Jun 12 2009
It’s Things Like This That Make My Blood Boil
So the Senate voted today to pass a massive anti-tobacco law, limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, banning flavored cigarettes, and a bunch of other fascist stuff. The vote was 79-17.
My biggest problem with Universal Health Care, aside from how it’s extraordinarily expensive and inefficient, is that is gives the government an excuse to dictate to us any aspect of our lives. Traditionally we have an understanding, that my right to swing my fist ends at your face, but up until that point I’m free to do whatever you want and if you don’t like it, tough. Obviously, the government doesn’t like this understanding, because they’re all power hungry panderers who don’t like anything that stands between them and more power. So whenever they can, they use the health argument. Typically that premise gets rejected, but not when the victims are an unsympathetic minority (drug users, cigarette smokers) or when the government can claim that the expense isn’t purely personal (smoking in public places unleashes their favorite boogeyman of second hand smoke). And once the government becomes our insurance provider, what’s to stop them from saying “Hey, you don’t exercise enough, there is now mandatory exercise 3 days a week at the gyms owned by the Senator from Massachusetts” or “Hey, you shouldn’t be talking like that about the government, it’s bad for your stress levels”? It’s all justified by them saying they’re just trying to mitigate healthcare expenses for the taxpayers!
What pisses me off more than anything is when the majority enthusiastically beats up on an unsympathetic minority because no one gives a damn about their freedoms. Politicians will do it whenever they detect the opportunity because it’s pretty much a universal truth that no politician gives a damn about anyone’s freedom, and if people don’t appreciate personal freedom on principle, the government will screw these people every opportunity they get.
I understand when the Democrats do this, their party exists to rob people of their personal freedom. What pisses me off is that 23 Republicans voted for this garbage as well. Just so you know, in case you want to write them a letter or call them to tell them they’re filthy sellouts, here’s the list of Republican yea votes:
Barrasso (WY)
Cochran (MS)
Collins (ME)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Crapo (ID)
Enzi (WY)
Grassley (IA)
Gregg (NH)
Hutchinson (TX)
Johanns (NE)
Lugar (IN)
Martinez (FL)
McCain (AZ)
Murkowski (AK)
Risch (ID)
Sessions (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Snowe (ME)
Thune (SD)
Vitter (LA)
Voinavich (OH)
Wicker (MS)
Look I understand and respect why you don’t like the outcome of the Senete vote. But you really are mixing apples and oranges and expecting an explosion. 1st of all over %60 of US bankruptsy were due to medical bills and 3/4 of those people had insurance at the onset of the problem. Whoever told you Single Payer would cost more is woefully uninformed. Administrative costs for private insurance range from 15-25% compared to Medicare at about4%. Private insurance means paying those BIG salries of the exec’s. And as for your fear about if we have Universal Health what would the govermnet do then, Dude, the same thing they are doing now. I have much contempt for how our government works but Single Payer in no way increases their legislative power over the masses, it leaves them responsible for setting up an insurance fund to REDUCE the cost of medical care to the citizens. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
Learn about single payer from those who know
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
Woefully uninformed? I read your organization’s thing, and they skip over the biggest part of making our health care as expensive and inaccessible, tort reform. Nowhere else in the world do doctors have to put up with the menace from trial lawyers like they do here. That, combined with requiring hospitals to treat anyone who comes in. The people behind that site are frauds attempting to mislead people in order to justify their terrible plan.
yes woefully uninformed nothing about single payer will raise our health care costs we already pay almost double what the rest of the industrialized world pays. Tort is an issue but again we are talking about the cost of INSURANCE. But hey I can see from your unsupported arguments about the rise in cost of single payer that you are not thinking about this but rather decided you know, so since you arent supporting your arguments and you are making unsupportable statements. Peace OUT
Wow… I would encourage people to write their senators and congressmen…
http://welcometomyworld.today.com/2009/06/11/transparent-government-theyre-blowing-smoke-again/
We’re talking about insurance? I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about health care. Tell me, what makes you think the government would manage to both negotiate the best price without sacrificing quality or crushing innovation? Because the government has been so good at managing things before? Because the pork barrel process has proven to be such a great way of running a business in the past?
Because Single Payer is about payment not delivery. You thought we were talking about health care because you have not done your homework. Single Payer is national insurance. Thats why I say you are woefully misinformed you speak about it as if it was about delivery. There is a HUGE difference I guess you just dont see it. It is about insurance, either it will be delivered privately for profit or it will be done collectively not for profit. Its bleeding obvious that if the “payer” is for profit the cost is increased by the profit margin and huge exec salries. Duh. PNHP is not a partisan organization they are doctors. Due dilligence, homework and objective analysis try it. Thats why I pointed out the administrative costs to you. Medicare 4% private insurance 15-25%. You pay that difference.
You seem to have failed to understand what I asked of you. Although I would love to have a good laugh at your definition of “objective” as including “those that would personally profit from one result over the other”, instead, I’ll ask some more, to the point questions.
Let’s say I’ve been getting acupuncture because of my arthritis? Will the government cover that? Would I need a doctor to sign off for it? How would the government make sure that this doctor properly took into account how much this would cost the taxpayer?
What about therapeutic massage? Would the federal government pay for me to get a massage every week? Twice a week? Three times a week? How and where does the federal government draw the line between legitimate health expenses and someone just ripping off the government?
What if I want $250 glasses? Is the government going to tell me I need to get cheaper glasses? Will the government take into account regional cost of living differentials in determining how much they’re willing to pay for my glasses? Will they be willing to pay for my glasses at all?
What about medical marijuana? What about holistic medicine? Is the government going to reimburse me for the Valerian root I bought to help me sleep? What about the peyote I bought to help me quit smoking?
And what of my freedoms to live unhealthily? Am I to believe the government is going to stop encroaching in on those freedoms or it will expand its encroachment on those freedoms? Is the government going to make me work out? Will it get me a personal trainer?
And what about the process for getting health expenses approved? How will that process work? Do I go to the DMV? Would it be better than the DMV? If the government’s capable of a superior alternative to the DMV, how come they haven’t replaced the DMV with it yet?
What if a doctor decides that the federal government isn’t offering sufficient compensation? Are they allowed to bill the patient the balance of the bill? Or do they just refuse to accept those insured by the federal government? Is he required by law to accept what the federal government offers him? And if so, how does this avoid forcing talented candidates out of the medical field?
Or would the government just give him what he wants? What if he asks for $2,000/hr? $3,000/hr? $10,000/hr? $100,000/hr?
Medicare has low administrative costs because it’s primarily a supplementary plan. You don’t have an answer until you can answer these questions.
I mean, questions of money are always complicated due to chicken or the egg questions.
white,
most all of your questions could apply to private insurance as well as single payer and answers to most of them will only be come if the plan is put on the table and it has not been as yet. Furthemore where you got the idea that Medicare is a suplemental plan s beyond me. Medigap is a suplemental coverate but you are simply mistaken to say that Medicare is a suplemental plan.
They do apply to private health insurance, but private health insurance has an answer to them. There’s a variety of plans. The ones that pay for more things cost more. You could get one that covers nearly everything imaginable, and will pay doctors exorbitant fees, but it would cost a lot, or you can just get the basics for not a whole lot. If a company rejects a lot of claims, that’s fine, but it will come at the expense of market share.
They answer these questions through having a plurality of providers. In a single payer system, by definition, they do not. So we get back to the question you’ve once again chosen not to answer, how do you answer these questions with a single payer system?
You spit out a shit load of questions that are infact not answerable, even when applied to insurance companies they are vauge and you would need to read 100 policys to determine the details.
Also you have not admited your error Medicare is not a suplement. And you used that fallacy to excuse huge administrative costs by private providers. So when your argument fails you just fail to aknowledge that you made such an arugment.
Read yourself you say “the question” i have chosen not to answer “how do you answer these questions”?? The question is these questions? As if I had a magic mirror that could tell you what Single Payer would be exactly like when its not even on the political table at present. Try to be serious and intelectually honest, you made a HUGE error about what Medicare is and havent cop’d 2 it. And you have made a second error in the “plurality of providers” argument. It is insurance companies that limit your access to providers MDs must be in the companiy group. No by deffinition Single Payer does not limit your MD options part of the point is that you can see any MD and it will be paid for. Either you keep mixing up provider and payer or your copy is simply not coherent. I am really trying to take your arguments seriously but to spit out some 30 questions about how a plan thats NOT even on the table yet will end up working is a ruse.
Oh i think i understand you mean insurance providers not care providers my bad. Nothing in Single Payer prevents suplemental insruance that would do the same thing. So the point is rather mute. The differnece being you would have basic coverate at lower cost and for a small suplement you could get fantastic coverage.
Well you just admitted, there are a hundred different private plans, you pick whichever strikes you as best for the cost. Would a single payer plan offer a hundred different plans you could pick from? Of course not, because you don’t directly bear the cost, if you had a hundred you’d pick the one that covers therapeutic massage, plastic surgery, willing to buy you $10,000 glasses if it was available.
You’re the one arguing that we should do away with variety, and so you have to have answers for the questions that were previously answered through variety. So take three, do you have an answer?
Medicare covers hospitalization, procedures and medications, which is far from all of the medical expenses incurred by most people who are on medicare, meaning that it’s ultimately supplemental because it supplements either Medicare Part B (which is also insufficient) and/or private insurance.
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4897287_medicare-work-other-insurance.html
Dude the article you just sited explains how to get suplemental coverage if you have medicare it does NOT support the claim that Medicare itself is a suplement. It says “The Medicare Advantage Plan works like a standard HMO or PPO insurance plan.” The advantage plan is the suplement or more like upgrade. The Advantage Plan and Part B are Medicare paid plans that are insurance plans that come at a fraction of the market cost. And Part B is like $80 a month you couldnt touch that much coverage in the market for twice or 3xs that amount. Not to mention that you could be refused coverage due to pre-existing conditions. With Single Payer no one will be refused due to pre-existing conditions. And I already addressed why those questions are unanswerable, its like asking “when did you stop beating your wife”? Answer all of them as regards pvt insurance and tell me what it would cost $50k a year for a couple? But as I said before Single Payer is not on the table. So the details are not framed it is a basic idea until there is a plan on the table you asking me to look in my magic mirror and make shit up for you. Those are not intelectually honest questions and I wont digress to giving intelectually dishonest answers to match them. You cant answer all those questions about pvt insurance, which is out there now and tell me the cost how can you ask me to answer those questions about a plan thats not compleet yet?