Health Care and the Amish

[Code Doc]

Will Obama arrest thousands of Amish who refuse "Obamacare"?

The majority of the Amish community (perhaps over 100,000) will refuse Obama’s health care plan. I imagine they will also refuse to pay any fine for not having any health care.

Will the Feds put these people in jail? What will the Feds do when this many people peacefully refuse to be part of his plan? I have a feeling that their minds will not be changed.

So if the Amish are somehow excluded, does that make it okay for BO to enforce it on everyone else?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Wow, most of us are wondering whether there will even BE a bill, and you are already complainging about what will be in it?

Guess what, there are LOTS of small groups like that who routinely violate well-established laws quite visibly, and are simply ignored. Take a look at the fundamentalist Mormon groups. They have gotten into the news lately, but they get charged with rape, rather than being charged with bigamy, which is a crime in all states. They may be in the news now, but they have been well known for decades prior to that.

There are also hundreds of laws that remain on the books that NOBODY enforces.

Still, how do the Amish get health care currently? Do they simply do without (as the Christian Scientists do), or do they get free care (subsidized by the rest of us), or do they have insurance?

[Code Doc]

Wow, most of us are wondering whether there will even BE a bill, and you are already complainging about what will be in it?

Guess what, there are LOTS of small groups like that who routinely violate well-established laws quite visibly, and are simply ignored. Take a look at the fundamentalist Mormon groups. They have gotten into the news lately, but they get charged with rape, rather than being charged with bigamy, which is a crime in all states. They may be in the news now, but they have been well known for decades prior to that.

There are also hundreds of laws that remain on the books that NOBODY enforces.

Still, how do the Amish get health care currently? Do they simply do without (as the Christian Scientists do), or do they get free care (subsidized by the rest of us), or do they have insurance?

I believe most do without. Glad you mentioned the Christian Science situation, which tends to fan the flames. I believe there are several million of them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you do without, you do without. I would guess that most of them are technically below the poverty line, so it may not make any difference. Their needs are cheap, and their profit is probably equally cheap. They may not currently be subject to income tax. Why would it be any different?

On the other hand, everybody gets to pay for the support of lots of things that they don't use, such as the childless homeowners who get to pay the same property tax, which supports schools in most states.

Also, as I mentioned, there are those who are subject to laws that they choose not to obey, and on whom the laws are not enforced.

Frankly, I don't see this becoming an issue even if the health care legislation passes with the pieces you believe will be there.

[FunkyDexter]

As a Brit I really don't get some of the objections I'm hearing to Obama's health plans.

I can understand why people might not want to pay for it when they've made alternative, private arrangements and I can understand debate around that but talk of death panels and the thought of Feds jailing Ammish people for sneezing without a license are ludicrous.

The private system will continue to exist and, if you're unhappy with the treatment the state offers you, you will still be able to go private if you wish. Even in blighty, private health care is a very viable option and, as Obama's plans don't go nearly as far as instituting a UK style National Health Service, I suspect it will remain even more viable in the States. Basically, assuming you carry on your existing private arrangements, you're going to carry on getting the same level of health care you always did. The only difference will be you'll effectively pay a bit more in tax and if, heaven forbid, you find yourself redundant and without means, you'll still be able to get a decent level of health care.

The debate really comes down to: 'Should I be made to pay for something I may or may not use?' Personally I think the UK health service actually works pretty well (despite what the media and a very few headline seeking politicians might portray) and most people don't bother taking private plans. Those who do will still generally use the NHS unless they've got something serious that'll involve a hospital stay because the NHS is really very good at the small stuff and the accident and emergency stuff. On that basis I'd be a supporter of a state solution but I have to acknowledge that your health system seems to work well too so I guess the jury's out. But the debate shouldn't be about hype stories because that way lies the worst of both worlds.

[homer13j]

The Amish use doctors and to a lesser extent hospitals as they deem necessary. The difference between them and us is they pay cash for their services while most Americans have come to expect someone else to pay.

Wow, most of us are wondering whether there will even BE a bill, and you are already complainging about what will be in it?

Unlike most of our elected representatives you can actually read the house version of the bill quite easily and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

The private system will continue to exist and, if you're unhappy with the treatment the state offers you, you will still be able to go private if you wish. Even in blighty, private health care is a very viable option and, as Obama's plans don't go nearly as far as instituting a UK style National Health Service, I suspect it will remain even more viable in the States.

