• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative Groups Fault Health-Care Agenda

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Conservative Groups Fault Health-Care Agenda - WSJ.com

Conservative groups are stepping up the battle against Democrats' proposed health-system overhaul with advertising campaigns contending that the changes could result in long waits for surgery and difficulty obtaining prescription drugs.

The conservative groups' campaigns seek to liken the Democrats' proposed system to those in countries where the government has more involvement in the health system. Many experts don't believe such systems offer worse care than the current U.S. system, which is based largely on private plans and coverage.

In the ad campaign by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a Canadian woman, who also was not paid, says: "As my brain tumor got worse, my government health-care system told me I had to wait six months to see a specialist."

But leading Democratic lawmakers drafting legislation to expand health-care coverage and reduce its cost have said they wouldn't seek to emulate either the Canadian or U.K. system. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) told reporters last week that he was trying to craft "a uniquely American solution" where people who like their health insurance can keep it.

A back door to near complete government health care.

Max Baucus is a damn liar, he knows this is a trojan horse.
 
Do the democrats in Washington even have an actual health care plan yet?
 
Oh man. This has debacle written all over it.

People are beyond ignorant as to the whole notion. First of all, UHC is kind of like a color wheel in that there are so many options in how it can be done that making blanket statements about UHC pretty much, in my book renders that person stupid. Like saying that all breed of dogs are identical (no, you're dumb). If you want a real understanding of some of the finer details, go consult the health care provider analysts and administrators of companies like Blue Shield.

I can see these ads playing to the stereotype without ever going into what UHC could potentially be, what specifics it could offer, and how it could under some plans be better than what we got now. Of course any counter ads are likely to just screw it up as well.

A UHC that reforms the insurance industry will almost certainly be better than what we got now. That part of healthcare makes money by denying service to those who pay for its services. That to me and others here has got to go. But on the other hand, a UK type system that is super bloated would be worse.
 
Do the democrats in Washington even have an actual health care plan yet?

Its basically something that is going to mirror medicare, except it will be for the general public.

No doubt it will be cheaper and offer better coverage at first.

It will be subsidized by taxpayers so making it cheaper and better is all an illusion.
It will cause open market insurance prices to rise because people will switch to gov care.
 
Oh man. This has debacle written all over it.

People are beyond ignorant as to the whole notion. First of all, UHC is kind of like a color wheel in that there are so many options in how it can be done that making blanket statements about UHC pretty much, in my book renders that person stupid. Like saying that all breed of dogs are identical (no, you're dumb). If you want a real understanding of some of the finer details, go consult the health care provider analysts and administrators of companies like Blue Shield.

I can see these ads playing to the stereotype without ever going into what UHC could potentially be, what specifics it could offer, and how it could under some plans be better than what we got now. Of course any counter ads are likely to just screw it up as well.

A UHC that reforms the insurance industry will almost certainly be better than what we got now. That part of healthcare makes money by denying service to those who pay for its services. That to me and others here has got to go. But on the other hand, a UK type system that is super bloated would be worse.

I could accept reforms but so far I haven't seen anything other than massive fail at this time.

No gov run UHC system will work, maybe vouchers would be a better option.
 
Its basically something that is going to mirror medicare, except it will be for the general public.

No doubt it will be cheaper and offer better coverage at first.

It will be subsidized by taxpayers so making it cheaper and better is all an illusion.
It will cause open market insurance prices to rise because people will switch to gov care.

Link to source? To the best of my knowledge, nothing has progressed beyond the "what if we did this" brainstorming stage, and gathering information.

I have been wrong before though, so not jumping on you yet.
 
Link to source? To the best of my knowledge, nothing has progressed beyond the "what if we did this" brainstorming stage, and gathering information.

I have been wrong before though, so not jumping on you yet.

That is all the grape vine stuff I've been hearing but I'll try to find an article on it.
 
No gov run UHC system will work, maybe vouchers would be a better option.

