• 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!

Health Care Bill has passed

It's spread out over several posts over several threads. Here's what I remember.

Health care is NOT a right. It is an option. In my plan there are "Tiers" of health insurance. NO ONE is required to purchase health care insurance, and there are no fines if you do not.

Tier 1: Public Option: this option is offered by the government at prices competitive with private insurance, or at low cost for those who have problems with affordability based on eligibility. It would be paid for through an additional tax called the "HC" tax. Folks who do not want this option, can opt out, and will either get a tax rebate for the "HC" amount, or will simply not be required to pay it, which ever is more efficient.

Tier 2: Private Option: for those who opt out of the public option. Folks can pay for private insurance, or accept their company's insurance options.

Exemptions: Under no circumstances can any illegal alien receive any kind of health insurance, public, private, or Medicare/Medicaid.

Cost offset: This is the radical, yet cornestone of my plan. If you opt out of the public option, and do not purchase a private plan, if you get ill, you MUST pay out of pocket. Under NO circumstances will the government subsidize your treatment. NO EXCEPTIONS... catastrophic illness, accident, children... NO EXCEPTIONS. The options will be there and will be affordable. You chose not to take one of them, you lose. No physician or hospital will be under any obligation to treat anyone with no ability to pay. They MAY if they choose, but they can also "opt out".

Other parts of my plan:

1) Major Tort Reform.
2) The ability to purchase health care across state lines to further stimulate competition.
3) Elimination of insurance company driven utilization review, putting all treatment decisions in the hands of the provider.
4) No pre-existing condition limitation.
5) Adult children can remain on parental health insurance until 26.
6) Centralized, independent organization reviewing/evaluating all health care insurers (including the public option) with the power to fine or even shut down.

These are broad strokes, of course, but you get the gist. The plan above should both please liberals with a public option and making health care affordable to everyone, and to conservatives with creating a system that requires personal responsibility and competition. I'd be happy to answer questions about this plan, and am open to some REASONABLE additions. If you just want to throw hysterical partisan hackery at me, don't bother responding to this post. Both HarryGurellia and LaMidRighter have seen parts or all of this and, if I recall correctly, liked what they saw.

THANKS. this is the most reasonable alternative I have seen to date. I especially like the part about those who refuse to opt in not getting help later. The part about the illegals, I agree. I love the review boards and the preexisting clauses.
 
Last edited:
Your plan sounds pretty similar to this:

Characteristics Of An Ideal Health Care System | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

To be honest, as far as a broad idea for reform, it is one of the best I have read about in my opinion. I think it contains things that would attract both sides as well.

Nothing against your ideas, but why are we here discussing the 'ideal healthcare plan' when we should really be discussing what's been passed into law as it stands? Just curious.
 
Nothing against your ideas, but why are we here discussing the 'ideal healthcare plan' when we should really be discussing what's been passed into law as it stands? Just curious.

I dunno, I guess I just saw some other people talking about what they think we should have done/should do for reform, and I happened to have seen something relating to it, so I thought I would share.
 
Last edited:
I’m beginning to think that this tread will end up with more pages then the healthcare bill itself. :shock:
 
Nothing against your ideas, but why are we here discussing the 'ideal healthcare plan' when we should really be discussing what's been passed into law as it stands? Just curious.

There were a lot of other ideas besides what Democrats and Republicans submitted.
Most of those ideas were ignored because they were largely bipartisan and actually were intended to fix the problem, instead of being hand outs to free loaders.
 
Charvel makes great guitars, but my two favorites are Gretsch and Gibson. For basses, nothing beats a Schecter. :)

I also have a Gibson LP standard and a Gibson '67 Flying V. My LP has a maple neck! It's really cool.

The Schecter custom shop makes phenomenal guitars. I would love to own a Custom Tempest, but they are extremely expensive.
 
There were a lot of other ideas besides what Democrats and Republicans submitted.
Most of those ideas were ignored because they were largely bipartisan and actually were intended to fix the problem, instead of being hand outs to free loaders.
Is that the big problem with the bill?? The free loaders?


I dunno, I guess I just saw some other people talking about what they think we should have done/should do for reform, and I happened to have seen something relating to it, so I thought I would share.

Sorry it was yours that got singled out...
 
Is that the big problem with the bill?? The free loaders?
That's not the real problem with the bill, although it's part of it. The biggest problem most people have outside of the health industry are the mandates to purchase and all of the backloaded taxes. Many of us in the health industry, whether care providers or insurance professionals know that this bill misses many of the problems with healthcare in this country, there are a few things that look good at face value in the bill, but there is much more bad, alot can lend itself to abuse and there are way too many loose ends. I am about to start re-reading core provisions myself because it pertains to part of my practice, but it isn't looking good so far. I'm trying to stay out of this thread for a while to stay cool, but you've been a pretty reasonable poster at this site so I thought you deserved an honest answer.
 
