• 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!

What do you want in the Health Reform bill

What do you want in the Health Reform Bill


  • Total voters
    10

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
15,254
Reaction score
3,208
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
As the bill currently makes its way trough committee, there are 4 scenarios that could happen to this bill. Starting from the left extreme, to the status quo.

1. Universal Health Care

This is Obama's home run folks. Also, the worst of the worst from a conservative standpoint. The government hires, pays, and fires doctors and all medical professionals, to the exclusion of any private investment or competing businesses.

2. National Health Insurance

Probably the very most the democrat leadership can accomplish realistically. With or without the republicans. Even then it would be watered-down with politi-speak that would favor health insurance companies(or, at least just the big-corrupt companies).

3. General Health Reform

No more than your general bill that passes through congress to do...something...In the end, nothing to worry about, just your average waste of money.

4. Dies

Waterloo. No further explanation needed.
 
As the bill currently makes its way trough committee, there are 4 scenarios that could happen to this bill. Starting from the left extreme, to the status quo.

1. Universal Health Care

This is Obama's home run folks. Also, the worst of the worst from a conservative standpoint. The government hires, pays, and fires doctors and all medical professionals, to the exclusion of any private investment or competing businesses.

2. National Health Insurance

Probably the very most the democrat leadership can accomplish realistically. With or without the republicans. Even then it would be watered-down with politi-speak that would favor health insurance companies(or, at least just the big-corrupt companies).

3. General Health Reform

No more than your general bill that passes through congress to do...something...In the end, nothing to worry about, just your average waste of money.

4. Dies

Waterloo. No further explanation needed.

I'd rather have nothing than 1-3.

Thus far government health insurance is an indefensible position to hold.
All of their "facts" are loaded with half truths and lies.
 
I'd rather have nothing than 1-3.

Thus far government health insurance is an indefensible position to hold.
All of their "facts" are loaded with half truths and lies.

What lies and half truths? We need reform in a big way......
 
In a perfect world I'd want one or two, with access to healtcare being like access to police or fire protection. I have zero faith in our government to carry out such sweeping reform, however, even if it were politically possible to pass a bill strong enough to carry out this reform. I'm assuming I'll be generally opposed to whatever gets passed in the end
 
What lies and half truths? We need reform in a big way......

The problem is, the reform we need is something they're unwilling to do. They want to slap a big, expensive bandage over the problem and try to ignore it, rather than actually addressing it head on.

Until the government is willing to actually fix health care on a fundamental level, they're just wasting time and money.
 
The problem is, the reform we need is something they're unwilling to do. They want to slap a big, expensive bandage over the problem and try to ignore it, rather than actually addressing it head on.

until the government is willing to actually fix health care on a fundamental level, they're just wasting time and money.

who is "they"? it seems to me at least obama is willing to take this on, depsite the blue dog dems and the republicans. if people were HONEST, most would acknowledge we need reform, as you did. instead, what we have is more fear mongering and outright lies (euthanasia?) being thrown around.

we will never get anywhere unless we actually start the car.
 
In a perfect world I'd want one or two, with access to healtcare being like access to police or fire protection. I have zero faith in our government to carry out such sweeping reform, however, even if it were politically possible to pass a bill strong enough to carry out this reform. I'm assuming I'll be generally opposed to whatever gets passed in the end

i'm optimistic.
 
Government health care is more efficient (Lie), Government health care is cheaper (half truth), Health care is a right (half truth), there are others but that is a start.

i believe access to decent healthcare is a right, whatever your economic status. and as for efficiency and cost, who says we can't do it right? part of the reason gov't health programs are rife with fraud is because of the hospitals as well as the doctors.
 
The goal being reducing healthcare costs:

The reform I would like to see is less regulation on hospitals. I work as a laboratory technologist at a regional medical complex, and my lab alone is over regulated. We are subjected to numerous inspections and most are looking for the same thing. One inspection would do the same as several. This would not only save hospitals more money directly, it would cut their cost in other areas as well. The companies that make the supplies we use are subjected to too much regulation also. Reduce that regulation and pass the savings onto the hospitals, who in turn pass it on to patients.

Even simple streamlining of things could help. The parts of inspections that are looking for something different then the others can be integrated into one simple inspection.

Next, I would reduce the tax burden on hospitals and health insurers, both state and federal. If legislators are really serious about reducing health costs, and if they believe healthcare is a right, then reduce the tax burden on hospitals or even eliminate it like it is on foods.

