Universal Health Care...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

In the next two years, there is a zero percent chance it will be repealed. I think there is a slightly better than even chance that the House will take a token vote to repeal it at least once, maybe twice, and then again in the summer leading up to the election. They will NOT take any meaningful action that could lead to ending it, such as refusing to fund it.

I think there is more of a chance (still slim) that one or more of the legal challenges from States Attorney Generals (Attorneys General?) will force some revisions.

[custom36 4]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03tra...;pagewanted=allArizona's (republican-controlled) state government has voted to stop funding many organ transplants. At the link is a story of a guy whose relative was willing to donate a liver for him, but they can't afford the $200,000 bill now attached to it. Nobody can possibly defend this decision, can they?

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03tra...;pagewanted=allArizona's (republican-controlled) state government has voted to stop funding many organ transplants. At the link is a story of a guy whose relative was willing to donate a liver for him, but they can't afford the $200,000 bill now attached to it. Nobody can possibly defend this decision, can they?

What would you consider the limit for an elective surgery that MUST be paid for by the government. If the surgery to possibly extend that guy's life was 1 trillion dollars (Arizona's annual GDP is 250 million), should Arizona pay for it? Give me your maximum number that the government should be require to pay for a surgery. Also, let's make the guy an illegal immigrant. Because you are clearly talking about how much a life is worth... so citizenship status shouldn't matter.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

What would you consider the limit for an elective surgery that MUST be paid for by the government. If the surgery to possibly extend that guy's life was 1 trillion dollars (Arizona's annual GDP is 250 million), should Arizona pay for it? Give me your maximum number that the government should be require to pay for a surgery. Also, let's make the guy an illegal immigrant. Because you are clearly talking about how much a life is worth... so citizenship status shouldn't matter.

Please, tell us more about your death panels, BraveHeart.

[AmScray 355]

What would you consider the limit for an elective surgery that MUST be paid for by the government. If the surgery to possibly extend that guy's life was 1 trillion dollars (Arizona's annual GDP is 250 million), should Arizona pay for it? Give me your maximum number that the government should be require to pay for a surgery. Also, let's make the guy an illegal immigrant. Because you are clearly talking about how much a life is worth... so citizenship status shouldn't matter.

Socialized medicine cannot exist as a rider, utilizing an otherwise private medical industry infrastructure as the costs would be impossibly high and the profit drivers would completely bankrupt the country.In order for socialized medicine to work, the 'public option' must involve US Government hospitals with US Government doctors with US Government gear. Yes, they can source things as needed, but the prevailing infrastructure itself must be completely cost-controlled from start to finish. The government must directly compete with private medicine, which in turn will be enormously disruptive and cause a lot of things to change, making top-quality medical care 'boutique' and lowering the overall quality of care for everyone else. No one wants to talk about this since we're Americans and have the most grotesque entitlement complex of any people on earth, but this brutal efficiency is precisely what needs to happen, death panels and all. We need to learn to expect less, or, expect more but only if we're willing to personally foot the bill.Prediction: In less than 30 years time, we will see a major, 1st world government with socialized medicine outsourcing certain types of medical care to India.

[custom36 4]

What would you consider the limit for an elective surgery that MUST be paid for by the government. If the surgery to possibly extend that guy's life was 1 trillion dollars (Arizona's annual GDP is 250 million), should Arizona pay for it? Give me your maximum number that the government should be require to pay for a surgery. Also, let's make the guy an illegal immigrant. Because you are clearly talking about how much a life is worth... so citizenship status shouldn't matter.

When did liver transplants become elective surgery?Why should we make this guy a hypothetical illegal immigrant when he's actually an American citizen?How much should the government be willing to pay when you get sick? Where would you put the limit on that?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

What would you consider the limit for an elective surgery that MUST be paid for by the government. If the surgery to possibly extend that guy's life was 1 trillion dollars (Arizona's annual GDP is 250 million), should Arizona pay for it? Give me your maximum number that the government should be require to pay for a surgery. Also, let's make the guy an illegal immigrant. Because you are clearly talking about how much a life is worth... so citizenship status shouldn't matter.

To actually answer your question: Of course it's impossible for any insurance plan, government or privately run, to pay 100% for every possible procedure. However, in my (very reasonable) opinion, paying 200K to save the life of a 32 year old with kids is will in-bounds for what one would expect comprehensive insurance to cover. I think it's shameful that some would advocate removing funding for such procedures as a first step toward balancing a budget. How are tax raises taboo but cutting off life-saving procedures isn't?If one so chooses, one can pay for such a procedure out of his own pocket, though this is impossible for the majority of people. I think we should have more charities that help out people with dire illnesses that require expensive surgeries or procedures.

[brvheart 1,752]

Please, tell us more about your death panels, BraveHeart.

No death panels. If you want the surgery, go ahead and get it.

[brvheart 1,752]

Socialized medicine cannot exist as a rider, utilizing an otherwise private medical industry infrastructure as the costs would be impossibly high and the profit drivers would completely bankrupt the country.In order for socialized medicine to work, the 'public option' must involve US Government hospitals with US Government doctors with US Government gear. Yes, they can source things as needed, but the prevailing infrastructure itself must be completely cost-controlled from start to finish. The government must directly compete with private medicine, which in turn will be enormously disruptive and cause a lot of things to change, making top-quality medical care 'boutique' and lowering the overall quality of care for everyone else. No one wants to talk about this since we're Americans and have the most grotesque entitlement complex of any people on earth, but this brutal efficiency is precisely what needs to happen, death panels and all. We need to learn to expect less, or, expect more but only if we're willing to personally foot the bill.Prediction: In less than 30 years time, we will see a major, 1st world government with socialized medicine outsourcing certain types of medical care to India.

I agree with the important points of this post.

When did liver transplants become elective surgery?Why should we make this guy a hypothetical illegal immigrant when he's actually an American citizen?How much should the government be willing to pay when you get sick? Where would you put the limit on that?

You aren't unconscious when you elect to have an organ transplant, that makes it elective... by definition.You can make him whatever you want.$0.00. My irresponsibility should not be paid for by the government. I have mentioned this too many times to count, but nearly everyone in the country can get insurance on their own, separate from their employers, at any time, for less than $100. Anyone that can't afford $100, can be on medicare. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BE MY MOTHER.

To actually answer your question: Of course it's impossible for any insurance plan, government or privately run, to pay 100% for every possible procedure. However, in my (very reasonable) opinion, paying 200K to save the life of a 32 year old with kids is will in-bounds for what one would expect comprehensive insurance to cover. I think it's shameful that some would advocate removing funding for such procedures as a first step toward balancing a budget. How are tax raises taboo but cutting off life-saving procedures isn't?If one so chooses, one can pay for such a procedure out of his own pocket, though this is impossible for the majority of people. I think we should have more charities that help out people with dire illnesses that require expensive surgeries or procedures.

$200,000 is FAR from reasonable. If you pay 200k for that smoker guy that ate poorly, then I want a check for 200k for living healthy and never getting sick. It's only fair. All medical expenses should be paid out of pocket, via insurance or your bank account. We already have a system in place called bankruptcy that will provide a way out for people that can't afford it or insurance doesn't cover it.No one is cutting off life-saving procedures. Just because the government isn't paying doesn't mean the procedures aren't available.Also: you jumped in to give an opinion but avoided my question completely. If you think 200k is reasonable, then what figure ISN'T reasonable. Do you get to decide? Who does? If it's just about a 32 year old life... WITH KIDS!!!.... then that number should be infinity. We should be willing to double our current NATIONAL debt just to save this one person... BECAUSE HOW COULD THE GOVERNMENT THINK THAT ONE LIFE ISN'T WORTH IT!!!!??!?!?!!?!

[Kopa 0]

The problem with socialized health care in the States is that people don't care about other people enough. That's why socialized health care could never work there, and what Obama has done isn't even CLOSE to actual socialized health care, that provides all people with the same health care, regardless of wealth. Americans in general are only looking for their own well-being, not caring about the ones in need, or dismissing them as somewhat inadequate or lesser human beings than themselves. For some reason it seems impossible for the majority of Americans to imagine a situation where you're down on your luck, through no fault of your own, and can't make it on your own. In civilized countries, that's what the government is for. It's there to help you get back on your feet. Health care is one key instrument in this. Say a single parent, raising one or two children, is in a decently paid job (with insurance) which suddenly disappears on him or her because of the economy going down the drain, taking the insurance with it. Shortly thereafter she or he starts having head aches, goes to the doctor, and discovers they have cancer or a brain tumor or whatever, that needs immediate surgery. This person is screwed for life in the Great United States of America. In civilized countries the government would pay or at least co-pay for the surgery, enabling her to go on with her life. I'm not saying there aren't people who have self-inflicted diseases, which would take the tax-payers money in vain. I'm saying that those people aren't worth giving up on others. It's not much in your taxes, it really isn't, compare taxes in US and for example Scandinavian countries and you'd be surprised because they're almost the same, yet public health care, public school system etc. is much better in those countries. The problem in the States is that a lot of people have been born and raised in well-to-do families, and their families have been well off for generations, so they don't have a grasp of what it's like to get unlucky. So they want to maintain their own wealth, saying it's "every man for himself". There's no chance for proper health care for everyone in the States.

[85suited 0]

OK - Let's do full socialized medicine..Here are a few rules the govt should add since I am paying...all recipients of GOVT Health care should have should have a normal Body Mass Index, if they dont they have a certain amount of time to get within that limit or they arent eligibleif you smoke... you are not eligibleif you take any recreational drugs - you are not eligibleKopa - would you like to participate?Now I know we will never do this, but if you are going to be in my pocket for your health care, there should be strings to make sure you stay healthy and not cost the system too much.... agree?

[hblask 1]

The problem with socialized health care in the States is that people don't care about other people enough. That's why socialized health care could never work there, and what Obama has done isn't even CLOSE to actual socialized health care, that provides all people with the same health care, regardless of wealth. Americans in general are only looking for their own well-being, not caring about the ones in need, or dismissing them as somewhat inadequate or lesser human beings than themselves. For some reason it seems impossible for the majority of Americans to imagine a situation where you're down on your luck, through no fault of your own, and can't make it on your own. In civilized countries, that's what the government is for. It's there to help you get back on your feet. Health care is one key instrument in this. Say a single parent, raising one or two children, is in a decently paid job (with insurance) which suddenly disappears on him or her because of the economy going down the drain, taking the insurance with it. Shortly thereafter she or he starts having head aches, goes to the doctor, and discovers they have cancer or a brain tumor or whatever, that needs immediate surgery. This person is screwed for life in the Great United States of America. In civilized countries the government would pay or at least co-pay for the surgery, enabling her to go on with her life. I'm not saying there aren't people who have self-inflicted diseases, which would take the tax-payers money in vain. I'm saying that those people aren't worth giving up on others. It's not much in your taxes, it really isn't, compare taxes in US and for example Scandinavian countries and you'd be surprised because they're almost the same, yet public health care, public school system etc. is much better in those countries. The problem in the States is that a lot of people have been born and raised in well-to-do families, and their families have been well off for generations, so they don't have a grasp of what it's like to get unlucky. So they want to maintain their own wealth, saying it's "every man for himself". There's no chance for proper health care for everyone in the States.

You created an account to troll a poker forum? LOL

[ShakeZuma 585]

You created an account to troll a poker forum? LOL

hey that's why I created mine

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

In the next two years, there is a zero percent chance it will be repealed. I think there is a slightly better than even chance that the House will take a token vote to repeal it at least once, maybe twice, and then again in the summer leading up to the election. They will NOT take any meaningful action that could lead to ending it, such as refusing to fund it.

Apparently a Federal Judge has declared portions of the HC Law to be unconstitutional. This was my best hope - that one of the State suits would be successful....of course the Justice Department will continue to fight the decision.

[strategy 4]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ulting-firm.php

[CaneBrain 95]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ulting-firm.php

faaaaantastic.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

faaaaantastic.

How is it that Judges don't more routinely exclude themselves from ruling on things like this where they have a clear conflict of interest? I guess many judges have an ideological point of view and that naturally manifests itself in rulings. But to (apparently) have dealings like this in his personal/professional life away from the bench is just outrageous and will demand a response - even though his ruling is correct.

[gobears 0]

Apparently a Federal Judge has declared portions of the HC Law to be unconstitutional. This was my best hope - that one of the State suits would be successful....of course the Justice Department will continue to fight the decision.

One of the medical writers that I read feels that this is a horrible decision for insurers. If the individual mandate to have insurance is found to be unlawful but the right to get insurance without regard to preexisting condition remains, insurers will drown in red ink. He mentions that Washington had a test program back in the 80's and of course people just bought insurance when they found they were in need of expensive medical procedures/treatment and then stopped making insurance payments once the treatments were done.

[El Guapo 8]

One of the medical writers that I read feels that this is a horrible decision for insurers. If the individual mandate to have insurance is found to be unlawful but the right to get insurance without regard to preexisting condition remains, insurers will drown in red ink. He mentions that Washington had a test program back in the 80's and of course people just bought insurance when they found they were in need of expensive medical procedures/treatment and then stopped making insurance payments once the treatments were done.

Of course that is an awful idea. If they throw out a major portion due to it being unconstitutional, the entire thing needs to either go away or be rewritten.

[dapokerbum 0]

Of course that is an awful idea. If they throw out a major portion due to it being unconstitutional, the entire thing needs to either go away or be rewritten.

Needs to have this done regardless. I mean if McDonalds can get a waiver ... then why can't my business get a waiver. Oh because we only employ 100 people. Then where is the cutoff and who makes that decision. If it is going to happen then make it happen to everyone. Just because some big corp can afford a loophole doesn't mean that the rest of business doesn't need a loophole. Seriously. Repeal, Rewrite, and make this "law" a good thing for the american people!

[Balloon guy 158]

No Death Panels in Obama Care!!!!! No Death Panels!!!!!!!

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

But we never said anything about death panels in Medicare....

[CaneBrain 95]

No Death Panels in Obama Care!!!!! No Death Panels!!!!!!!But we never said anything about death panels in Medicare....

this would be a great point if that was a death panel. recognizing that palliative treatment may be a better idea in some circumstances is common sense. And people are always free to spend their own money for more aggressive treatment or just ignore their doctors' advice and get the more aggressive treatment anyway.also, dapokerbum, just lol. Big corporations ALWAYS get preferential treatment from the law in myriad ways but NOW you want to take a stand?

[Nashtak 0]

This thread is still alive? I thought you guys would realize that universal health care is a no-brainer by now.

[hblask 1]

And people are always free to spend their own money for more aggressive treatment or just ignore their doctors' advice and get the more aggressive treatment anyway.

Why do people keep trotting out this stupid argument? This would only be valid if you could opt out of paying for this nonsense. But if they force you to pay for it, and then give you incredibly crappy service (or worse, encourage you to just die), then if you say "you could pay for your care again and get what you paid for this time" is hardly a defense of the stupidity.

[hblask 1]

This thread is still alive? I thought you guys would realize that universal health care is a no-brainer by now.

If by "no-brainer" you mean "appeals to people with no brain", then I think most people have realized that, but there are still a few holdouts.