What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

leswp1 said:
Does anyone have a good link how other countries handle the LT care thing?
Click to expand...


I really wonder in how many countries the normal way of handling long term care for seniors is essentially the way it was done in this country up until about 30-40 years ago -- they're cared for at home.

As America moved off the farm, women started working outside the home and institutions were developed to "ease" the care of the elderly and disabled, it became a lot easier to garage grandma at the local rest home than to take care of her yourself. But the cost of that "luxury" has become apparent.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

The Exiled One said:
So if you don't get sick... keep your money. If you do get sick... say goodbye to your money. Does that pretty much sum up how you feel?
Click to expand...
Basically. Although if you don't get sick, you're free to spend it on other things (vacations, etc...). I mean, isn't that the whole point of saving? Putting something away for a rainy day?
The Exiled One said:
If yes, then would you also agree that a cash only system would align with your views and also be extrodinarily less expensive?
Click to expand...
A cash system would certainly drive down prices, no question. But I have no problem with people purchasing insurance to "insure" themselves against certain risks, whether it's fire in the home, a car accident, long term care needs or even medical expenses.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

SJHovey said:
Basically. Although if you don't get sick, you're free to spend it on other things (vacations, etc...). I mean, isn't that the whole point of saving? Putting something away for a rainy day?
A cash system would certainly drive down prices, no question. But I have no problem with people purchasing insurance to "insure" themselves against certain risks, whether it's fire in the home, a car accident, long term care needs or even medical expenses.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're on board with my first truth about health care insurance; that In anything other than a cash system, most people will never get back more in services than they contributed in premiums.

In which case, the second truth logically follows; that the largest group of insured individuals will be able to negotiate the lowest health care rates. Agreed?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

SJHovey said:
I really wonder in how many countries the normal way of handling long term care for seniors is essentially the way it was done in this country up until about 30-40 years ago -- they're cared for at home.
Click to expand...

Extended families are a feature in many European countries, especially in rural areas. But I always favored the idea of putting the oldsters on an ice floe ... :eek: ;)
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

SJHovey said:
I really wonder in how many countries the normal way of handling long term care for seniors is essentially the way it was done in this country up until about 30-40 years ago -- they're cared for at home.

As America moved off the farm, women started working outside the home and institutions were developed to "ease" the care of the elderly and disabled, it became a lot easier to garage grandma at the local rest home than to take care of her yourself. But the cost of that "luxury" has become apparent.
Click to expand...

I believe the idea that women were only at home until recently is a fallacy unless you were very well off. Many women and men worked outside of the home or ran businesses from within or in close proximity to the home. The community and extended family network was much more extensive. Also it seems most folks worked or participated in some manner until they died from what I see when doing my family geneology stuff. They may have stopped working in strenuous jobs it seems they didn't do the leisure thing as much as now. Now we have a lot of folks who move 1K miles away from all support systems and yikes when they start to fail.

This still does not address the thing about people who need a lot of long term medical care.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Nice analysis of how the "reform" advocates overplayed their hand, and seemed to have misjudged their abilities.

The public-option was an article of faith for many in the alliance, but the focus groups' reactions were sobering. Skepticism ran high. The chief worry: Giving access to inexpensive government insurance to America's 46 million uninsured would boost costs, or reduce care, for those who were already insured.

When pollsters told the advocacy groups the public option probably wouldn't fly, they were told to paper over the problem with a better "message," according to a participant in the project.
Click to expand...

They expended great effort to line up the support of health-care insurers, pharmaceutical makers and care providers, believing that by keeping them around the table, they could win over Republicans and stop the kind of industry-led attacks that helped sink the Clinton plan. But this strategy left out the wooing of public opinion, which was being affected by broader events, including the economic crisis and anger over bank bailouts.
Click to expand...

The president's focus on wooing groups often brought fewer benefits than he expected. The seniors' lobby AARP backed him, but that prompted loud complaints from AARP members worried about Medicare cuts. The American Medical Association's cautious backing was countered by state doctors' groups opposed to a public health plan.
Click to expand...

What Democrats want now, they say, is a big assist from Mr. Obama. "There is no way we are going to get this passed without the energetic, concentrated attention of the president," said Rep. Welch. "He is going to have to weigh in on the details, and do so loudly."
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193901923781757.html
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Very good analysis. I think the biggest problem here is the notion that passing health care reform would be easy. Most of the press coverage pre-August was about missed deadlines. While that's all well and good, and dealines are necessary (a correct lesson learned from the Clinton effort) the point needed to get across that this was the biggest domestic policy undertaking since the 1960's. For example, I'm not aware of any other policy changes that need 6 Congressional committees to draft their own bills on.

The second part of this is while I don't think people like Rahm Emmanuel underestimated how much avowed opponents of Obama would resist this, I do think they overestimated how many Republicans they'd be able to get aboard. Really, look at the stimulus. That should have been the blueprint for the vote counting on health care reform. The way the country is set up now, Republican federal office holders come from very conservative districts with few exceptions (again - Snowe, Collins in the Senate - Voinovich maybe and then Castle and a few others in the House). Anybody sorta moderate either got taken out in the 06 and 08 waves, or taken out by the Club for Growth and their ilk. I realize Obama strived to be a "different kind of President" but the current roster of the GOP, rightly or wrongly, has a vested interest in voting against this - their own political survival.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

leswp1 said:
I believe the idea that women were only at home until recently is a fallacy unless you were very well off.
Click to expand...

This is one of the very few times being married to a Women's Studies professor is an asset.

You are completely correct: other than the leisure class, the only time and place in history where women were free to be at home raising kids and doing household work was a brief blip in the western world between the 40's and the 70's. Before then the vast majority of women did fulltime, laborious, repetitive work in homespun industry, out-of-home tasks (secretarial, janitorial, child care) and even farm labor. Wife as pretty parasite was a very brief moment in time.

The main difference between The Vast Then and The Recent Now is that kids are no longer expected to do meaningful work and bring money into the home. The new parasites are teens, not wives.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Kepler said:
This is one of the very few times being married to a Women's Studies professor is an asset.

You are completely correct: other than the leisure class, the only time and place in history where women were free to be at home raising kids and doing household work was a brief blip in the western world between the 40's and the 70's. Before then the vast majority of women did fulltime, laborious, repetitive work in homespun industry, out-of-home tasks (secretarial, janitorial, child care) and even farm labor. Wife as pretty parasite was a very brief moment in time.

The main difference between The Vast Then and The Recent Now is that kids are no longer expected to do meaningful work and bring money into the home. The new parasites are teens, not wives.
Click to expand...

Only a few times?:p True about the teen parasites that turn into the 'just a kid, still' 20 something parasites....
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

so how are all these peeps who can't afford insurance going to foot the $3800 fines for not buying insurance?!?!?!!:eek: :cool: :rolleyes: :p :confused:
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

mookie, just ask Massachusetts. The idea behind the system is flawless - it's bipartisan!
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

mookie1995 said:
so how are all these peeps who can't afford insurance going to foot the $3800 fines for not buying insurance?!?!?!!:eek: :cool: :rolleyes: :p :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, see, once we have National Health Care, see, the corporations will stop acting all corporation-y, and um, the economy, and then...um...um...FREE PONIES FOR ALL!!!
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

mookie1995 said:
so how are all these peeps who can't afford insurance going to foot the $3800 fines for not buying insurance?!?!?!!:eek: :cool: :rolleyes: :p :confused:
Click to expand...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YWyCCJ6B2WE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YWyCCJ6B2WE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

leswp1 said:
It is cheaper than buying the insurance.
Click to expand...

But how does that change the fact that some of the people won't have money in their budgets for it? Earning four times the poverty line in this country doesn't really mean much, depending upon where you're located. $50K/year is much different in Jackson, Mississippi than New York City.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

St. Clown said:
But how does that change the fact that some of the people won't have money in their budgets for it? Earning four times the poverty line in this country doesn't really mean much, depending upon where you're located. $50K/year is much different in Jackson, Mississippi than New York City.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Somewhere back a 'few pages' I said something similar only much less succinctly. In Mass people can't afford the plans floated so they make a gamble and pay the fine. Ridiculous but true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top