Anger, Lies, and Misinformation...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm surprised that the Obamacare bill does not eliminate varying premiums for varying groups of people. He should have changed the premiums to a single rate - mandated by law - and use risk pooling.

Are you saying that rich people and poor people should pay the same premiums? How would that work? If the number is too low, then what's the point of having premiums? If it's too high, then poor people can't afford it.

Originally posted by sh76
Funny you should mention her. Watching clips from those shouting protestors did remind me very much of Cindy Sheehan. I thought I saw her in one of the shouting crowds, but it must have been my imagination (either than or she'll go to any rally where they scream and yell).

And they both have the right to scream and shout. After all, she lost a son and we are losing the health care that may cost us our lives and that of our loved ones.

In short, its about life and death kids so get used to the screaming and shouting.

Originally posted by whodey
And they both have the right to scream and shout. After all, she lost a son and we are losing the health care that may cost us our lives and that of our loved ones.

In short, its about life and death kids so get used to the screaming and shouting.

At first I sympathized with Cindy Sheehan.

And then she opened her mouth.

I mean I still feel bad for her that she lost a son and all... but how anyone could take her seriously after all the mindless statements she's made is beyond me. Maybe the loss of her son made her crazy... in which case she deserves sympathy... but not to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by sh76
Are you saying that rich people and poor people should pay the same premiums? How would that work? If the number is too low, then what's the point of having premiums? If it's too high, then poor people can't afford it.

Well, I do think rich and poor people should pay the same premiums (redistribution is more efficient if done through income tax/benefits instead). However, what I'm talking about is the difference between for example smokers/fat people/people with diabetes and the relatively healthy.

Originally posted by sh76
At first I sympathized with Cindy Sheehan.

And then she opened her mouth.

I mean I still feel bad for her that she lost a son and all... but how anyone could take her seriously after all the mindless statements she's made is beyond me. Maybe the loss of her son made her crazy... in which case she deserves sympathy... but not to be taken seriously.

Just so long as people retain the right to be "crazy" then alls good.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I do think rich and poor people should pay the same premiums (redistribution is more efficient if done through income tax/benefits instead). However, what I'm talking about is the difference between for example smokers/fat people/people with diabetes and the relatively healthy.

You don't think the government should encourage healthy behavior through different premium structures?

It makes sense to me that private insurers charge different premiums to those who voluntarily put themselves in different risk classes. I don't see why the government should behave any differently.

Originally posted by sh76
Private insurance that doesn't comply with the specifications laid out in HR 3200 would be phased out.

HR 3200 does amount to government take over of the industry. Maybe not completely, but to a great extent.

Then again, maybe healthcare is one of the few examples of an industry that ought to be run by the government. (As you pointed out, police and mili ...[text shortened]... cy. Effectively, all non-complying private insurance would be phased out within a few years.

Private insurance that doesn't comply with the specifications laid out in HR 3200 would be phased out.

I see, so there is going to be more regulation, I think it sounds fair.

HR 3200 does amount to government take over of the industry. Maybe not completely, but to a great extent.

but you'll still have the freedom to go private instead of being forced into the government-run healthcare, right?
Im still wondering how that will turn out to be a government takeover.

Then again, maybe healthcare is one of the few examples of an industry that ought to be run by the government

I don't think so, I think there should be some form of government-run healthcare that would be accessible for those who can't afford private healthcare, but I don't think the whole industry should be run by the government, because of the problems it would cause.
Healthcare is after all, much more complicated and costly than police,or the army.

It only applies as long as the insurer changes NOTHING about the policy. Effectively, all non-complying private insurance would be phased out within a few years.

Do you think the bill's purpose is to get rid of the current private healthcare?
If so, why would Obama or anyone want such thing?

Originally posted by sh76
At first I sympathized with Cindy Sheehan.

And then she opened her mouth.

I mean I still feel bad for her that she lost a son and all... but how anyone could take her seriously after all the mindless statements she's made is beyond me. Maybe the loss of her son made her crazy... in which case she deserves sympathy... but not to be taken seriously.

I think Sheehan started off with a sincere grievance. She wanted to know why her son had to die.

This was actually a great opportunity for Bush -- he could've been the "compassionate conservative" and invited her to come in and talk - it would've allowed Bush to show that he cared about Sheehan and all the other worried parents with children serving in Iraq. Bush should then have given a public address explaining all the reasons none of those troops died in vain. Think of how Reagan would have handled it.

But Bush decided to ignore Sheehan and hoped she'd go away. Then all the anti-war activists and other liberal interest groups turned her into a cause celebre, and it quickly spun out of control. Sheehan probably loved all the attention she was getting and allowed herself to become a pawn in what turned into a ridiculous publicity stunt.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Private insurance that doesn't comply with the specifications laid out in HR 3200 would be phased out.

I see, so there is going to be more regulation, I think it sounds fair.

HR 3200 does amount to government take over of the industry. Maybe not completely, but to a great extent.

but you'll still have the freedom to go private i ...[text shortened]... rid of the current private healthcare?
If so, why would Obama or anyone want such thing?[/b]

sh76 raises a legitimate point - if the public option is "too good" or the minimum standards for all private plans are set "too high", the effect could be to greatly reduce or eliminate competition from the private sector. This could happen even though it's not Obama's intention.

The idea behind a public option is that it would keep the private insurers honest -- but it also works the other way - you need to have those private options as a way of keeping the government honest.

Originally posted by sh76
You don't think the government should encourage healthy behavior through different premium structures?

It makes sense to me that private insurers charge different premiums to those who voluntarily put themselves in different risk classes. I don't see why the government should behave any differently.

I don't think the government can encourage healthy behaviour through different premium structures.

Like everyone in the Netherlands, I am privately insured. It's the same rate for everyone.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
sh76 raises a legitimate point - if the public option is "too good" or the minimum standards for all private plans are set "too high", the effect could be to greatly reduce or eliminate competition from the private sector. This could happen even though it's not Obama's intention.

The idea behind a public option is that it would keep the private insurer ...[text shortened]... er way - you need to have those private options as a way of keeping the government honest.

From what I've seen so far, the only major problem I have with the bill is the phase out of private insurance plans that don't comply with the government's dictates.

I don't see the harm in allowing the public option to exist side by side with any private plan that the market will bear. I know Canada doesn't allow supplemental private insurance. But, for example, England does allow private care alongside the NHS.

Throw in a hybrid:

1) You can have your private insurance in any form you like.
2) There will be a public option with premiums based on income and asset level.

In other words, Medicaid option for everyone, but those who can afford to pay premiums will have to.

And, suddenly, I don't have a problem with the concept.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
sh76 raises a legitimate point - if the public option is "too good" or the minimum standards for all private plans are set "too high", the effect could be to greatly reduce or eliminate competition from the private sector. This could happen even though it's not Obama's intention.

The idea behind a public option is that it would keep the private insurer ...[text shortened]... er way - you need to have those private options as a way of keeping the government honest.

I don't think government-run healthcare can ever be "too good", simply because they can't afford it.
Private will always have better quality of treatment, which is why people pay for it.

Agreed.

Originally posted by sh76
From what I've seen so far, the only major problem I have with the bill is the phase out of private insurance plans that don't comply with the government's dictates.

I don't see the harm in allowing the public option to exist side by side with any private plan that the market will bear. I know Canada doesn't allow supplemental private insurance. But, for exa ...[text shortened]... d to pay premiums will have to.

And, suddenly, I don't have a problem with the concept.

You end up with a 2 tier system of health care. The best doctors go to the private system and the bad ones go to the public system.

The standard of care will be different. You go back to the rich getting better treatment than the poor. Welcome to the age of the new Aristocracy.

Originally posted by uzless
You end up with a 2 tier system of health care. The best doctors go to the private system and the bad ones go to the public system.

The standard of care will be different. You go back to the rich getting better treatment than the poor. Welcome to the age of the new Aristocracy.

Why shouldn't you have the choice to buy something better if you can afford to?

All fruit should cost the same. Why should you be able to eat fresher apples just because you're willing to go to a better market and buy fresher fruit?

All restaurants should charge the same. Why should you be able to eat better food and get better service just because you can afford to pay more?

etc. etc.

Welcome to the real World. People who have more money can buy better stuff. It's called capitalism. You work harder. you make more money. You get to buy better stuff.

I'm all for providing healthcare for people who can't afford to pay for it. Preventing people who want to buy better healthcare from being able to do so is a concept that the American people will never swallow.

YouTube

Originally posted by sh76
From what I've seen so far, the only major problem I have with the bill is the phase out of private insurance plans that don't comply with the government's dictates.

I don't see the harm in allowing the public option to exist side by side with any private plan that the market will bear. I know Canada doesn't allow supplemental private insurance. But, for exa ...[text shortened]... d to pay premiums will have to.

And, suddenly, I don't have a problem with the concept.

In other words - we would be expanding Medicaid so that it covered everyone -- but once your income is above a certain level, you would have to pay a premium equal to what's on the private market.

A big advantage is that people would understand how this worked, and we wouldn't need to have a whole bunch of new rules and mechanisms that the average person can't make sense out of.