Discussion in 'Politics' started by mgajmp1011, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. mgajmp1011

    mgajmp1011 New Member

    Through the years healthcare for Americans has become a larger problem. The debate has consisted of arguing whether or not the government should provide universal healthcare or something similar to it. Many people have been against it worrying that it might put the economy in worse shape than it is. There have been many debates on what the advantages of universal healthcare are and whether or not they outweigh the negatives. With universal healthcare the families would be responsible for their healthcare instead of the insurance companies. The insurance companies are allowed to deny people healthcare coverage based on a “pre-existing condition” or other factors. With universal healthcare this would not be a problem, since insurance companies would no longer be responsible for providing healthcare coverage. Israel is one country that already provides universal healthcare to its citizens. In Israel every person has healthcare coverage and no one is denied healthcare (found in the article “U.S. can look to Israel for universal healthcare advice”). Many people advocate modeling our healthcare system off of theirs. The Israeli government pays about $4,000 less per person for healthcare than here in the United States. If the United States could get the healthcare system to be more like the Israeli system then not only would every citizen have healthcare coverage but we would also be saving the country thousands and thousands of dollars. Not only are other countries using universal healthcare coverage, but also here in the United States some of our nurses and other healthcare professionals are advocating that the United States switch to universal healthcare. It is alarming when people that work inside the healthcare system see the problems of the system and yet nothing is being done about it. In the article “Nurses call for universal healthcare in US” Geri Jenkins, the co-president of The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, states a reform based on Medicare would "create 2.6 million jobs that would bring $317 billion in businesses and revenues and bring $100 billion in wages."

    In the article “The Case for Universal Healthcare in the United States” by John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. the authors discuss the common myths of universal healthcare. One of the myths the authors disprove is the cost of universal healthcare. They point out that the cost would actually be less, as in Israel, and would increase benefits. The article also discusses how universal healthcare limits the amount of intrusion from the government and other private organizations. Universal healthcare would lessen the problems of free choice, medical decision and confidentiality. Universal healthcare is not socialized healthcare, which is what many United States citizens prefer. The authors also point out that the current healthcare plan is not being fixed, as many people argue. Private healthcare is not the answer to the healthcare problems because with private healthcare providers can refuse to cover certain people, thus cutting some people out of healthcare. This article helps to point out that if the United States worked to use universal healthcare the American citizens would be better off. Some form of insurance could cover everyone and the money the government saved would help to bring the economy back up. Based on these articles arguments, universal healthcare would be a great option for healthcare in the United States.
  2. nirakar

    nirakar ( i ^ i )

    Step one to a better healthcare system in the USA: Campaign Finance Reform.
  3. joepistole

    joepistole Ordo Ad Chao

    Amen to that! Campaign finance reform is probably the most important and overlooked of all the issues now facing The United States. The United States cannot continue as a superpower and be as corrupt as it is in Washington. A government of, by and for the special interests in Washington cannot be sustained. It will ultimately end in the failure of the state. The question is not the fall, but how long the end will be. Will it be a quick death or a lingering death?

    I am hoping that The United States can avoid a tragic ending, but it gets more difficult with each passing day.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  4. mgajmp1011

    mgajmp1011 New Member

    I agree. I feel that the United States has been going downhill very fast. I feel that as a country the United States has become obsessed with our self-image and the belief that we are such a great nation and have pushed our problems to the backshelf and only once the problems become huge do they finally get worked on.
  5. ElectricFetus

    ElectricFetus I'm just going for a walk...

    QFT! Government corrupt is the core cause of almost all our problems, though I believe the issue must be reduced it is not necessarily the answer to all of our problems.
  6. kac11

    kac11 New Member

    There are many reasons why I do not agree with President Obama’s 2009 Health Care Plan. Although President Obama does have some very promising policies that will benefit America’s health care crisis, the negative effects this plan will inflict on our society out weigh the positive results.
    In this bill, President Obama promises that it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and for insurance companies to drop your coverage if you get sick. There will also be a limit placed on how much one can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should become bankrupt because they need medical attention. These are some of the positive proposals in President Obama’s health care plan, however, if this plan is passed, there are many elements that will ensure that more harm is inflicted upon the average American citizen.
    If this bill is passed, we are abandoning the principles of America. Abraham Lincoln once stated that you cannot make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak. In Congressman Mike Rogers’ opening statement on health care reform in Washington D.C., he proclaims that this bill will punish the eighty-five percent of all Americans who have earned health care as a part of their employment, and it will also punish the employers who provide it to them, in order to cover the fifteen percent of the population who currently do not have health care. Why punish the people who are working to cover those who are not working?
  7. kac11

