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: 176

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on March 22, 2010 at 8:46am
Vando, I deleted that post apparently right before you replied to it. Which is a shame because I should have written with a little more clarity. But I still stick to the basic premise - replace idiot with wicked. Like I said I am not interested in arguing with people who believe that health care should remain a for profit industry because I have asserted a moral premise. Health care for profit is morally reprehensible and those who support it (worse practice it) are either ignorant of it's consequences or are acting immoraly. Of course ethics are a subjective thing so debating is/ought isn't really the scope of this conversation.
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on March 22, 2010 at 9:15am
But your assertion that medical costs have to be high to pay for innovation is proven inaccurate every time another country develops new technology. While it is true that there is a correlation between spending money on research and innovation it does not mean that the private medical institutions are the ideal source for innovation. The US spends the most on medical research coming to about 50% of worlds expenditures and as one would expect half of the worlds clinical trials take place inside of the US. And with that huge amount of research budget we do lead the world in developing new tech. But here is the catch, the most "innovative research" doesn't happen in private institutions at all because experimental research is a sink hole with very little return on investments. Like Dr. Doom mentioned innovation mostly comes from graduate student labs funded by government NIH grants and only after a discovery (that is profitable) do the venture capitalists appropriate the new tech into private industry.

But it still remains the only objection to national healthcare that cannot really be disproved. The reason it is next to impossible to find a rebuttal based on data is because the premise is purely speculation to begin with. It's conceivable that the only thing keeping medical innovation alive in the US is that it's the market with the highest costs allowing for higher profits. I doubt it, but it's conceivable, but that's all it is. There is absolutely zero data anywhere to support this argument making it pretty hard to dismiss it out right. But there isn't any evidence to support it either. So the burden of proof is on you Vando and others like you. Show us the data or get out of the conversation.

*** I DO NOT WANT TO CALL OUT THIS PERSON BY NAME *** there is a member of the Chainlink who suffers from an illness that is almost curable by todays medical technology. There has been enough graduate research done that it's almost certain how to cure it but it is stalled in the research phase due to lack of funds. I believe he could shed a unique anecdotal perspective on the issue of innovation.
Permalink Reply by Duppie on March 22, 2010 at 9:36am
Vando said:
(...) but I am sick of everyone trying to prove how right THEY are instead of getting down to work on a solution.

Well said Vando! That is why I am not interested in taking part of this discussion. Both sides are so convinced about being in the right, that they don't even engage in a debate anymore.

It may make for five minutes of interesting monologue by John Stewart or Glenn Beck (depending on your political leanings), but that is about all I can take take.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on March 22, 2010 at 9:38am
When and how did you become the judge of what is and is not moral? Sorry but I don't try and judge you as a person based on what you believe so please stop doing it to me, or anyone else.

You want everyone to listen to you and look at your opinions and sources and take them serious but you dismiss the opinions and sources of anyone who disagrees with you as 'ignorant,' 'immoral' or otherwise invalid for no real reason other then you say so; this is the equivalent of arguing that something is better 'because.'

You may have valid points but I am going to ignore them because of the way you bring it up and the lack of respect you show to others opinions and and equally valid points.

I do not appreciate the concept that you find me wicked, immoral and ignorant because I have a different opinion then you do. Somehow I have managed up to this point to forge and maintain friendships with people who hold opinions and ideals that are, at times, 180* from my own, either there are a lot of people who share your opinions that are, like me, more tolerant then yourself or you're just an asshole...

I previously choose not to judge you as a person based on your views or opinions but as a ignorant, immoral and wicked person I feel it not worthwhile to continue this practice as I would hate to disappoint.

People are willing to listen, respect and entertain your point of view, why would you not extend that same courtesy to them? Or do you only respect those who agree with you? Are only your causes worth standing up for?

God you're a prick.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
Vando, I deleted that post apparently right before you replied to it. Which is a shame because I should have written with a little more clarity. But I still stick to the basic premise - replace idiot with wicked. Like I said I am not interested in arguing with people who believe that health care should remain a for profit industry because I have asserted a moral premise. Health care for profit is morally reprehensible and those who support it (worse practice it) are either ignorant of it's consequences or are acting immoraly. Of course ethics are a subjective thing so debating is/ought isn't really the scope of this conversation.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on March 22, 2010 at 9:41am
Why did I even open this thread...

Permalink Reply by Vondo on March 22, 2010 at 10:59am
Asserting moral premises does not amount to "proving" anything. Also, weren't you going to stop following this thread and responding?...

You aren't the sole authority of what's moral and immoral. I never attempted to take any kind of a position on the healthcare bill, only stated that the way in which you carry on a discussion is flawed. If the burden was on me to prove that you're a self important, condescending know-it-all, I think you did the job for me.

