new thread
Hi there,
I'm sure this topic is been reported differently on both sides of the pond and of course we speak the same language and of course cultures are different.
I was just reading the press and with the mention of the current health reforms going through Congress (we love you NHS). I was just wondering how one person that just been elected as a new Senator, upset the applecart and completely de-rail such a reforms or at least that's how it's been reported here. I doubt Mr Brown would get away with that lol!
Cheers,
John.B
the person just elected does not belong to the same political party as those proposing a particular public health program reform. THAT party no longer has a majority vote in the Senate. Therefore the applecart is already upset and it remains to be seen how quickly reform will be derailed.
It's a mystery to me, I can't keep up with the lies.
What I do know is that the conservatives will continue to derail any attempt to get a national health care plan here. Why? "It will bring down the quality of health care." For who? Not me cause I don't have any to start with.
When it comes to this issue, I'm as "left wing" as one can get.
When someone tells me that they are against a "socialized medical plan" I ask if they want to take away All Kids, Medicaid and Medicare as well. I suppose they'd just be content to watch if the "uninsured" lay on the street dying. Men, women, kids, don't matter, "well, that stupid S.O.B. should have gotten insurance." Cold hearted.
I can't afford $600.00 dollars a month for a crappy family insurance plan. I guess the choices are; A- buy food or B- buy insurance.
Paul
Right on, Paul.
The anti-socialized health care preachers simply do not know what it's like to not be able to afford health insurance. They prefer to blame the victim when it's truly the system that's broken.
Luckily my current employer provides a decent health care plan, but before that I worked at a small business that could not afford to pay for health care (even the owners couldn't buy for themselves!) They were extremely dedicated people who worked 10+ hours a day and loved their employees, but just because they weren't slaving away at some big corporation they were left in the cold as far as health care goes.
There's something wrong with that.
-Dan
I moved to a much better job, and the SAME health insurance that was $700 a month at the old company is $1,400 a month here. This is because they are allowed to take account of the age and health status of the employees in the firm. Family coverage on the individual market is $400-600 a month, but none of the insurance companies will take both my son and my wife, i.e. they all reject either one or the other of them, because they can pick and choose who they insure. So we have no insurance.
The Congress could have pushed a bill through if the House had voted to pass the Senate version of the bill, but Obama has now told Congress to hold off until the new Senator is seated. As he has to sign the bill before it becomes law, the bill is dead. So, because Obama is more concerned about his own image than, for example, whether my family is covered, I don't think we will have insurance anytime soon.
I came here from the UK. The National Health Service is a treasure. If anyone tells you it should be privatised, please punch them on the nose, and tell them I told you to do it.
Alun
------------------------------------------------------
Hi Paul.
The reason the conservatives don't want socialized medicine is probably due to loss of profit. One or at most two percent of the population controls over 50% of the wealth in this country. A lot of that wealth has come from investments in health insurance and high profit medical corporations.
I believe in many cases they prefer to treat you rather than cure you. By treating you, they can keep you as a source of profit for many years to come. By curing you, they will lose a cash cow. Once cured, they lose their profits.
I have heard it said that all types of cancer can be cured for cheap with medicinal herbs with far fewer side effects. I believe this to be true. These are kept off the market to protect the huge health care industry profits.
Health care is a 2.5 trillion dollar per year industry. That is 2.5^12 dollars which is about 1/6 of our gross national product. As far as I know, the USA is the only industrailized country where you can lose everything you own if you get sick or injured. Over 50% of US bankruptcies are due to unpayable medical bills. Something has to change.
Health care needs to go low profit or non profit. Socialized medicine works well in Europe. It is time for the US to have it. We need to get rid of greed in health care now.
End of rant.
Scott
Quote: It is time for the US to have it. We need to get rid of greed in health care now.
I agree, and that's before the greedy drugs companies tell us we all need Statins so that our cholesterol levels are those of a 25 year old. How many billions does that make for companies that do not appear to care about side effects of taking something powerful for perhaps 30 years or more?
------------------------------------------------
Many billions, and there are side effects from statins. Muscle and kidney damage are serious ones. Here is a link.