    kac11 New Member

    President Obama’s 2009 Health Care Plan is clearly a government-based system. With this government-based system, there will be many trade-offs. Congressman Rogers affirms that under section 141 of the Health Choices Commissioner Act, the federal government can actually dis-enroll individuals from their own plan. This illustrates unprecedented power by the federal government. This bill also includes power for the government to dis-enroll your entire company from a certain health care plan. How is this not a federal government-based system?
    Another trade-off for adopting this bill is that, according to the National Cancer Intelligence Center for the United Kingdom, and the Canadian Cancer Registry, these countries, who currently have government-run health care, conclude that if one of their citizens is diagnosed with prostate cancer, that person has less of a chance of survival than one does who is diagnosed in the United States. This is equally true for skin cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, and the list goes on. This is a situation that no one wants for our beloved country. President Obama’s proposal for a government-sponsored health plan ensures that costs of health care will be reduced, but doctors, insurers, and drug companies argue it will limit patient choice and warn that the quality of care could be compromised.
    I reject President Obama’s Health Care Plan because it is a government-run universal health care plan, and we have seen evidence from around the world that government-run health care leads to inefficiencies, long waiting periods, and often substandard health care. Although this plan includes some policies that will benefit the American public, the bill that is being proposed today contains many points that will be detrimental to the majority of U.S. citizens.
  8. joepistole

    joepistole Ordo Ad Chao

    Just a few points to consider, the Democrats are proposing to implement a system of healthcare that has been successfully used in Europe, Canada and elsewhere across the globe with stunning success. The plan the Democrats are proposing is half the cost that US citizens are paying and according to international quality measures, much more effective with better quality.

    Two, this is not about universal healthcare. It is about controlling healthcare expenses. Universal healthcare is an outcome of controlling healthcare expenses. Today those 15% percent are being treated in emergency rooms and not paying for that cost. Those of us with insurance are paying for the uninsured today. So the only thing that changes under the Democratic plan is the uninsured will be required to pay what they can afford for healthcare verus the nothing they pay today.

    The Democratic healthcare bill will through creating increased competition (open markets) reduce the costs of healthcare for all of us. So contrary to punishing the 85% of us with healthcare it will help the 85 percent of us by reducing premiums and the cost of healthcare to get our healthcare costs more in line with what other similar countries pay for healthcare in their countries - half what we pay here in the United States.

    Reduced healthcare costs in the US makes American businesses better able to compete globablly. It makes American produced products cheaper. Additionally, since almost half of the 85% of us that have healthcare coverage get it from the government already, the Democratic healthcare bill will reduce federal expenditures on healthcare thus freeing up more money to pay down the debt and keep tax rates low.

    One other thing, it is a falicy to say that we currently do not have a government run healthcare system. Because we do. If you doubt that, try to import prescription drugs from Canada. The Democratic model proposes to increase competition in the healthcare markets, something I would think that any red blooded Republican would be staunchly in favor of doing.
  9. ElectricFetus

    ElectricFetus I'm just going for a walk...

    First of all this is not "obama plan" this is the house's plan, second why pay taxes at all as they will always go to covering others, third those 15% are not simply non-working people, most of them work and work hard, they simply get paid peanuts and can't afford healthcare. Those that help pay for them are not being punished as universal health care will improve worker quality and the economy for all, so it more of a "pay it forward" than a punishment.
  10. joepistole

    joepistole Ordo Ad Chao

    True, non working people are covered under Medicare and Medicaid. So they get healthcare. It is the poor working smuck that cannot get or afford healthcare insurance.

    I am ohh so facinated that the right wing arugements against healthcare reform always focuses on someone getting something for nothing. And the funniest thing is the biggest reciepients of the get something for nothing are the biggest voices trying to keep others from getting what they already have.

    But like I said before this not about covering all individuals. This is about getting US healthcare expenses more line with other countries (that means cheaper, lower taxes, lower insurance premiums) while improving quality.
  11. Laurel Connolly

    Laurel Connolly New Member

    Democrat or Republican plan?

    I completely agree that the universal healthcare is constantly put in a bad light due to myths. I think the Republican plan is not going to get the job done...

    Finally health-care has moved to the top of the governments to-do list, and it’s about time! Many citizens, about 45 million, struggle without health-care and the new health-care reform can hopefully put this to an end. Democrats and Republicans have been battling about healthcare, having two very different opinions. The Democrats bill is pushing for universal healthcare that would cover about 36 million people at the coast of $1.05 trillion over 10 years. On the other hand, the Republicans think this bill is far too costly and gives the government too much power. Instead, the Republicans came up with a bill that would allow people to buy health insurance across state lines and also encourage small businesses to band together to buy insurance at lower prices, and rein in medical malpractice lawsuits, says John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader. However, Mr. Boehner quickly backs his response up explaining that the Republican proposal had none of the taxes or mandates of the Democrats’ bill and would not prohibit insurers from denying anyone coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. So which is the better bill? After researching each side I came to a conclusion that I think the Democratic proposal will get the job done and bring about change much more efficiently.

