Slashdot Mirror
Health Care Reform
It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform. There's been a lot of debate on the subject really leading back before the election. The mainstream sounds like an echo chamber, so I'm hoping you guys have better insight. Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?
Nothing is as bad for the future of America as Fox says.
BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.
But then everyone knew that already.
I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents' plan, so there's that.
As for the Republicans' complaints, I'm not really clear on what there is in this bill the Republicans didn't argue for. If the left had written the bill, it would dismantle the insurance industry and set up single payer. The only thing it's missing is tort reform, and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring. It accounts for 1-2% of healthcare expenditures, and that sounds about right. There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims, and it's never going to be free.
Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation and you're asking if they approve of the government creating another entitlement? Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.
It's nothing like the health care bill we should have had, something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries. The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass. This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.
The Republicans, of course, are chanting "wait, wait, this is being rushed," but the facts are that they had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform - years where it was clearly necessary. Despite what they say, your average Republican simply doesn't believe in health care reform, which is why it didn't happen under Clinton and wouldn't happen under Obama if they could figure out a way to delay it. So instead of pushing for a fiscally responsible and conservative health care reform, the Republicans are really pushing for the status quo, without trying to seem like they're doing that.
Both parties stink. I'm kind of hoping this passes, but then the Republicans come into power. It'll be impractical for them to repeal this, but perhaps they'll be smart enough to tinker with it to make it better. Past history is not encouraging, though.
As you might expect, this bill is heavy on the benefits and light on the necessary pain. There's virtually only one effective cost-control measure, the tax on high-cost health benefits, and that has been pushed off so far in the future that it will be killed before it sees the light of day. The bill recognizes that coverage of pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate, but then implements it in a half-assed way that won't achieve the objective of forcing healthy people to get coverage. (It also puts a dual drag on job growth by both raising taxes on private investment and directly increasing the cost of employing people. Way to go.)
I would much prefer a bill that provided funds to the states to let them structure their own solutions to the health-care problem, as Massachusetts has done. But the top-down command-and-control midset in Washington is too strong for that.
The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.
However, too many people have been making money hand over fist in the US to let any system where they would be the cut cost pass. Overall, it's an opportunity for the government to provide what the market cannot. Either affordable healthcare or writing into law corporate profits. I don't trust our congressmen to avoid the latter.
Your supply is high. In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people, in the USA, 2.4. Of course, we treat our doctors like crap.
The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service. Either your efficiency is really low, or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.
Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.
Part of the profit problem is that your medical system is run like a business that considers 15% a low profit margin.
I do not have anything of actual use to say about this bill, other than common talking points, unsourced blather about what this bill will accomplish, and vague appeals to antiauthoritarianism. But please mod me +5 Insightful like you're doing with everyone else, just to be fair.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
If I take what you're stating correctly, then Article 10 would also be able to shoot down Medicare, Fannie/Freddie, the NEA, the DOL.... NASA. In other words, it sounds right, but ever since the Civil War, I don't think it's been enforced in the manner you describe. There are specific exceptions in case law when dealing with commerce, and with health care spending in the top 5, it's a pretty easy out for the SC. I think you need look no further than the DEA's position on medical marijuana laws to realize that the 10th isn't that powerful. I'm not arguing that the 10th shouldn't be the law of the land, just that it plainly isn't, and a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.
most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.
I live in a country that has government-run universal insurance, and I deal *directly* with my doctor, too. I'm not sure why you believe this isn't possible.
Read it for yourself. What I read is a wet dream for the insurance companies and penalizes anyone who is self-reliant.
It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it. This is supposed to be government by the will of the people, right? To me, the will of the people is not being executed here.
Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules. This isn't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay. Given the current administration's massive spending and addition to the national debt with little to show for it, does anybody have any real confidence that this will work?
Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist. Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract. If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open? I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche. If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.
If they were really serious about health care reform, why didn't they start with the biggest money issue in health care: tort reform. Why? Because Congress is made up with a bunch of lawyers that don't want to see their industry lose out on billions of dollars per year in fees brought about by the misery of other people. People are incensed about million dollar bonuses at financial firms, but nobody shines the light on lawyers that, for the amount of work put in, end up making thousands of dollars per hour in a settlement or ruling. Consider, also, that even though that doctor is making a quarter of a million dollars per year, he's paying 25 or 30 percent of that in malpractice insurance to protect himself from every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to sue because they didn't follow instructions and ripped their stitches out.
Some lawyers are a blight on society, but unfortunately, their buddies are crawling all over Washington as lobbyists or in Congress/DoJ/White House/etc. The more I think about it, the more I agree with what Get Out of Our House is doing.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
You know, you're right. And I say this as an Australian living with our wonderful (and I'm not being sarcastic) universal, single-payer health care system here.
In the past on Slashdot, when the issue of US healthcare reform has come up, you inevitably get all the Canadians/Europeans/Australians/New Zealanders on here going "OMG of course you should reform - your system sucks, and ours works pretty well". It seems like a no-brainer ... why would you not want to move to a system like ours. It's cheaper, more efficient, everyone is covered, health insurance is not tied to your employer, and the health outcomes returned are better. I was one of those people ... it seemed absolutely crazy (as in, literally mind-bendingly insane) that someone would want to oppose moving from the overpriced, inefficient and inequitable system you currently have to a system like most of the rest of the world employs.
BUT... ...now that I actually ~read~ something about the proposal itself, I see why Americans are debating it so much. It isn't really giving you guys a system like that in CA/EU/AU at all! Rather, it's just modifying the current system somewhat. It isn't really a fresh, new or particularly efficient system. It's tacking something onto what's already there ... giving it a coat of paint if you will, but not really addressing the underlying problems. It's not introducing a single payer system like in most other developed countries. And although I would personally still support it on balance, had I been an American, I would agree that it's not really a straightforward decision and it does have some significant flaws.
So to non-Americans mystified at the opposition to this, take a read of the actual proposal. It's not a stark choice between "the system they have now" and "a system like in other countries". Rather the proposal is for something kinda inbetween, which runs the risk that it may not work as well as ~either~.
The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.
How has that worked out? And where was their outrage over its creation and its current status of operation?
Try sending a letter or small package through the USPS, UPS and FedEx and let me know which one was more cost effective.
Now try building a straw man and knocking him down.
I like microcars
The major lawsuit-related driver of medical costs is not frivolous suits. It is jackpot verdicts, where someone with no lasting harm or even short-term disability can be awarded tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive and other special damages. Because the number is big, jurors think that this sends the right message, and because a faceless insurance company will pay most or all of it, they're not afraid of the costs it will incur for the doctor. That's why tort reform usually tries to impose caps on damages, and that in turn is why courts usually throw the laws out (because the laws are seen as a legislative infringement on the judicial function).
In the case of government run health care the government loses money when it treats people who are sick.
Fixed that for you.
universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividends
if you don't pay for it overtly, you pay for the lack of universal healthcare in terms of easily preventable heart conditions complicating into more expensive conditions, breadwinners out of work because they can't treat their diabetes leading to their children to become street criminals, mumps and whooping cough outbreaks because vaccination is too complicated for the poor, people out sick more often because of inadequate healthcare, personal bankruptcies leading to losses at financial institutions due to sudden and expensive healthcare, etc.
in other words, you pay for healthcare, one way or another, no matter what your policy is
its just that universal healthcare is the CHEAPEST way to pay for it. but since the cost is overt and in your face, you reject it. but this simply means you don't understand the roundabout MORE EXPENSIVE and hidden ways you pay for it if you DON'T have universal healthcare
in other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated. what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society? people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth? they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid? you yourself never need a helping hand? think about reality, then form an opinion
there are PLENTY of areas of life that should NEVER be public, and should always be private, for a number of reasons. capitalism, in fact, is the most useful engine for the creation of wealth ever invented by man. the point is, for SOME sectors of life, not all, making some thing run by the government actually is the CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT way for that sector to function
in other words, simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to the idea of free markets does NOT answer all questions in life, JUST AS TRUE as a simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to communist ideas does not work. but socialism, as understood by the rest of the first world, is simple the concept that SOME, not ALL, sectors of life require the government to run it for MAXIMUM FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY
a society with a capitalist engine, with socialist safety nets grafted on, is SUPERIOR and MORE EFFICIENT than a purely capitalist society. this really is the objective financially solid truth, not an opinion. lose your utopianism please: in life, simplistic absolutist philosophies, such as a fanatic devotion to individual reliance, DOES NOT WORK IN ALL FORMS. you are part of a society. as such, you contribute financially to it so that SOME functions in your life. by doing that some functions in your life are simply handled MORE CHEAPLY than if you handled them yourself. life is complicated, and requires a moderation between competing needs. understand this about the world, and drop your extremist ideologies
there is such a concept as the common good. there is such a concept as personal reliance. both are paragons of virtue that, in the real world, exist in tension in how they work. the idea is to find a BALANCE between the two ideals, not to simplemindedly adhere to one or the other polar extreme
teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you. you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment. that's the simple obvious truth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't worry, IT will get regulated. Our industry has far too much power that, quite frankly, scares the shit out politicians. They can't leave well enough alone. Never have, never will.
Life is not for the lazy.
Is your premise true? That the US health care system is under the management of private industry?
I would argue that the health care system we have is a monopoly that is shored up by wiling politicians who at best refuse to take simple steps to promote competition and transparency of costs and who pays what to consumers.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Police? Or would you prefer to have privatized crime fighters? "Sorry, maam. You didn't pay, so we aren't interested in tracking down the person who shot your husband and kids and ran off with your jewellery".
Army? Or would you prefer it if the defence of the US was run by Xe Services LLC?
Coast guard? "I'm sorry. We can't send a helicopter out to rescue your husband and child. You didn't buy our insurance, and your credit rating shows you cannot afford to pay the US$50,000/hour it costs to run the search and rescue operation. Thank you for calling the Coast Guard - have a nice day."
Fire departments? "Well, we'd love to put out the fire in your house, but you see, you don't pay the insurance company that we work for. No, sorry, no other fire department works in this town. But if you run in and fetch US$10,000 in cash, we'd be happy to help you."
Food and drug administration? You'd prefer it if there were no government checks on the safety of foods and drugs? I suggest that you not only look at the milk scandals that hit in China a few years ago, but also look at the history of the US itself. Not just the US, but pretty much all of the western world.
Wow. You complain about skewed information from Fox News, then post links to a satire site and ... Media Matters!
Hey, pot, kettle says you're black!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I have Australian and American citizenship, I have lived in both countries and experienced both health care systems.
The US bill is not single payer public health insurance, it would be better for the American people if it was, but the reality of the situation is that such a system cannot pass in the US as things stand. The Republicans are against anything the Democrats do, more than half the Democrats are in the pockets of big corporations and the Libertarians are always up in arms about anything at all which costs them money no matter how large a benefit it might provide society at large. That's not even taking into account the Tea Party and all the crazies that have come out of the woodwork because Dick Cheney proved to the American people that the government was out to get them and made every right wing conspiracy theorist and Militia member seem sane.
That's not even counting the Americans of all political persuasions who are irate because Obama can't magic more than 11 million jobs out of his ass to fix unemployment. I mean presuming an average salary of 40k a year that'd involve finding 440 billion dollars a year somewhere, but never mind.
Single payer health insurance cannot pass in that environment it's too radical, too different, too much like the government actually doing something useful with the tax dollars. Never mind the fact that the US pays almost twice as much in terms of percentage of GDP than any other western nation, has poorer health outcomes, and leaves more than 10% of its population uninsured, it just won't pass.
As such this bill, which is very much imperfect is the best the American people can really hope for. Yes it leaves the insurance companies intact, yes it's full of corruption, pork, and special interest anti-abortion clauses, and yes it will probably mean that individuals who believe that they can cover the couple of grand a night for a hospital bed if they get sick might have to take on some of the burden of minimizing the insurance risk pool to keep down costs.
On the other hand it will give 30 million Americans insurance, require insurance companies to insure people with preexisting illnesses, and remove the bonds forcing people to keep a job at any cost to keep their insurance when they need it. It would also save the insurance companies from their current death spirals by bringing healthy people back into the risk pool which would in turn reduce over all costs. It would do this while, at least according to projections, actually lowering the deficit.
This is an ugly bill, and there are things about it which will need to be fixed, sections which are almost unconscionable. It will also require tort reform, medical practice reform, and educational reform to along with it to give it its greatest potential. Despite all that it is miles ahead of the current situation, and the best we can hope for. If Republicans had been more willing to vote yes, or there was more cost to minority filibusters we might have had a better one, with less pork, lower costs, and better results, but that's not the reality of the situation. This bill is the best the American people are likely to get under the current circumstances, and while it doesn't affect me personally I have a lot of family and friends who would be helped out tremendously by its passage.
The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract.
So then all laws requiring motor vehicle insurance are unconstitutional? That would be interesting.
The kings of inefficiency.
We spend 17% of our GDP on health care right now. Other nations get the same or better overall results spending less than half of this. Yes you might have to wait for some services but there is clearly huge inefficiencies in the current system, so much so that it is easy to argue that even a government run program would be better.
Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan, where here in the U.S. it's unusual to wait for more than a few days.
There is quite a bit of evidence that the US has a huge and expensive overcapacity in exotic medical devices brought about by our current insurance system. We also clearly pay far more for the same drugs than people in other countries.
We supposedly pay 17% now, and we live longer lives
People in Canada, France, Germany, UK, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden, Switzerland and Italy all have longer life expectancies than Americans and pay far less than 17% of their GDP for that life span.
Your article is full of factual errors. Try doing some research next time.