Scott
Don't make the mistake of presuming that those opposed to this particular bill want to maintain the status quo- far from it. Polls show a very sizable percent of the population (around half, maybe more) oppose it- and they aren't opposing it because of their "profits"- what profits? They don't get any of that. What they don't like this particular proposal. Almost everyone agrees that something should be done; the question is, however, what?
The reasons why so many dislike the current proposal are threefold (as far as I can see):
It will cost too much money (which we don't have, BTW). They've been completely dishonest about how much it will cost. And there's nothing in it to control costs- the most it will do is transfer costs from the consumer to the taxpayers at large.
It gives the government even more control over everything. Why do you want to put the federal government in complete control of your healthcare? For example, there are significant restrictions on abortions written into both House and Senate versions. And those were written by *Democrats.* What do you think a Palin presidency and Republican Congress would do to abortions, AIDS treatment, et. al.? Don't forget, a government that has the power to give you everything you want also has the power to take it all away, too.
And Progressives don't like it because there's no way for them to be directly insured by the government instead of a private entity. In fact, it REQURES you to purchase a product from a private company in order to be a law-abiding citizen of the country. That's quite a revolutionary proposal- there's never been anything like that before in U.S. history, and for a reason- it's almost certainly unconstitutional.
Yes, lawmaking is like sausage. However, sometimes you should look at the Frankenstein's mess you've got and just start over.
anyway, that's my two cents.
I'm one of those who wanted the public option and was disappointed when they took it out. Like others who have posted about this question, I'd like to see health care socialized.
I don't think that the government would be worse or more authoritarian about what health care one can receive than private insurance companies already are. Insurance companies have a lot of say in what medical procedures that they will cover and which doctors one can go to, or if they will cover that person at all.... and their motivation behind denying people and limiting choices is to lower the costs of running their businesses, therefore raising profit.
The costs of an externality of these businesses, that the poor and some working class families are unable to receive health care, has a detrimental to the overall health of the workforce overall, lowering the amount of production made.
All this nonsense makes me want to move to Canada.
I would counter that nobody does authoritarian better than governments. They've got controls over you that business can only dream of (or only purchase/rent from the government, if it's not doing its job in protecting its citizenry).
Socialized medicine isn't some magic land where every test is done and every procedure paid for. Rationing will continue, just someone else is doing it. There are *plenty* of problems with people who have coverage being denied care under socialized systems also, no less than ours. But whereas it's possible to get different coverage in a private system, in a socialized system, it's realistically the only game in town. Unless you're very rich and can pay for it all out of your pocket, you're stuck.
My current job offered me four different plans from three different companies. If I don't like what I'm getting from one, I can switch very easily. This shouldn't be the exception, it should be the norm. In fact, I think that health insurance shouldn't be tied to one's job at all- there's no reason it has to be. We should be able to pick from a wide variety of plans offered from any company in the country.
Of course, the companies would hate that, because they hate competition. Everyone hates having to compete. But the government should be forcing that, because right now there is actually very little competition for health insurance in the U.S, and that's the way the big shots like it.
Right now health care accounts for 16% of GDP I wonder what we'll do when it hits 20 or 22%? So many more people will be priced out of the system at some point we'll reach critical mass and the money we're talking about today will seem like chop liver.
It will be interesting to see what happens, especially when the Chinese decide we're too risky an investment and they stop loaning us money.
We could start selling states to pay the bill.
I wonder what we could get for California? Or maybe Texas?
Perhaps buy one get one of equal or lesser value free.
The Pursuit of Happiness - I believe are the core principals upon which the United States of America were founded.
Disclaimer - the following comments are made by a "pinko leftist commie Canadian"
- climbs on soap box -
Here in Canada, our basis is "Peace, Order, and Good Government". Whether we have the last of those or not current is debatable, but we try hard to believe it.
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
This attitude is ingrained in the American psyche and can be seen in their popular culture. Police officers and government officials are practically never portrayed as responsible, caring characters. They are often shown as evil, corrupt, or at best as a buffoon. This of course reduces the quality of people who are willing to do these usually thankless jobs and re-inforces the myths.
I cannot see this changing and in fact I find it "infecting" my own country. I also cannot see "any" initiative from the American government that affects people in their daily lives unless it's "bread and circuses" that they vote for themselves (Hi Californians) that stands any chance of success.
- gets of soapbox -
AndrewB
Indeed it is. The whole American government system is based on distrust. We have three branches of government to dilute the power, and if those three branches fail us, we have our guns. That we distrust our government is why we will never surrender the right to bear arms. Guns are the fourth branch of government.
And if all that fails us, in the back of every American's mind is that he will flee to Canada. That is why America will never do anything to seriously hurt Canada.
Bill
I'd say I'm a progressive and you do have a point. The requirement to have to pay for private health insurance probably is unconstitutional. Dennis Kucinich pointed out that most people who don't have insurance can't afford it, so making them pay for it is a dumb idea. Of course, he didn't mention the subsidies, but they wouldn't have been high enough, because the people who can't afford it extend well outside of the 'poor' into those who are relatively well off.
That being a relatively central element of the bill, it does look like a pile of excrement. However, I wanted it to pass, despite it being hugely defective, due to my particular circumstances.
Although I can't afford my firm's insurance, this is not because I'm poor, but because it is hugely expensive, and this in turn is because the insurance companies are allowed to charge vastly more to firms with a lot of old/sick people in them or in their families. Most people only get plans on the 'individual market' (a huge misnomer) if they can't get insured through their employer, because it is usually more expensive. (Individual market means not through your employer, but it still includes family plans, so it is not really 'individual' atall). However, in my case, my firm's plan is so expensive that the individual market is actually cheaper. Most people can't believe that my firm's plan has 4 digit monthly premiums, but it does.
In group plans (normally a group is an employer) the greedy insurance companies tell firms to go away by charging everyone who works there a high premium, and if enough employees pay it to make up a group, then they are happy to take the money. OTOH, in individual plans (normally a family, although it could be for an individual), they charge every family the same, and deny coverage completely to high risk plans. Also, frankly, the premiums for individual plans are too high for even people on average incomes. No individual plan will take our family, though, even though I make enough to afford it.
There are parts of the bill that should stop at least the second of these two problems, and maybe the first as well. Now, if a bill could be passed that had only those bits in it, that would be better, at least for me, than what is in the present versions.
I would prefer to be insured through the government, though, because the profit based system is an abject failure. The insurance model is all about making profits by denying claims, and denying health claims often amounts to murder.
Well it goes like this.
Before each chamber passes a bill they debate it among themselves. The house of representatives gives each of their members a time limit while the senate allows unlimited debate. In order to end a debate in the senate they invoke cloture, (vote to end the debate) according to senate rules they need 60 yes votes to end debate. They can passa piece of legislation with a simple majority but need 60 votes to stop talking about it. The practice of not stopping the debate referred to as a filibuster.
When your the majority it's tough to keep all your members happy and the senate struggled to come up with a bill that everyone would agree to thus voting yes to end the debate. It's ironic that the person who fought hard his whole career for health care reform, who saw it get this close before he died and his seat going to a republican will cause the whole thing to be tossed in the bin. Ted Kennedy is no doubt rolling over in his grave.
America is not the best governed country in the world regardless of which party is in power. It's sad really as in spite of our woes there's still so much potential to fix this yet at the core of it is corporate greed, that is to say a relatively small number of people make a lot of money off people getting sick and dying.
Oh well I could always immigrate to the UK. Although that would entail going to France crawl up under the wheel arches of the Eurostar pray it didn't get stuck in the tunnel. Then once in the UK I'd have to move to Slough get a job at the trading estate and live in Chalvey. Then I could go to the doctor any time and not worry about the bill. Wait times may be a bit annoying but that can't be helped can it.
LOL
Kevin
Nothing like true democracy then! The rule of the one over the many rofl!
There are certain bills that don't come under the Senate's rules, especially (AIUI) those dealing with budgetary matters. These bills undergo a certain process known as "reconciliation". I don't quite understand it, but bills passed by reconciliation can subvert the cloture requirement in the Senate. This is actually how the George W. Bush administration got many of their bills passed.
What's happened is that the House and Senate have passed different bills and they have to come to an agreement before the President can sign anything. A number of things can happen:
1. The Democrats in the Congress can stop freaking out. (Obviously this has to happen first.)
2. The Senate can start over, most likely by negotiating with Olympia Snowe from Maine, one of the most moderate Republicans. This would require the House to start over, too, or just pass the new Senate bill. They want to have all this done by the end of March, though, so that's not likely.
