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?
What is so hard to understand in slashdot's slogan ?
Plus, insensitive clod, not everybody cares about this purely US-centric news. A lot of us live in developed countries and our birth were covered by a national healthcare.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
You have to view the entire plan...as well as read the bill to comprehend what this bill intends to do. It is not about abortion. It is not about ruining the insurance industry. It is not about controlling the economy. It is not about reducing costs as many perceive reducing costs. It is not about coverage of people who are not currently covered. It is not about covering illegals. What is it about then you ask?? Look at the people presenting and supporting the bill. Look at the bright future movies and books verses those that do not portray a bright future and notice the differences. Remember the book 1984 from school?? That is the future they wish to put inplace with this bill. And the peoples that will pay the highest price for this future are the ones that support the bill with great enthusiasm without understanding its implications. If abortion is the only option 'approved' for anunwanted pregnancy, the numbers say we can reduce the population growth by over 40,000,000 people over the next 10 years. That is 40,000,000 people that do not need health care, unemployment, jail cells, time in courts, drugs, government support programs, food stamps, discipline issues, gang members, divorces, people needing low income housing, etc. It will also reduce healhcare costs by over $600,000,000,000 just in delivery costs alone! Get the picture! The bill will control those "who cannot control themselves". Oh, and the illegals....once they are identified as illegal (due to the healthcare and federal databases being linked), ICE is automatically notified, the person or persons detained and sent back to country of origin after basic medical care is provided (at minimal cost).
This bill will
The bill will probably pass. There is an indication that many Democrats will vote Yes in a "scorched earth" fashion, as many are already polling to lose their positions in November. The Republicans will probably sweep in the fall elections, akin to 1994, stalling Obama's progressive run of the last year and a half. Since his administration has shown no inkling of actually being "bi-partisan", unless he fundamentally changes his approach to politics, Obama will probably be remembered as Jimmy Carter II.
How the fuck do you know they're frivolous? Were you or yours harmed?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
They're has been study after study that has completely debunked this. I think you are a liar, or, your cousin is a shitty doctor who routinely fucks up so now his insurance has skyrocketed (just like a bad driver).
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
>>>the entitlement generation
Nobody is entitled to take YOUR money that you earned with Your labor and your body. We killed-off slavery 150 years ago - why are we trying to revive it?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Keep government out of the doctor's office.
The doctor/patient privilege is one of the few sacrosanct sociopolitical relationships (along with husband/wife and clergy/parishioner).
As for who pays for it, that's between the patient, doctor, and any insurance company the two VOLUNTARILY choose.
You have a touching anecdote? come up with legislation which helps that situation, without interfering with the >250,000,000 cases where there isn't a problem.
Any "democracy" which passes legislation without voting on it isn't.
And no, this isn't a suitable topic for /.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Those are concessions to the Republicans. If the Republicans get their way they will screw up the bill so badly that the implementation is doomed to fail. Then they can point back and say 'I told you it will fail!'
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Which could cover the Anarchist, Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
You're making the dangerous assumption that the "big guvment's" harshest critics can read.
I can't believe that actually worked! :)
:V
New to Slashdot, are you?
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Hey, I may be a karma bum, but at least I'm not a SOCIALIST.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Once Canadians/Europeans/Australians/New Zealanders stop coming to the US so they can get care they couldn't get in their respective countries wonderful single payer systems (I am being sarcastic), then maybe we will consider it. No US citizens leave the US for care they need, but cannot get in the US. With single payer systems in other countries that's not the case, they come to the US in droves.
That being said I agree there needs to be reform of insurance, pay structures for care and how US citizens get care.
The reason our insurance is tied to an employer is because of past government caps on what employees could get paid. Offering insurance as a benefit added value without breaking government caps on pay. So our entire system is born out of government involvement, that is why people don't trust government to fix it.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
WTF does this have to do with slashdot? I mean I'm not *that* new here, but this seems to be a new low for (1) having little to nothing to do with technology and (2) creating a forum that will do nothing but create flame wars.
--
I drank what?
Your talking points are way out of date; please report to Fox News for today's new talking points.
(the "10 years of taxes, 6 years of benefits in the CBO report" talking point has been conclusively disproven)
sig?
That's because it's the best in the world. If you compare a nation that drives fully loaded Cadillacs with one that drives broken down Yugos then yeah one is going to have a higher car cost.
A higher cost per capita is a GOOD thing.
