• 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

Yeah, that's who wrote it and he has a public option. That works for me. I was confused over how he intends to pay for it, though.

Here it is: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/68642-health-care-bill-has-passed-71.html#post1058635538
You would have to have a similar model to insurance companies, in other words some investment from unused funds, you would have to have reserve funds, and it would have to be run like a business because it would have a self funding mechanism. It would have to have a risk analysis department, and most of all, politicians would have to be told "hands off!" The overall point is, without legit reform neither this nor nothing else can work. Fundamental fixes are the only option, however this idea has been shelved at the moment.
 
I don't know how you should define it but I wouldn't say that 90% of the poor really aren't poor. This is especially true with all of the long term job losses in this recession. We have to cover the poor - the uninsured with no savings, because they lived paycheck to paycheck.

We have to change that behavior, not encourage the same.
Figuring out how to do that is one of the most important things.

People need to learn to not live paycheck to check, to build a savings.


Actually, many elderly can afford it, you are correct. There are many elderly who would be considered poor, that would need covering. Plus the fact that their care needs are so great they could be considered sick - high incidence of health care utilization.

We also promised them Medicare.

I do agree that some are very low income.
I don't have a problem helping them, but we have to make sure it doesn't turn into a lifestyle subsidy.


We have a disagreement. People with Diabetes should absolutely be covered. Type 1s are not obese - they cannot process sugar at all and risk hyperglycemia without Insulin and hypoglycemia with Insulin - both deadly. Type 2 has high IR, thought to perhaps be caused by obesity or thought to actually cause obesity. I am Type 2. I cannot control my Diabetes by diet and exercise alone. I take 90 units of Insulin a day, which is a lot. I am still not well controlled. I will lose my eyesight, have severe pain in my legs prior to amputation, possibly have renal failure and other Neuropathy effects. I take $900 or medications a month. I got rejected for pre-existing conditions several times. I am sick. Luckily I have a job and group coverage. Without, I would be screwed....was screwed.

I do not like your overly restrictive definition of what counts for sick.

Do you consider diabetes to be a disability?
I'd say it's a sickness but not a disability.

A lot of people can benefit from diet control diabetes management.
I don't know your specific case, so I'm not saying whether or not you can.
The point is, though, that people aren't making life changes to adjust for these problems or changes to prevent them.

As an example, a guy I work with(in his 50's) has high blood pressure and complains about the cost of his medicine.
He smokes and drinks lots of salty soft drinks.
He could, in theory, help his high blood pressure by quitting smoking and not drinking soda.
No plan has addressed behavior.
 
You would have to have a similar model to insurance companies, in other words some investment from unused funds, you would have to have reserve funds, and it would have to be run like a business because it would have a self funding mechanism. It would have to have a risk analysis department, and most of all, politicians would have to be told "hands off!" The overall point is, without legit reform neither this nor nothing else can work. Fundamental fixes are the only option, however this idea has been shelved at the moment.

Yep. That's part of the reason that I had mine as a Co-op, separate but funded by the government. Then it operates as a business without gov't interference.
 
Yep. That's part of the reason that I had mine as a Co-op, separate but funded by the government. Then it operates as a business without gov't interference.
Correct. You get accountability, competition, and a self-funded option so it isn't an entitlement in the true sense. If the price is reasonable I don't see any reason it can't compete and make a majority of people happy.
 
Do you consider diabetes to be a disability?
I'd say it's a sickness but not a disability.

A lot of people can benefit from diet control diabetes management.
I don't know your specific case, so I'm not saying whether or not you can.
The point is, though, that people aren't making life changes to adjust for these problems or changes to prevent them.

As an example, a guy I work with(in his 50's) has high blood pressure and complains about the cost of his medicine.
He smokes and drinks lots of salty soft drinks.
He could, in theory, help his high blood pressure by quitting smoking and not drinking soda.
No plan has addressed behavior.

Not sure. It is an affliction that results in pre-existing condition.

I don't like the idea of extending insurance or not based on behavior.
 
As an example, a guy I work with(in his 50's) has high blood pressure and complains about the cost of his medicine.
He smokes and drinks lots of salty soft drinks.
He could, in theory, help his high blood pressure by quitting smoking and not drinking soda.
No plan has addressed behavior.

Heh... When my blood pressure got so high that I required medication, guess what I did? Stopped smoking and stopped taking the birth control pill (both contributed to the high blood pressure)

Guess what happened? My blood pressure automagically went down and no more medication!