This thread itself is a sinkhole, so I will REALLY stop following and responding. Have at it kids!
Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
But your assertion that medical costs have to be high to pay for innovation is proven inaccurate every time another country develops new technology. While it is true that there is a correlation between spending money on research and innovation it does not mean that the private medical institutions are the ideal source for innovation. The US spends the most on medical research coming to about 50% of worlds expenditures and as one would expect half of the worlds clinical trials take place inside of the US. And with that huge amount of research budget we do lead the world in developing new tech. But here is the catch, the most "innovative research" doesn't happen in private institutions at all because experimental research is a sink hole with very little return on investments. Like Dr. Doom mentioned innovation mostly comes from graduate student labs funded by government NIH grants and only after a discovery (that is profitable) do the venture capitalists appropriate the new tech into private industry.

But it still remains the only objection to national healthcare that cannot really be disproved. The reason it is next to impossible to find a rebuttal based on data is because the premise is purely speculation to begin with. It's conceivable that the only thing keeping medical innovation alive in the US is that it's the market with the highest costs allowing for higher profits. I doubt it, but it's conceivable, but that's all it is. There is absolutely zero data anywhere to support this argument making it pretty hard to dismiss it out right. But there isn't any evidence to support it either. So the burden of proof is on you Vando and others like you. Show us the data or get out of the conversation.

*** I DO NOT WANT TO CALL OUT THIS PERSON BY NAME *** there is a member of the Chainlink who suffers from an illness that is almost curable by todays medical technology. There has been enough graduate research done that it's almost certain how to cure it but it is stalled in the research phase due to lack of funds. I believe he could shed a unique anecdotal perspective on the issue of innovation.
Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on March 22, 2010 at 4:01pm
I understand your frustrations and know many people with the same view as you, but apparently you are not self-employed with no pre-existing conditions nor do you run a small business. And you do not have older parents who were laid off and now can't afford private insurance. If you did I'm pretty sure you wouldn't believe all those people and I "hadn't applied ourselves". But I will tell you one thing, I didn't apply myself enough in grammar class...

ERCHLVRSN said:
I’m really not happy about bailing out all the people without healthcare!
I feel bad for them but I don’t want to pay for them… I like many other people who went to collage, got a good job with benefits etc – we/I did our part to allow for us and our family(s) to live a better life. Paying for all the people who didn’t apply themselves that got stuck without anything…really isn’t my problem or America’s – it’s yours for not applying yourself more, better et al or what ever excuse you keep telling yourself for falling short in life. Sucks I have to pay for all you…
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on March 22, 2010 at 4:30pm
Actually last time I talked to my insurance agent as a small business owner this was going to make my life worse.

Julie Hochstadter said:
I understand your frustrations and know many people with the same view as you, but apparently you are not self-employed with no pre-existing conditions nor do you run a small business. And you do not have older parents who were laid off and now can't afford private insurance. If you did I'm pretty sure you wouldn't believe all those people and I "hadn't applied ourselves". But I will tell you one thing, I didn't apply myself enough in grammar class...

ERCHLVRSN said:
I’m really not happy about bailing out all the people without healthcare!
I feel bad for them but I don’t want to pay for them… I like many other people who went to collage, got a good job with benefits etc – we/I did our part to allow for us and our family(s) to live a better life. Paying for all the people who didn’t apply themselves that got stuck without anything…really isn’t my problem or America’s – it’s yours for not applying yourself more, better et al or what ever excuse you keep telling yourself for falling short in life. Sucks I have to pay for all you…
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on March 23, 2010 at 3:31am
NotoriousDUG, this bill is going to make everyones life worse. It's not a good bill, it is a slap in the face, it is a kick back to the large insurance giants, a fuck you to small business, and in a few years when the funding is up for a vote again a huge financial burden for America's low income families. The only thing this bill has going for it is better coverage for children and elderly and a sort of round about way to remove that pre-existing condition shit. But IMO that's canceled out by Obama's executive order giving the "pro-lifers" their Stupak concession.
Permalink Reply by Charlie on March 24, 2010 at 6:46am
Your anger is misdirected. The President wanted a universal healthcare system. The Teabaggers and the Republicans consider this "socialist" and blocked any attempt at creating a decent system. BTW, did you mean that there will be no "public" option? The just passed program is based on folks buying insurance from "private" insurance companies.

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 Arrak Thumrs on March 24, 2010 at 7:18am
I moved to Illinois from New York a few years ago. New York is a guaranteed coverage state with a similar "high-risk health insurance pool" (Daily Herald's words) as I understand to be in the current (just passed) national plan. So there are precedents in this area. I know NY is not the only state with such a law in place for many years.

On a side note, because I don't want to get into this discussion's particular nuances...
I have type 1 diabetes. When I transferred here, I quickly learned I shouldn't have. I am uninsurable in this state. I even contacted an insurance broker in IL who is a friend of the family regarding state-sponsored insurance plans. Nope.

One detail I found particularly interesting due to Chicago's Labor Union history, it turns out you are barred by law from being rejected from employer offered insurance in IL. So, in effect, based on my job, I am currently both in IL: uninsurable and guaranteed coverage. Funny that, I say.
Permalink Reply by cutifly on March 24, 2010 at 7:25am
I don't think is it gonna make a difference either way on the trip to the hospital or if your D.O.A. I'll just keep trying to pay attention and minimize my impact on the system ahead of time.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service