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

[mookie1995]

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

Rasmussen today tells us 78% of responders want the to BUY the same plan that congress gets.

Seems easy enough. Right?

Already in place. Just add names and doctors.

 

[unofan]

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

You're reading WAY more into that post then I actually said. The dichotomy is with liberals, who by definition are proponents of a big and inefficient government, claiming they can rid a sector of our lives of inefficiencies with a big and inefficient government program. And perhaps I could have worded my post better in that regard.

There's two issues at work, one is providing universal coverage, the other is cost containment. The government can certainly fix the former, and frankly is something that ultimately it should fix; the latter one is the trickier part. Mixing the two together leads to things like Death Panels!!!***OMG!!!

I also wish people would stop intermixing the terms universal insurance and universal coverage.

Insurance is something you buy hoping to never need (fire insurance, auto insurance, etc.). We do this because it's generally better for all if everyone pays a little at a time in order to protect against an unforseen cataclysmic event. This is why pre-existing conditions cannot and should not be covered by health insurance; you can't get fire insurance after your house has already burned down, you shouldn't be able to get health insurance for your broken arm after it's already broken.

But that doesn't mean pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered or treated by something. Just that you shouldn't be calling it insurance at that point, because then you're not insuring against an unforseen future, you're seeking coverage for an already present ailment.

Frankly, I think the government should provide some basic level of service, and pay for it through a medicare-type tax on all incomes. That's the only way you'll get universal coverage of everyone without bankrupting hospitals, which frankly needs to happen. Beyond that basic level, health insurance providers should be able to compete however they wish to provide supplementary care/expedited services/etc. for those who wish to pay for them.

It'd also be nice if you could charge fat people or smokers or others who mistreat their own bodies higher premiums, similar to how reckless drivers face higher auto premiums. I suppose you can do that by raising cigerette taxes in conjunction with any health care bill; not sure how you'd get after the obese, though.

 

[Kepler]

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

not sure how you'd get after the obese, though.

A leisurely walk should do it.

 

[moe24]

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

Many things are more efficient the bigger you get.

Never said one necessarily caused the other.

that in and of itself is not a reason to oppose oversight and regulation.

I'm not in the least bit opposed to oversight and regulation. But I am opposed to legislation that does nothing more then look good to the extremists of a political base, but that doesn't actually fix anything.

 

[Kepler]

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

I'm not in the least bit opposed to oversight and regulation. But I am opposed to legislation that does nothing more then look good to the extremists of a political base, but that doesn't actually fix anything.

The extremists are against the plan as being watered-down and co-opted in order to gain passage. Obama's biggest (well, rational) critics are coming from his left over his willingness to back off the public option.

What's going to "look good" is when people don't lose their insurance when they lose their job and people who have pre-existing conditions or lower incomes can get care without going to an emergency room. And yes that will look very good.

Now, that may be more expensive than the current situation. I suspect it will be (although it won't be more expensive per person covered). But it isn't by any measure "out there," unless anything short of constant pandering to the Deathers is considered "extreme."

 

[moe24]

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

Insurance is something you buy hoping to never need (fire insurance, auto insurance, etc.). We do this because it's generally better for all if everyone pays a little at a time in order to protect against an unforseen cataclysmic event. This is why pre-existing conditions cannot and should not be covered by health insurance; you can't get fire insurance after your house has already burned down, you shouldn't be able to get health insurance for your broken arm after it's already broken.

Right here you get to the heart of something that has bugged me for a long time. IMO we, as a nation, need a philosophical shift in health care from the idea of insurance to the idea of coverage. As you said, insurance is bought "just in case" with the hope that "just in case" never happens; but in health care, as they say, "prevention is the best medicine."

 

[Kepler]

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

Right here you get to the heart of something that has bugged me for a long time. IMO we, as a nation, need a philosophical shift in health care from the idea of insurance to the idea of coverage. As you said, insurance is bought "just in case" with the hope that "just in case" never happens; but in health care, as they say, "prevention is the best medicine."

You can have both. You insure your house against fire but you also have extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc.

 

[unofan]

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

You can have both. You insure your house against fire but you also have extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc.

Yeah, but you can't add insurance when the fire's already going.

In health care terms, insurance should be for cataclysmic events like paralysis caused by an auto accident or a freak heart attack.

For day to day stuff like getting your immunizations or treatment for chronic arthritis, we aren't talking about insurance anymore, but coverage.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

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

Yeah, but you can't add insurance when the fire's already going.

But can your insurance company drop you while your house is on fire?

If you say "no", then you're a communist.

 

[unofan]

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

But can your insurance company drop you while your house is on fire?

If you say "no", then you're a communist.

No, but they can limit your claim to the policy's limit and refuse to insure you if you rebuild.

And more to the point, fires are one-off events, generally. But that gets back to the difference between insurance and coverage. In health care, we claim we want insurance when what we really want is coverage.