Next, I would reduce the bureaucracy involved in government. This would would go along with tax reduction. Save money by streamlining the government and healthcare taxes could be reduced, possibly eliminated.
 
As the bill currently makes its way trough committee, there are 4 scenarios that could happen to this bill. Starting from the left extreme, to the status quo.

1. Universal Health Care

This is Obama's home run folks. Also, the worst of the worst from a conservative standpoint. The government hires, pays, and fires doctors and all medical professionals, to the exclusion of any private investment or competing businesses.

Medical professionals who are working or will work on their own business, like me, cannot be fired. These would be private practitioners who are often self-employed. They are not under the thumb of a hospital and cannot be fired by the government. However, they are not competing businesses, in fact they refer patients to hospitals anyway.

2. National Health Insurance

Probably the very most the democrat leadership can accomplish realistically. With or without the republicans. Even then it would be watered-down with politi-speak that would favor health insurance companies(or, at least just the big-corrupt companies).

3. General Health Reform

No more than your general bill that passes through congress to do...something...In the end, nothing to worry about, just your average waste of money.

Yeah that's the problem. The GOP complained about the stimulus bill being a "short-term fix," well look who's talking now. The GOP may care about long term investments and the well being of the American people, but they just don't know what to do when it comes down to that. They suggest reforming Big Pharma, which will not have a large impact on the system. They suggest creation of a small business tax credit to help the already employed. Ok, but what about the unemployed.

What the GOP is doing is chipping small little pieces off of the block of swiss cheese that is the health care industry, the problem is that the whole block is rotten and it had holes to begin with.

4. Dies

Waterloo. No further explanation needed.

This is likely and its scary. We are getting NO other options from other senators or whatever. The only thing being discussed is the public option, and I think GOP members wanted to keep the system privatized and make it reliant on the stock market. What a fail.

The reason that its likely is that the American people are getting too many mixed signals about the new reform.
 
i believe access to decent healthcare is a right, whatever your economic status. and as for efficiency and cost, who says we can't do it right? part of the reason gov't health programs are rife with fraud is because of the hospitals as well as the doctors.

Health care is a negative right and not a positive right. Meaning that it is yours as long as you can get it.

We won't do it right. There are politicians involved each with their own agenda and ideology what is right and not right. Some fallaciously believe that anyone can have all the health care they want and it will have no negative effects on access. That line of thinking is completely wrong, health care like a great many other things, is a scarce resource and must be priced accordingly.

Most of the people who support any UHC style system have not the slightest understanding of basic economics to make those decisions.
 
who is "they"? it seems to me at least obama is willing to take this on, depsite the blue dog dems and the republicans. if people were HONEST, most would acknowledge we need reform, as you did. instead, what we have is more fear mongering and outright lies (euthanasia?) being thrown around.

we will never get anywhere unless we actually start the car.

You say this as if government is the only answer. How about individuals reforming their own healthcare and taking responsibility for themselves?

It is not alright to take something from someone who works hard and is ambitious in order to give it to someone who has made poor choices in their lives and is lazy.

If someone decides to not care about their own healthcare enough to do something about it themselves, then why should I care?
 
who is "they"? it seems to me at least obama is willing to take this on, depsite the blue dog dems and the republicans. if people were HONEST, most would acknowledge we need reform, as you did. instead, what we have is more fear mongering and outright lies (euthanasia?) being thrown around.

we will never get anywhere unless we actually start the car.

Here's the issue, and I'm going to try to be polite and open minded in this and hope you respond back likewise.

Very few people I think believe the health car industry is perfect. I'd say a majority of people feel that reform of some kind must be done.

However...there is not just one way to do reform. Additionally, doing SOMETHING doesn't always equal doing something that helps.

Yes, Obama wants reform. In a general sense, there is agreement with that. However, the issue is what and how he wants to reform things. His ideas of reform, currently, seem to be more government oversight, more government involvement, and more public options (not even going to get into the discussion of all public or not, we'll just stick with this). He believes it seems the issue is that insurance companies are running amock, raising prices because of greed and unregulation, while Doctors are pushing forward unneeded procedures for many people. At the same time he feels there are too many uninsured people and that getting insurance between jobs is difficult.

Now, some of those problems he could find common ground in I'm sure. Getting more people insured is something I doubt many on either side dislikes. Ditto with possibly bringing down the cost of health care.

