65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 07:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


You are Appealing to Extremes, which is a logical fallacy. You didn't address Spendi's question, but instead, a highly exaggerated version of his question.

Cycloptichorn


No extremes at all (that appears to be a preoccupation of yours).

I was instead illustrating the many extant contradictions of the principle he was applying, and suggesting the glaring incompleteness of his argument.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:27 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I also worry about the incredible sophistry of the arguments offered in support of this "reform": the exaggerations about the numbers of uninsured;


So you believe the following to be an exaggeration? If you do, where is your proof?

Quote:
Health Insurance Data
The health insurance figures are instructive. The percentage of uninsured people remained unchanged at 15.4 percent, while the number of uninsured jumped by 682,000 to 46.3 million. The story was not worse because gains in public (that is, government) health insurance programs, especially for children, helped to offset continued declines in employer health coverage.

Consider two figures. First, the number of children without insurance actually fell by 801,000 in 2008, due to expansions in government health insurance programs for children. But the number of workers without coverage rose by 932,000, evidence of the continued erosion of employer-based coverage.


source

(the figures in the above excerpt are taken from Census Bureau Report)



If the health care reform proposal (or one of a dozen) is no good, then congress should go back and figure out what is wrong and fix it but keeping it the way it is not working.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:32 pm
@revel,
Well, in his speech to the Congress the president very notably revised his earlier figures for the uninsured downward to 30 million, presumably to reflect the large numbers of illegal aleins included in the numbers cited by advocacy groups, such as the one you cited. On the other hand, perhaps the President was lying.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:33 pm
@revel,
revel, Can you explain for me why so many Americans are against universal health insurance when thousands of Americans continue to lose their company sponsored health plans? On top of that, the increase in unemployment means more Americans can't afford to buy private health insurance, but they're still against universal health care. I just don't "get it."

What am I missing that those against universal health insurance seems to know?

All those angry people at those town hall meetings that are screaming their head's off about government take-over of health care is contrary to any legislation now being written by congress. What am I missing?

I just don't "get it," so I give up and hope they get their wishes.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 08:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
One of the items we noted in our Sept. 10 wrap-up of President Barack Obama’s televised prime-time address to Congress was his carefully worded estimate of the number of uninsured citizens.

Obama, Sept. 9: There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.

We said that Obama appeared to be underestimating the number of uninsured, even if we subtract the estimated 10 million uninsured who are not U.S. citizens. With the Census Bureau now reporting 46.3 million people without insurance, one might think that the correct figure should be closer to 36.3 million citizens without insurance.

A Sept. 10 blog post by Peter Orszag, the director of Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, explains the president’s reasoning for using the lower number:

Orszag: The Census report indicates that of the 46 million uninsured individuals, 34 million were native born and 2.8 million were naturalized citizens. The report thus shows that there were 36.8 million uninsured U.S. citizens (native born and naturalized) in 2008. An alternative calculation includes legal immigrants, which based on a figure from the Pew Hispanic Center would bring the total to something like 39 million.

Some ambiguity surrounds how to treat individuals who are already eligible for public insurance programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but do not enroll in those programs, which estimates from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured suggest may amount to millions of individuals. These individuals are uninsured but some interpretations would suggest they should not be counted among those who "cannot get" coverage. Subtracting them from the total would produce a number closer to 30 million.

The numbers do work, as long as you include uninsured non-citizens who are in the country legally to arrive at the final number. Of course "legal immigrants" are not "citizens," which is the word Obama used in his speech. But Obama has made no secret of his support for providing health care benefits for legal non-citizens.

Here’s how the numbers break down: The Kaiser Commission estimates that 25 percent of the uninsured are eligible for either Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (formerly SCHIP). That works out to about 11.6 million people, leaving just 34.7 million people who neither have insurance nor are qualified for public insurance. When we subtract the 5.6 million estimated illegal immigrants who lack health care, we’re left with about 29.1 million.

That’s a little short of 30 million. But it’s hard to be perfectly precise here " especially since the math already combines estimates from three different studies, each of which draws on data from a different year.

And there are a number of additional complications to consider. For instance, as we wrote in our June 24 article, "The ‘Real’ Uninsured," some states periodically place caps on CHIP enrollment. So some people who qualify for the program could be turned away if caps have already been reached. Moreover, the Kaiser Commission study in question uses data from 2004. In January 2009, Congress expanded the CHIP program, which extended coverage to at least 250,000 more children in its first five months. It’s too soon to know for sure whether that has raised or lowered the percentage of eligible but uncovered children.

Some of our readers have also pointed out that the president’s use of the word "cannot" presents still another difficulty: There are some people in the ranks of the uninsured who could purchase insurance but who choose not to do so. That’s true, but as we’ve said before, it’s impossible to assign precise numbers to this group, so it is unreasonable to expect OMB’s back-of-the-envelope calculation to exclude an unknowable number.


factcheck

I guess Obama wanted to get his eggs all in a row (as good as humanly possible) before speaking before congress after that month in August and protesters and what not.









cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 09:08 pm
@revel,
I would also add that from the time those estimates of uninsured were made, we have been experiencing huge job losses that some estimates show as over two million, and we continue to lose thousands of jobs almost every day. When people lose their jobs, they also lose their health insurance and the affordability of health insurance. I'm not sure how those numbers stack up, but I'd say any number being provided now are very conservative numbers.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 09:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Maybe some of those who have lost jobs and insurance are afraid of being required to buy insurance with unemployment compensation. They would have COBRA benefits, and can't afford that either. Just speculating.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 09:23 pm
Fine rationalizations. However the evident fact remains that the programs before the Congress will "correct" the problem of the lack of health insurance for a group comprising less than 10% of the legal population, and many members of that group are (as noted) either eligible for existing programs, but unenrolled or young, healthy and uninsured by choice.

While I acknowledge this is a problem, I note that it has obvious solutions that don't involve turning the existing system upside down.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 10:06 pm
@roger,
That's probably true; most people think they'll be forced to buy insurance or pay some kind of penalty. That's the big problem with what congress is planning; nobody knows enough to understand how people will be impacted, and how much it's going to cost.

Obama and congress has done a terrible job of communication, and I'm a skeptic when it comes to this administration and congress knowledge about how much it's going to cost consumers and taxpayers.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 10:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps the President was lying.

If you were in the House of Representatives, you would now be in big big trouble!

I guess now Obama can lie to his hearts content, even more than he has, and our congressmen cannot say so, they are prohibited from it by the speech police in the House.

The one I love is the one about Republicans are lying about a bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor, its completely false! How many times has Obama claimed that now? Oh yeah, that makes alot of sense, a bureaucracy will be overseeing all of this, but bureaucrats won't be involved! Is the man sane, thats my question, beyond whether he can tell the truth or not?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:06 am
@okie,
Quote:
The one I love is the one about Republicans are lying about a bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor, its completely false


It is completely false; just like Joe Wilson assertion the president lied is false and has been proven to be false all over the place.

Debunking The Myths Of Health Insurance Reform




(links to back up statements are embedded in the article)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:10 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WSAZ) -- United States Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) met privately with President Obama Wednesday to discuss health care reform.

Rockefeller has said he will not support a bill without a public option of health care.


“The President and I met today to talk privately about health care reform. I do not want to go into the specifics of the meeting but I will say that nothing is clearer than the President’s commitment to providing affordable and effective health care for all Americans and he and I are united in our efforts to deliver on this promise," Rockefeller said in a written statement.

“The President is aware that I have concerns with the current Senate Finance bill offered by my friend Chairman Baucus. He is also aware that I have made clear I cannot vote for this bill in its current form. I am working to improve the Finance bill in Committee and it is my great hope that substantial progress can be made.”


source

This bill in not any way finalized and there is time and room for improvement and I hope congress continues to address concerns and fix them rather than just giving up on it all together.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 07:33 am
After posting the above to okie, I realised that media matters only talked about what private insurance already does but not about what the proposed bills (which are not finalized) will not do.

Quote:
MYTH # 1
There will be a government committee that will decide what treatments and benefits you will receive.
FACT
Nothing in the bill infringes upon you and your doctor’s ability to make medical decisions. The National Health Benefits Advisory Council is not a “government committee” but is made up of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, independent
experts and representatives of government agencies. They will make recommendations about minimum standards of care and covered benefits that insurance companies have to offer, ensuring that everyone has a health plan that provides them with adequate coverage.


Source:
H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:47 am
As I've mentioned often before, the cost increase in health insurance will be shifted to the employees. Why they refuse to acknowledge that reform is necessary while continuing to battle congress is a mystery of our times.

Quote:

U.S. employers will defray health reform costs: study
Reuters

By Lewis Krauskopf Lewis Krauskopf " Thu Sep 17, 8:32 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) " If U.S. health reform efforts lead to higher costs for employers, employees may end up bearing the brunt, according to a new survey.

Employers will not absorb higher costs, choosing instead either to reduce benefits, lower salaries or cut jobs, the survey from professional services firm Towers Perrin said on Thursday.


Good luck, America!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:52 am
@revel,
Yes and as we have seen with analogous "government advbisory committees" the whole process will become politicized. There will be mandates for unionization of health care providers; specifications abour just what treatments the government will fund, and those it won't; minimum "requirements" designed to put private sector providers out of business; etc. We have seen all this before.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:19 pm
@georgeob1,
My biggest challenge for ObamaCare is the omission of what it'll cost consumers and taxpayers (FYI, they are one and the same), and what real savings can be expected from all the different legislation now being prepared by congress. I've heard a whole bunch of platitudes about "reform" is necessary, but very little about who pays what, and how the whole plan will be paid for.

Has anybody heard anything about cost vs savings?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

My biggest challenge for ObamaCare is the omission of what it'll cost consumers and taxpayers (FYI, they are one and the same), and what real savings can be expected from all the different legislation now being prepared by congress. I've heard a whole bunch of platitudes about "reform" is necessary, but very little about who pays what, and how the whole plan will be paid for.

Has anybody heard anything about cost vs savings?


It is certainly true that, apart from rather large cuts in Medicare funding (which the government can arbitrarily implement without specifying what the consequenses may be) they have offered very little in the way of specifics concerning the "deficit neutrality" of the plan. Various versions of the story have disingenuously counted new taxes that would necessarily be part of distinct and separate legislation as somehow accomplishing that. The President's various (and vague as always) assurances to Medicare beneficiaries have been that nothing will change for them are clearly false - Medicare Advantage will be ended and the reduced payments for services are sure to further reduce the number of providers willing to accept medicare payments or patients.

More importantly, the actions proposed to "bend the cost curve" are vague and non specific in the extreme. This, in my mind is critical, because the President has explicitly asserted on many occasions that the explosive growth in health care costs that he forecasts is itself one of the chief reasons we need "reform" of the whole system.

The assertion itself is nonsense in that higher costs will directly yield higher insurance premiums for individuals and companies, and that will bring about higher deductibles, reduced coverage and therefore higher costs to consumers. Supply and demand will return to equilibrium and powerful economic incentives will be created to reduce the cost of services and raise efficiency.

The notion that the President can accomplish this through a centralized government management of the process that will inevitably become politicized by interest groups ranging from things like Acorn to labor unions, industry lobbyists and other groups flies in the face of reality. The spectacle of the government's contribution to the recent housing bubble should remind us all that this is at very best a dangerous fantasy.

Finally, Medicare itself is headed for a financial crisis. The President has disingenuously counted cuts in Medicare funding as fodder for the funding of an even larger new entitlement which promises to have the same long term effects on national debt that Medicare has already delivered. Two doses of the same financial poison are not likely to constitute a cure.

0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:21 pm
Healthcare is a right, not a privilege
By Erica Irigoyen, Sports Editor


Published: Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, September 16, 2009


Jessica Bravo, Citrus College Clarion

All Americans deserve healthcare. However, the costs of healthcare are at an all-time high. It’s time for Congress to reform the system"to help every American who is in need of medical assistance.

Our country should adopt universal healthcare for this reason alone"every American should have the right to the same healthcare coverage.

Approximately 46 million Americans lack health insurance, including 8 million children. Four out of five of those uninsured Americans are in working families.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation Employee Health Benefits Survey, the average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee pays about 30 percent, or $3,900, of this cost.

President Barack Obama has stated “the cost of healthcare causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds, and by the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes.”

A CBS news story in May of this year stated that the average emergency room visit costs about $1,000. However, that doesn’t include any extra tests, drugs or procedures that might result.

Americans with little or no health insurance hesitate, if they are sick or injured, to go to the doctor because they cannot afford it. Everyone should be able to take their injured or seriously ill loved ones to the emergency room without fear of receiving an outrageous bill.

A health fees Web site, www.healthcarefees.com, lists numerous healthcare prices that people without insurance simply cannot afford.

This list includes child births ($6,500 to $11,500), in-patient surgeries such as, knee replacements and hip replacements ($5,858 to $9,000), out-patient surgeries like colonoscopies ($1,350 to $3,700), hospital rooms ($795 to $1,685), transplants ($67,000 to $300,000), helicopter transportation ($6,300 per flight), and ambulance transportation ($600 to $800 per trip).

In 2004, my 13 year old sister, Brooke, was complaining of sharp pains in her stomach. Turns out, she had kidney stones. She wasn’t hospitalized for the night"it was an in-and-out visit. My parents were charged $803.50 for the hospital visit.

Thankfully, my parents have health insurance and only had to pay what the insurance company didn’t cover ($35). But most people don’t get off that easy. For the 46 million Americans without health insurance, an $803 hospital bill is an outrageous price.

Americans are stressed out enough with the employment issues related to a failing economy"losing jobs and homes, trying to get by from week to week. We shouldn’t have to worry about whether we can afford basic healthcare.

Granted, all Americans will have to assist one another if Congress decides to adopt a universal healthcare system. But the very fact that nobody, no matter their age or health condition, will be turned away by healthcare providers, should give everyone a sense of relief.

No longer will parents be in the situation that they cannot afford to take their child to the doctor. And if we do lose our jobs during a future financial crisis, we won’t lose the health coverage that goes along with it.

Universal healthcare could also benefit college students. Once students turn 18, if they aren’t considered a full-time student, they get taken off of their parents’ insurance. With universal healthcare, students wouldn’t have to worry about getting all 12 units to stay covered under their parents. They can worry about other things, such as succeeding in the classes and trying to get jobs so they can have a little extra spending money.

The fact that the United States’ economy is in trouble and unemployment is rising should be the push we need to pass universal healthcare.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:23 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege


I checked the Constitution, and it wasn't there.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 03:18 pm
@georgeob1,
People without health insurance are 40% more likely to die than those with private insurance, according to a new study whose authors say the finding underscores the need to expand coverage to the 46 million who lack it.

According to the report, published today in the Journal of Public Health, lack of health insurance was a factor in the death of as many as 45,000 people in 2005.

Link to the new study

Quote:
Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured
compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between
uninsurance and death with more recent data.
Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to
64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted
death.
Results. Among all participants, 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5%,
3.7%) died. The hazard ratio for mortality among the uninsured compared with
the insured, with adjustment for age and gender only, was 1.80 (95% CI=1.44,
2.26). After additional adjustment for race/ethnicity, income, education, self- and
physician-rated health status, body mass index, leisure exercise, smoking, and
regular alcohol use, the uninsured were more likely to die (hazard ratio=1.40;
95% CI=1.06, 1.84) than those with insurance.
Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that
association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the
mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the
uninsured since that time. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:jjj"jjj. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2008.157685)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.32 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 06:52:03