not-so-furry discussion > debate forum

Health Care Bill

(1/14) > >>

Narei Mooncatt:
Ok, simple enough. Who's for or against the current health care bill going through the U.S. Congress?

To keep it short, I'm against. If I choose not to be insured, I get "fined" by the government. For people to be covered that can't pay, it requires others to have more of their money taken from them to pay for the "zero-liability" citizens (those that either use as much or more in government services than they pay in taxes), putting responsability on one group to provide for another against their will. I can't remember the name of the website, but I heard on the radio there's one out there that went through the proposed bill and discovered that non-U.S. citizens will also be covered, which is even worse. It will effectively eliminate competition because when you put any business against the government in this way, the government will always come out ahead. We've already seen the horrible track record of government funded/ran social progams touted to help us for years and years. Face it, there will be rationing in the government system. In the private sector, you can try many different places if you need help with treatments/bills and "shop" for the best options for you. In a government ran system, you don't have that option unless you move to another country. I've already heard of many small business' (you know, the ones that government always tries to help out?) that are dropping healthcare and/or shrinking their work force *because* of things like this, which means even more people going into the system that can't pay for it.

It's already late for me tonight, but I noticed this topic hasn't been brought up yet and wanted to at least start it and see where it goes. As a side topic, I have another question to those that would support this bill or any government ran healthcare system. Would you also be in favor of "sin" taxes and limits on junk foods, and even limits on healthy foods (since you can just flat out over eat). These would be taxes meant to curb people's eating habbits and more or less force you to eat only a certain kind of food to help promote a better living. This would apply to energy drinks, coffee, candy, soda, anything fried or fast food, and anything else deamed by the government as "unhealthy". And would you also start outlawing bad behaviours like smoking and drinking, promiscuity, etc, because those can negatively affect your health. If they pass this kind of bill, then to be fair, these things should happen. If you're gonna rob someone to pay for someone else's healthcare, then you had better put some terms on the receiver of that care to make sure they are living as well as can be and not being a junky that just sucks money from the system. Of course...you know that kind of policy would never happen.

CiceroKit:
I am very much for this bill... though it doesn't go far enough. In 2003, I was in a middle-management role at a local paper. One of my co-workers, who btw made the same amount of money as I did, opted not to enroll in the health insurance coverage offered through work. I asked him why. He told me that since our employer did not pay over 80% of the premium, he could get Badger Care (yes, he had kids and we are in Wisconsin). I was appalled! Here was someone who made good money, the same amount as me, and I, as taxpayer, had to pay for his health insurance even though he was offered the same coverage as me. I don't mind footing the bill for healthcare when someone isn't offered insurance through an employer, but as long as the employer is paying at least something towards the premium, the employee should have to take it. We all pay more at the clinic due to people who are uninsured. This bill is a step in the right direction, and it could lead to a better solution. We need health insurance for all. I have had to live without it before, and it is the path to financial ruin my friends. Most of the people who file for bankruptcy in this country do so because of debt incurred by medical expenses.

There are all sorts of myths that right-wing pundits still want us to believe, but the chief one seems to be that there will be a lack of choices or that one will have to wait to see their doctor of choice. My question is this: How is that any different than what we have in place now? I have had to wait and wait, with serious health issues, before I could get in to see my own doctor. I have had a lack in choices because with PPOs and HMOs, your health care provider may not be "in network."

We are the last developed nation to have public healthcare. I only wish this were socialized healthcare or a single payer plan. It is not. The bill is compromised.

BTW, I am in favor of taxes on junk food and, especially, soda. We tax cigarettes to the hilt, but do they do anymore damage than eating high fat, high sugar, low nutrient value food? No. The biggest epidemic we face is obesity. Sweden has done more than applied a sin tax, they have prohibited the sale of certain foods. It would never go that far in the U.S., but I think it should. That is my two cents worth.

Narei Mooncatt:
I'll give you points for being consistant on agreeing to the sin taxes and such as well. My biggest complaint is the whole rights vs responsibilities arguement that I've used many times in the past. They are trying to say one person has the right (according to Dems, not the constitution) to health care, but someone else has the responsibility to pay for it. And the people getting taxpayer funded care also will not have any responsibility placed on them for their lifestyle choices. You can't have that and call it fair by any means. I've heard the argument about bankruptcy because of health expenses, but you have to look at what's causing many of these treatments. Yes, there are things like cancer and bad genetic luck, and true accidents. But a huge portion of our healthcare costs are incurred by our own bad choices. Be it lack of exercise, eating/drinking too much, and other risky lifestyle choices. We are all taught how to treat our bodies right, but it's still up to us to put it into practice. You can't just say we are lower than other countries in health without looking at *why* we are lacking. Though when it comes to the actual care we can get, I'd want to be no other place than the U.S. to find treatment.