Socialism seldom comes all at once. Especially in a country where government distrust is so ingrained. Look what happened to HillaryCare in the early '90s. This bill is merely a step toward that eventual goal.

Most Americans now get their health insurance through their employers as a job benefit and most of them have little if any choice as to which insurance company to do business with. There's no possible way that private insurance companies will be able to compete with a taxpayer-subsidized system. This is by design. Once companies are able to join the government option there will be very few Americans left in the private system. It will simply "wither on the vine" to borrow a quote from a once-prominent Republican. Eventually there will be nobody left on private insurance.

They can tell you "you can still keep your current heath insurance if you wish" all they want. It doesn't make it true. Likewise they can tell you "nobody in the country illegally will be covered" but of course the house Democrats have stripped any and all language requiring proof of citizenship from the current bill.

And there's a very good reason they desperately tried to ram this bill through before the August recess. They knew damn well most Americans would be against this bill once they got a chance to actually read it.

My biggest problem with this bill is the fact that current government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the VA, etc. are not exactly the wonderful, helpful bureaucracies we were promised they would be. Anyone who has had to deal with the nightmare of U.S. government red tape know exactly what I'm talking about. This is why an overwhelming majority of the elderly are against this bill. It seems to me the majority of people who think this bill is a great idea are twenty-somethings who have yet to deal with a major injury or illness.

[schoolbusdriver]

I can't understand the opposition of the general public to a US NHS, except that a lot of insurance salesmen and directors will lose their jobs - wages that can be better spent on surgeons and nurses - and companies will no longer be able to use health care as a bribe to take on a poorly paid work (or get brown envelopes for promoting a certain company).

I've no doubt that a lot of these salesmen, directors and yes, congressmen and senators taking kick-backs, are pooing their pants and worrying how they'll pay their mortgages on an honest wage at the thought of a NHS, and are paying vast sums of money to politicians (even UK politicos) to go on air and say that it's a terrible idea. (Pay me a million US dollars and even I'll say the system's crap)

There was a news broadcast a couple of weeks ago where an objector said something like "A health service like the UK ? Have you seen the state of their teeth ?" (His own teeth looked like boxers gum shields) I'm pretty sure that if I wanted a perfect set of ivories, it would cost me a damn site less than what he paid in insurance. I think my dentist charges 20 quid for some sort of ultra-violet whitening treatment - but it won't help me chew any better.

It seems to me the majority of people who think this bill is a great idea are twenty-somethings who have yet to deal with a major injury or illness.

When he was 11 years old, my youngest son would have died if it hadn't been for the (UK) NHS.

The stories about poor health care and beaurocratic delays are BS too. The last time I took my youngest son to hospital via A&E we were expecting to have to wait a little while. However, a five second assessment and one minute triage after walking in, he was on a guerney on his way to a private ward - after that things moved even faster.

The queues are for cry-babies wanting treatment for bruised elbows, runny noses and stained teeth.

As has no doubt been pointed out, in the UK you can always pay for private treatment - you'll get exactly the same doctors, nurses etc as you would on the NHS, just maybe a little quicker and better accomodation - they still want you out ASAP to get the next paying customer in. On the good side, the medical team won't be noobs.

[visualAd]

I am incensed by the selfish and self centred ideologies that some people have towards state health care systems.

"Why should I pay for other peoples bad health?"

"Why should an immigrant get free health care?"

"Why should the unemployed be given the same treatment as the employed?"

I could fill a couple of pages with these quotes; total tosh!!! I wonder how many of those people, in a situation where they are unable to pay and in serious pain would refuse free health care.

Its a sad world we live in if we cannot recognise that everyone should have the opportunity to live healthily and it is even sadder that there are people selfish enough not to do their duty and contribute a little.

I am the first to admit that the health care system in the UK isn't perfect and I often piss and moan about pointless bureaucracy when I visit my local doctors surgery or hospital. Without the NHS I would now be dead. Lets assume that I was a US citizen, I would probably still be alive, however I would be in serious debt and would find that most insurers would either not pay for my on going treatment or not insure me.

I am pretty sure that I have cost the NHS a lot more than I have paid in my taxes, however, I now have a reasonably well paid job so am contributing more in taxes and I am able to contribute to the local community and the economy by helping my firm make lots of money . Most importantly, I owe my continued existence to every UK citizen and a state run system of hard working, dedicated individuals who are not interested only in the size of their pay packets.

[schoolbusdriver]

... I owe my continued existence to every UK citizen and a state run system of hard working, dedicated individuals who are not interested only in the size of their pay packets.

You're welcome. Have a good day

[visualAd]

You're welcome. Have a good day

I'll buy you a beer someday.

[homer13j]

I am incensed by the selfish and self centred ideologies that some people have towards state health care systems.

You are completely missing my point. Here in America many of us are born with an inherent distrust of government. Many more (like me) learn to mistrust government the hard way. I will not deny our health care system needs a massive overhaul. My side is trying to argue that creating yet another massive bureaucracy will not solve the current problems - they will only make things worse. And no matter how disastrous things turn out to be there will be no going back. Once this system is in place it will be forever, warts and all.

But apparently it is far easier to simply dismiss my arguments as "we don't want people to have health care."

Our health care system is enormous and very complicated. It will not be fixed overnight. Yet the house bill in question was barely completed in time for the vote (that thankfully never came) giving almost nobody (especially the general public) time to even read it. Don't you think it would at least be a good idea to spend some time deliberating on this issue instead of ramming it through before anyone really knows what it's all about?

The fact that they tried to ram this legislation through without debate should send up red flags to anyone. Well, anyone who has no trust in our government. Apparently in the UK there is very little problem with letting the government control everything. That's fine, but that's not us.

If you think health care in America is expensive now... wait until the government pays for it.

[homer13j]

One more thing... One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is we have millions of people who regularly use our emergency rooms as their personal physicians knowing perfectly well they will never have to pay for the services rendered.

Yet when those of us who do have to pay complain about this we are the ones labeled as "selfish." I find this highly insulting.

[visualAd]

One more thing... One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is we have millions of people who regularly use our emergency rooms as their personal physicians knowing perfectly well they will never have to pay for the services rendered.

Yet when those of us who do have to pay complain about this we are the ones labeled as "selfish." I find this highly insulting.

I wasn't referring to you as selfish, so there is no need to be insulted. There are plenty of people who will take advantage, but I think the benefits would outweigh this. There are plenty of people who sponge off our health service, those include highly paid surgeons and executives, contractors and the general public. Add this to the fact that there is a huge amount of money wasting and I would argue that there is a lot about our system that needs fixing.

The difference is, in the UK, everyone is entitled to a baseline level of healthcare that is decent. Most, not all, will get this. If someone is diagnosed with cancer in the UK, the operation is paid for, the after care is paid for, if they eventually go terminal the palliative care is paid for, the support for their families. It makes no difference if that person was rich, poor, an immigrant who never paid a penny of national insurance or a rebellious traveller.

Make no mistake, I am perfectly aware of the mistrust that the Americans have in their government and I think that this is a good thing to a degree. The US is one of the few countries that has privacy laws that prevent officials from entering your home without good reason. In the UK these laws exist but can easily be overridden. Health care will always be complex and any system that models it will probably be broken from the outset due to the huge number of stake holders involved, however, establishing a baseline level of good care that gives every sick person the opportunity to get better has to be paramount.

Health care is very expensive and any government run health care system is going to be very expensive. Even those paying in the US are probably only paying a fraction of the real cost; for example, in the UK it is cheaper for the NHS to put a patient in a 5 start hotel than keep the patient in a ward.

[Code Doc]

I have now considered all the groups in the USA who either (1) do not want health insurance even if it were free and (2) those who do not believe in doctoring or professional medical care, either for religious or just personal beliefs. The Amish are just one group that falls into this set. Several other groups even larger than the Amish exist and all are citizens of the USA.

The number of people in these two categories alone is staggering. It exceeds the population of the largest metropolitan area in the United States.

[abhijit]

Insurance companies work by pooling the resources of a large group to pay for the losses of a small group.

So if you pay your premium and don't fall sick, you've contributed to the treatment of the person who did fall sick.

Nobody seems to be complaining about insurance companies.

[Code Doc]

Insurance companies work by pooling the resources of a large group to pay for the losses of a small group.

So if you pay your premium and don't fall sick, you've contributed to the treatment of the person who did fall sick.

Nobody seems to be complaining about insurance companies.

Precisely. There are low risks and there are high risks. Unfortunately, many insurance companies sell lousy coverage and many people are unaware of how lousy it is until they try to obtain coverage and find out that they are excluded.

I ran into this about 12 years ago when I suffered a severe back injury. The stupid health "policy" I had bought for 5 years failed to cover the MRI, the ambulance, the drugs, or even the x-rays at the ER because I was treated as an outpatient. It was a complete joke.

[FunkyDexter]

The stupid health "policy" I had bought for 5 years failed to cover the MRI, the ambulance, the drugs, or even the x-rays at the ER

All of which would have been available, no questions asked, no unexpected bill to follow, through the British NHS. It's a damn good argument that Obama's plans don't go nearly far enough. It's stories like this that make me happy we do have the NHS in this country. Government bodies may not be particularly efficient, but they're not profit motivated either, so at least you can rely on them not ripping you off after taking your money.

Homer, you made me think and I'll add another valid objection to the aforementioned "why should I pay for it" one. "Fear of Socialism". If you're really anti-left wing (does that make you anti-social?) or anti-big governement then that is another pretty good argument against Obama's plans. As a dedicated pinko, though, I'd still argue that a decent health service is a neccessity rather than a luxury and I believe that neccessities should be state provided where possible.

It makes me chuckle that Americans (forgive my generalisation) are so scared of socialism. I have a hunch that it might be a hangover from the cold war but I've got no real evidence to back that up.

[abhijit]

It makes me chuckle that Americans (forgive my generalisation) are so scared of socialism. I have a hunch that it might be a hangover from the cold war but I've got no real evidence to back that up.

This is a nice article I read a few weeks ago.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.



Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

[FunkyDexter]

OK, that's a little one sided, even for me. It does illustrate an odd wierdness in human psychology, though: Why do people believe that the government they elected is out to screw them but the private corporation they have no control over has their best interests at heart?

[abhijit]

OK, that's a little one sided, even for me. It does illustrate an odd weirdness in human psychology, though: Why do people believe that the government they elected is out to screw them but the private corporation they have no control over has their best interests at heart?

Who would you trust more, a politician or a businessman?

Most businessmen need to stay within the confines of the law, but most politicians are above the law. (in practice anyway)

That does sound weird indeed!

[JuggaloBrotha]

here's my two cents on the subject. I believe we should offer a national health care system in the hopes that it doesn't become as bogged down at the Canadians system, which is a good system the only real problem that I know of is that it can take 3 to 6 months to schedule critical surgeries and 12+ months for minor surgeries.

What I think this health care system should not allow is free loaders, and by freeloaders I mean the non US citizens, if you're not an American citizen you're on your own, period. With that said I think private insurance should continue, those who want to continue using Blue Cross Blue Shield should feel free to continue doing so, and yes they'll be paying two insurances but that's their choice.

[schoolbusdriver]

What I think this health care system should not allow is free loaders, and by freeloaders I mean the non US citizens, if you're not an American citizen you're on your own, period.

And if these "freeloaders" happen to be your visiting grandchildren who were born in New Zealand, would you still think that way ?

[homer13j]

Hey, I used to be liberal... VERY liberal.

But sometime in the early 1980s I got kicked in the head by reality. Living in a dying city and watching decades of corrupt single-party (guess which one) leadership drive us into bankruptcy (the only city to do so since the Great Depression) and turn us into a national punch line, destroy private businesses, force them to move or make life as difficult as possible for them to remain, completely and totally devastate our school system (once one of the best in the nation - now with a 36% graduation rate), and force more than 600,000 people to find a better life elsewhere had a lot to do with it.

But hey, because nobody wants to live here anymore we now have the lowest cost of living of any American city.

We already have socialized medicine here for the most part - as explained above. It's quite a wonderful thing for those who don't work. Not so much for those who do...

It makes me chuckle that Americans (forgive my generalisation) are so scared of socialism. I have a hunch that it might be a hangover from the cold war but I've got no real evidence to back that up.