I could see a no-frills insurance that favors preventive medicine that is done by private doctors that is administered by the government working. You'd get much less than you would under a private plan and thus discourage the middle and upper class from enrolling. The emphasis on preventive medicine would curtail much of the costs that the poor incur in healthcare. Remember that the insurance industry does not want poor people on its healthcare insurance plans. There's a reason why the poor are generally not covered, it does not make sense from a capitalist point of view, especially when medicine is focused on fixing a problem rather than preventing it. The poor simply don't have the money to make it profitable.
 
I could see a no-frills insurance that favors preventive medicine that is done by private doctors that is administered by the government working. You'd get much less than you would under a private plan and thus discourage the middle and upper class from enrolling. The emphasis on preventive medicine would curtail much of the costs that the poor incur in healthcare. Remember that the insurance industry does not want poor people on its healthcare insurance plans. There's a reason why the poor are generally not covered, it does not make sense from a capitalist point of view, especially when medicine is focused on fixing a problem rather than preventing it. The poor simply don't have the money to make it profitable.

I overall still prefer absolute no gov plan.

What I'm quite interested in is those a la carte style clinics opening up around the U.S.

If anything I'd like to see some standards eased so that RN's and LPN's can diagnose and administer medications and such.

I'd also like to see the dr's licensing boards stop being so damn protectionist with their industry.
 
Link to source? To the best of my knowledge, nothing has progressed beyond the "what if we did this" brainstorming stage, and gathering information.

I have been wrong before though, so not jumping on you yet.

So far the best explanation of why no one knows much about it is that the process of drafting the bill has been secret.

To make things look worse is that they want to fast track the bill so that it won't be given enough time to debate.

In my opinion that can't be anything but trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/politics/12dems.html?fta=y

Democrats plan to avoid filibuster on healthcare bill - Los Angeles Times
 
Thank you for the links.

So, no one knows any details about a health care plan yet. It's a mystery, so mysterious that some democrats are complaining about the lack of information. And yet we have conservative groups running commercials suggesting that the health care plan is going to be like Canada's or the UK's, and presenting doom and gloom scenarios. Got to love it when groups don't even make a basic effort at any sort of honesty.
 
Thank you for the links.

So, no one knows any details about a health care plan yet. It's a mystery, so mysterious that some democrats are complaining about the lack of information. And yet we have conservative groups running commercials suggesting that the health care plan is going to be like Canada's or the UK's, and presenting doom and gloom scenarios. Got to love it when groups don't even make a basic effort at any sort of honesty.

I think that they have a general idea.

What most of the stories I have read have said that it is Obama's health care plan or something alluding that point.

For the most part you're right.

Them being secretive undermines the whole notion of open and honest government. I cannot in any way support something that is being drawn up in such a way.
 
Oh man. This has debacle written all over it.

People are beyond ignorant as to the whole notion. First of all, UHC is kind of like a color wheel in that there are so many options in how it can be done that making blanket statements about UHC pretty much, in my book renders that person stupid. Like saying that all breed of dogs are identical (no, you're dumb). If you want a real understanding of some of the finer details, go consult the health care provider analysts and administrators of companies like Blue Shield.

I can see these ads playing to the stereotype without ever going into what UHC could potentially be, what specifics it could offer, and how it could under some plans be better than what we got now. Of course any counter ads are likely to just screw it up as well.

A UHC that reforms the insurance industry will almost certainly be better than what we got now. That part of healthcare makes money by denying service to those who pay for its services. That to me and others here has got to go. But on the other hand, a UK type system that is super bloated would be worse.

While there may be hundreds of different ways to implement the program, some good and some bad, I have faith that the plan that is eventually selected will be a ****ty one.
 
While there may be hundreds of different ways to implement the program, some good and some bad, I have faith that the plan that is eventually selected will be a ****ty one.

Most likely. God knows the insurance industry has much of Congress in their pocket book. Without reform to that aspect, we're going to get crap and lots of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom