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

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

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

But this doesn't say anything about doctors or the government deciding. It says they provide information so people know what their options are - options that are already out there (living wills, hospice care, etc.) but that people may simply not be aware of. Sure, there's the possibility that some doctors may say "well, you know, you really should fill out a DNR in case X happens," but those same doctors are already out there giving that advice to patients anyway (whether this is right or wrong is besides the point), so the bill has nothing to do with it. Personally, I think it's good for people to know what their options are. If you're morally opposed to, say, removing life support, then these consultations will be just as valuable to you to learn how to make sure that doesn't happen if you're incapacitated. Further, if you provide elderly patients with information about the ways in which they can make their wishes known, you reduce the potential for conflict among relatives who might otherwise fight over how an unforeseen situation should be handled.

Those are my thoughts on it, but there are going to be MANY people who think of any form of federal regulation on healthcare- regardless of what the law actually is- and immediately jump to this kind of reaction:

Obama now decides who lives or dies....he IS powerful!

I'm not picking on Priceless or even taking his comment seriously (I don't show up in political threads enough to know where you actually stand, though I'm assuming the comment was facetious), but that's just the sort of reaction that cannot be avoided. There's no point in trying to change the mind of someone who assumes that any sort of federal health care law is tantamount to saying that the government will now decide when you can die. It's just as useless as trying to argue with someone who tries to tell you that the government is trying to control your life because they want you to pay taxes.

 

[Rover]

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

When I was diagnosed a nurse asked if I wanted to make out a living will. I admit I was a little preoccupied at the time, so it was a good reminder. It's now on file at local hospitals, MGH, my doctor and I have a copy. If that nurse hadn't asked me about it, I doubt I would have thought of it. If something had gone wrong, my wishes would still be carried out. If that equals state-run euthanasia, somehow I slipped through the cracks.

No no no, actually signing that document was a government mandate that gives them the right to cancel your @ ss as soon as you start costing the gubmint too much money. Gotta read the fine print, or if you're preoccupied just listen to conservatives. You know you can trust them....

 

[Priceless]

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

I have to laugh at the strawman arguments out here. A few more of them and we'll have enough hay to feed a dozen horses.

Who said anything about setting up a single payer system in these health care proposals like in other countries?

Or, where does it say that doctors decide who dies?

I think we all could use some references to see where these proposals are...

We'll copy the worst of each plan and make that law. We won't look at...like, every other industrialized nation in the world, and copy the BEST of each plan. No, we'll copy the worst.

Why? Because Americans are stupid.

 

[Red Cloud]

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

The undisputed king of strawman arguments complains about strawman arguments.

Best. Thread. Evah.

 

[Rover]

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

The undisputed king of strawman arguments complains about strawman arguments.

Best. Thread. Evah.

I noticed you didn't take the time to answer how the current health care proposals will make the US system like Canada's.

Of course, you were probably "distracted" by thoughts of your fellow conservative posters, a fact that was established earlier in this thread...

 

[geezer]

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

I thought it was funny where some honesty accidently slipped into the lies:

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." - BaRx Obama

 

[unh_hockey]

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

We just need to look at the other countries where socialized medicine has been WILDLY successful and just do what they're doing. Canada and the UK keep popping up.

but, but I keep hearing about how long the lines are, how crappy the treatment is, and how people can't pick their own doctors! Oddly enough, the only people I hear that from are my American friends, not my European ones.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

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

The 'Advanced Care Planning' being discussed includes 'pallative care' - treating the pain but ignoring the underlying condition, expecially in older people. Letting the old, very sick, etc. die, in other words. All in the name of lower cost health care.

I got this before the original poster deleted it...

Here's what I want to know about this line of argument:

1- Why is it presumed that treatment is going to be refused?
2- How is this different from what happens with HMOs?

 

[jmh]

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

The 'Advanced Care Planning' being discussed includes 'pallative care' - treating the pain but ignoring the underlying condition, expecially in older people. Letting the old, very sick, etc. die, in other words. All in the name of lower cost health care.

But again, the excerpted passage* covers providing patients with information about palliative care. It doesn't provide physicians with the authority to decide to administer (is that the right word?) palliative care rather than treating underlying conditions on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis or any other standard.


* If there are other sections in the bill that vest more decisionmaking power in doctors, that's a separate issue - it's 1,000 pages long and I'd be lying if I said I'd read the whole thing.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

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

Plus, I don't understand the relevance of Pallative Care being cheaper than in depth treatment as an argument against federated health care. Isn't it always cheaper?

 

[ScottM]

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

We'll copy the worst of each plan and make that law. We won't look at...like, every other industrialized nation in the world, and copy the BEST of each plan. No, we'll copy the worst.

Why? Because Americans are stupid.

I think a large part of the Adminstration's problems in pushing this are due to the fact they effectively delegated their ideas to Congress with very few specifics at the start. Never a good idea. How many times have they waffled on taxation of insurance benefits or the "wealthy", etc.? Moreover, I think the lack of specifics as far as costs, coverage, "waste", is making people very wary.

 

[Slap Shot]

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

We just need to look at the other countries where socialized medicine has been WILDLY successful and just do what they're doing. Canada and the UK keep popping up.

I agree with the essence of what you are saying. I’m not against the goal – it’s honorable to want health care for all. However I question the scope, the viability, the necessity, the prospects for success but more importantly how it will be paid for and at what cost to our future. As of right now it seems people want to press the vote in order to pass legislation that may not work.
And every liberal that ragged on the Bush administration for borrowing this country into a financial toilet should be screaming that we need to scrutinize the hell out of this package before there’s a vote.

 

[Red Cloud]

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

I noticed you didn't take the time to answer how the current health care proposals will make the US system like Canada's.

That's probably because I didn't claim that it WOULD, only that we SHOULD. We SHOULD totally make it like Canada's.

 

[Red Cloud]

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

I agree with the essence of what you are saying. I’m not against the goal – it’s honorable to want health care for all.

King Strawman seems to think I and my likeminded individuals are against the goal. No one in their right minds is against the concept of healthcare for all. Just like no one is really against clean air... except, of course, those evil, evil neocons who vote against Clean Air acts and Cap and Trade and such. They want dirty air.

However I question the scope, the viability, the necessity, the prospects for success but more importantly how it will be paid for and at what cost to our future. As of right now it seems people want to press the vote in order to pass legislation that may not work.

The way this bill is lined up, it just doesn't seem like the good outweighs the bad. We are told that we will be able to keep our own healthcare, but considering that over 50% of the country (not 50% of those insured, that's the total population) are ensured through employer-based plans, what incentive is there for the employers to keep that plan when they can just go ahead and axe them to save costs, considering the government will go ahead and scoop up those that lose their coverage, conveniently giving them no other option? Then there's the fact that the government doesn't have to turn a profit.

I will say this - completely neglecting the cost and who will pay for it, this could work... in the short term, while private insurance is still part of the picture. But since they are somewhat hampered by the need to make a profit, where the government isn't, there's no sound business reason for insurance companies to continue to offer health insurance while the government squeezes their profit margins down to nil. Then it becomes a government monopoly. Then you have a problem.

Unfortunately, those that are screaming that this needs to be done NOW, before the August recess, they don't take any of that into account. They demand to be judged on their intent (healthcare for all) and not the likely result of their actions (a dysfunctional healthcare system, with a government ever deeper in debt).

And every liberal that ragged on the Bush administration for borrowing this country into a financial toilet should be screaming that we need to scrutinize the hell out of this package before there’s a vote.

Pshaw! This will not happen, just as there were way too many conservatives who shrieked about government spending during the Clinton years and then sat on their hands as Bush expanded government just as fast as Clinton did. Those same conservatives are the most shrill voice opposing ObamaCare right now.

 

[Rover]

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

There are two reason you're not to be believed:

1) you keep trotting out the notion that employers will dump their workers on govt health insurance, when I've repeatedly asked you and your ilk what's stopping employers from dumping health care coverage right now? Better yet, why isn't it happening in Mass, which has universal health care and a public option?

2) What is the GOP/your plan, or better yet, what proposed plan out there from leaders of a likeminded ideology as yours do you favor the most? Saying "we should be like this or that" is great, but what exactly to you like about another country's system?

More likely, you like Sen Inhofe or Michael Steele, just wants to see this fail strictly to take a dig at the President, which is a stupid reason.

 

[Bill]

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

That's probably because I didn't claim that it WOULD, only that we SHOULD. We SHOULD totally make it like Canada's.

My wife ran into an old friend this week who married a Canadian a few years back and now lives most of the year in Canada. This lady has been lucky enough to not have any emergencies come up. She spends a couple of months a year back in the U.S., generally during the summer. She told my wife that she arranges to have all her regular medical appointments back here in the U.S. during those couple of months because it takes forever to get into to see a Doctor in Canada, to the extent that she no longer even bothers to try while she's there.

 

[Red Cloud]

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

More likely, you like Sen Inhofe or Michael Steele, just wants to see this fail strictly to take a dig at the President, which is a stupid reason.

I was going to honestly cover your points, and then you end with something this stupid. I'm sorry, Rover, I'm not like you. I don't hope for my country to fall on hard times just because I don't like the guy in office.

I'd get into the myriad reasons why YOU are not to be believed, but I won't waste my time on the truly disingenuous. Welcome back to ignore. Drop me a line after your emergency cranial surgery at your proctologist's, if you ever get around to having it.

 

[LynahFan]

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

There are two reason you're not to be believed:

1) you keep trotting out the notion that employers will dump their workers on govt health insurance, when I've repeatedly asked you and your ilk what's stopping employers from dumping health care coverage right now? Better yet, why isn't it happening in Mass, which has universal health care and a public option?

Inertia. So many companies have offered health care for so long that employees (of a certain level) have come to expect it as a benefit. If your 4 major competitors offered health care benefits, would you really be the first one to drop it and risk suffering the brain drain as your best employees (a.k.a. the ones with other options) head out the door? I'm sure this same phenomena would occur if there were a national healthcare option, but for how long? Eventually, someone *will* be the first to take that step, and then second, and so on. Probably one thing working to keep it from happening in Mass. is that other states don't have that option, so if my Mass based employer stopped offering health benefits, I still do have a choice: stay there and take the government plan or relocate with a new employer to keep getting private insurance. If the national plan is enacted, that changes the game.

 

[Red Cloud]

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

Inertia. So many companies have offered health care for so long that employees (of a certain level) have come to expect it as a benefit. If your 4 major competitors offered health care benefits, would you really be the first one to drop it and risk suffering the brain drain as your best employees (a.k.a. the ones with other options) head out the door? I'm sure this same phenomena would occur if there were a national healthcare option, but for how long? Eventually, someone *will* be the first to take that step, and then second, and so on.

Exactly. Not to mention that the Mass program is... well, read for yourself.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...9/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

(T)he program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

So in other words, they still need employer-funded insurance. Among other reasons touched on in this excellent piece.

And just so King Strawman can rest easy that I genuinely hate him and I'm not simply ducking him, I'll even answer his second question. Jim DeMint, one of those evil Rethuglicans who just wants to watch Obama's idea fail at the expense of the country, the one who the DNC is releasing an ad on blaming him for "having no plan at all" has his own alternative plan on comprehensive healthcare reform, which he's been pushing since 2005. Ben Smith talks about it at extreme-right wing blog The Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/The_DeMint_plan.html

Health savings accounts are another conservative idea. Healthcare tax credits (which pay for current coverage, and would allow people to buy their own insurance if they ever lost a job) are another.

But I'm sure The Fool will continue to prattle on about how conservatives just have no ideas whatsoever. They just hate Obama. They just hate America, really.

 

[Bill]

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

Mass also just cut health care for 30,000 LEGAL immigrants due to budget woes:

http://www.bradenton.com/442/story/1592035.html