I would argue that it goes back much further than that. Probably as far as the colonial days when we finally decided we had more than enough of tyrannical British rule.

OK, that's a little one sided, even for me.

Well, I guess there's hope for you yet...

People do not have a "right" to health care for the simple fact the heath care can not exist without the labor of others. And nobody has a right to other people's labor.

At least not in a free country.

[abhijit]

here's my two cents on the subject. I believe we should offer a national health care system in the hopes that it doesn't become as bogged down at the Canadians system, which is a good system the only real problem that I know of is that it can take 3 to 6 months to schedule critical surgeries and 12+ months for minor surgeries.

What I think this health care system should not allow is free loaders, and by freeloaders I mean the non US citizens, if you're not an American citizen you're on your own, period. With that said I think private insurance should continue, those who want to continue using Blue Cross Blue Shield should feel free to continue doing so, and yes they'll be paying two insurances but that's their choice.

What about the non-American citizens who happen to pay taxes in the United States?

[JuggaloBrotha]

And if these "freeloaders" happen to be your visiting grandchildren who were born in New Zealand, would you still think that way ?

Citizenship or purchase an insurance policy if they're living here for enough of a length of time, it'd be up to them to ultimately decide what they would want to do before moving here.

What about the non-American citizens who happen to pay taxes in the United States?

If they've got citizenship then they're alright in my book.

[abhijit]

If they've got citizenship then they're alright in my book.

So non-tax paying citizens are good for your health care proposal, but tax paying non-citizens are not?

[FunkyDexter]

Well, I guess there's hope for you yet

Pah! No hope at all I'm afraid. VIVE LA REVOLUTION!! LIBERTE, EGALITE ET FRATERNITE!!

Most businessmen need to stay within the confines of the law, but most politicians are above the law.

I'm not sure I'd quite agree with that, at least, not in the US or UK (I used to live in Nigeria - anyone with money's above the law there). I think both are confined by the law as it stands (if they flagrently break it they still get nicked). Of course, politicians have considerable sway over what the law is and, let's face it, big businesses have considerable sway over politicians so arguably neither is confined at all except by their own conciences. To be honest, I don't think either has my interests at heart and I hold contempt for both in roughly equal measure. It's a shame, really, because I do come across some politicians and businessmen who have genuine integrity but a lifetime of being on the recieving end of double speak, sharp practice and untethered greed has left me somwhat jaded. When it comes to running a health service I don't particularly trust the government, I just distrust them less than I do private corporations and I've yet to hear a third option.

when we finally decided we had more than enough of tyrannical British rule.

An interesting historical quirk which has no bearing on the current thread but which I love using to goad Americans when this comes up is that you didn't revolt against a King; you revolted against a Parliament. The monarchy had lost it's legislative powers long before Georgey-Boy turned up on the throne and the tax laws you rebelled against were passed by parliament not by George, who was so looney toons he probably thought the America's were a holiday villa in Burgundy. Whether you can still call democratic British rule tyrannical is debatable. Of course, you weren't getting to vote in that democracy but you got a much nicer climate so it all evens out.

[capsulecorpjx]

As a Brit I really don't get some of the objections I'm hearing to Obama's health plans.

I can understand why people might not want to pay for it when they've made alternative, private arrangements and I can understand debate around that but talk of death panels and the thought of Feds jailing Ammish people for sneezing without a license are ludicrous.

The private system will continue to exist and, if you're unhappy with the treatment the state offers you, you will still be able to go private if you wish. Even in blighty, private health care is a very viable option and, as Obama's plans don't go nearly as far as instituting a UK style National Health Service, I suspect it will remain even more viable in the States. Basically, assuming you carry on your existing private arrangements, you're going to carry on getting the same level of health care you always did. The only difference will be you'll effectively pay a bit more in tax and if, heaven forbid, you find yourself redundant and without means, you'll still be able to get a decent level of health care.

The debate really comes down to: 'Should I be made to pay for something I may or may not use?' Personally I think the UK health service actually works pretty well (despite what the media and a very few headline seeking politicians might portray) and most people don't bother taking private plans. Those who do will still generally use the NHS unless they've got something serious that'll involve a hospital stay because the NHS is really very good at the small stuff and the accident and emergency stuff. On that basis I'd be a supporter of a state solution but I have to acknowledge that your health system seems to work well too so I guess the jury's out. But the debate shouldn't be about hype stories because that way lies the worst of both worlds.

The conservatives are just suckers for the propaganda machine. Most of the conservative media, and the Health Insurance Industry put out a few buzz words "like socialism" or "Obamacare", and false rumors (Death Panels) or inaccurate talking points, to run this bill into the ground.

Oddly, I'd rather the bill die than pass WITHOUT the public option.

The Public Option would have been the USPS version of a Health Insurance company. They don't have to meet profit expectations, just be able to support themselves with premiums they collect. They also won't have any marketing costs and much less overhead.

Of course the conservative media talks about the Public Option as if it were Single Payer.

If the bill passes without the public option, the Health Care Industry has no real competition, instead they will be getting lots of money from people forced to buy insurance.

They'll just keep raising preimums, raking in the profits.

[FunkyDexter]

Oddly, I'd rather the bill die than pass WITHOUT the public option.

I've heard a few people say that in interviews etc. and I think you're probably right. It pretty much describes the 'worst of both worlds' case.

[JuggaloBrotha]

So non-tax paying citizens are good for your health care proposal, but tax paying non-citizens are not?

That's kind of a funny way to word it since to be a US Citizen you're required to pay taxes, which means here there are no non-tax paying citizens, at least there shouldn't be which would be another problem to be fixed. So I guess non-tax paying citizens would not be allowed to participate in the nation health system. Otherwise if you're paying US taxes, would you not be a citizen?

[techgnome]

Oddly, I'd rather the bill die than pass WITHOUT the public option.

Why is that? What makes you think the govt is going to run things any better?

-tg

[MasterBlaster]

And if these "freeloaders" happen to be your visiting grandchildren who were born in New Zealand, would you still think that way ?

I believe he was referring to illegal immigrants/visitors. If someone has no Visa or SSN, no healthcare should be provided. We probably have more illegal immigrants in the US than the total population of new zeland anyway.

Actually you do the math. It would be cheaper if we paid all healthcare expenses for the entire country of new zeland

NZ Population: 4,327,091

US Illegal immigration Population : http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

[MasterBlaster]

Why is that? What makes you think the govt is going to run things any better?

-tg

They won't because they can't. This will kill the healthcare "Industry" in the US. By industry, I mean the public trading of shares of all public held healthcare related companies. Is it just me or does anyone else think that nuking another massive segment of the market is a bad idea?

The only stock I have left that is worth a sheit will be worthless as well.

So long free market.

[abhijit]

That's kind of a funny way to word it since to be a US Citizen you're required to pay taxes, which means here there are no non-tax paying citizens, at least there shouldn't be which would be another problem to be fixed. So I guess non-tax paying citizens would not be allowed to participate in the nation health system. Otherwise if you're paying US taxes, would you not be a citizen?

That's interesting. No you don't need to be a citizen to be working & paying taxes in the US. You can be a resident alien on a temporary work visa, or a permanent resident who doesn't have citizenship.

[JuggaloBrotha]

I believe he was referring to illegal immigrants/visitors. If someone has no Visa or SSN, no healthcare should be provided. We probably have more illegal immigrants in the US than the total population of new zeland anyway.

That's exactly what I was getting at, I just didn't have the right words for it in my head.

That's interesting. No you don't need to be a citizen to be working & paying taxes in the US. You can be a resident alien on a temporary work visa, or a permanent resident who doesn't have citizenship.

Ok so how about: If someone has no Visa or SSN, no healthcare should be provided. instead?

[capsulecorpjx]

Why is that? What makes you think the govt is going to run things any better?

-tg

You're implying that the government will run all of healthcare with a public option.

Does the USPS run all packages?

USPS is pretty efficient, a public health insurance can accomplish the same thing. Especially without the heavy mandate of profits from wallstreet. They just have to break even. They won't even need to pay for marketing.

This barebones serving the public approach will force the other health insurance companies to at least try to do the same, or risk losing all their customers.

People will not be content to pay, out of their premiums, or having their operations denied, or being cut after sickness ... for CEO salaries, shareholder profits and marketing costs.

