or are we really just watching to groups fight for power and the ability to do things "THEIR WAY", whether it is right or wrong....
The smartest man in the world knows he doesn't have all the answers.
-
Permalink Reply by Vondo on
-
There probably wouldn't be so much R&D and innovation if there were no profit for the medical industry to shoot for. Plus simply disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make anyone an idiot. Statements like that only highlight your own sense of infallibility.
This is the problem in a nutshell. Take people who think like STT on one side of the aisle, and the fear mongers on the other, and there you have the reason why we can't work out a good system. I don't really have an opinion on the bill, but I am sick of everyone trying to prove how right THEY are instead of getting down to work on a solution.
Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:I am against Obama's bill because I believe everyone should have a constitutional right to health care and this bill doesn't remotely pull this off. I would support this bill regardless of what graft it had in it if it was really going to run the private insurers out of business. Profit motive in medical care is wrong plain and simple. I don't feel like arguing this point because if you feel otherwise you're an idiot. However Obama's bill will only drive smaller insurers out of business, who are more likely to behave morally, and will foster the further monopolization of the insurance market.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on
-
Put a cap on malpractice lawsuits. THAT'S a way to reform. Remove state borders so they can compete across the US. THAT'S reform.
I couldn't hate this bill more—I want Medicare for all, with private insurers reduced to the status of public utilities offering supplemental insurance—but these points don't make sense. Texas has limited malpractice awards without much effect on costs, and allowing interstate competition just sets off a regulatory race to the bottom so that you'll end up with all insurers headquartered some place like Delaware and offering crap plans.
There probably wouldn't be so much R&D and innovation if there were no profit for the medical industry to shoot for.
Well, a lot of that R&D goes into making slightly more effective impotence pills and such. A lot of the best and most useful medical technology comes out of basic research funded by the NIH. I agree that you need competition, but not that profit is the only way to spur it. Social prestige and the pleasure of doing useful work well are powerful incentives, too.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
