What freedoms would we lose under UHC?

[skeptical]

I keep hearing people frothing about how UHC would take away "our freedom" and how Obama and the Democrats want UHC so that they can "restrict our freedoms", and on and on and so forth.

But what freedom exactly is it that people are talking about? I've been in the workforce for 17 years and not once have I been able to choose who my provider is. My choice is between the company plan and paying my own way. Some employers give you a little money if you don't take their plan, but IME its a pittance compared to what the employer pays on your behalf for their plan. So, no real choice, I go with the company plan. I've had 4 or 5 differernt HMO's and they all pretty much cover the same things and have roughly the same deductibles, so its a false choice anyway.

So, is it my freedom to NOT have health insurance that is at stake here? Is that what all this is about? Are people honestly trying to complain that they will be _forced_ to have health insurance? WTF?

I must be dense because I just don't get it. I don't see what freedoms are at stake.

[quarky]

The freedom to be stupid?

[thaiboxerken]

The freedom to let those who "don't derserve it" die from lack of care.

[Architect]

And remember, in the UK there's still a private system so in fact you can have both running in parallel!

[Puppycow]

The freedom to be stupid?
Quarky FTW.

[Fishstick]

The freedom to die or otherwise be mentally, financially and/or physically debilitated by easily preventable illnesses.

[Rolfe]

Ahem! <cough>

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149823&highlight=essentials

And that isn't the first thread we've had on this either. I'm not suggesting we merge, but just indicating that we keep asking this question and none of those who made the original claim ever seem to come and explain what they mean.

In a much earlier thread, while debating with Jerome, I think, I listed a fairly impressive string of freedoms that we have due to having universal healthcare, which US citizens do not have. I think it started with the freedon to change jobs at will, without even thinking about how this might affect one's healthcare provision.

I also tried to come up with a list of freedoms enjoyed by US citizens relating to their healthcare. It wasn't very long, and in fact several of them were things claimed as freedoms by anti-universal-healthcare posters which it turned out they didn't actually enjoy (like the freedom not to be forced to pay for the healthcare of other people). The rest were freedoms we also enjoy under the NHS.

I think it's just dishonest rhetoric that doesn't stand up to a minute's scrutiny. It would be good if some of the people propounding the idea came and explained what they mean though.

Rolfe.

[FireGarden]

No freedoms will be lost.
The insurance companies will greet us as liberators!
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/18/tomo/index.html

[ponderingturtle]

I keep hearing people frothing about how UHC would take away "our freedom" and how Obama and the Democrats want UHC so that they can "restrict our freedoms", and on and on and so forth.

the freedom of bankruptcy and death if you get sick of course. You get sick and lose your job becuase they don't want you increasing the premiums of everyone so they use the time you miss and the reason to fire you. You lose your coverage and can't afford your meds and die.

Simple basic freedoms those are.

[T.A.M.]

The Freedom to pay the insurance companies more than they need, so THEY can have that beach house, not you.

The Freedom to allow a pencil pushing nobody to decide which test is "appropriate" for your doctor to order (oh but wait, they will tell the doctor that they are not telling him or her what to order, just whether or not THEY will pay for it).

The Freedom to choose between 3-4 different insurance companies, who like gas stations/companies, essentially fix prices so you pay just about the same amount no matter which company you CHOOSE.

TAM:)

[DC]

you gain freedom, you will have the freedom to get medical care, also when you are jobless and poor.

[Alt+F4]

In my opinion, it's not about freedoms, it's about fear. Obama is proposing a radical change to American health care and that just scares the heck out of most Americans, especially senior citizens, who are a very powerful lobby in the United States.

Let's assume that the highest number is correct, that 40 million people in the United States are without any health insurance. Let's also assume, for arguments sake, that another 60 million are underinsured or have crappy plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions. That means that at least 2/3's of the country, a vast majority, are doing fine health care wise.

I'm not suggesting that we just leave up to 100 million people with little or no access to affordable health care. However, since the anti health care reform people are in the majority they have the loudest voice when it comes to fear mongering such as "lose of freedom" and "death panels".

What Obama and the democrats don't see seems obvious to me: The majority of Americans don't want health care reform.

[Fiona]

Why not? I take your point about fear since change is often scary and in this case there is a lot of money and vested interest in trying to make sure people are anxious about what it will mean for them

Nevertheless it seems to me that many of the people who you say are "doing fine health care wise" are not in fact doing fine: they just don't know that till they have to try to use it. That seems to be what I have learned from some of the members here anyway.

Even if the worst does not happen health care is apparently a source of anxiety to most americans and it affects a lot of unrelated decisions like employment and where to live and so on.

In any case the " I'm all right Jack" attitude is not something I admire, and to be honest I think it should only influence our views so long as we are genuinely ignorant of the fact that other people are not "all right": and this is what Sugarb described elsewhere when her previous view that everyone had at least adequate basic care turned out to be wrong. As I would expect from any decent person that changed her mind.

I honestly can't see any downside to reform and a lot of advantages. It is not my country and of course it is up to yourselves. I would like to think that whatever happens it is based on real considerations and not a monster in the attic, however

[Dancing David]

Freedom to make a profit by selling health insurance.

[Upchurch]

In my opinion, it's not about freedoms, it's about fear. Obama is proposing a radical change to American health care and that just scares the heck out of most Americans, especially senior citizens, who are a very powerful lobby in the United States.
I have to wonder how much of that is genuine fear and how much of it has been artificially generated by right wing media and various publicity stunts. I know some very intelligent people who have been completely flimflammed by the utter BS coming from the right.


However, since the anti health care reform people are in the majority they have the loudest voice when it comes to fear mongering such as "lose of freedom" and "death panels".

What Obama and the democrats don't see seems obvious to me: The majority of Americans don't want health care reform.
I just don't think that's true. I think you have a very vocal minority playing dirty tricks to convince the rest and, to an extent, they are succeeding.

[ponderingturtle]

In my opinion, it's not about freedoms, it's about fear. Obama is proposing a radical change to American health care and that just scares the heck out of most Americans, especially senior citizens, who are a very powerful lobby in the United States.

Let's assume that the highest number is correct, that 40 million people in the United States are without any health insurance. Let's also assume, for arguments sake, that another 60 million are underinsured or have crappy plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions. That means that at least 2/3's of the country, a vast majority, are doing fine health care wise.

As long as they don't get too sick. Then bankruptcy is in their future.

[Professor Yaffle]

Have there been any polls on the issue which show what % of the population are in favour of having some sort of UHC and what % are against it? Anyone got any links?

[ponderingturtle]

Have there been any polls on the issue which show what % of the population are in favour of having some sort of UHC and what % are against it? Anyone got any links?

Looking at this poll (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html) it seems that disinformation is doing a good job of confusing the american public.

[Upchurch]

Have there been any polls on the issue which show what % of the population are in favour of having some sort of UHC and what % are against it? Anyone got any links?
Found this from July (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1562), which shows that the majority is now against health care reform (note the strong Republican opinion). However, this (http://people-press.org/report/537/) shows that Republicans and Fox News viewers are generally the most misinformed about it.

[Fishstick]

Have there been any polls on the issue which show what % of the population are in favour of having some sort of UHC and what % are against it? Anyone got any links?