That's not the real problem with the bill, although it's part of it. The biggest problem most people have outside of the health industry are the mandates to purchase and all of the backloaded taxes. Many of us in the health industry, whether care providers or insurance professionals know that this bill misses many of the problems with healthcare in this country, there are a few things that look good at face value in the bill, but there is much more bad, alot can lend itself to abuse and there are way too many loose ends. I am about to start re-reading core provisions myself because it pertains to part of my practice, but it isn't looking good so far. I'm trying to stay out of this thread for a while to stay cool, but you've been a pretty reasonable poster at this site so I thought you deserved an honest answer.

I also want to get acquainted with the bill before I really start tearing into it... I knew this bill was going to be bad, and with what little I'm aware of, I figured it might be the 'illegal alien amnesty' provisions, the provisions expanding the powers of the IRS, the death panels, or whatever other shocking things got packaged in as 'health care reform'...

I've heard some describe this as comparable to the canadian system of health care, but I can say for certain that this will be far more devastating.
 
Is that the big problem with the bill?? The free loaders?

Not entirely but there will be perfectly health people that can afford insurance now, getting subsidies for no reason.
It can't possibly live up to it's hyped savings.
In fact I believe it will add a lot more to the national and/or internal debt.

Last and most importantly, they haven't done a single thing to fix our already underfunded social programs and extreme debts.

It bothers me a great deal that people, who support the bill, ignore the elephant in the room that is many trillions of dollars.
It's like giving 3 year olds automatic weapons and expecting something good to come of it.

It makes me think of a quote from the movie gladiator.
"He will bring them death(in this case debt), and they will love him for it."
 
Denmark has had socialized health care for years. They also have free higher education. It has not destroyed them yet.

I could cite a lot more examples from Yurp but I do not want to bore anybody who is against health care for the people created by the Creator.
 
That's because of artificial demand created by education grants and subsidized loans.

Artificial demand = more people attending college. I am not to sure you can label that in any negative fashion.
 
It depends on what kind of people are attending.

As you know not everyone finished, so it is no more than wasted money.

Not everyone finishes anyway. Unless we can identify a differential marginal rate of dropping out, the homage of "more people in universities" is better than less. An educated workforce is a key to developed economic growth.
 
Not everyone finishes anyway. Unless we can identify a differential marginal rate of dropping out, the homage of "more people in universities" is better than less.

Again it depends on what they are studying.

I'm not so sure we need anymore fashion designers but the added bonus for Jr and Sr level science majors is good, they should do that with Freshman and Sophomores.

I think it should be more targeted toward degree holders we need.

Edit: If I could wave a magic wand and change things, I'd also make it more flexible with class load requirements.
Having to go full time while working a full time job, makes it very difficult for someone to succeed.
 
Last edited:
Again it depends on what they are studying.

I'm not so sure we need anymore fashion designers but the added bonus for Jr and Sr level science majors is good, they should do that with Freshman and Sophomores.

I think it should be more targeted toward degree holders we need.

But who are we to decide what is optimal?

I have a very wealthy friend (older gentleman) who has his last daughter @ University. She came there as a bio/chem major with aspirations to go to med school. She switched to a theater major by semester 3, and i posed the question: does that piss you off? He replied that he does not care what his daughter does with her education as long as she finishes it and is happy. And i admire such sentiment.

Why? Because higher education is based on the desire for higher learning. Once we begin to taint the creative process, the desire, the dream... it is no longer education and becomes indoctrination. IMHO of course.
 
But who are we to decide what is optimal?

I have a very wealthy friend (older gentleman) who has his last daughter @ University. She came there as a bio/chem major with aspirations to go to med school. She switched to a theater major by semester 3, and i posed the question: does that piss you off? He replied that he does not care what his daughter does with her education as long as she finishes it and is happy. And i admire such sentiment.

Why? Because higher education is based on the desire for higher learning. Once we begin to taint the creative process, the desire, the dream... it is no longer education and becomes indoctrination. IMHO of course.

If the intent is for a better quality economy, then that it was it should be geared for.
Personal growth is a different story.

We are importing science and engineering graduates because there aren't enough here.
Add the incentive to study it.

I mean it's great to study what you want, I have no problem with that but don't we want the best return on that investment.

I'm still iffy on it, with the full disclosure that I use it to attend school.
I think it could be done better.
 
If the intent is for a better quality economy, then that it was it should be geared for.

Judgment calls on what make the economy better (micro) are dangerous. There are two aspects that are primary engines: health care and education.