3. The House can pass the Senate bill as it stands right now and send it to the President. Though I favor a "single-payer" system, I'm OK with this as a solid step forward.
4. The House can demand that changes be made in the Senate bill before they pass it. (This looks likely to happen, and it would likely happen through the reconciliation process; the House would pass the Senate bill, then immediately pass the bill agreed at through reconciliation.)
5. The whole package can be split up into smaller measures that can get passed.
So, it's not nearly over yet. The Democrats are starting to realize that going through all this rigmarole and coming up craps AGAIN (they tried this in 1994 under Bill Clinton) is gonna look REALLY BAD to the voters back home--maybe worse than passing an unpopular bill. They've been working on this for nearly a year; they need to do *something*. So we'll see.
NOTE: So why didn't they do this to begin with? Well, because they're *Democrats* and they felt the need to have the widest support possible within the Congress. Seems for them it's not just a matter of, "The people want this--let's get it through however possible". No--they wanted to do it the "right" way... Also, there are certain limitations placed on bills passed through the reconciliation process. So, yeah, egg on their faces, but hope is still alive. Don't buy the CNN/Fox story too soon.
NOTE 2: Some more leftward Democrats ACTUALLY WANTED THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE TO LOSE so as to force the party's hand in Congress and go to reconciliation. Oddly enough, it might work.
More here:
I was avoiding the in depth discussion and focusing on how one man can upset the apple cart.
There's also the nuclear option threatened by the republicans during the Bush years. Only a good option if you feel your party will be in the majority for a very long time.
Personally I try to stay healthy by working out and staying in shape especially as I'm getting older.If I have my way I want to avoid getting caught up in the doctor,treatment,back to doctor,more treatment ugly cycle.I'd rather spend more time sitting in traffic on the highway than in a doctor's office waiting room.My long deceased grandmother, who lived into her early 90s, rarely ever saw doctors until the very end as that is probably what did her in at that point.
Mark
I agree Mark, even though I work in healthcare. I recently quit smoking, about a year ago, and started swimming daily. We have to take care our ourselves, no one else is going to. I swim about 2600 yards per day. I think many people get caught up in the vicious cycle. I also agree you look to be in very good shape... :-)
I work with 2 people from Canada who are still Canadian citizens. They are in utter disbelief of our current healthcare system and the number of uninsured in this great? country. Yes, one does get the care needed in Canada when the care is necessary. My friends father had a heart attack one year ago and her uncle about a week ago. Both immediately had stents placed, went for cardiac rehab, etc., and her father is doing great!
People in this country are just spoiled, they want there plastic surgery, cosmetic surgery when they want it!
My thoughts only,
Kenny
n/t
Perhaps they should shoot lobbyists as I see they have no useful purpose in life!
Agreed
As for will there be change - only when 51% are uninsured, instead of merely 20% as it is now.
Last I remember, it was We the People, not We the GOP or We the Democrats. Polls show that the current healthcare reform is very unpopular, but since when did Congress listen?
I am one to advocate the following:
1. Remove the anti-trust protections from the insurance companies (make them subject to Mr. Sherman like the rest of us in business)
2. Allow employers to buy insurance from other states
3. Reward companies who provide insurance to their employees, and pay at least 70% of the costs.
4. Reward people for making correct health choices (i.e., getting in shape, quitting smoking, lowering cholesterol, etc. etc.)
I never like how the insurance companies are a protected class. The ones squawking about the "problem" created the "problem" when they started to sleep in the same bed as the insurance companies. My family's business employs about 600 people. Because of that alone, we can provide a better plan to (unfortunately) our NY employees and families as EPO/PPO rather than HMO. Because of existing laws, our VT employees cannot enjoy that. We are also part of a regional association covering the greater northeast. Every lobby season, we advocate for the ability for the association to pool it's resources together to provide an even more discounted rate to the employees. Unfortunately, the way it is set up now, the insurance companies AND the politicians benefit, not the people. The association's goal I stated above would help the small mom & pop 1 or 2 site lumber yards to provide decent and affordable care to their employees. I'll stop now before I get ahead of myself, but it's amazing and scary when the Government thinks they know better than the People themselves.