Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Beest]

Sounds all puppies and roses, counterpoint?

In the UK where everyone (citizens, resdients?) gets free Health care, you can also have private insurance or pay for private treatment, you may get the same treatment from the same specialist, but queue jump by paying privately, or stay in a nicer facility.

I like this 'system', everyone gets care, if you can afford it you can pay for convienence/speed/ not mixing with the hoi polloi, the actual standard of treatment is equally good.

[TheMercenary]

The bit they are leaving out is that all young working people will be required to buy health insurance. It will be mandated by law. The most recent estimates are it will be between 7% and 10% of their income. I personally think that is great. If you want health care you should pay some percent into the system whether you make a $100 a week a $100,000 a week. You want it, you pay for it.

[Beest]

Is that common , when you're young and think you're invulnerable and immortal to skip insurance as taking up valuable drinking funds.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Beest

Is that common , when you're young and think you're invulnerable and immortal to skip insurance as taking up valuable drinking funds.

I would say that's common.

Stop trying to insure young people!

[Clodfobble]

Yes, especially when you consider that young people are more likely to have only part-time jobs, thus not qualifying for employer-provided health insurance.

[Happy Monkey]

Mandatory health insurance is also what will make possible one of the best parts of the bill- the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" as a factor.

[TheMercenary]

I agree, the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" is one of the good things. The other problems with the current House Bill are huge. In the end, if passed as written and signed by the president, it will end health care as we know it in the US. Some say hey that is great! But there are huge unintended consequences that are looming out there associated with this bill. Those issues are not being addressed by this.

Among them:
Long term payments for catastrophic care.
Reimbursement for health care providers.
Payment of educational loans for physicians and other specialty providers.
Costs of medical malpractice.
Control of frivolous lawsuits.
Overhead costs associated with giving care at lower rates.
Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.
Payment for specialty services and care.
Incentives for providing care for less cost and competition by monopolies of large health care organizations.
Long term payments for the elderly in nursing facilities.
Long term care of patients in physical rehab for catastrophic injury.
Care of patients with significant chronic disease, i.e. dialysis, mental health, pediatric disease, research.
Transplant costs.
Long term costs associated with 10 years of this plan to the taxpayer.
Access to care for all these new patients.
Destruction of the private insurance industry.
Lack of incentives for expensive research into rare and fatal disease.
Who decides what costs are standard procedures and what they will pay?
Who prioritizes the lists for care as the waiting list grows?
In the end you are basically going to give up your freedom of choice in your care.

The list goes on and on.

It all comes down to cost. It all is addressed by how this potentially bankrupting bill is going to be paid for.

They have put the cart before the horse.

As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.

Why would younger people pay more?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.

Every time you say this, I hear the ominous background music:

duh duh DUHHHHHH

And I get all scared and stuff.

[Clodfobble]

Merc is just thinking of himself as "young."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Merc is just thinking of himself as "young."

Nawwww. I am an old guy.

[Happy Monkey]

Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.

They are among the large gorillas in the room. These costs do not go away. The problem is in the system costs. Very little of that has been proposed, other than a plan to reduce payments. How do you run an expensive business on less?

The notion that "younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people pay" seems a bit far fetched to me.

As I understand the proposals, they include some form of community rating to spread the cost more equitably, probably lowering the cost of some older workers (and women) who have historically been overcharged. I dont see any scenario where younger workers will pay twice as much.....particularly since many older workers are more likey to have family coverage as opposed to individual..

[jinx]

Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion*
By Ron Paul
Published 07/28/09

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House
leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government
healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there
are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of
legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions.
The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on
abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions
regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply
troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding
abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I
have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which
forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is
unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this
is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds
instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited
role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at
the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine
their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing
the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with
every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current
politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different
people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom
of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues
altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is
the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a
just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in
order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that
naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class
warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from
patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help
the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more
responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever
could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal
with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the
rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes,
red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to
subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions
is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither
constitutional, moral, nor in the American people's best interest.