    JoePistole brought up a good point how the Democrats bill has worked in Europe, Canada, etc. Why not give it a try? The House of Democrats bill will help low and middle income people drastically, helping them buy new insurance. For example, the bill would offer over $600 billion in subsidies. To start, under the house bill for a family of four with an income of about $78,000, they would pay an annual premium of $8,800 and co-payments if $5,000, about 18 percent of the family income in 2016. Next, for a family of four with income of about $90,100 would pay $11,100 in premiums and $5,500 in cost sharing, 18 percent of the family’s income in 2016. Lastly, for a family of four with income of about $66,000 would pay premiums of $6,300 and cost sharing of $3,700, or 15 percent of its income in 2016. Overall, the subsidies are very generous.

    Many people are kicked to the curb, not able to receive health-care, if they cannot afford it. Is this just? The answer is absolutely not! We need to help our fellow citizens to get the proper medical attention they need. The Democrats bill says that insurers will not be able to stop paying for people who are sick, even if they loose their jobs. Health insurers can also no longer cap coverage. For instance, they will not stop giving you medical attention because you cannot afford it. Since the economy is so awful at this time with several people loosing their jobs, this is extremely reassuring. Also, many families who can’t afford expensive health-care don’t have to worry because they won’t have to pay as much money for dependable healthcare. Next, people who are already sick will automatically be eligible for healthcare.

    While Republicans think the Democrats plan is much too costly, in the long run it will hopefully save money. First, due to cap coverage this should stop medical bankruptcy. Jacob Hacker, the Yale University professor of political science, explains, “A public plan could join with Medicare to implement reimbursement rules encouraging more cost-efficient care. Because of the combined size of the programs, cost-saving measures would quickly spread through the system. Both Medicare and private insurers reimburse the same doctors and hospitals”. Also, overall, the bill will hopefully reduce medical cost significantly, in the long run. Republicans also believe that the Democrat bill increases the government control too much, but this isn’t such a bad thing. The government will regulate all private healthcare plans to make sure that they are following all of the just guidelines. No one will be able to be screwed over by his or her healthcare plan; the government will actually be an improvement over the present system.
  12. joepistole

    joepistole Ordo Ad Chao

    The Business Roundtable, a group of the nations Chief Executive Officers from the nations most influential businesses support most of the Democratic reform initative: Hewitt Report Fact Sheet FINAL.pdf

    The Business Roudtable published a report today saying that healthcare costs wil rise to 29,000 per employee ten years from now if nothing is done. So for those of you who feel better than thou now because you can afford healthcare insurance, will you be able to pay three times the cost you are currently paying for healthcare?

    Let me take it one step further, how do you know you are getting the best healthcare in the world. Let me guess, somebody told you so. And you have no personal experiences to the contrary, right? So that allows you to summarily discount studies from the World Health Organization and other healthcare insititutions. You had better pray, you and your family stay healthy. :)
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  13. CeciliaStelzer

    CeciliaStelzer New Member

    I would say that most people agree that America, in general, needs health care reform. Right now our system consists of a disorganized mess of government, personal, and employer coverage. America spends twice as much on health care than other industrialized countries, while we remain the only such country to not offer universal insurance. And like Joepistole said, the rates of our health care, without a change in our system, will just continue to increase. We are clearly falling behind in the health care field. The question that remains is how to fix the way America’s health care system works. I have to agree with the original poster and say that a form of universal health care would be the best option for our country.

    The article “What You Need To Know About Health Care Reform” by Elizabeth Cohen states that, “Nearly 46 million Americans have no insurance, and 25 million more are underinsured.” America also has surprisingly high infant mortality rates, along with ranking 50th in life expectancy. It is just horrifying to think that although we consider ourselves such a powerful, industrialized nation, we are so behind on this front. Health care is a serious issue in our country and it needs to be corrected.

    In my opinion, the only way to completely correct the issues in our system is to switch to socialized medicine. Despite the bad connotations of the word “socialist,” there are times when things in our system really do benefit from being socialized. Libraries are a socialized system and people don’t tend to fight the idea of having those be socialized nor do they say it’s leading to the alleged slippery slope of communism, so why should medical coverage be any different? There is socialized medicine in Canada, the UK, and most of Western Europe. All of those countries are doing very well with their systems, with longer life expectancies, let alone the fact that they pay less for it. Canada, in particular, is a country I believe America should use as a basis for our future health care system. Canada has free health care for all: just show your card and you don’t have to pay. When it comes to something as crucial to human life as medical care, everyone deserves to have equal service. Money shouldn’t be able to buy human life and vitality. If someone doesn’t have the funds, they shouldn’t be sent away from the hospital, while those with money have plenty of medical service. It seems strange that we haven’t adopted a health care system similar to Canada already.

    The NHS provides health coverage for England. Their website summarizes the idea perfectly stating, “The NHS was born out of a long-held ideal that good health care should be available to all, regardless of wealth.” America should have a health care system that provides for everyone, despite their financial standing. As Laurel Connolly said in her post, too many people are turned away from medical service in the current system, because they don’t have insurance coverage. We are in the only big, industrialized country that doesn’t provide universal health care. We are the only powerful country turning its own citizens away from our hospitals. And the only way that can be adequately changed it with socialized medicine.
  14. spidergoat

    spidergoat alien lie form

    Who the hell are these people? Something is fishy about this whole thread.
  15. mgajmp1011

    mgajmp1011 New Member

    As human beings we all deserve the right to healthcare. We should not be turned away from medical help just because we cannot afford the outrageous prices that hospitals are charging now. If other countries that do not have economies like ours are able to provide free healthcare to all of their citizens, shouldn't we get the same right?
  16. joepistole

    joepistole Ordo Ad Chao

    Below is a link to the referenced text, show me where it validates the claim that you attribute to Congressman Rogers.

    The bottom line, the statement you attributed to Congressman Rogers is not correct. No where in the bill does it say that the comissioner has the power to disenroll individuals from their own plan. Why am I not suprised to see more false and/or misleading information coming from the anti-healthcare side?
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  17. CeciliaStelzer

    CeciliaStelzer New Member

    All of the information is purposefully smudged, blotched, or under-researched. And then people will go online to find their information about healthcare and it will be from someone who read a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation. Now whenever I meet people who argue against things like this, they have hearsay and speculation for facts. When you look deep into the issue of healthcare, there really aren't as many drawbacks as people are led to believe. There is a really good article on this called "Six Conservative Myths About Health Care." I would post the link, but my account isn't old enough.
  18. mgajmp1011

    mgajmp1011 New Member

    Are you implying that virtually no one know what the true facts are? If "regular" people make misconceptions about healthcare, doesn't that also mean that politicians can also have misconceptions and advocate or push those misconceptions to convince people to believe lies?
  19. tennischamp

    tennischamp New Member

    I think it's really hard for many Americans to truly know all the facts. Many don't want to make the effort to find out all of the information they need to make a well-informed decision, and others who do try to learn more can't always understand it if it's in technical language.
    As for politicians, they may have misconceptions, but I think they usually believe that their views are correct. For a congressman in the House to sneak a lie past 500 other congressmen would likely be difficult, so he's forced to tell the truth. That's not to say he doesn't always give unbiased information, but it usually stems from the truth. It may be easier for a politician to gain more information because of his position and education; it's just a matter of how he interprets that information and presents it to Americans.
  20. tennischamp

    tennischamp New Member

    It would be great if America was able to support a system like that. No one really wants other people to have to suffer because they can't afford health insurance. However, with our current national debt, the idea seems impossible right now. Adopting a system like that would cost a tremendous amount, and we have many other financial problems as it is. Plus, you're right, many Americans are against the idea of taking a step that would seem to be in the direction of socialism. I know many devoted Republicans, and they are firmly against many actions of the Democratic Party because they believe they want things that are too socialist.

    Second of all, a system like Canada's and Europe's does seem great. No one goes without medicine or surgeries or x-rays they need because they can afford to go to the doctor and have expensive procedures done. However, this system has one major downfall: waiting lists are incredibly long for things like surgeries and other major medical procedures. Because everyone can afford it, everyone that needs this procedure wants it done immediately. I used to live near Detroit, so we could go into Canada within an hour over the bridge without any trouble. I knew one lady who lived in Canada that came over to Detroit regularly for her doctor and hospital because she simply couldn't wait long for certain procedures in Canada. She needed some kind of transplant, and the waiting list she was put on for a new organ was so long that she wouldn't have survived without this organ for that amount of time. So, she paid a little extra money and came to the US to have the transplant. It's a good thing that everyone can get the medical treatment they need, but it sort of defeats the purpose when the waiting lists are so long that they can't get the treatment in time.

Share This Page