The issue however is not whether people want reform or not, but HOW.

For the past 6 or so years we heard many people on the left complain and criticize George Bush's "You're either with us or you're against us" mentality. You're either for the War in iraq or you're against america. You're either for the War on Terrorism or you're helping terrorism. Etc.

Yet now many on the left, either knowingly or unknowingly, are doing this exact same thing. You're either for heavily government involved health care or you're against reform (with some in this forum even actually saying or you're unamerican).

What? Really? How is this any less ludicrous then when Bush and his people were doing that kind of tactic? Why is it that when one side is in power there is this immediete notion that somehow there is no reasonable, patriotic, intelligent way to actually think DIFFERENT than the other side? When have we became a people who can't go "Well, I disagree with you on your conclussion, but I respect the fact there can be multiple opinions on a matter"?

The crux here is not that most Republicans are against reform, but in the HOW. Many want tort reform, to bring down the amount of frivilous lawsuits with people trying to become millionaires off honest and sometime unhelpfable medical mistakes. Some wish to remove health care from a federal thing, letting states deal with on the basis of what the needs may most be in a particular state. Others would like to see, if we're going to do something with regulation, DE-regulation so that ala carte options can be done so those who can't/don't wish to spend a lot on coverage can get plans with only things they need. Others would want perhaps a tax rebate that can go specifically to purchasing your own insurance outside of your employers. It goes on and on.

Are all these things full proof? Absolutely not. There's critics to all of them; but there are also proponents to all of them too. Legitimate ones on both sides. At the same time however, there are ALSO critics (and proponents) of all the various things Democrats wish to do for reform.

Ultimately it comes down to opinion, and personal philosophy, and which members of the field of experts you put the most stock in...but to say either side is somehow without a doubt absolutely impossible and you're an idiot to think that way, like some seem to imply, is simply wrong. You may think that the things the other side wants to do are harmful, bad, and are going to lead to bad results...but you have to realize you're doing so based on your own opinion, supported by whatever facts, but realize also that you're position is no better supported in practice then theirs. I highly doubt people on either side, at least on the voter level, are generally going "mwhahaha, I want to destroy america, I hate poor people, everyone should suffer, mwhahaha" ;)

So we come to this bill...

As I was saying above, most of America I believe feels some kind of reform is needed. The PROBLEM comes in the fact that many feel that the WAY in which President Obama and the democrats want to reform it will actually produce MORE problems for our country and for our health care system then no reform.

Think of it as a car with a bad engine. Its not running very smooth, but its running. You have two mechanics, both have two seperate ways to fix the car and the majority of both their ways are in dire contrast to how the other would do it (leaving little middle ground). Mechanic 1 doesn't want Mechanic 2 to try and fix the car, even though it could use fixing, because he believes that what he's going to try to do to fix it will actually cause it more damage making it run even LESS smooth...and vise versa for Mechanic 2. In that situation, they feel that doing SOMETHING, if it is the wrong something, is WORSE than doing nothing. That does not mean that ultimately what they want to do is nothing however.

That is what is happening here. Republicans and some Blue Dogs feel that this reform will not help, but harm, the country financially and the health care system in this country. While they are not happy with how it is currently, they are fighthing this because they feel it would be worse.

Now you ask, why not push for something else?

Because frankly its not practical. Yes, some republicans have stated what they'd prefer to see happen but its not pratical to expect a major plan to be pushed. Why? Becasue you have a President in power whose made the kind of health care he wants one of the center pieces of his election and a congress that has a number of high ranking members who did so as well. You have a republican minority in both houses. The ability to truly put forth an alternative plan, going back the other way, and it having ANY traction is zero to none.

Due to this, the best way to focus their efforts is to stop this bill. I say stop instead of compromise because true compromise is not going to really be able to happen here. Compromise so far has essentially been slightly watering down the democratic parties proposals, which is not so much a compromise but a weakening of their side. Conservatives aren't getting a good deal of their hopeful reforms in, and the general premise that they feel is so dangerous...further government involvement in health care...is at the very heart of the bill, its not going anywhere. So to vote for this, even as a compromise bill, would be to essentially go agaisnt their principles which in turn would be going against the vast majority of voters that put them in office in teh first place...and are they not there to represent their constituents? Then how exactly would be going along with something that, at its very core, is antithetical to the principles they were elected into office on? And it appears, through all of this, that that one core piece of the legislation is not going to be diluted and scaled back enough through compromise to make it acceptable to both sides.

So please, disagree with Republicans on their desired ways to do reform. Be annoyed if one of your representitives is one of those people fighting this if you want them to pass it. But please, do not try and push this notion that republicans do not want reform simply based off the fact that they do not agree with President Barack Obama on how that reform must happen.
 
The goal being reducing healthcare costs:

The reform I would like to see is less regulation on hospitals. I work as a laboratory technologist at a regional medical complex, and my lab alone is over regulated. We are subjected to numerous inspections and most are looking for the same thing. One inspection would do the same as several. This would not only save hospitals more money directly, it would cut their cost in other areas as well. The companies that make the supplies we use are subjected to too much regulation also. Reduce that regulation and pass the savings onto the hospitals, who in turn pass it on to patients.

Even simple streamlining of things could help. The parts of inspections that are looking for something different then the others can be integrated into one simple inspection.

not within my knowledge base, but you could be right. however, regulations evolve for a reason, and we all know labs have made tremendous mistakes in the past.
Next, I would reduce the tax burden on hospitals and health insurers, both state and federal. If legislators are really serious about reducing health costs, and if they believe healthcare is a right, then reduce the tax burden on hospitals or even eliminate it like it is on foods.

sorry, for profit hospitals are nothing more than businesses. insurance companies are for profit entities as well, as quite profitable ones at that. why should their taxes be reduced? so ceo's and stockholders can be further enriched? grocery stores are taxed on their sales, this is not a valid argument.

Next, I would reduce the bureaucracy involved in government. This would would go along with tax reduction. Save money by streamlining the government and healthcare taxes could be reduced, possibly eliminated.


if a private insurer interacts with a hosiptial/patient/doctor, what gov't involvement is there?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why people think government run healthcare will be so great. Medicare is bankrupt, and we have spent tens of trillions on that program. Many people spend more on healthcare because they can afford it and WANT to spend more. And only about 3% of Americans are without healthcare because they have absolutely no way of getting it.

There is no evidence that government run healthcare will provide better quality healthcare. There is no evidence it will be cheaper and more efficient. People ignore that fact that Canadians pay more money to taxes than Americans do.

Having the government run something will not magically make it cheaper. The technologies wont get cheaper, the treatments wont get cheaper...the only thing happening is that high premiums will be converted into higher taxes, most likely on wealthier families. And so we have "spreading the wealth", the punishment of success, and socialism.
 
You say this as if government is the only answer. How about individuals reforming their own healthcare and taking responsibility for themselves?

Why do many people jump to this? One of the ever-popular lame talking points is "we need to take care of ourselves." If history has taught us anything, its that we cannot take too many things into our own hands. I mean sure I would love to have people who mind their health enough to be "relatively fit" but people won't listen to that, especially in the U.S.

This whole country is built on the concept of impatience. Who's to say that part of the structure doesn't include laziness as well? Come on, its America, the land of the free and the home of the lazy and impatient.

It is not alright to take something from someone who works hard and is ambitious in order to give it to someone who has made poor choices in their lives and is lazy.

If someone decides to not care about their own healthcare enough to do something about it themselves, then why should I care?

Right, so ... the industry should seek out those who work hard and care about themselves enough and give healthcare to them only? That's hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Health care is a negative right and not a positive right. Meaning that it is yours as long as you can get it.

We won't do it right. There are politicians involved each with their own agenda and ideology what is right and not right. Some fallaciously believe that anyone can have all the health care they want and it will have no negative effects on access. That line of thinking is completely wrong, health care like a great many other things, is a scarce resource and must be priced accordingly.

Most of the people who support any UHC style system have not the slightest understanding of basic economics to make those decisions.

well, that's your opinion. my opinion is that it is a fundemental right. and no, we don't do it right, but we could. i completely disagree that healthcare should be priced as a scarce resource, other countries, whatever their individual problems with their systems, are able to provide for their citizens.

i don't necessarily think private ins should go away, but we need a public option.
 
who is "they"? it seems to me at least obama is willing to take this on, depsite the blue dog dems and the republicans. if people were HONEST, most would acknowledge we need reform, as you did. instead, what we have is more fear mongering and outright lies (euthanasia?) being thrown around.

we will never get anywhere unless we actually start the car.
Tell me. What is it that government run healthcare will fix other than more people getting healthcare? What exactly is Obama "taking on"? Corrupt insurance companies? Do you honestly believe the government wont be just as corrupt? Just look at Illinois for an example.
 
