IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

A good way to set up insurance companies for financial failure is to direct their rates and coverage policies through our political process. Certainly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have provided us with proof enough of that.

My impressions from the "dialogue" today. Democrats have their desired pretext for what I expect will be an attempt in the next few weeks to use the reconciliation process to pass a modified version of the Senate bill. It remains to be seen whether they still have the votes to do even this.

A good way to set up insurance companies for financial failure is to direct their rates and coverage policies through our political process. Certainly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have provided us with proof enough of that.

Red herring. There is absolutely no NO NO value in using tobacco or overeating. NONE. Yet, those two things are leading causes of chronic illness in this country.

sstainba wrote:

It's based on first and secondhand knowledge of actual patients and actual bills from actual hospitals.

Ah; Anecdotal evidence, and not statistical evidence, then.

Quote:

If a person is unwilling or unable to perform a task and therefore requires someone else do it, and especially when they aren't willing to pay for those services, that person loses the ability to gripe and complain. Beggars can't be choosers.

But people who pay health insurance aren't beggars. They pay premiums to cover their health problems.

Quote:

A hugely significant portion of medical costs are from things such a diabetes (2), COPD, hypertension, MI, asthma, heart failure and various forms of cancer. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those chronic illnesses are brought on by the individual who chooses to engage in behavior that we absolutely KNOW to damage health. Why should they be allowed to do this and then be completely free of any responsibility for their actions?

Probably because the idea of having the government looking over your shoulder to ensure that you don't smoke, eat unhealthy things, or other such activities which are bad for your health, is antithetical to the American way of life. Where does it stop? Do we not set a broken bone, because some dumbass was screwing around and jumped off 2-story building?

I'm a thin, healthy person who eats well, and ****; I don't advocate this, even if it costs me more money personally.

Cycloptichorn

sstainba wrote:

Red herring. There is absolutely no NO NO value in using tobacco or overeating. NONE. Yet, those two things are leading causes of chronic illness in this country.

Untrue. Tobacco, like alcohol and other 'unhealthy' behaviors, has a long-standing social effect and provides a value to those who use it: they want to and enjoy it. In our society, that's all the justification anyone needs to do something, provided that they aren't directly harming others (which they aren't doing).

Cycloptichorn

georgeob1 wrote:

A good way to set up insurance companies for financial failure is to direct their rates and coverage policies through our political process. Certainly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have provided us with proof enough of that.

Governments of several countries have provided their citizens with universal healthcare by regulating premium rates and coverage policies. There are decades worth of experience that would suggest that a system of government regulation of health insurance companies can be rather successful.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

sstainba wrote:

Red herring. There is absolutely no NO NO value in using tobacco or overeating. NONE. Yet, those two things are leading causes of chronic illness in this country.

Untrue. Tobacco, like alcohol and other 'unhealthy' behaviors, has a long-standing social effect and provides a value to those who use it: they want to and enjoy it. In our society, that's all the justification anyone needs to do something, provided that they aren't directly harming others (which they aren't doing).

Cycloptichorn

So you are for legalizing heroin, cocain, LSD, PCP, meth and pretty much every other substance as well I take it... If you aren't, then your argument is worthless.

old europe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

A good way to set up insurance companies for financial failure is to direct their rates and coverage policies through our political process. Certainly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have provided us with proof enough of that.

Governments of several countries have provided their citizens with universal healthcare by regulating premium rates and coverage policies. There are decades worth of experience that would suggest that a system of government regulation of health insurance companies can be rather successful.

Thank you for yet another irrelevant and unsolicited tutorial on the public policies of other countries ... all heading towards demographic and economic collapse.

Washington (CNN) -- Heated partisan exchanges and in-depth policy discussions at the bipartisan health care summit on Thursday are unlikely to sway both parties in finding common ground, analysts said as the summit was going on.

One said the summit makes an argument against televising hearings. Another said it will reinforce doubts about whether Washington can resolve the health care impasse.

"I think it's reasonable to expect that an exchange like this is not going to change the public's skepticism about the way Washington works," said Michael Murakami, a visiting professor of government at Georgetown University.

Murakami added that the summit is a "big PR stunt" where "nothing is going to be decided."

"This is just the two sides putting their view in front of the media so they can try and rally their support as the legislative battle begins."

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said the summit "wasn't much more than a TV spectacle."

I wasn't aware that their systems were 'headed towards collapse,' at least, not at a faster rate then ours is
cycloptichorn

Germany is in very good shape economically right now

Only 35% of voters believe Congress should pass health care reform before the upcoming midterm elections anyway. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Congress should wait until voters select new congressional representatives in November.

Interestingly, 63% of voters also think it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November.

This backlash against Democratic Senate incumbents in particular is being found in a number of states where Rasmussen Reports has been surveying recently, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Florida, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters now rate the president’s handling of the health care reform issue as good or excellent, while 50% think the president has done a poor job. These findings are comparable to voter feelings last month just after the Massachusetts special election.

I suppose that's possible, but it sure hasn't happened in other industries like credit cards.