[techgnome]

'scuse me. Point of order. I did no such thing. I simply asked why YOU think there should be a public option. In no way did I imply that the gov't would be running the whole thing. Personally I couldn't care less if there's a public option or not. All I want is to be able to afford decent health care. I don't give a flying fart if it's from a private company or the government. All I want is to know that my needs are going to be covered at a rate at which I can afford. So if that comes about through regulation, tort changes and other changes to the healthcare industry, I don't care if there's a public option or not.

-tg

[capsulecorpjx]

'scuse me. Point of order. I did no such thing. I simply asked why YOU think there should be a public option. In no way did I imply that the gov't would be running the whole thing. Personally I couldn't care less if there's a public option or not. All I want is to be able to afford decent health care. I don't give a flying fart if it's from a private company or the government. All I want is to know that my needs are going to be covered at a rate at which I can afford. So if that comes about through regulation, tort changes and other changes to the healthcare industry, I don't care if there's a public option or not.

-tg

I mentioned it earlier.
But I'll expand on all the things I think are needed.


--> Public Health Insurance Option:
1) No profit pressures from stock holders (cuts cost)
2) Lower overhead due to almost zero marketing costs.
3) Should be reasonably self-sustaining from member-premiums, like the USPS is with postage stamps and package fees.
4) Not reject people with pre-existing conditions.
5) Not drop people who had a catastrophic injury.
6) Be a very reasonably priced plan for unemployed / self-employed people and small companies. Individuals / Small Companies trying to buy health insurance has been screwed over because they don't have the negotiating power. The Public Option will not charge different rates between employees of big companies, small companies, or unemployed.


If public option succeeds, then it should drive the cost of health insurance down by forcing all the private health insurance companies to reduce their overhead, reduce profit taking. Or move into niche markets, providing extra coverage the public option doesn't cover.



A health care bill without the public option, will just funnel taxpayer money to the health insurance industry. And they still will have no incentive to actually improve or lower costs.


--> I actually agree 100% with conservatives on Tort reform. Mal-practice lawyers get a ridiculous 30% of settlements, that's a huge burden on the system. Add Mal-Practice Insurance for Doctors on top of that, which adds another layer of inefficiency and overhead. You have a pretty big burden.

Tort reform will cap losses, making mal-practice insurance much less costly.

With Tort Reform however, for catastrophic accidents, I think Government Disability should step in and help with that individual's medical bills, pay for the Public Option premiums for that individual if he/she needs it. In the end this strategy is worth it. The victim of the medical accident will have their bills covered, and those oily lawyers won't get their 30%.

--> Another major issue is IT, you need to reduce the huge overhead of all these medical paper forms. (Govt might consider contracting Google to help with this).

--> Lastly you need more doctors, not sure how to get this done, but it's a goal that should be on the radar. Baby Boomers are getting old.

[capsulecorpjx]

Here is an interesting video. Shows the result of the corporate and right-wing propaganda machine, how silly and uninformed the people who buy into their buzzwords and rumors are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&hd=1

[NeedSomeAnswers]

People do not have a "right" to health care for the simple fact the heath care can not exist without the labor of others. And nobody has a right to other people's labor.

Directors in almost every major corporation in the world pay themselves on the back of other peoples labour. Or do you believe that Directors are actually worth the Millions that they pay themselves ?

For instance in the middle of a recession The Directors of Britain’s 100 leading companies rewarded themselves with a collective total of more than £1 billion last year, despite a near 30 per cent fall in the value of their companies. And that's actually a rise in overall pay at directors level at the same time that these same companies are making redundancies.

These kind of unchecked rewards is why many people in the UK are wary of Private enterprise taking over any further Public services.

Just ask anyone in the UK what they think of the Gas/Electricity market, The Water Companies & Our Train system since these markets were privatised.

Every year my Gas & Electricity bill goes up seemingly regardless of what price the Gas wholesale prices are (wholesale prices go up, our gas prices go up almost immediately Wholesale prices go down, gas prices eventually maybe 6 - 9 months later go back down about by about a quarter or half of the wholesale drop), and despite there now being competition in these markets, i have switched suppliers twice and yet i still by bill is barely different from before.

At the same time these companies announce record profits virtually every year !! This probably has something to do with our wariness of big business being in charge of Public services there track record in the UK is startlingly bad !