Compare like with like.
US Healthcare has fully loaded Cadillacs that cost 10x that of the very same fully loaded Cadillac in Europe.
Tell me, why does a child receiving a nebuliser treatment in a Doctor's surgery cost circa $300 on top of the visit cost when the reusable nebuliser costs under $100 and the drugs cost $4 for a month's supply at Walmart?
Why does an inhailer for asthma cost $100 at Target, yet the NHS in the UK procures them at under $10?
Why are the self employed all but excluded from healthcare altogether?
And where will you go when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT denies you service?
You think they'll be any EASIER to sue?
Under Socialized Medicine, once the National Government says no, you're screwed unless you have the money to fly to another country for for-profit treatment.
Personally, i think TVs are more a problem than McDonalds. In other words, people would still be unhealthy without fast food, if they still sit and consume TV for a zillion hours a week, rather than being active.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Yeah, while *some* drive Cadillacs, the rest are walking by foot ... YUGO's for all, YUGOS FOR AAAALLLLL!!!
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
-- Just cut the U.S. federal budget, as a start, 50 percent across the boards, every agency, bureau, department, program, etc. The whole shootin' match.
Then, after the dust settles, start surgically removing any left overs that have no useful benefit to society whatsoever, namely: any and all subsidies in whatever form.
After that, completely dismantle the current tax system, make a flat income tax where everyone pays, the poorest of the poor, the richest of the rich. If you are below the poverty level, you can have your taxes cut by no more than half, same on the richer end of the scale when it comes to charitable contributions, you pay, but no less than half your total tax owing.
The above would be a good start to really reforming health care and the entirety of our increasingly tyrannical U.S. federal government.
Why should I be put ahead in a waiting line simply because I can afford. The person who can't afford it is no worse than I am, nor is the person who has insurance who skips the line better than I.
Congratulations, you've just posted some of the hippiest, most internally inconsistent bullshit I've read in this whole thread full of hippie, inconsistent bullshit.
I tell you what - if you feel that way there are people starving in Africa right now because you choose to own a computer, because you live in something nicer than a tent resting on dirt, etc... I strongly suggest you move to bare minimum existence right now and give all your money to the needy because you are living a ridiculously better life than about 1 billion people just because you "can afford" it.
Seriously, that's some weak, sniveling bullshit.
Your entire inane ramble here is summed up by "I want someone else to pay my costs for me". You're a lazy, greedy bastard and that's why you support "free" healthcare, because you want everyone else to pay your way.
Ever actually read the document? Surely, you've read the Preamble - the statement of intent that covers everything else in the document? Specifically, the part about "promote the general welfare"? Or, how about the Declaration of Independence, where the framers of the constitution stated that it was self-evident that all mankind has the right to life, as well as the pursuit of happiness?
I have, you haven't. There's a pesky little thing called the 10th Amendment that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I've also bothered to read things from the founding fathers, which is why I also know that Thomas Jefferson said this to explain the "general welfare" clause that people like you want to use to excuse tyranny “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
You have no argument constitutionally or morally. You simply want others to have to pay your bills for you, and for that I say you can go to hell, you greedy bastard.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
So you have absolutely no compassion for those who are not only born with a medical condition due to which they'll suffer all their lives but that also cannot afford the treatments that would make their lives a little more bearable?
I was born with an incurable disease, so you're going to have to try harder than that. Also, just because you feel sorry for someone doesn't excuse theft.
Are they greedy, if they think that everyone should chip in a little?
It depends on how they want to go about it. If they want to take donations, then no. However if you want to forcefully take peoples money (which is how government run programs work), then yes, it is greedy and wrong.
I'm not religious but if I were, I'd say that they're not the ones going to hell.
Yes, how dare I support freedom, personal responsibility, and property rights. I'm such a horrible person!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Why is your medical condition relevant?
It's relevant because you were using the sob story "some people are just born with medical problems". I was too, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is responsible for you.
If you wish to argue that taxes are theft, I'd like to first know whether your opinion then also is that healthcare is the very worst purpose to spend taxpayer money on.
Taxes are for the necessary functions of government. Any program that goes beyond the necessary function of government (and in the case of the federal government in the US, that's regulating trade, providing for the national defense, running the legal system, and that's pretty much it) that uses tax dollars to pay for it is theft. And yes, healthcare is a pretty poor thing to spend tax dollars on. For one, it's immoral to force anyone to pay for another persons expenses. Next there's the fact that some people use more medical care than others - that means that you have a large portion of the country paying while using little resources while others use a disproportionate amount - that's why insurance companies adjust your rates based on your medical expenses, because those who use more services need to pay more (just like how if you order more food, you pay more money - same with everything else). Then there's the fact that government run healthcare provides a much lower quality of care (read the studies that discuss the unbelievably long wait times or the government denying treatment because it's not cost effective, also, read the more recent articles about how several of the prominent socialist countries are having issues with their medical treatment because despite the massive amount of tax funds spend on medical treatment, it's still not enough and they can't afford to raise taxes any higher).
I haven't said that supporting those makes anyone a bad person and why would I since they're good issues to support?
Government run healthcare runs contrary to freedom, personal responsibility, and property rights. It really is an "either / or" situation - you support one or the other, because they're polar opposites. You saying that you support freedom / personal responsibility / property rights and saying you support government run healthcare is like someone saying that they're a vegan and think it's morally wrong to eat meat, then saying that they're having steak for dinner because it tastes great.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I can vaguely see the argument that costs will be reduced if some people pay for some of their care, but frankly, costs can be just as reduced if the government pays hospitals and doctors set amounts for specific procedures, obviously resulting in them reducing their costs to increase profit.
The customer doesn't pay. Either they have insurance, and the insurance pays, or they don't have insurance, so they can't afford it and don't pay. Either way, the person using the service isn't cutting the check for it.
Add to that the litigious nature of the US, and there are liability issues. Oddly enough, they don't come out the "obvious" way. The cost doesn't go to insurance. Though insurance is higher here than most other places (all other places?), it still isn't that much. What it really comes down to is *everything* is tested and treated and tested more. I just had an argument with my wife's grandmother about my wife after the birth of the newest family member. My wife is anemic. Every day. Worse when pregnant. So Grandma asked what they were doing for it. "Nothing." She got mad that they were giving her bad care. My wife isn't dizzy. She isn't tired. She is fine in every way. But because a test came back positive, then she should be given something, even if she doesn't need it. And then she should be tested more to see if it was effective.
That's the mentality of Americans, and if something goes wrong and you didn't over-test and over-medicate, then you get sued. So all doctors go along with it. And the patients aren't paying for it, so they go along with it.
I'd welcome "Death Panels." Patients don't know what's in their best interests, and they push for things that actually harm them. The two most popular treatments for anemia would have harmed my wife. So why waste money giving her a treatment that will cause an additional problem that will need treatment, then test for everything repeatedly until the result is negative? The cost should be weighed into the treatment.
That's the real reason the health care in the US is so expensive compared to everywhere else. And the funny thing is that with the levels of overmedication (see Michal Jackson, and no, it wasn't overly special treatment because of who he is that got him medicated with anything and everything) we aren't any better off. We should be trying to "fix" ourselves, not manage problems for the rest of our lives. Medical care is treating diseases and test results, and forgot there's a person. Not that they all do that, but that it happens enough to drive up the cost and down the level of care. And it's encouraged because it reduces liability and it makes the patient think they are being helped because they get so much attention in the form of tests and prescriptions.
Learn to love Alaska
No, I didn't use a sob story. I asked whether you have any compassion or not since you didn't seem to. You could also see it as me pointing out how flawed your generalization was.
No, you used a sob story to try to make it seem like anyone who would hold people responsible for paying for their own treatment is "evil". As I pointed out to you earlier, just because you feel sorry for someone doesn't excuse theft on their behalf. If you want to give them your own money (charity) of your own free will, then that's great! I donate to charities too - however, forcefully taking money from people to give to someone else is theft, plain and simple. Just because the government says it's ok doesn't mean it is (see all the countless unjust laws governments have had, such as slavery, jim crow laws, anti-gay laws, etc). I read a quote once from someone criticisim socialism about 150 years ago who said "If I cannot legally do something, what right do I have to ask someone else (read:the government) to do it on my behalf?"
I never have, and never will, argued against charity. I actually promote it quite a bit. However, there is never an excuse for forcefully taking on persons property (that includes money) for onther persons personal gain.
Government should have whatever functions people through a democratic process decide it should have.