What lies and half truths? We need reform in a big way......
What constitutes "reform"?

There is perhaps near universal agreement that health care markets need to be restructured in this country--there are too many examples of waste, inefficiency, and outright fraud for that case not to be made.

After that, however, health care "reform" becomes the elephant being described by the seven blind men--each one perceives a single aspect and generalizes it to the entirety.

Some are focused on health insurance--the means to pay for health care.

Some are focused on health costs--why we "need" insurance in the first place.

Some are focused on perceived iniquities--rich can get all the care they want while the poor can't get the care they need.

The amazing thing about HR3200 is that it manages to completely avoid doing anything positive about any of these. It's a $1 Trillion guaranteed boondoggle.
 
These healthcare reform riots are quite unsettling. They are so counter intuitive to the progression of this country. If one is opposed to a healthcare reform bill, that's alright. It's a political opinion, and we all have plenty of those. However, rioting is going to get this country nowhere. Those opposed to the healthcare bill should be the most willing to discuss the bill and haggle a deal. Senseless protests will get the entire country nowhere, because, in politics there is no "my way or the highway option". We must civilly formulate some sort of plan to appease to the general populace. However, this cannot be done in town hall meetings where screeching matches between representatives and disgruntled citizens erupt. Now, I totally agree with the American right to protest. This "right to protest" can be brought about in several ways. One is taking the the street with hateful messages, referring to Barack Obama as a Nazi. Another (the preferable option), is opponents and proponents to the bill CIVILLY coming together to discuss our options as American citizens, because frankly, we have the right to civilly discuss things. If you don't like something, do something about it instead of getting angry and shoving people around. That is how progress is made, and how ignorance is dealt with. Both sides of the bill must know what the other stands for. If one thinks proponents of the healthcare bill are Nazi sympathizers, then hopefully, ignorance is bliss. I for one would like a civil discussion to take place between both sides so that I can weigh each option out carefully before making any sort of predisposed of opinion.


PS: Thank God for the this forum. At least debate happens here.
 
Last edited:
However, rioting is going to get this country nowhere.
You must be strongly against ACORN, I would hope. Oh, and btw, this country exists because of one big riot, and slavery has ended because of another "riot". Civil rights were giving to women and African Americans because of protests. To say protesting will get this country nowhere is...well...not exactly taking into account the past.

Why is it that when conservatives protest, they are labeled as evil angry mobs, yet when anyone else protests they are simply exercising free speech?
 
Last edited:
if a private insurer interacts with a hosiptial/patient/doctor, what gov't involvement is there?

I am saying that reducing the costs to insurers will reduce the cost to their clients.
 
Why do many people jump to this? One of the ever-popular lame talking points is "we need to take care of ourselves." If history has taught us anything, its that we cannot take too many things into our own hands. I mean sure I would love to have people who mind their health enough to be "relatively fit" but people won't listen to that, especially in the U.S.

This whole country is built on the concept of impatience. Who's to say that part of the structure doesn't include laziness as well? Come on, its America, the land of the free and the home of the lazy and impatient.

People can be lazy if they want to be, but that does not mean everyone else should have to take care of them. That just breeds more laziness.

Right, so ... the industry should seek out those who work hard and care about themselves enough and give healthcare to them only? That's hilarious.

Not what I said at all.

redherring.jpg
 
As the bill currently makes its way trough committee, there are 4 scenarios that could happen to this bill. Starting from the left extreme, to the status quo.

1. Universal Health Care

This is Obama's home run folks. Also, the worst of the worst from a conservative standpoint. The government hires, pays, and fires doctors and all medical professionals, to the exclusion of any private investment or competing businesses.

2. National Health Insurance

Probably the very most the democrat leadership can accomplish realistically. With or without the republicans. Even then it would be watered-down with politi-speak that would favor health insurance companies(or, at least just the big-corrupt companies).

3. General Health Reform

No more than your general bill that passes through congress to do...something...In the end, nothing to worry about, just your average waste of money.

4. Dies

Waterloo. No further explanation needed.

What I want in a Health Care Bill,,,You pay your own Bills. You EARN the money spent to heal yourself. That about covers it.:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom