Health Care Thread II

[Eyashusa]

Curious to know what people think of the AARP and AMA support of the democrats health plan. In the grand scheme of things does this really change anything or even swing things in their favor?

[MagicNumbers]

Originally Posted by jcdent0n

True. But there is no direct competition within that sector by a government sponsored farm, lets say. Influence != direct competition.

That's because its a different industry and the competition is from other countries. Its the same principle though, just on a bigger scale.

[Arative]

Originally Posted by Eyashusa

Curious to know what people think of the AARP and AMA support of the democrats health plan. In the grand scheme of things does this really change anything or even swing things in their favor?

The AARP might get the elderly on board, so they aren't crying that the Democrats are trying to take away their medicare. Like Rush and Beck says they are.

[Draegan]

You can't compare healthcare to consumer products because people NEED healthcare. People die without it.

Don't use the argument of people really don't need it because people don't need housing either because they can go live in the forest if they want.

Now to serious address that question, like I already have in this thread; there is a difference between health insurance and consumer products on the open market. For the sake of this argument lets use LCD HDTV's as our consumer product.

In the consumer market if Sony is selling a TV for $2,000 and I can't afford it I'm shit out of luck, but I really want one. The market has room for a company like Vizio to come and undercut them with a product that costs $1,000. I now can buy a TV! Yay!

In many parts of the country where there are either limited options or no options at all, a "consumer" can not choose their health insurance. There is no other company that is going to swoop in and drive the market down. It just can't be done.

Now what the House bill is providing is an Exchange, which does this! It also requires the Public Option to be a balancing point. In the end there there isn't going to be a large part of the country on the Public Option either.

Now another reason you can't compare consumer products to health insurance is because when you get sick you can't shop around for who's going to cover you. When you want a new TV you can shop around and take your time waiting for the right moment or the best sale. For healthcare insurance you have to pick one (if you have an actual CHOICE in picking one) and hope they don't try to fuck you over for when you really need it. Healthcare Insurance is not an "on demand" service.

I hope that makes sense.

[Veil]

I think the role of government is the one leg republicans have to stand on. I can understand that argument, and find it very much valid. If we want to get get down to the very basics of what government is, its basically those who control life and death. The only thing that separates our government from a corporation is the legal right to use force. The strength of the army and police force. When we look at the barebones of what government is, its what its always been. The people who keep you safe from angry invaders, and malicious individuals.

Life liberty and property are the 3 core principals of that use of force. When an entity takes any of those 3 things away, its the governments job to gain restitution. Thankfully i think, the founders of this country believed in a government that took this even further. Unlike house minority leader Boehner i actually know what the preamble of the constitution says, and 2 of the more important principals are Domestic tranquility and promoting the General Welfare.

I guess the question now becomes what is the general welfare. Does that only include infrastructure, or does it also include more abstract issues. In my world, Domestic tranquility and the general welfare includes a life where I don't see people on the streets because they couldnt afford to get sick. Its unacceptable for me to have a neighbor have to choose between paying for his sons ailment and paying for his sons education. That does nothing for my tranquility.

I know we've already fucking killed this argument. People against healthcare think its a personal responsibility to maintain your own health. The problem is health care has gone way beyond pulling teeth and praying for God's healing touch. Maintaining quality of life now includes 12 different tests, an MRI, a team of health professionals who have millions of dollars worth of training and schooling. Devices made with titanium silicon and electricity.

Unless you want to degenerate back to the aristocratic 18th century, I feel we need the government to step in because the private sector is not cutting it. I don't think anyone can argue that medicare, medicaid, and social security are bad things. I cannot understand the argument that as long as we have government sanitation to pick up the bodies left by the wayside of this health crisis we're peachy keen. In order to promote the general welfare and dometic tranquility, we need the government to put us on the fast track to real reform. If the public option is a failure, republicans are sure to make that much vaunted comeback, and at that point if it really does suck, it won't be hard to get rid of the public option.

Edit: I know the response, we can't afford it right now, we're in a deficit, omg public option. In our private system, we pay 50% more than other countries with no real advantage in quality. Those countries have a public option. Its been demonstrated that by all accepted measures, this is not increasing the deficit. If we can't accept a public option we need to get rid of all government social programs and i want to hear one of you motherfuckers say that to my face.

[jcdent0n]

Originally Posted by Veil

If the public option is a failure, republicans are sure to make that much vaunted comeback, and at that point if it really does suck, it won't be hard to get rid of the public option.

I disagree with that. With legislation mandating health insurance and millions of people accessing this plan, along with a hefty investment to develop the infastructure needed to operate the public option, it won't be easy to phase it out.

My feeling is that there is a logical progression to approaching this problem and by enacting a public option you are skipping the step of redesigning government regulation on the private industry. Its much harder to backtrack once something like this is implemented.

[Veil]

You would think there is a logical progression to this wouldn't you. Sadly its not the case. People have been trying to get health reform since at least the 1930's, and why hasn't there been any progress logical or otherwise. Oh yea, thats why.

[Draegan]

I'm scared of just "fixing the private sector" with regulation without something else to carry that balance. Look at everything that has been deregulated since the 30's and where it's gotten us today.

I'm all for regulation, don't get me wrong, but it needs to be countered with something else, which is why I like the Public Option/Exchange ideas.

It's still not the best form of healthcare, but it's better than what we have. A single payer would be cheaper and cover more people but that's big bad socialism.

[dandrools]

I think they should just add a fat tax to pay for healthcare. If you're grossly overweight, you are a burden on the system and thus you pay a tax. If you lose the weight and make yourself more healthy, you become less of a burden and don't have to pay the tax anymore. I mean they can obviously afford the food, tax em so they can't afford it anymore.

[The Ancient]

We should implement a nigger tax too because let's be honest, they are pretty much a drain on society.

[Zitar]

Originally Posted by dandrools

I think they should just add a fat tax to pay for healthcare. If you're grossly overweight, you are a burden on the system and thus you pay a tax. If you lose the weight and make yourself more healthy, you become less of a burden and don't have to pay the tax anymore. I mean they can obviously afford the food, tax em so they can't afford it anymore.

How are you going to enforce this? Have an army of feds that check peoples weight? Tax fattening food? Since most cheap food is already fattening and healthy food for the most part is much more costly you just end up with a poor tax that may or may not target the fat people your going after. Not to mention it doesn't address the problem with most obesity in the country which isn't mainly the food, but the lack of activity.

[Mario Speedwagon]

I applaud you guys for carrying on this conversation for as long as you have. I really do, but the sad part is anything that gets passed by this congress re:health care is just going to be one more inch of the dildo being jammed into our asses on a daily basis penetrating deeper.

I can pretty much guarantee it will be useless bullshit that does nothing but increase bureaucracy, increase costs, and benefits the insurance industry even more than they are by the current system.

Some of you actually act like some of these congressman are actually doing something for the purposes of helping the public. It's very difficult for them to help out the public while at the same time fellating their corporate owners.

So have fun with your theoretical discussions. I'll be crying in the corner about how fucked we are.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Zitar

How are you going to enforce this? Have an army of feds that check peoples weight? Tax fattening food? Since most cheap food is already fattening and healthy food for the most part is much more costly you just end up with a poor tax that may or may not target the fat people your going after. Not to mention it doesn't address the problem with most obesity in the country which isn't mainly the food, but the lack of activity.

A fat tax is ridiculous. But there are a billion good arguments to be made for the US (and most other countries) to completely restructure their agricultural and food subsidy systems, because the food marketplace is totally fucked right now. All of the shit that's bad for you? Heavily subsidized. All of the shit that's good for you? Barely subsidized. It's completely ass backwards.

[Arative]

Originally Posted by Zitar

How are you going to enforce this? Have an army of feds that check peoples weight? Tax fattening food? Since most cheap food is already fattening and healthy food for the most part is much more costly you just end up with a poor tax that may or may not target the fat people your going after. Not to mention it doesn't address the problem with most obesity in the country which isn't mainly the food, but the lack of activity.

Putting a 10% tax on food with little or no nutritional value could $530 billion over the next 10 years. Also, states that already tax junk food and soda are much less likely to rank among states with the highest growth rates in obesity. Lobbyist for the snack food industry however already killed a provision that would have added a tax to their food that could have raised $50 billion over 10 years.

Taxing the fat in your food

[Zitar]

Originally Posted by Eomer

A fat tax is ridiculous. But there are a billion good arguments to be made for the US (and most other countries) to completely restructure their agricultural and food subsidy systems, because the food marketplace is totally fucked right now. All of the shit that's bad for you? Heavily subsidized. All of the shit that's good for you? Barely subsidized. It's completely ass backwards.

Yes. Making healthy food cheaper while increasing the costs of processed sugary/fatty foods would be a net positive. Fruit and vegetable prices are ridiculous compared to their junk food counterparts. Problem is we have several generations of people that don't know how to cook and have rarely had fresh produce.