--- Quote ---He told me that since our employer did not pay over 80% of the premium, he could get Badger Care (yes, he had kids and we are in Wisconsin). I was appalled! Here was someone who made good money, the same amount as me, and I, as taxpayer, had to pay for his health insurance even though he was offered the same coverage as me. I don't mind footing the bill for healthcare when someone isn't offered insurance through an employer, but as long as the employer is paying at least something towards the premium, the employee should have to take it.
--- End quote ---

Under a socialized system, you'd still be paying for his and many other peoples care through much higher taxes on everything. I will say his mentality is a major problem in the U.S. Too many of us have become lazy, and will take something they see as free from the government over paying out of pocket anyday. They don't realize that someone does indeed pay for it, and the government trying to right this mentality by offering even more programs doing this sort of thing is counterintuitive at best. I do believe in a state by state way of figuring local social program needs like Badger Care (though I just moved here so I don't know any specifics on how it works), but I say they need to tweak their requirements so people don't see it as an incentive to get on a welfare program like that. If you do make enough to provide adequate insurance for yourself, then I don't think the gov should be giving you a blanket program. Now, how to cover kids is a matter for another debate, since I don't think you should be having them if you can't afford them in the first place.

Now, if you were without health coverage and couldn't pay for something up front, then I would be more "ok" with a system that got your treatment and then deducted later through higher taxes on you personally or lost wages over a period of time. But most places you can find a doc that will take payments over time anyway. 

Traumerei:
I have not thoroughly examined the health care bill enough to get a decent opinion on it, however... If a citizen is not insured, are we not already paying for their medical expenses, as tax payers? How is this much different from the way it was before? I believe we already offer some sort of health care programs to those who can't afford it, and I know that any physician has to help a citizen in need, even if they can't pay.

Narei Mooncatt:
How is it different? I'll try to explain it how I see it:

It is known that medical expenses are placed on the consumer to offset the cost of those un-insured and unable to pay. Right now, though, we are free to do as we wish with how we want to cover ourselves. We may not always have the money to do so, but we can do other things like trying to improve our lifestyles. Unfortunately, right now we have people that *choose* not to cover themselves because they know someone else will pick up the tab like in CiceroKit's story. They don't see it as other people having to pay for their care, they just see it as "free care". And as such, there's no incentive for these people to try and live better to limit their health care needs, so they go buy junk food all the time instead of healthier foods. They don't exercise more than their thumbs as it clicks the remote or the game controller.  Those of us that do pay for ourselves (and thus for those that can't/don't as well) can shop around for the best insurance rates, the best valued doctors, can choose the meds we want to take as long as we can afford, and there's inherent cost control on the part of us, the consumer.

But we've become a lazy society. Many people would rather give up their options and just look to the government to put them on a program. Usually, these programs are sold on helping people be more free to do other things and people will fall for it hook line and sinker. When you get put on a government program, you don't get any choices. You do what government allows you to do. You are not more free, but are less free. You've lost more of your independence because you're becoming reliant on government to provide for you. Look at domesticated animals. We've basically bred the survival instincts out of them because their idea of hunting is walking to a food dish. Any time you give more of yourself up to the government, you become more slave to the master. I'd rather live an independent mediocre life than a rich government funded one because the government can take it all away and you're left not able to fend for yourself.

That's also a big reason not to trust government. Are there any federally funded social programs that have actually WORKED? (more localized programs I believe can, but I'm refering to nation wide issues) Look at social security going bankrupt (and just talk to any elderly person about their SS checks and how small they are). Look at the trillions spent to bail out everyone recently. Look at welfare in general. Look at how the government will send millions in aid overseas instead of passing it out here first. Look at universal healthcare in other countries, where treatments are rationed and prices on everything are sky high to pay for it. And then look back to how we as a nation are lazy junk food eaters. The more government offers programs for "free" social services, the more people will take the lazy way out. The more the productive people will have to pay to cover those that don't cover themselves. And with more burdens put on business' to force them to pay more of their employee's care, the more they will start laying off, cutting production, moving over seas, lowering wages, etc. All it takes is a little bit and a little bit there and the next thing you know, you've been domesticated without even knowing it.

Sure, they say you'll still have your choice and will be competitive now, but I bet you that it wont. You can't compete public vs private sector. If the government decides they don't want to pay as much as a doctor or pill company needs to charge to stay in business, they will just pass laws and regulations to either limit their profit motive or limit us, the independently insured/covered so that they can't make money off of us. Rules like saying a doctor has to have a certain percentage of patients that are governmentally covered in some perverse affirmative action type system. Well, if they can't make enough to cover the bills from the undercutting of the government without making regular patient rates skyrocket, then they'll have to shut down and/or go bankrupt.

Let us also not forget that usually when someone tries to rush a deal, it's a bad one. I don't care if it's the President, or if it's the used car salesman. If they're trying to say we need to do something right now if not sooner, then my gut tells me something's up. It's taken us years to get into this quandry, don't expect some magical government intervention to fix it over night. Remember, government has been the cause of a lot of these problems to begin with. And in doing some reading up on this bill, if the reports are correct, it will prevent new Health Savings Accounts. Something I'm vastly in favor in. They allow you to be able to cover your own health care costs at better rates, and lower premiums and remain independent of traditional insurance policies and practices. They would allow you to go into a regular doctor visit and pay cash from your account more or less. This would be in direct conflict with any government plan, so of course they would want to eliminate them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page