Now with that in mind, the goal should be (macro) to increase access to both. Just like you cannot make a person healthy, you cannot make a person take math. However.... There is an extremely strong positive correlation in regards to higher skills in mathematics and higher lifetime earning and or wealth. Increase the access and let the market decide. If someone really wants to make more money, they will embark on an education that is heavily entwined in mathematics.

Personal growth is a different story.

It is impossible to dichotomize whether personal growth does not lead to economic growth. Some people really enjoy math.

We are importing science and engineering graduates because there aren't enough here.
Add the incentive to study it.

The market already gives the incentive: you will make more money (on average). Attempting to hinder the creative process in favor of more math can have negative cultural effects.

I mean it's great to study what you want, I have no problem with that but don't we want the best return on that investment.

It is something that i am afraid cannot be measured nominally. More scientists and less chefs might sound good to you, but what negative impact would it have (long run) on the hospitality industry? Get the idea?

I'm still iffy on it, with the full disclosure that I use it to attend school.
I think it could be done better.

I really am against micro management in the higher education process, especially in the form of policy application. American Universities are by far (and by a long shot) the best in the world. The next Conan O'Brian can might become an ordinary mechanical engineer. What does that do for economic growth:2razz:
 
Judgment calls on what make the economy better (micro) are dangerous. There are two aspects that are primary engines: health care and education.

Now with that in mind, the goal should be (macro) to increase access to both. Just like you cannot make a person healthy, you cannot make a person take math. However.... There is an extremely strong positive correlation in regards to higher skills in mathematics and higher lifetime earning and or wealth. Increase the access and let the market decide. If someone really wants to make more money, they will embark on an education that is heavily entwined in mathematics.

I'm just thinking in terms of what is needed.
The extra grant benefits are being allotted to nurses, I figure that qualifies as part of the sciences.

The problem though now is that nursing programs are facing waiting lists.

It is impossible to dichotomize whether personal growth does not lead to economic growth. Some people really enjoy math.

Understandable, I don't want anyone to be denied with what they want to do.
If it is to be done, it should be more flexible to at least allow the person the opportunity to fit it in their schedule.

The market already gives the incentive: you will make more money (on average). Attempting to hinder the creative process in favor of more math can have negative cultural effects.

True enough, I think there is problem though with the relaying of that information.
For some reason, people don't want to do it in larger numbers with the pay being what it is.

It is something that i am afraid cannot be measured nominally. More scientists and less chefs might sound good to you, but what negative impact would it have (long run) on the hospitality industry? Get the idea?

That's not what I'm saying.
Chefs have their place and should exist but the lack of science majors is a problem.

I really am against micro management in the higher education process, especially in the form of policy application. American Universities are by far (and by a long shot) the best in the world. The next Conan O'Brian can might become an ordinary mechanical engineer. What does that do for economic growth:2razz:

I have to admit I haven't studied the college end of things as much but thinking about it now, I have to agree.

Educational management shouldn't really exist on any level, primary to collegiate.
 
Now, finally after this bill passed people are getting more involved.

The polls will soon show that it is not the health care reform that people hate but the process by congress in doing anything about it.

Here's a bitch I have about medicare. Viagra is prescribed by doctors like it was candy. Being flaccid is not an illness, disease, injury, etc. I know people who have asthma who can only get one inhaler per month even though they need more sometimes. They are only allowed on puffer per month to help them breathe. If they need more the cost is usually about $47 per inhaler. For a person trying to survive on SS it is usually to costly for them.

I am for people being able to breathe before I am before people having a drug induced boner.
 
I also have a Gibson LP standard and a Gibson '67 Flying V. My LP has a maple neck! It's really cool.

The Schecter custom shop makes phenomenal guitars. I would love to own a Custom Tempest, but they are extremely expensive.

I play a 5 string rosewood Schecter with active electronics. It's the one I am playing in my avatar (from the 2009 Magnolia Music Festival). Would you believe I got it for only $900.00? A friend of mine at Guitar Center made me an offer I couldn't refuse. LOL.
 
The polls will soon show that it is not the health care reform that people hate but the process by congress in doing anything about it.

No, it's mostly about the fact that in no way can states or people possibly afford this.

Obama has directly or indirectly taken over GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, numerous banks, etc, and now healthcare. Now he's got amnesty, financial control of Wall Street, and cap and trade in his crosshairs.
 
No, it's mostly about the fact that in no way can states or people possibly afford this.

Obama has directly or indirectly taken over GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, numerous banks, etc, and now healthcare. Now he's got amnesty, financial control of Wall Street, and cap and trade in his crosshairs.

Awww.... How cute. Systemic risk does not seem to be in your vocabulary. Better brush up a bit:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom