Not to be outdone by Hilary, Bush will push for Universal Health Care - Page 2

David Octavius · 09-19-2007, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Donklephant » Blog Archive » Could Bush Steal “Universal Health Coverage” Fire?

For one, I can't believe no one is talking about the Clinton annoucnement, but now Bush

I mean, FEMA, IRS, Social Security and you people want to hand your HEALTH to the government?

He is trying desperately to leave some kind of legacy people will remember him positively for. Putting aside the rhetoric, if this goes through, years from now historians will look at this as a natural progression of a civilized society and something great he did.

When people talk about social security, it is has an untouchable system of gold, not the reality that is a socialist system that may not be solvent in 50 years...context

David Octavius · 09-19-2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

I don't even get the point of me going to work every day.

I can get housing, food, and now health care for free. Why should I do a damned thing for myself?

Now you know you would not quit your job and live off the government because you want more than just the minimal in your life and you also take pride in your accomplishments...well guess what? Most people are that way too, as much as conservatives love to paint many of the poor at lazy good for nothings, they are not. They are fighting hard to get out of poverty and to make something of themselves.

Of course there must be measures taken to prevent the few who do take advantage of the system, but lets not take this debate in the direction of implying people who have less means as some kind of inferior beings who should get no help at all.

The way we give a helping hand can be debated, if we should give them help at all should not.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2007, 09:24 AM

I can't for the life of me understand why some of you blame all of healthcares issues on government? Why do insurance companies exclude pre existing conditions especially if they're serious? That has nothing to do with government and severely limits the ability of people to move from job to job and add to the productivity of the nations economy.

There are some inherent problems with the insurance industry and this is more of a regulation in insurance than healthcare which is precisely why I think with some tweaking this could be a great step forward on the healthcare front.

hsmith · 09-19-2007, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Now you know you would not quit your job and live off the government because you want more than just the minimal in your life and you also take pride in your accomplishments...well guess what? Most people are that way too, as much as conservatives love to paint many of the poor at lazy good for nothings, they are not. They are fighting hard to get out of poverty and to make something of themselves.

Of course there must be measures taken to prevent the few who do take advantage of the system, but lets not take this debate in the direction of implying people who have less means as some kind of inferior beings who should get no help at all.

The way we give a helping hand can be debated, if we should give them help at all should not.

Honestly, (even though I wouldn't want to pay for it), I don't see covering people <18 a big issue. Children shouldn't suffer long term problems because their parents are slacks. Over 18, you can fend for yourself.

I think a lot of it is preventative care which goes untreated.

hsmith · 09-19-2007, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I can't for the life of me understand why some of you blame all of healthcares issues on government? Why do insurance companies exclude pre existing conditions especially if they're serious? That has nothing to do with government and severely limits the ability of people to move from job to job and add to the productivity of the nations economy.

There are some inherent problems with the insurance industry and this is more of a regulation in insurance than healthcare which is precisely why I think with some tweaking this could be a great step forward on the healthcare front.

A large majority is the gov't. Look at prescription drugs. We one of the only first world nations that require a prescription for non-narcotic drugs. That means that if you are poor, you must cough up $100+ dollars to go see a doctor to even get basic medicine to treat yourself. That $100 is a big cost inhibitor.

Now, we all know the scam that is insurance. There are multipule reasons insurance is as high as it is. One being, we are effectively being taxed now because we as those who have health insurance subsidize those that don't. We pay for their medical care even though they can't.

Government disallows competition in the insurance market, teh list goes on.

The major cost in doctors offices are Medicare, Medicade, and insurance compliancy. They must hire teams of people just to file these claims. Imagine if we could remove these costs. The cost of standard medicine would fall dramatically. Oddly enough, there are doctors now who refuse all of those and only take cash to pay for their services. It is a growing network and the name escapes me at the moment. They figured out the cost of complying with these services and said forget it.

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2007, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Honestly, (even though I wouldn't want to pay for it), I don't see covering people <18 a big issue. Children shouldn't suffer long term problems because their parents are slacks. Over 18, you can fend for yourself.

I think a lot of it is preventative care which goes untreated.

Have you never needed help with something in your whole life? The reason that humanity is so successful is that we are social animals and we can help eachother. We are not all responsible for ourselves only. We are responsbile for the herd, so to speak. If someone falls behind we don't let them die, we pick them back up. I'm, not saying we should carry them on our backs forever, but at least help them to get back on their feet. To walk around and refuse to do anything for anyone but yourself is immoral by virtually every standard that exists today. We can argue about how best to help people who need help, but I agree with David. Whether or not to help is not a question that any person should ask.

hsmith · 09-19-2007, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Have you never needed help with something in your whole life? The reason that humanity is so successful is that we are social animals and we can help eachother. We are not all responsible for ourselves only. We are responsbile for the herd, so to speak. If someone falls behind we don't let them die, we pick them back up. I'm, not saying we should carry them on our backs forever, but at least help them to get back on their feet. To walk around and refuse to do anything for anyone but yourself is immoral by virtually every standard that exists today. We can argue about how best to help people who need help, but I agree with David. Whether or not to help is not a question that any person should ask.

If I needed help (and I have) I go back to my family. I don't ask others.

The problem is, we can't expect the gov't to help. I see failure after epic failure and I can't grasp, ever, why anyone would trust them when you are in need.

I mean, what in the governments track record ever makes you think that they could help you with your health? Please, just an honest answer.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2007, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

A large majority is the gov't. Look at prescription drugs. We one of the only first world nations that require a prescription for non-narcotic drugs. That means that if you are poor, you must cough up $100+ dollars to go see a doctor to even get basic medicine to treat yourself. That $100 is a big cost inhibitor.

Now, we all know the scam that is insurance. There are multipule reasons insurance is as high as it is. One being, we are effectively being taxed now because we as those who have health insurance subsidize those that don't. We pay for their medical care even though they can't.

Government disallows competition in the insurance market, teh list goes on.

The major cost in doctors offices are Medicare, Medicade, and insurance compliancy. They must hire teams of people just to file these claims. Imagine if we could remove these costs. The cost of standard medicine would fall dramatically. Oddly enough, there are doctors now who refuse all of those and only take cash to pay for their services. It is a growing network and the name escapes me at the moment. They figured out the cost of complying with these services and said forget it.

But part of the reason we require prescriptions is to prevent abuse. Right or wrong thats one of the big reasons for requiring a doctor visit. You can abuse non narcotic drugs...I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you just putting that reason on the table for debate.

You're correct on the cost of insurance, much of the insurance cost is due to the inflated health costs brought on by government intervention. Having said that a lot of the cost as addressed by not only Hillary Clinton but others is the ridiculous administration and lawsuit costs on the industry. You tackle those two alone and you cut costs between 19 and 45% depending on who's numbers you believe. Also, on the subject of insurance, this mess of not allowing people to take insurance with them and charging someone more or not giving them coverage at all because they have or had cancer is bullshit.
A person can not control whether they get cancer or some other serious disease (with rare exception). Basically cutting them off is forcing the tax payer to pay for them anyways through medicare/medicaid etc. We need to find a way to keep people from losing their entire life if/when someone were to get a serious illness. When I say life I dont mean just a physical life, but what they've worked for, their home, their car etc.

There absolutely should be competition in the insurance market.

On the last paragraph I agree completely administrative costs are refuckingdiculous.

DosEquis · 09-19-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Health care is inefficient for one single reason, the gov't.

Lasik eye surgery has minimal gov't intervention, no subsidies, doesn't accept insurance and the cost has constantly gone down to a point where everyone can afford it.

Gov't has made the health care industry more expensive and insurance has profited from it. More of either of them is not the solution. HMO's were the gov'ts solution to the medical issues of past and look where that got us.

Insurance does not profit from more expensive healthcare. Insurance profits by not paying out. They invent things like co-pay, deductables, health savings accounts, and other ways to get out of paying when you need medical assistance. That makes them a 'good company' to share holders. Insurance would benefit from cheaper medicine, cheaper hospital stays, etc, and yes they do charge us more because of the increased cost in health care.

Gov't has made it more expensive by establishing a ton of rules and standards that can be expensive to live by. Not to mention the supply and demand of healthcare being an issue with price also.

SoFlaJDM · 09-19-2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, I've changed my mind. Let's impeach Bush. What an asswipe.

Publius · 09-19-2007, 12:28 PM

so Bush has finally admitted he isn't a real conservative. Cool.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

so Bush has finally admitted he isn't a real conservative. Cool.

Has he ever been? He's a moron.

Publius · 09-19-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Has he ever been? He's a moron.

He hasn't in my opinion, but he's always claimed to be one. There is no way he can continue making that claim and not get laughed down given that he has basically green-lighted a socialist program.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

He hasn't in my opinion, but he's always claimed to be one. There is no way he can continue making that claim and not get laughed down given that he has basically green-lighted a socialist program.

How has he greenlighted a socialist program? Neither his nor hillary's appear to be a socialist program they are not taking over control of healthcare, they are wanting to regulate the INSURANCE side of the biz and open it up for competition amongst providers.

SoFlaJDM · 09-19-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

How has he greenlighted a socialist program? Neither his nor hillary's appear to be a socialist program they are not taking over control of healthcare, they are wanting to regulate the INSURANCE side of the biz and open it up for competition amongst providers.

i guess bush caught the stossel piece on 20/20 a couple of days ago

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

i guess bush caught the stossel piece on 20/20 a couple of days ago

what was that? was it any good?

SoFlaJDM · 09-19-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

what was that? was it any good?

it was some typical stossel 'free market trumps all' bullshit

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

it was some typical stossel 'free market trumps all' bullshit

Freemarket is a pretty good distributor of resources, but it can have some issues from tim to time.

David Octavius · 09-19-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Honestly, (even though I wouldn't want to pay for it), I don't see covering people <18 a big issue. Children shouldn't suffer long term problems because their parents are slacks. Over 18, you can fend for yourself.

I think a lot of it is preventative care which goes untreated.

Again, painting all people who can't afford health insurance as "slacks" is not reflective of the actual situation. How about this, do you believe a person who works 2 jobs - but does not make a lot of money at either - get government assisted health insurance until he/she can afford it on their own?

I am just trying to get an idea of what you thing of government assistance in general, if you see it as black or white or you nuance.