People are free to do as they wish with their own bodies, of course. I just don't want to hear people bitch and moan about the cost of their healthcare while they are *causing* their own health problems. Additionally, I don't want to pay for people like the woman in the other thread who is purposefully gaining weight to get to 1000 pounds, or anyone else who does knowingly unhealthy things and has medical issues because of it and continues to do those unhealthy things and expects ME to ****ing pay for it.
 
I don't like the idea of extending insurance or not based on behavior.

That's not really it.

It's about changing behavior.
The only way to really change it, is to make things cost more out of pocket.

You get insurance but going to the doctor costs a bit more money than a $20 co pay.
Using their services should be for absolute need and not because of lazy personal health management.
(Not calling you lazy but many people handle their health in a lazy manner.)
 
Not sure. It is an affliction that results in pre-existing condition.

I don't like the idea of extending insurance or not based on behavior.
Lifestyle choices and risk. Underwriters are hired to accept or deny applications based upon statistics, risk, and other factors. Actuaries calculate literally every scenario imaginable and use real world data to class risk, and they are damn good at what they do; they can tell you how many people of every demographic will suffer x the next fiscal year within +/- one life.

The way things work in life, certain occupations are found to statistically have more risky behaviors, as well, things like an OWI show a risk taking lifestyle, meaning your odds of dying young increase. Health adds an additional twist: Your lifestyle could lead to illnesses, and conditions can lead to an increase in use of care, so much like in car insurance where a bad driver will have a hell of a time finding insurance an unhealthy person is treated as a walking crapshoot. It's not a great thing to have to say that, but it is the statistical and numerical reality of health.
 
Heh... When my blood pressure got so high that I required medication, guess what I did? Stopped smoking and stopped taking the birth control pill (both contributed to the high blood pressure)

Guess what happened? My blood pressure automagically went down and no more medication!

People are free to do as they wish with their own bodies, of course. I just don't want to hear people bitch and moan about the cost of their healthcare while they are *causing* their own health problems. Additionally, I don't want to pay for people like the woman in the other thread who is purposefully gaining weight to get to 1000 pounds, or anyone else who does knowingly unhealthy things and has medical issues because of it and continues to do those unhealthy things and expects ME to ****ing pay for it.

Exactly, that shouldn't be allowed with regards to that woman.

I smoke and when I take Tylenol I can feel my blood pressure rise.
It sounds hokey but light meditation can bring your blood pressure down.
 
Actually, there was a Supreme Court decision in 1937, that upheld the right of the Government to force people to pay Social Security taxes, that is applicable here. Doesn't make it right, though, but it does make it legal.
That's not even close to the same thing.
 
One of the problems with medicare is that the filthy rich are just as eligible as the filthy poor. I don't believe that people with huge incomes should be eligible for medicare and those freaking scooter chairs cost way to much.

Many prices in health care are artificaly cost inflated. Look what hospitals charge for an aspirin.:shock:

I remember when doctors made house calls and people did not even need health insurance because the prices were affordable. What went wrong? Pure and simple greed in most cases.
 
That's not really it.

It's about changing behavior.
The only way to really change it, is to make things cost more out of pocket.

You get insurance but going to the doctor costs a bit more money than a $20 co pay.
Using their services should be for absolute need and not because of lazy personal health management.
(Not calling you lazy but many people handle their health in a lazy manner.)

No, I am lazy. I smoke and don't really work out much.

I completely disagree that their services should be for need absent poor personal health management. People come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of habits good and bad. All should be treated equally.

Furthermore, attempts to collect information about a patient to classify them into a risk group is a privacy issue. You just have to spread the risk that a percentage of people a certain age engages in activities that raises healthcare cost for that age. Those actuaries can do that as well.
 
Lifestyle choices and risk. Underwriters are hired to accept or deny applications based upon statistics, risk, and other factors. Actuaries calculate literally every scenario imaginable and use real world data to class risk, and they are damn good at what they do; they can tell you how many people of every demographic will suffer x the next fiscal year within +/- one life.

The way things work in life, certain occupations are found to statistically have more risky behaviors, as well, things like an OWI show a risk taking lifestyle, meaning your odds of dying young increase. Health adds an additional twist: Your lifestyle could lead to illnesses, and conditions can lead to an increase in use of care, so much like in car insurance where a bad driver will have a hell of a time finding insurance an unhealthy person is treated as a walking crapshoot. It's not a great thing to have to say that, but it is the statistical and numerical reality of health.

As I mentioned, it is a privacy issue. Would you find it acceptable for the insurance company to request a DNA sample? Behavior is the same thing.
 
Lifestyle choices and risk. Underwriters are hired to accept or deny applications based upon statistics, risk, and other factors. Actuaries calculate literally every scenario imaginable and use real world data to class risk, and they are damn good at what they do; they can tell you how many people of every demographic will suffer x the next fiscal year within +/- one life.

The way things work in life, certain occupations are found to statistically have more risky behaviors, as well, things like an OWI show a risk taking lifestyle, meaning your odds of dying young increase. Health adds an additional twist: Your lifestyle could lead to illnesses, and conditions can lead to an increase in use of care, so much like in car insurance where a bad driver will have a hell of a time finding insurance an unhealthy person is treated as a walking crapshoot. It's not a great thing to have to say that, but it is the statistical and numerical reality of health.

The republican would like to use the "Book Of The Dead" to guide who gets health care.:mrgreen:
 
I remember when doctors made house calls and people did not even need health insurance because the prices were affordable. What went wrong? Pure and simple greed in most cases.

Govt and insurance involvement are what went wrong. Thankfully, we just got more of the same in this new bill. :roll:
 
Govt and insurance involvement are what went wrong. Thankfully, we just got more of the same in this new bill. :roll:

No, greed and the profit motive created the currant health system. It's not what's best for the patient it's how do we maximize profits.
 
No, greed and the profit motive created the currant health system. It's not what's best for the patient it's how do we maximize profits.




yet now, we force people to buy from these "greed mongers".. Success!!!!! :doh
 
Govt and insurance involvement are what went wrong. Thankfully, we just got more of the same in this new bill. :roll:

It's interesting that humoral medicine was the paradigm for hundreds of years into the 1800's.

In colonial Virginia an enema costs approximately twenty five pounds of tobacco, purging was fifty pounds of tobacco, blood letting about the same, etc.

The origins of most health care providers came from various religions who provided it to people mostly for moral reasons instead of a bean counting enterprise that it is today.:(

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism]Humorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I guess you dont get what I am saying. Under this new obama plan, we are forced to give these "greed mongers" our money.



:doh

I know. We are stuck with this healthcare bill because the Republicans did not have the stones to enact their own bill 6 years ago. The republicans have no one to blame but themselves. The voters elected Obama to change things and good or bad, that is what he did.
Healthcare reform has been in the works for 40 years and if this bill didn't pass nothing would have.
 
If I owe rent and I don't pay it and refuse to move then eventually I will be forced out by the sheriff with a gun. I never had any kids but I have been forced to pay for other people's children's education. I do not complain about this because of my ideology, which is kinda socialistic. It's who I am and who you are.

You can do whatever you want with your liberties. Squander them, not defend them, heck, not even recognize them..whatever. But if you support actively or passively interefering with the rights of others, it's no longer really your call, is the point.

And people change. Your outlook on life at 20 can be entirely reversed at 40, or 60. I don't want a system that forces me in my 40's to live in the way I agreed with in my twenties. That's what liberty allows for, me choosing, i.e. not you, or not the majority, or not the youth choosing for the elderly, etc.

Sadly, in arguing the liberal position for years, that's the sort of reasoning behind it? "That's just how I roll?" Insufficient for me.
 
Last edited:
Govt and insurance involvement are what went wrong. Thankfully, we just got more of the same in this new bill. :roll:

Actually, I think it was technology and drug advances that made things so expensive. We used to die at 65.
 
Actually, I think it was technology and drug advances that made things so expensive. We used to die at 65.

My implantable cardioverter defibrillator certainly was not cheap;)

Well there goes the Ferrari I was saving for....
 
No, I am lazy. I smoke and don't really work out much.

I completely disagree that their services should be for need absent poor personal health management. People come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of habits good and bad. All should be treated equally.

People who live unhealthy lifestyles should pay more.
That's how it should be if you want to lower costs.

Furthermore, attempts to collect information about a patient to classify them into a risk group is a privacy issue. You just have to spread the risk that a percentage of people a certain age engages in activities that raises healthcare cost for that age. Those actuaries can do that as well.

Again it keeps prices higher.
I don't control it, I just know what can lower prices and increase access.
 
Back
Top Bottom