Does that matter if so much misinformation and lies is becoming "common knowledge" and the average american associates UHC with breadlines, grandma being rejected care, and commies stealing your babies?

[ponderingturtle]

Found this from July (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1562), which shows that the majority is now against health care reform (note the strong Republican opinion). However, this (http://people-press.org/report/537/) shows that Republicans and Fox News viewers are generally the most misinformed about it.

So fox news is winning.

[Upchurch]

Does that matter if so much misinformation and lies is becoming "common knowledge" and the average american associates UHC with breadlines, grandma being rejected care, and commies stealing your babies?
And the loss of freedoms. Don't for get that.

With UHC, you won't be able to go to the church of your choice or pick what you watch on TV. Also, women and minorities won't be able to vote, anymore. And Protestant-Christian-God help you if your an O positive blood type, like me. I expect to be hooked up to a machine that will extract my blood 24/7.

[Upchurch]

So fox news is winning.
Yes. Damned if I know why.

[Professor Yaffle]

Found this from July (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1562), which shows that the majority is now against health care reform (note the strong Republican opinion). However, this (http://people-press.org/report/537/) shows that Republicans and Fox News viewers are generally the most misinformed about it.

That seems to be opinion about the currently discussed reforms - I was thinking more of what people think of the the idea of having ANY type of UHC, or UHC in principle. Some people could be against the current reforms, but think that in principle everyone in the US should be able to access healthcare without worrying about going bankrupt.

[Upchurch]

That seems to be opinion about the currently discussed reforms - I was thinking more of what people think of the the idea of having ANY type of UHC, or UHC in principle. Some people could be against the current reforms, but think that in principle everyone in the US should be able to access healthcare without worrying about going bankrupt.
Well, that's a bit trickier, but if you look at the third chart in that first link, it breaks down the reasons why people are for/against the reforms. It isn't precise, but we can at least glean that more than half of those who are for the reforms are so for reasons that are in sync with UHC. If those that oppose only about a third are opposed to the UHC aspect.

Again, I'm ad hoc'ing those results. They didn't ask that specific question. At best, this only gives a quick estimation.

[Alt+F4]

And the loss of freedoms. Don't for get that.

With UHC, you won't be able to go to the church of your choice or pick what you watch on TV. Also, women and minorities won't be able to vote, anymore. And Protestant-Christian-God help you if your an O positive blood type, like me. I expect to be hooked up to a machine that will extract my blood 24/7.

You left out being forced into a same-sex marriage. :)

[Upchurch]

You left out being forced into a same-sex marriage. :)
Don't be silly. Polygamous same-sex marriage with gay penguins.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. Damned if I know why.

It is easier to spread confusion than fight it.

[Puppycow]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=1558
Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/cartoon/2009/aug/14/martin-rowson-us-healthcare-cartoon)
I mean, just imagine if Professor Hawking had to rely on NHS (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html)! He'd be done for!
:tinfoil
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

[T.A.M.]

In my opinion, it's not about freedoms, it's about fear. Obama is proposing a radical change to American health care and that just scares the heck out of most Americans, especially senior citizens, who are a very powerful lobby in the United States.

Let's assume that the highest number is correct, that 40 million people in the United States are without any health insurance. Let's also assume, for arguments sake, that another 60 million are underinsured or have crappy plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions. That means that at least 2/3's of the country, a vast majority, are doing fine health care wise.

I'm not suggesting that we just leave up to 100 million people with little or no access to affordable health care. However, since the anti health care reform people are in the majority they have the loudest voice when it comes to fear mongering such as "lose of freedom" and "death panels".

What Obama and the democrats don't see seems obvious to me: The majority of Americans don't want health care reform.

The polls seem to indicate otherwise (more of a 50-50, 45-50 split), but the devil is in the details (more specifically how the details are presented). I remember recently seeing the results of a number of polls about the public option.

When asked about the public option alone, with no context, if was like 45% for, 50% against.

However, when the question was put in the context of "Would you like to have a selection of health care plans, that included amongst them a public option." the numbers in favor went past 60%.

I think the majority of Americans want REFORM, they just have severe NIMBY syndrome.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

As far as the vocal minority (possibly backed by the insurance industry) winning, unfortunately, it would appear so.

Look at this poll about the public option from June 2009

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

And look at the numbers now.

You think it is because people are becoming more informed? Not likely. You ask me, it is because more of them are listening to the fear mongering.

Nothing like fear to shift opinion.

TAM:)

[Upchurch]

Freedom to make a profit by selling health insurance.
No, they would still have that freedom. They just wouldn't have it with no real competition. With a public option, people would have freedom to choose for themselves.

Why do Republicans hate the free market system? ;)

[Praktik]

Why do Republicans hate the free market system? ;)

For its freedoms.

[ddt]

Found this from July (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1562), which shows that the majority is now against health care reform (note the strong Republican opinion). However, this (http://people-press.org/report/537/) shows that Republicans and Fox News viewers are generally the most misinformed about it.

But if I read the fourth chart in that first link, it seems that there's a clear majority for all major points in the health care reform proposals on the table. So why isn't there a majority in favour of it? Disinformation by Faux News?

[Praktik]

Polling on the issue is tricky. Kind of like "cap and trade". Some polls show huge support, other show minimal support.

With complex subjects reduced to labels like "health reform" and "cap and trade" the results of the polls vary due to the phrasing of the question and how that shapes the public's view of the subject.

If you asK:

"Would you support health reform that insures that even the most disadvantaged have health care?"

You'll get a majority supporting that.

If you ask:

"Do you support a government takeover of health care that ensures even the most disadvantaged get health care"

That number will go down drastically.

[Dancing David]

There is always the gap between the questions that are actually asked and the way the polls are reported.

[Praktik]

There is always the gap between the questions that are actually asked and the way the polls are reported.

Indeed, but with these issues the variances are even higher (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/poll-most-dont-know-what-public-option.html):

This is mostly a debate being had among policy elites and the relatively small fraction of the public that is highly knowledgeable and engaged about health care reform; for most others, the details are lost on them. This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they're asking the questions. You don't see those sorts of discrepancies when polling about, say, gay marriage or the death penalty, where the options are a little bit more self-evident.More discussion here. (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_public_option_no_perfect_p.php)

[Professor Yaffle]

Polling on the issue is tricky. Kind of like "cap and trade". Some polls show huge support, other show minimal support.

With complex subjects reduced to labels like "health reform" and "cap and trade" the results of the polls vary due to the phrasing of the question and how that shapes the public's view of the subject.

If you asK:

"Would you support health reform that insures that even the most disadvantaged have health care?"

You'll get a majority supporting that.

If you ask:

"Do you support a government takeover of health care that ensures even the most disadvantaged get health care"

That number will go down drastically.

2yhN1IDLQjo

[Praktik]

2yhN1IDLQjo

Yes, Minister - awesome..;)

[applecorped]

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

[Juniversal]

In my opinion, it's not about freedoms, it's about fear. Obama is proposing a radical change to American health care and that just scares the heck out of most Americans, especially senior citizens, who are a very powerful lobby in the United States.

Let's assume that the highest number is correct, that 40 million people in the United States are without any health insurance. Let's also assume, for arguments sake, that another 60 million are underinsured or have crappy plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions. That means that at least 2/3's of the country, a vast majority, are doing fine health care wise.

I'm not suggesting that we just leave up to 100 million people with little or no access to affordable health care. However, since the anti health care reform people are in the majority they have the loudest voice when it comes to fear mongering such as "lose of freedom" and "death panels".

What Obama and the democrats don't see seems obvious to me: The majority of Americans don't want health care reform.Those that oppose it don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "option" in public option. If you like the current system and aren't being handicapped by it (no pun intended) then you have the choice to stick with the current system.

[T.A.M.]

The people who understand it, are those pushing it, and those opposed to it. Those pushing it, realize it is the only true way (outside of a single payer system) to insure cost reduction for all.

Those who are against it, realize it will (through a competitive market place) mean a reduction in fees, and hence less gouging (or profits as they like to call it).

TAM:)

[Rolfe]

Have you noticed that we're at post 43 already, and just like the other threads on this subject, none of the posters who bang on about losing freedoms have actually come along to explain themselves?

Rolfe.

[Upchurch]

none of the posters who bang on about losing freedoms have actually come along to explain themselves?
I've had a long week already. Remind me who we're talking about?

[Taarkin]

Have you noticed that we're at post 43 already, and just like the other threads on this subject, none of the posters who bang on about losing freedoms have actually come along to explain themselves?

Rolfe.
You're trying to take away their freedom to not respond!

[dudalb]

Yes. Damned if I know why.

Democratic Stupidity.
The Democrats have messed up selling UHC to the public because they thought they did not have to sell it.
Face it, a lot of the Dems problems are of their own making.

[thaiboxerken]

No. It's the GOP that is preying on the stupidity of people with their myths about death panels and such.

[oldhat]

We also effectively don't have a media that a) even has a basic understanding of the policies and programs the Democrats are proposing* and b) don't fact check the flat out lies and slander propagated by Glenn Beck and the teabaggers. Instead they do the "one side says this, the other side says that, you decide what's reality and what's a fantasy" form of lazy "journalism."

*dn6gV4p9vdY

[T.A.M.]

Democratic Stupidity.
The Democrats have messed up selling UHC to the public because they thought they did not have to sell it.
Face it, a lot of the Dems problems are of their own making.

No. It's the GOP that is preying on the stupidity of people with their myths about death panels and such.

both are 100% correct.

TAM:)

edit: you know the sad part on this? The only group not stupid, were the republicans, who were smart, crafty, and in some cases down right evil about the whole thing...of course to the detriment of the US people and the advantage of the Insurance industry.

[Rolfe]

I've had a long week already. Remind me who we're talking about?


Bump for BaC.

Rolfe.

[dudalb]

No. It's the GOP that is preying on the stupidity of people with their myths about death panels and such.

And the Democrats should have been ready for that.They were not.
That is just plain inept politics.
Of course in your world the Dems are perfect and incapable of error.

[Upchurch]

And the Democrats should have been ready for that.
How do you prepare for something that is so arbitrary that it has no basis in reality or logic?

[WildCat]

How do you prepare for something that is so arbitrary that it has no basis in reality or logic?
Because the Derms wrote the playbook (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/politics/campaign/18trail.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=%22social+security%22+%22scare+tactics%22&st=nyt).
Accusing President Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/georgewbush/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) of plotting a "January surprise" to cut Social Security benefits, Senator John Kerry (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/johnfkerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) told voters here and in Ohio on Sunday that Mr. Bush's plans for privatizing the entitlement program could cost them as much as 45 percent of their monthly checks.

"That's up to $500 a month less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift for a grandchild," Mr. Kerry warned elderly and middle-aged worshipers at a black church in Columbus, Ohio, as he brought to the fore a major issue in the 2000 election that he had rarely touched on.

eta: also
PRODUCER -- Democratic National Committee.

ON THE SCREEN -- Opens with pictures of Mr. Bush. Shifts to shots of dollar bills streaming by, followed by a pensive-looking older woman. Flashes the front page of The Wall Street Journal, and closes with a picture of Mr. Bush.

THE SCRIPT -- Announcer: ''What would George W. Bush's plan do to Social Security? He's promising to take a trillion dollars out of Social Security so younger workers can invest in private accounts. Sounds good. The problem is: Bush has promised the same money to pay seniors their current benefits. The Wall Street Journal shows he can't keep both promises. Which promise is he going to break?''
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/20/us/the-ad-campaign-bush-is-hit-on-social-security.html?scp=2&sq=%22social+security%22+%22scare+tactics%22&st=nyt

[dudalb]

How do you prepare for something that is so arbitrary that it has no basis in reality or logic?

The "Tea Party" rallies that happened three months before the Town Meetings should have given them a clue as to GOP Tactics.
If partisianship reaches the point where you refuse to admit that your party is capable of making mistakes, you are in trouble.
James Carville, who is about as partisian a Democratic as you can get, has been scathing in his comments on how the Dems have messed up selling health care.
But is much easier to blame The Evil GOP then admit you perfect party dropped the ball.
I am in favor of UHC, BTW, though I have some concerns about the current plan..like who is going to pay for it. The Dems are going to have come up with better figures then they did in the first plan, since the CBO blew the intial figures out of hte water.

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, I think the Democrats need to be much more aggressive in attacking these silly myths and conspiracy theories.

[skeptical]

Democratic Stupidity.
The Democrats have messed up selling UHC to the public because they thought they did not have to sell it.
Face it, a lot of the Dems problems are of their own making.

I agree, although to be fair UHC is a complex issue that's a little difficult to boil down to a bare emotional, knee jerk level which is what seems to motivate a lot of people the most.

I think the Dems have had 2 problems:

1) The completely underestimated the amount of opposition that some people/groups would have in response to health care reform

2) They are just not good on the whole at fear mongering. And let's face it, fear motivates people far more than nuanced policy discussions.

[skeptical]

In my opinion, it's not about freedoms, it's about fear. Obama is proposing a radical change to American health care and that just scares the heck out of most Americans, especially senior citizens, who are a very powerful lobby in the United States.

I agree: its about fear for a lot of people. Just plain old simple FUD.


Let's assume that the highest number is correct, that 40 million people in the United States are without any health insurance. Let's also assume, for arguments sake, that another 60 million are underinsured or have crappy plans that don't cover pre-existing conditions. That means that at least 2/3's of the country, a vast majority, are doing fine health care wise.

Ummmm, no, it doesn't. You are assuming that the people who have insurance are completely happy now and will be completely happy with the direction the system is going. I think that is a gargantuan and untrue assumption. Health care reform isn't just about covering people who don't have coverage, its about revamping the entire system so that it is more efficient and costs less as a whole for everyone. The US system is unbelievably pricey compared to other industrialized countries that already have UHC. That must change.


What Obama and the democrats don't see seems obvious to me: The majority of Americans don't want health care reform.

I don't accept your premise. Polls indicate various responses to health care reform, and some show a majority are in fact in favor of it. The real question is if people would stop buying into fear and misinformation and actually examine the state of our health care system, compare it honestly to other systems around the world, what would they think then? It seems crazy to me to think that most poeple would not be in favor of some serous reform.

What the Dems didn't see coming is that there is a serious mistrust of anything remotely government among the US populace, and they didn't take steps early in the process to explain to people what "public option" actually means. They lost the ability to control the conversation early on and are now struggling to regain it. Fear sells.

[zaphod2016]

Freedom to make a profit by selling health insurance.

The freedom of paying lower taxes.

[jimbob]

We also effectively don't have a media that a) even has a basic understanding of the policies and programs the Democrats are proposing* and b) don't fact check the flat out lies and slander propagated by Glenn Beck and the teabaggers. Instead they do the "one side says this, the other side says that, you decide what's reality and what's a fantasy" form of lazy "journalism."

*dn6gV4p9vdY


Anti: You don't have medicare

Pro: That's because I'm not 65.

WTF?

[Upchurch]

The freedom of paying lower taxes.

Lower than what?

[skeptical]

The freedom of paying lower taxes.

The US spends a higher proportion of GDP under our current system than other countries with UHC. If we make significant reforms properly, we could spend less of our GDP under a UHC system, resulting in less tax money being spent. We could see these savings from many things such as preventative care vs emergency care, a more productive and healthly workforce, less overhead and waste in healthcare management, etc.

So, if your taxes did not go up, you would favor UHC or are there other freedoms you fear are in jeopardy?

[zaphod2016]

Lower than what?

Lower than the expense of providing health care to 300 million people.

[thaiboxerken]

Lower than the expense of providing health care to 300 million people.

I doubt it.

[Rolfe]

Lower than the expense of providing health care to 300 million people.


Have you seen this? (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php) This presentation does it by per capita cost, however if you do it by %GDP you get the same results.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/upload/2009/05/whats_health_care_like_in_aust/commonwealthfigureII8.jpg (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/are_patients_in_universal_heal.php)

You can see that the USA already spends more public money on healthcare than is spent by any other country, including those with universal healthcare (oh wait, that's a tautology, because every other developed first-world country does actually have a universal healthcare system of one sort or another).

It spends more public money, that's taxes you know, just to fund Medicare and Medicaid, than Britain spend to fund its entire healthcare spending, including both the entire NHS (covers everybody living in the country) and the relatively small private sector patronised by the affluent.

If your money was being spent even half way efficiently (God knows, the NHS is not optimally efficient by any stretch of the imagination), you should be able to provide a good basic standard of care to all your citizens - right up to transplants and intensive care and brain surgery and longterm maintenance treatments for chronic disease - for what you're paying now in tax.

Your healthcare "system" is sucking up about 16% of your GDP, close on twice what it really ought to consume, and this is damaging your industry and your economy. US companies operating in the global marketplace are complaining that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign companies which don't have to shoulder the burden of these excessive healthcare costs.

Now maybe it's really true that the country that put a man (several men, come to that) on the moon is really too incompetent to manage what everybody else seems to accomplish with a fair degree of success. God knows, our politicians are no better than they should be, either.

But you know what? I think even you guys can't possibly have what it would take to reform this system, and make it even worse.

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I think the Democrats need to be much more aggressive in attacking these silly myths and conspiracy theories.

Will not work. See the Gish Gallop.

[ponderingturtle]

Lower than the expense of providing health care to 300 million people.

You are paying for it anyway. Unless you support the repeal of all those must treat people because they are dying and patients rights laws. Then dying in a hospital waiting room will become a standard experiance in american hospitals.

[Dancing David]

And the Democrats should have been ready for that.They were not.
That is just plain inept politics.
Of course in your world the Dems are perfect and incapable of error.

One of the issues is that the Dems are not playing march step with each other. Now in the modern media age this may give a distinct advantage to the GOP qwhile it does march step with each other.

Perhaps Obama will be able to overcome the herd chaos of large scale self interest and perhaps the GOP is setting the new bar for party politics.

We have just had a rather remarkable period when the Pubs in office were very cohesive in terms of policy and public face. Certainly more so that during Regan or Bush the Elder eras. So we will see which style of politics dominates over the next twenty years, will the media driven single face of the Pubs win out, or will regional politics and self interest win out. A lot depends upon the money sloshing around and what happens to the Rove faction. And of course in the Dems decide to try the same thing.

This is a rather unique phase we went through, it certainly is not the usual pattern in US politics and may be changing.

[Dancing David]

Oh, I think the Democrats need to be much more aggressive in attacking these silly myths and conspiracy theories.

I heard a rather cogent researcher saying that the issue is emotions, you have to address the emotions before you address the intellect.

So in theory Obama needs to appeal to emotions then appeal to intellects. (A major failing of John Kerry). One of the reasons the Dems got pasted was that the appeal to emotions has brought in people at various times, the Regan dems, the soccer moms. However it remains to be seen if this will continue to dominate Pub politics, if Obama can get some 'Obama Republicans' to consistently vote, then that changes the game. If the Rove faction looses power in succesive elections then the Pubs will change course.

Plus Kerry's campaign made some serious mistakes and did not campiagn outside the big ten states, there were some other states that had close margins that went to Bush, a mistake Obama did not make.

[Dancing David]

Lower than the expense of providing health care to 300 million people.

We pay for it already. In so many ways.

[T.A.M.]

My curiosity is, what exactly about the Canadian and/or UK system bothers so many Americans, and why?

I know what bothers me about the Canadian system...long wait times for routine referrals to specialists and for high demand tests (such as CTs, MRIs).

Some Americans here, who are opposed to Universal Health Care, want to enlighten me on what about our system (and that of the UK) is so unacceptable that our systems are looked down upon as ooooh....dare I say it...socialized medicine?

TAM:)

[Praktik]

US companies operating in the global marketplace are complaining that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign companies which don't have to shoulder the burden of these excessive healthcare costs.

I remember the scare up here in Canada, with maybe a little bit of merit (you can find quotes if you look for em from Americans), that America might sue the Canadian government under NAFTA cause our public health care was an "anti-competitive" subsidy.

Of course if anyone ever really tried that the firestorm up here would be something to behold - but I couldn't help thinking at the time: "y'know, instead of suing us - couldn't you just provide some frickin' health care??"

But its probably better for us if they don't. After all it is a lure and there are many American companies that have moved to Canada and/or expanded operations here because they have access to pretty much an equivalent workforce in terms of culture and education - without the associated costs.

[Rolfe]

My curiosity is, what exactly about the Canadian and/or UK system bothers so many Americans, and why?


I know what the problems are with the NHS, broadly speaking.

First, it was founded on a misconception. Bevan believed that while it would be expensive at first, costs would decrease as improved preventative medicine on a population basis decreased the prevelance of disease. He had no idea of the expensive drugs and procedures that would be developed in the second half of the 20th century.

Thus there has always been a tendency for it to be underfunded. People don't like paying taxes, politicians like to promise tax cuts, and the NHS is one of the things they will squeeze to do it. To quote a doctor friend of mine, "we could do quite a lot more for quite a lot of people if we had more money." The funding dilemma is the underlying cause of the waiting lists and the "rationing" (which are nevertheless being blown up way out of all proportion by the right-wing Americans).

However, that's really about national and political will to spend the money. If you like low taxes, don't complain about waiting lists or not getting the drug you think might spin out your last few weeks by a few more weeks. Given that the USA is spending double what we're spending, it rather follows that if that money were spent efficiently, the ceiling of care for any individual should be pretty much out of sight.

The second problem is that a bureaucracy as big as the NHS inevitably tends to become unwieldy and wasteful. But again, when I look at what we actually get for our money, and the outcomes we achieve for the spending level we put in, and then I compare that to US spending and outcomes (and US bureaucracy), I realise maybe we don't have as much to complain about as all that.

Rolfe.

[Neally]

My curiosity is, what exactly about the Canadian and/or UK system bothers so many Americans, and why?

I know what bothers me about the Canadian system...long wait times for routine referrals to specialists and for high demand tests (such as CTs, MRIs).

TAM:)That it is broken, imploding and unsustainable. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

[WildCat]

That it is broken, imploding and unsustainable. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
If that is unsustainable, why do you think our system which has MUCH higher costs is sustainable?

[Neally]

If that is unsustainable, why do you think our system which has MUCH higher costs is sustainable?I never said it is. We do need health care reform. Reforming the insurance piece is only one piece of the puzzle.

[thaiboxerken]

If that is unsustainable, why do you think our system which has MUCH higher costs is sustainable?

It's sustainable..to the wealthy. As the costs increase, more people will "opt" out of the health system because they can't afford it. BMW runs a great business, and the USA health system will become the BMW of health systems in the world. Only those with great incomes or inherited wealth will be able to have it.

[Corsair 115]

I remember the scare up here in Canada, with maybe a little bit of merit (you can find quotes if you look for em from Americans), that America might sue the Canadian government under NAFTA cause our public health care was an "anti-competitive" subsidy.


Well, we could just do in response what the U.S. did in response to losing the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber: ignore the ruling! If the U.S. feels free to completely ignore the rules, requirements, and obligations of NAFTA whenever it suits it, then perhaps Canada can as well.

[Corsair 115]

That it is broken, imploding and unsustainable. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw


Now perhaps you can explain why the Canadian public quietly acquiesces to this supposedly disastrous situation rather than raising holy hell with their politicians and threatening to decimate the government in an election if it doesn't do something about the problem.

We have something of a track record of hammering governments in an election if they do something the public finds particularly egregious. Screwing up health care would certainly qualify.

You may also wish to explain why the Canadian public is, overall, satisifed with its health care system if it as "broken, imploding and unsustainable" as is being claimed. Considering that the public is at "the tip of the spear" so to speak when it comes to health care, they'd be the first ones to notice somethhing is not right.

[Neally]

Now perhaps you can explain why the Canadian public quietly acquiesces to this supposedly disastrous situation rather than raising holy hell with their politicians and threatening to decimate the government in an election if it doesn't do something about the problem.

Perhaps the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association sees further down the road than the average person.

[Fiona]

Now perhaps you can explain why the Canadian public quietly acquiesces to this supposedly disastrous situation rather than raising holy hell with their politicians and threatening to decimate the government in an election if it doesn't do something about the problem.

We have something of a track record of hammering governments in an election if they do something the public finds particularly egregious. Screwing up health care would certainly qualify.

You may also wish to explain why the Canadian public is, overall, satisifed with its health care system if it as "broken, imploding and unsustainable" as is being claimed. Considering that the public is at "the tip of the spear" so to speak when it comes to health care, they'd be the first ones to notice somethhing is not right.

Well that is not going to make any sense as an argument when presented to an american in the context of health care, now is it? ;)

[Praktik]

Perhaps the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association sees further down the road than the average person.

Perhaps. Perhaps his role as head of the CMA carries its own set of baggage.

[FireGarden]

Considering that the public is at "the tip of the spear" so to speak when it comes to health care, they'd be the first ones to notice somethhing is not right.

That's worse than death panels.
Help, help!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

[jimbob]

I remember the scare up here in Canada, with maybe a little bit of merit (you can find quotes if you look for em from Americans), that America might sue the Canadian government under NAFTA cause our public health care was an "anti-competitive" subsidy.

Of course if anyone ever really tried that the firestorm up here would be something to behold - but I couldn't help thinking at the time: "y'know, instead of suing us - couldn't you just provide some frickin' health care??"

But its probably better for us if they don't. After all it is a lure and there are many American companies that have moved to Canada and/or expanded operations here because they have access to pretty much an equivalent workforce in terms of culture and education - without the associated costs.
I tried to find that a few weeks back and couldn't...

Do you have any more terms for a google search/links, please?

[jimbob]

I know what the problems are with the NHS, broadly speaking.

First, it was founded on a misconception. Bevan believed that while it would be expensive at first, costs would decrease as improved preventative medicine on a population basis decreased the prevelance of disease. He had no idea of the expensive drugs and procedures that would be developed in the second half of the 20th century.

Thus there has always been a tendency for it to be underfunded. People don't like paying taxes, politicians like to promise tax cuts, and the NHS is one of the things they will squeeze to do it. To quote a doctor friend of mine, "we could do quite a lot more for quite a lot of people if we had more money." The funding dilemma is the underlying cause of the waiting lists and the "rationing" (which are nevertheless being blown up way out of all proportion by the right-wing Americans).

However, that's really about national and political will to spend the money. If you like low taxes, don't complain about waiting lists or not getting the drug you think might spin out your last few weeks by a few more weeks. Given that the USA is spending double what we're spending, it rather follows that if that money were spent efficiently, the ceiling of care for any individual should be pretty much out of sight.

The second problem is that a bureaucracy as big as the NHS inevitably tends to become unwieldy and wasteful. But again, when I look at what we actually get for our money, and the outcomes we achieve for the spending level we put in, and then I compare that to US spending and outcomes (and US bureaucracy), I realise maybe we don't have as much to complain about as all that.

Rolfe.


On the costs issue:

I believe you posted a link showing that over 30% of insurance went on overheads?

If you didn't have to cover this, because the assumption is that everyone is covered, then that is a vast improvement already.

That might be one reason why the NHS has been considered to be pretty cost-efficient amongst UHC providers.

[Praktik]

I tried to find that a few weeks back and couldn't...

Do you have any more terms for a google search/links, please?

Not without looking up old papers from school or doing some google-fu of my own

but these were fears - whether rational or not, I just remember there being a few quotes tossed around from some Republican senators that were used as the nuggets to spur these fears

[Ohmer]

The freedom of paying lower taxes.

I am a single guy making a bit more than the median income in the US. I have great health care. If I didn't have to pay for it, I could absorb an 80% increase in my federal income taxes and come out ahead.

I counted my employer's contribution when I did the math. It's money they could give me if they were not paying my premium.

Yes, I took into account that I would have to pay taxes on that money if it were given to me instead of paying my premium.

[Praktik]

I tried to find that a few weeks back and couldn't...

Do you have any more terms for a google search/links, please?

Here's a case of a canadian suing under NAFTA cause he's from BC and thinks Alberta and Quebec have better health care than BC. (http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2008/10/canadian-social.html)

This is pretty comprehensive: (http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2001/ajglob.htm)

NAFTA trod new ground by codifying investment rights and gingerly extending trade liberalization rules from goods to services, and by creating (through Chapter 11) a means through which foreign corporations could directly challenge government decisions outside of domestic legal processes (through 'investor – state' dispute settlement as opposed to GATT provisions for the resolution of 'state to state' disputes). While GATS does not have investor-state provisions, it does envisage setting up domestic tribunals to which trans-national corporations could turn for redress. Agreements have increasingly effective enforcement mechanisms, usually based on narrow constructions of rules arrived at in private sessions of trade specialists.

While the underlying presumption of these agreements is that all sectors should be liberalized and opened up to trans-national corporations and investors, exemptions are provided for in general terms and under the specific terms through which states adhere to particular agreements. In the case of GATS, the general exemption for public services is very narrow. Only services “provided in the exercise of governmental authority” are exempt in principle, and this is narrowly defined to make it clear that services provided by governments on a commercial basis, or in competition with private suppliers, are included. Under NAFTA, services such as health, education, child care, income insurance and welfare services are excluded “to the extent that they are social services established or maintained for a public purpose”. The meaning of this phrase has never been definitively established, but the position of the US government has been that, like GATS, this excludes only monopoly government services and does not exclude government services delivered in competition with the private sector.

Neither the GATS nor NAFTA general exemption are clear on the potential application of trade and investment rules to areas of mixed public, private and not-for-profit delivery. Yet health care in Canada is a mixed system, with not-for-profit hospitals and private doctors and private laboratories delivering services paid for by governments. The same can be said increasingly of education and skills training, of child care and of many community services, such as home care and elder care. The Canadian social welfare system is a patchwork of public services, private services contracted for by governments or delivered in competition with government services, and not-for-profit services provided on contract to governments or provided with the support of government grants and subsidies. While researchers have only begun to map the not-for-profit sector, it is clear that there is a range of means through which government support is provided, from grants and contributions, to subsidies, to exclusive contracts, to contracts awarded on the basis of competitive bidding (e.g. home care services in Ontario), to preferential taxation (e.g. the GST exemption for charities).

The present, commendable, position of the Government of Canada is that health and social services should be excluded from trade and investment agreements, albeit on the still untested NAFTA model. However, expert legal opinion holds that, once privatization has advanced beyond a minimal stage, the NAFTA-type exemption is likely no longer adequate. For example, if the Government of Ontario or Alberta begins to seriously experiment with delivery of public health care through private hospitals, it will be difficult if not impossible for future governments to return to a not-for-profit system without paying compensation (under Chapter 11) to US health corporations which had entered the Canadian market. Further, US health corporations, once established, could potentially claim so-called national treatment in a range of areas.

[zaphod2016]

I am a single guy making a bit more than the median income in the US. I have great health care. If I didn't have to pay for it, I could absorb an 80% increase in my federal income taxes and come out ahead.

I counted my employer's contribution when I did the math. It's money they could give me if they were not paying my premium.

Yes, I took into account that I would have to pay taxes on that money if it were given to me instead of paying my premium.

This is an excellent argument in favor of single-payer.

My only remaining concern is that of funding the program long-term. Many point to medicare as the example of what this will become. That doesn't exactly comfort me; medicare won't be able to meet current obligations with current revenues as it is.

I appreciate all the graphs, and data-driven debate.

[jimbob]

This is an excellent argument in favor of single-payer.

Yes, and it increases labour mobility because I don't need to worry about losing my employee-related health coverage. Should I wish, I can buy additional health coverage through my employer and get some tax-benefits from doing that... but I don't.

Private insurance is an employee perk in the UK.

[GreNME]

The freedom of paying lower taxes.

And make up for it in spades by paying more than most other countries in cost. Not much of a freedom there when in the end one still winds up with less money on average.

[Fiona]

It is a different kind of money though, GreNME. Did you forget?

[Ohmer]

Yes, and it increases labour mobility because I don't need to worry about losing my employee-related health coverage. Should I wish, I can buy additional health coverage through my employer and get some tax-benefits from doing that... but I don't.

Private insurance is an employee perk in the UK.

It would also alleviate the silly situation I am in now. My live in girlfriend runs her own business and makes quite a bit more than me. I will be filling out domestic partner forms and adding her to my health plan. It will reduce her premiums by about 60%. Because she is with me and I work for a large employer she will pay less than half of what she pays now. On what planet does that make sense?

My ex-sister in law's husband is a successful small business owner with a couple chronic health problems. She took a job at a bank that payed less then the cost of day care for her kids so she could insure her him. There was no other way. It is complete madness.

[oldhat]

And make up for it in spades by paying more than most other countries in cost. Not much of a freedom there when in the end one still winds up with less money on average.

It's socialist to pay less for health care.

[Rolfe]

And make up for it in spades by paying more than most other countries in cost. Not much of a freedom there when in the end one still winds up with less money on average.


You're not even paying less in tax! Or rather, you're not paying less in tax to fund healthcare. (If your taxes are less, it's some other factor making up the difference, maybe pensions or social security.)

Rolfe.

[Neally]

Perhaps. Perhaps his role as head of the CMA carries its own set of baggage.Meaning you don't agree with his assessment?

[T.A.M.]

Forget about all this. As of this evening, the word out is the White House is going to withdraw its support of a public option, and word is may even be willing to give up the "pre-existing condition" elements of the bill.

I have to say that for the first time since you elected him, I am DISAPPOINTED, DEEPLY, in president Obama.

TAM

[kellyb]

Forget about all this. As of this evening, the word out is the White House is going to withdraw its support of a public option, and word is may even be willing to give up the "pre-existing condition" elements of the bill.

I have to say that for the first time since you elected him, I am DISAPPOINTED, DEEPLY, in president Obama.

TAM

Where did you hear that?
Are you talking about how they might "compromise" and work out a public option as an emergency measure if the insurance companies can't control costs on their own?
Because IMO, a "trigger compromise" is just a brief delay in getting the public option.
Insurance companies can't control costs. Their whole raison d'être is to make as much money as they possibly can. It's literally illegal in the US for their bigwig decision makers to go against that "prime directive".
IF...and it's a helluva big if, they somehow are able to reduce prices and quit screwing people on their own, well, I'll congratulate them. But that's really about as plausible of a scenario as quantum entanglement making water a magic therapeutic elixir.

I'd rather get the public option now, of course, but having it in place and waiting is better than passing nothing and watching the system go gown in flames before real reform happens.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where did you hear that?
Are you talking about how they might "compromise" and work out a public option as an emergency measure if the insurance companies can't control costs on their own?

Even so, I thought the public option and insurance reform was already a compromise from what makes most sense, a single payer system.

Disappointing news.

[T.A.M.]

Where did you hear that?
Are you talking about how they might "compromise" and work out a public option as an emergency measure if the insurance companies can't control costs on their own?
Because IMO, a "trigger compromise" is just a brief delay in getting the public option.
Insurance companies can't control costs. Their whole raison d'être is to make as much money as they possibly can. It's literally illegal in the US for their bigwig decision makers to go against that "prime directive".
IF...and it's a helluva big if, they somehow are able to reduce prices and quit screwing people on their own, well, I'll congratulate them. But that's really about as plausible of a scenario as quantum entanglement making water a magic therapeutic elixir.

I'd rather get the public option now, of course, but having it in place and waiting is better than passing nothing and watching the system go gown in flames before real reform happens.

At this point there are multiple messages out of the WH. Some are, as you say, considering Olympia Snowe's suggestion of a delayed, triggered public option.

Other reports are coming out indicating that the public option, at least in terms of the WH pushing for it, will be dropped, as possibly the "insurance with a pre-existing condition" option will be as well.

My source was MSNBC last PM.

The progressive caucus sent a letter to the WH indicating that this "trigger" option will not fly, and that their 80 something votes will vote against such a compromise.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Even so, I thought the public option and insurance reform was already a compromise from what makes most sense, a single payer system.

Disappointing news.

It was. Ask Congressman Weiner.

Like I said, Obama is now starting to truly disappoint me. It started with his inability (or lack of desire) to articulate what they were actually proposing for American Health Reform, and has now reached a moment of true disappointment, with their,

"any bill is better then no bill" cave in to the loud mouth idiots on the right.

TAM:)

[Praktik]

Meaning you don't agree with his assessment?

Meaning I'm not sure we can conclude based on this perspective that his evaluations are what we should be basing policy on.

Perhaps informing policy, I could agree with that..;)

[T.A.M.]

Where did you hear that?
Are you talking about how they might "compromise" and work out a public option as an emergency measure if the insurance companies can't control costs on their own?
Because IMO, a "trigger compromise" is just a brief delay in getting the public option.
Insurance companies can't control costs. Their whole raison d'être is to make as much money as they possibly can. It's literally illegal in the US for their bigwig decision makers to go against that "prime directive".
IF...and it's a helluva big if, they somehow are able to reduce prices and quit screwing people on their own, well, I'll congratulate them. But that's really about as plausible of a scenario as quantum entanglement making water a magic therapeutic elixir.

I'd rather get the public option now, of course, but having it in place and waiting is better than passing nothing and watching the system go gown in flames before real reform happens.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#32682257

Video for the #5 story. Take a listen.

TAM:)

Edit:

Also, there is this.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/04/cnn-national-political-correspondent-jessica-yellin-and-cnn-senior-political-analyst-gloria-borger/

I suspect that this "bill" the WH is now drafting, will be full of compromise, and will essentially be health insurance reform, and not likely good reform even at that.

I HOPE I AM WRONG...

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

Perhaps the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association sees further down the road than the average person.


Ah, so in another words, the system is not actually "broken, imploding and unsustainable" as you stated, but rather it may become "broken, imploding and unsustainable" at a future point if it is allowed to come to that.

Bit of a different thing from what your post implied.

[kellyb]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#32682257

Video for the #5 story. Take a listen.

TAM:)

Edit:

Also, there is this.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/04/cnn-national-political-correspondent-jessica-yellin-and-cnn-senior-political-analyst-gloria-borger/

I suspect that this "bill" the WH is now drafting, will be full of compromise, and will essentially be health insurance reform, and not likely good reform even at that.

I HOPE I AM WRONG...

TAM:)

I don't have audio on my computer, but the second link says/speculates that the POTUS is leaning towards getting some republicans on board with the "public plan, after a trigger" option.
I don't mind that. In fact, it's kinda perfect. I'd rather there not be a delay, but if a mere delay will provide concensus in the US, so be it.
Also, reforms preventing insurance companies from denying care and coverage based on pre-existing conditions is going to raise premiums considerably. So this way, we'll get the public option (soonish) and Obama will come out of the deal untarnished (relatively).

[kellyb]

The progressive caucus sent a letter to the WH indicating that this "trigger" option will not fly, and that their 80 something votes will vote against such a compromise.

TAM:)

Also...on this...

If the trigger option is the new plan, the prez will probably have a heart-to-heart with the progressive caucus at some point.
I almost wonder if some in the progressive caucus might be faking their disdain for a trigger option. Sort of a "please don't throw me in the brier patch!" kind of thing.
:cool:

[leftysergeant]

What Obama and the democrats don't see seems obvious to me: The majority of Americans don't want health care reform.

So? A big sector of the population didn't want desegregation, either.

Do the majority of Americans REALLY want to pay over a grand a month knowing that they might not get anything for it when they do get sick?

Sometimes people just need to be told that they have bought a lemon and that that lemoin has been recalled.

The only freedom lost will be the freedom of the investor class to squeeze money out of the working class for nothing.

[Neally]

Ah, so in another words, the system is not actually "broken, imploding and unsustainable" as you stated, but rather it may become "broken, imploding and unsustainable" at a future point if it is allowed to come to that.

Bit of a different thing from what your post implied.This is my speculation as to why the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association holds this view in response to a question as to why the public doesn't have the same view. He sees it as broken, imploding and unsustainable. Perhaps he knows more about it's structure and weaknesses than the average person. He didn't say it may become those things, he said it is. Definitely raises a red flag in my mind.

So? A big sector of the population didn't want desegregation, either.

Do the majority of Americans REALLY want to pay over a grand a month knowing that they might not get anything for it when they do get sick?
I wouldn't say that the public doesn't want health care reform. Polls show that it does. It's just that the Obamacare that Congress has come up with has failed on many levels to be embraced by the public. Now Obama is threatening to come up with his own version to address the problems with the congressional version.

[WildCat]

It's just that the Obamacare that Congress has come up with has failed on many levels to be embraced by the public. Now Obama is threatening to come up with his own version to address the problems with the congressional version.
So why are you calling it "Obamacare" instead of "Congresscare"?

To me, anyone who is using the term "Obamacare" is needlessly politicizing the debate. It tells me you are simply a knee-jerk anti-Obama reactionary, rather than someone who is against the proposal for practical reasons. Particularly when you failed to come up with any solutions yourself, other than your bizarre and draconian idea to enforce some sort of moral code of conduct through the denial of health care.

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association sees further down the road than the average person.

This is my speculation as to why the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association holds this view in response to a question as to why the public doesn't have the same view. He sees it as broken, imploding and unsustainable. Perhaps he knows more about it's structure and weaknesses than the average person. He didn't say it may become those things, he said it is. Definitely raises a red flag in my mind.

Speaking as a member of the CMA, and a practicing (9 years now) Canadian Physician, I can speak to the comments made.

There are problems with the Canadian system...for sure. However, it has been here a long time, and I think any physician, incoming president or other wise, is speaking with hyperbole when they say "imploding and unsustainable."

Our system, like any system, has faults, and some of ours are:

1. Inadequate sharing of resources
2. Exodus of manpower (MD, Nurse, Pharmacist) to the USA (they do pay better).
3. Severe hurdles for foreign graduates (IMGs) to enter the system.
4. A strong lobbying movement against reform (yes we could use some reform, namely to create a two tier system).

Now many Canadians, and even many Canadian Doctors, will call me a monster for suggesting a two tier system, but it would provide much needed relief on our single payer, govt pays system. Two shorter wait lists are better than one long one...if people can pay on their own for that CT, then let them...that takes them out of the existing line they are already in and makes a new one.

TAM:)

[skeptical]

I would not normally say this, as I try my best to always think there is something to be said for both sides of any argument, but I think the time for compromise is over.

No Republican in the Senate is going to vote for a serious reform bill, they're just not. Its time to go scorched earth and pass a bill with a public option. The Dems have a fillibuster proof majority, they need to go and make it happen however they have to do it. In a few years when the reforms have kicked in, no one will remember the bodies that had to be run over to get it done. All they will remember is that they have healthcare and its better than what they had before.

I have to agree with Bill Maher, Obama needs to channel Bush (in this situation) and tell the Dems what to do and get it done. Be "the decider": threaten, cajole, influence, whatever it takes. This needs to get done and none of the Republicans are going to help.

[thaiboxerken]

I agree, skeptical. However, getting democrats to all be in the same boat is like herding cats.

[Fiona]

This is not my issue, not being american. But am I to take from this that the President cannot command the support of his party on this issue? Was it not a manifesto pledge? ( I understand that those do not exist in the same way in america, but there must be some version surely: else how can you decide how to vote?)

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is not my issue, not being american. But am I to take from this that the President cannot command the support of his party on this issue?
The short answer is no.

Was it not a manifesto pledge? ( I understand that those do not exist in the same way in america, but there must be some version surely: else how can you decide how to vote?)
In fact, the Democratic majority owes itself, in part, to the party's courting "moderate" candidates and winning seats in areas that previously went to Republicans. (In cruder language: the Democrats got their majority, in part, by backing candidates whose views have a lot in common with Republican platforms.)

I do believe there is a real majority in favor of healthcare reform of some sort, but I don't think there is a majority that agrees on any specific plan yet. I expect the grandstanding and politicking and negotiating and trading favors will continue until there is one bill that a majority can agree on.

As an aside, I wouldn't want my elected representatives to vote the party line no matter what they actually think is right. Otherwise, we might as well do away with these offices and just have an automatic voting system where voters have the choice of a party (and not a candidate), and every vote in Congress (which could then exist without Congresspersons) follows those party lines.

Since we actually elect people to fill these offices, I think they should use their minds and consciences to legislate (and negotiate and all that goes with it) rather than just being a placeholder for a partisan vote.

[Fiona]

Ok, thanks JoeTheJuggler.

I think you have a misundestanding about manifesto pledges but it is off topic here so I will shut up now :)

[MIKILLINI]

. US companies operating in the global marketplace are complaining that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign companies which don't have to shoulder the burden of these excessive healthcare costs.

Now maybe it's really true that the country that put a man (several men, come to that) on the moon is really too incompetent to manage what everybody else seems to accomplish with a fair degree of success. God knows, our politicians are no better than they should be, either.

But you know what? I think even you guys can't possibly have what it would take to reform this system, and make it even worse.

Rolfe.

Actually the closest the U.S. has come to universal healthcare was in '71 with Ted Kennedy and Martha Griffiths (D-Mich.) leading the way. This Health Security Act or more known as the Kennedy-Griffiths bill, if passed, made health care a human right and divorced health care from employment status for good. This bill specified the single payer type system. Even though I was only 12 at the time, I do remember the labor unions supported this bill.

Kennedy faced off against President Richard Nixon’s health care plan and claimed that Nixon's “would provide the insurance industry with a windfall of billions of dollars annually.” Which, I feel, is the correct assesment then and now.

I don't know the reason why Kennedy gave up on this bill, but it appears as though he did when he sponsored another called the Mills-Kennedy bill that threw out the single payer option.

It maintained the link between employment and insurance, didn’t include the entire population and required those with coverage to shoulder much of the expense of basic medical care through high deductibles and co-pays.

So there is a model for Obama, but he is not using it. Things will continue as they are with big Pharma and insurance companies steering the process behind the scenes, so to speak.
The ones who fear this Obama bill the most are the ederly, because many of them believe they will be less considered in the debate.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would not normally say this, as I try my best to always think there is something to be said for both sides of any argument, but I think the time for compromise is over.
I agree. A public option was a second best compromise rather than single payer. Proponents of reform (mostly the Dems) have got to bring the discussion back to where it should be. If we take the public option off the table it should be for sake of promoting a single payer system.

If opponents of reform complain that Obama's ideas won't feasibly cut costs, we should propose a single payer system.

The Dems have a fillibuster proof majority, they need to go and make it happen however they have to do it.
I wish it were so, but I don't think it is.

I think the Blue Dogs are barely on board with the public option and aren't likely to vote for cloture on a fillibuster. In the Senate, with Kennedy's death the Dems don't have the necessary 60 votes even if they'd all vote for cloture.

[volatile]

From another thread: Why? Be specific in what "independence" you imagine you will be losing...



"20 ways Obamacare will take away our freedoms"
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms


*I eagerly wait to see if the 20 points will be discussed, of if the source will be attacked.

[Juniversal]

So why are you calling it "Obamacare" instead of "Congresscare"?

To me, anyone who is using the term "Obamacare" is needlessly politicizing the debate. It tells me you are simply a knee-jerk anti-Obama reactionary, rather than someone who is against the proposal for practical reasons. Particularly when you failed to come up with any solutions yourself, other than your bizarre and draconian idea to enforce some sort of moral code of conduct through the denial of health care.You make a great point. I agree. Health care reform doesn't start and end with Obama.

[Unabogie]

From another thread:


1. You are young and don't support the Iraq war? Tough, you have to pay billions a month to support that war.

2. You are an entrepreneur against torture? Tough, you have to pay billions a month to support Bush's...



Oh wait, I guess taxes in support right wing endeavors are patriotic

[Fishstick]

"You are young and don't need health insurance"

I forgot how young people never get into accidents or unexpected medical costs.

[Upchurch]

"You are young and don't need health insurance"

I forgot how young people never get into accidents or unexpected medical costs.
Ah, the freedom to be young and stupid at other people's expense.

Call it "the Stupid Tax".

[Fishstick]

I know! When I was young I was constantly tossing myself into harm's way, since we have UHC here. Buses, trams, bridges - you name it, I tried to get injured on it, after all, it's free!
This way we got some excitement before putting to work in government factories and finally being put to death by a panel, after being forced to observe several late term abortions.

[Upchurch]

Think of it this way:

A young and healthy idiot decides he doesn't need health insurance and, like a moron, refuses to buy it. And then, through no fault of his own, he finds himself in a terrible car crash one day. He is rushed to the hospital and racks up a good, let say, $500,000 in medical goods and services.

Being young, stupid, now hurt, and without insurance, there is no way our hero can pay back his medical expenses. At a young age, he is forced into bankruptcy and the hospital is stuck with the loss.

OR ARE THEY? The hospital is a business, after all. With no way to recoup the cost from our idiot hero, they pass the cost along to the rest of us in the form of raised costs.

So, freedoms usually go to the point that they infringe on other people's freedoms. An idiot is free to be as much of an idiot as he likes, but when he forces other people to pay for it, that is no longer his right.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

20 ways ObamaCare will take away freedom.

I do not agree with this article, but post it to show some of the opposition's points...which I think are wrong.

[volatile]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

20 ways ObamaCare will take away freedom.

I do not agree with this article, but post it to show some of the opposition's points...which I think are wrong.

I already posted that on the last page!