 

[Kepler]

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

But can your insurance company drop you while your house is on fire?

This is why we can't allow government to infringe on fire insurance. If insurance companies can't drop you when your house is on fire, then nobody will go into insurance!

 

[ScottM]

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

The GOP has authored 3 bills in congress. Unfortunately, they haven't gotten much coverage.

Great. Who's been championing them? It seems like Snowe has a better platform to push some positive changes, such as malpractice reform and some market-based solutions with Max Baucus and Ben Nelson than Mitch McConnell.

 

[moe24]

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

The extremists are against the plan as being watered-down and co-opted in order to gain passage. Obama's biggest (well, rational) critics are coming from his left over his willingness to back off the public option.

What's going to "look good" is when people don't lose their insurance when they lose their job and people who have pre-existing conditions or lower incomes can get care without going to an emergency room. And yes that will look very good.

Now, that may be more expensive than the current situation. I suspect it will be (although it won't be more expensive per person covered). But it isn't by any measure "out there," unless anything short of constant pandering to the Deathers is considered "extreme."

I would say both the "Deathers" and those insisting on an additional public option are extremes. While the "Deathers" is obvious, the other side doesn't want to admit that there are systemic problems with our heath care system (some of which you have mentioned and I agree with) that can be fixed without adding another public option to the crappy one that already exists. And reality is, that additional public plan would be nothing more then a dumping ground for cheap employers looking for any excuse to drop health care coverage from their employee compensation.

 

[unofan]

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

And reality is, that additional public plan would be nothing more then a dumping ground for cheap employers looking for any excuse to drop health care coverage from their employee compensation.

Which is pretty much how it would have naturally occured anyway except for the historical accident that was the World War II wage freeze.

So, the moral of the story it, it's all FDR's fault.

 

[moe24]

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

You can have both. You insure your house against fire but you also have extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc.

That's a good point. Problem is the insurance industry doesn't want to recognize they are also in the "coverage" industry. They treat preventative measures as if they are an after the fact reaction to a previous problem. They say, "do you really need a yearly physical or can we force you to only get that physical every 3 years and in the mean time only allow you to see the doctor AFTER a problem occurs?"

 

[Kepler]

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

the other side doesn't want to admit that there are systemic problems with our heath care system (some of which you have mentioned and I agree with) that can be fixed without adding another public option to the crappy one that already exists. And reality is, that additional public plan would be nothing more then a dumping ground for cheap employers looking for any excuse to drop health care coverage from their employee compensation.

I don't think that will be the only result of a public plan, although certainly some of that will happen. That would make premium plans less expensive, BTW. High risk / high expense / low income ("outcast") customers would move onto the public plan, and the private premium plans would compete for higher income customers by diversifying their offerings and undercutting each other's price position. Result: more choice.

To be fair, I don't know that the overall cost would go down, though, since in addition to your private plan you'd also have the tax burden of a public plan with nobody paying user fees and thus funded by some sort of revenue device like a tax. But the result for the standard of care would be a health care floor without lowering the ceiling.

I also suspect the true "extremists" on Obama's left know very well that the health care system has fundamental problems. Their solutions aren't likely to meet with a fiscal conservative's approval any more than a public option, however.

 

[Kepler]

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

Great. Who's been championing them? It seems like Snowe has a better platform to push some positive changes, such as malpractice reform and some market-based solutions with Max Baucus and Ben Nelson than Mitch McConnell.

The worst thing that could happen to the GOP would be bringing the stalking horse bills to a vote. They're a diversionary tactic, not a serious plan. It happens whenever one of their prime donor groups goes on the block (oil, defense contracting, big pharm, cancer sticks, etc).

Reid should offer McConnell to trade a straight up-and-down vote on both the D plan and any of the R plans. That would end that charade in about thirty seconds. It's pure GOP obstruction -- same ****, different bill. The Dems just need to call them on it.

 

[moe24]

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

The worst thing that could happen to the GOP would be bringing the stalking horse bills to a vote. They're a diversionary tactic, not a serious plan. It happens whenever one of their prime donor groups goes on the block (oil, defense contracting, big pharm, cancer sticks, etc).

Reid should offer McConnell to trade a straight up-and-down vote on both the D plan and any of the R plans. That would end that charade in about thirty seconds. It's pure GOP obstruction -- same ****, different bill. The Dems just need to call them on it.

WOW! You and I agree 100% on something. The old time conservatives would be spinning in their graves if they knew what the GOP has turned into.

 

[mookie1995]

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

Seriously. Why did the D need to horse trade? They had 60 votes.

Bring the bill and vote

 

[Bill]

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

Seriously. Why did the D need to horse trade? They had 60 votes.

Bring the bill and vote

Several of those Ds would like to get re-elected and they have been hearing from a lot of their constituents that don't want government run health care/insurance.