See, there's one pesky problem with the US federal government "having whatever functions people want" - it's called The US Constitution. It specifies the powers of the government, which are quite limited - it then has the 10th Amendment which says that any powers NOT specifically given to the government are given to the states. I never once said that states can't implement socialist health care, because they have the authority to do so. It would still me horribly unjust, but it's pretty easy for people to pack up and move if they dislike it. It's very easy to move from one state to another - it's much harder to move from one country to another, especially since, despite all the freedoms we've lost in the last 20 years, every other country is a worse place to live.
If you think that it is theft when tax dollars being used for anything else than what you personally agree with, you could just as well say that you oppose democracy. And maybe you indeed do.
No, I'm very much for democracy, much more than you (you support tyranny of the majority, which is not the same as democracy). In a democracy, no one has the right to vote away someone else's rights - that means you can't use popular vote to pass a law that says blacks can't vote or people MUST give their own property to someone else. Tyranny of the majority, your view, is that as long as the majority wants it, it's ok - that's not how democracy works.
So if you need to use the services of the police department, you're doing something immoral because the services are paid for by everyone even though not everyone need them.
First, everyone benefits equally from the police - the police are there to capture criminals equally, regardless of where you live or how much money you make, and their presence acts as a deterrent for everyone equally. Secondly, police are paid for with local taxes, meaning that areas that need more police pay more. Then there's also the fact that there's so few police officers per 1,000 citizens that the amount paid per person is very low, which cannot be said for government run health care.
That's the very issue here. What should be done when some people need healthcare more than they can possibly afford no matter what they do? Usually ability to have a high income has an inverse correlation with the need for healthcare.
What should be done? You ask for charity or help from friends / family / religious organization you belong to. You don't steal. Stealing is never justified
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Again you insist on interpreting it as a sob story when I ask whether you really intended your harsh and rude statement to be so universally applicable.
It's a sob story because you're trying to use emotion as a justification for doing something instead of using facts or logic. Your argument is no different than the "think of the children!" arguments - it's an attempt to get someone to forget reason and make a decision because they feel bad about something. Also, saying that people should be held responsible for themselves is not "harsh" or "rude".
Ok, so government run health care would require an amendment to the constitution. Is that what you're saying? And if so, what is your point?
First off, they are trying to pass a law (that they know is unconstitutional) - they are NOT trying to pass an amendment and THEN pass a law. It requires 2/3's of the states (66%) to make an amendment to the constitution. Currently there are 38 states (76%) that either have already passed or are in the process of passing laws to sue the federal government over the unconstitutionality of this law. They know that they do not have the support to pass an amendment and if there is an amendment made, it will be one specifically banning the federal government from running health care. Despite the BS you hear on tv, you don't get the majority of the popultion in 76% of the states to vehemently oppose a bill and have the support of the people.
it's much harder to move from one country to another, especially since, despite all the freedoms we've lost in the last 20 years, every other country is a worse place to live. It's not fun to argue with you if your trolling is that obvious.
Once again, you don't like facts. The rest of the developed world has higher taxes, lower incomes (before taxes!), lower quality health care, fewer freedoms, and every year citizens of those countries leave to come to the US to have a better life. That's not trolling, that's stating facts.
So all I need to do is to rephrase things and say that you cannot vote against other peoples' right to health care and you'll want universal coverage as much as you (presumably) want people to have the right to an attorney. That costs money too, you know. Or do I manage to get you to argue what rights Americans should have?
There IS no right to health care. Health care is a service, and like all services, is a priviledge that you must pay to recieve. Nothing is stopping you from getting a job and paying for it, that's what the majority of the country does. Also, if you still want to claim you have a "right" to healthcare, try reading the Bill of Rights again. Obama himself is often quoted for stating that he wishes that the Constitution said that you have a right to health care and other government run programs.
Now, you probably concede that in practice the police force doesn't work that way but you're avoiding the question: If you're the victim of a crime, why should other peoples' tax dollars pay for the investigation?
And you didn't read what I wrote at all. Everyone benefits equally from there being fewer criminals on the street and, again, everyone benefits equally from the fact that the presence of police (them driving / walking around and being seen) is a deterrent to crime.
Secondly, police are paid for with local taxes, meaning that areas that need more police pay more. True but why is that relevant?
It's relevent because areas that need more police, and thus cost more, pay the extra amount. That way you don't have people living in Smallville, Kansas which requires very little police (and thus doesn't cost much) isn't paying large taxes to support the large police force required for an extremely high crime place such as New York.
Then there's also the fact that there'
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson