Why are so many people against Obama's health reform!

if america cant do better than france, we are officially screwed.

Well, Americans last I saw overwhelmingly do support it, I believe I heard 74% want health care reform. But there is a LOT of money involved, and those who stand to lose the most (i.e. still get rich, but not as fast), those who have been making a killing off the current system, they have a TON of money to invest in doing whatever they can to kill the progress…they spend $100 million now, it could be worth billions to them in the future. And there are of course political enemies of Obama…one Republican Senator said last week that if they could block Obama’s plan, it would be his “Waterloo”. People in power who make money off our fucked up system have the most to lose if we do it the right way and they’ll do anything to stop it, and people who are in the political minority party and seek greater control (like they had just a couple years ago) don’t give two shits about the people they serve, they care about their own political future, that’s all. So, they spread lies and disinformation in very glossy and visual ways that connect not with peoples’ ability to think critically, but on a more emotional level, to make them afraid of the change, and to cast aspersions on the real motives.

Basically, it’s business as usual.

People fear change and Republicans realize the rich will be paying for a lot of it.

@noctowl

We are currently not doing better than France.

Also…

@Ivan – gotta love “you couldn’t get 85% of Americans to get off the couch if there was an election between tits and bigger tits, and they were giving away free samples.”

Not only would I get off the couch, I would have a campaign sign on my lawn.

@filmfann – but for what candidate?

bigger tits of course

Now now @Facade, let’s not just jump wildly into this. First we have to work out how big the initial tits are. Gotta research your candidates you know?

I’d have to see the nipples to decide myself…I find both qualitative and quantitative qualities that make it very possible for bigger to not necessarily be better.

@dalepetrie It doesn’t matter who I would vote for. The bigger boob always wins.

@filmfann is correct :)

@filmfann Don’t talk like that man! Even the third candidate boobs have a chance, you just have to believe!

Regarding the topic, my immediate guess would be that people are afraid of change and in the US this fear tends to be amplified when the change in question involves the government, perhaps due to the populations underlying culture.

There is so much wrong with the health industry as a whole. The buck just keeps getting passed.

From millions of samples being over boxed and over marketed with billions of dollars (passed on to the consumer) and millions spent on pens and shit to get the name out for fake health issues that didn’t exist until a marketing team came up with a name for them.

To doctors who are either over managed by their system to have to see someone every 15 minutes and do 20 min. of paper work for each patient. To the ones in private practice or in a decent group who don’t and are actually trying to stay afloat by playing the game on the up and up but can’t do it because of what it cost.

To the health care companies who are expected, for some reason to pay 90% of the the previously mentioned outrageous fees because that is how it has been for to long.

The costs of every thing are to high and everyone is pointing the finger at the guy behind them and were standing in a big fucking circle.

Oh, and if we tax some things because they are unhealthy and a drag on our health care system, bring on the taxes for other junk food I say.

And yes I would suffer severely at that. But we pay shit loads for people with health related issues that stem from how the DON’T take care of them selves.

It’s too easy to make blanket statements like “because republicans are greedy” or “because people are afraid of progress”. Don’t be naive…

The fact of the matter is that most people who oppose a public health care system are looking out for the best interest of themselves and their family. No, not all of them are selfish, rich conservatives. I’m talking about middle class people who work hard, maybe they have a good job that gives them good health care benefits, and they feel secure about that. Why should they throw that all away just to find out if a public system works or not? What if it’s crappy? A lot of them have their children in mind. Fair enough.

Now, there are different kinds of systems that can accommodate people with their own private care, and even ones that propose that private care remains, but offer a public option for those who can’t afford it (sort of like schools). But people are not aware of these proposals because the discussion isn’t being put on the table enough.

@thefan1 – Welcome to fluther.

It bugs me that most people feel they shouldn’t have to pay what amounts to 5 or 10% of the total cost of their health care even if it was fairly priced. Their are doctors who try to forgo using health insurance and use real cost pricing and cant survive because of the trust issue. People are just ignorant.

Rich people who already have the health care they want would have to pay so those without could have adequate health care.

Because its money we don’t have.

Good answer @TommyLeeJones Also @kheredia, because I don’t want to be taxed more just to pay for someone else’s health care anymore than I already do for the existing programs. Granted, there are people who need it. But there are lots that take advantage of our government, and it makes me sick that it is allowed to go on.

Let’s hope they get something in the works. Going to the ER and not paying the bill as an alternative to no health insurance is embarrassing.

@BBSDTfamily And rich people never take advantage of the government for their own selfish reasons?

Funny thing is, I’m so SURE all these people who “don’t want to pay more in taxes” are making over 350k a year and would actually see a tax hike. WHAT? You mean Faux News didn’t tell them that part?

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Nobody said that, don’t know where you pulled that from… I was clearly making reference to the topic of this particular question, no making the statement that only poor people take advantage. I didn’t even use the word poor. Are you trying to pick fights? Pick somewhere else.

@dalepetrie Sounds like you need to watch the news more too… we are not always given what we are promised by politicians… especially when it comes to taxes.

@BBSDTfamily – I don’t watch news, I read so I can actually get information. I for one don’t mind paying taxes for value received. Good to know that in your opinion however we shouldn’t do a goddamn thing to help people who are being bankrupted by outrageous insurance premiums, medical co-pays and uncovered medical necessities, because the politicians who are trying to do something about it just might lie to us.

@BBSDTfamily [...]But there are lots that take advantage of our government, and it makes me sick that it is allowed to go on.

So fuck the rest of everyone because a minority has taken advantage of the gov’t?

@boots People need to get a job and not rely on others to take care of them. Like I said, there are some that are truly disabled, and my problem is with how easy it is to take advantage of our government. I think there should be more checks and balances, because so many things go unattended.

@dalepetrie Bankrupted by outrageous insurance premiums and uncovered medical necessities? Do you not know that you can make $50 payments every month to a hospital towards your bill if you so choose? Do you know how many people just don’t pay anything and let their bills go into collections? These people need to get a job in my opinion, take responsibility for themselves, and quit depending on hard working Americans to wipe their butts for them.

@BBSDTfamily I have a job. I make minimum wage part time with an employer that doesn’t provide health care (and I can’t afford school for the same reason). I live in a state with ~15% unemployment rate, which means that it’s amazingly hard to find a job, never mind the lack of work experience I have.

I shouldn’t have health care because of the actions of a few? Why? Because you’re too selfish to help your fellow man?

@boots Is there anything that is your fault that you did to prevent you from getting a better job or education (if lack of it is why you do not have more than a minimum wage job)? If not, I’m sorry for your situation. However you CAN get health care if you walk into a hospital, and like I said you can make small payments until you repay your debt. Call it selfish if you want, but I work very hard and no I do not want to pay your bills for you.

@BBSDTfamily Seriously? So I should get a 6,000 bill because you can’t pay a dollar?

I work my ass off to and probably make a fraction of your cash. But I’d help you if you were sick or injured, so yes. You’re being absurdly selfish. You should be ashamed.

@BBSDTfamily

You’re right, a system that makes the poor go into debt in order to get basic health care is the perfect system.

@boots Ha. I’m not ashamed at all. I work hard to provide for my family. Not you. Not people who expect a handout from others. I would help you in the sense of driving you to the hospital. “because you can’t pay a dollar” is a ridiculous comparison because far more than a dollar comes out of my check already each month.

@Ivan So, a system that forces me to give my hard earned money to the poor is better? Wow I am blown away by how many people can’t take responsibility for themselves. Like I said, you can make small payments each month towards your bill…. you don’t have to mortgage your house!

@BBSDTfamily

Don’t tell other people how hard they work.

That money to you is the difference between buying an Audi and a BMW. That money to us is the difference between living and dying.

@BBSDTfamily Those “small payments” add up. When you include interest, the already inflated price is even higher. I don’t know much about insurance policies and whatnot but paying a little extra to help your fellow man doesn’t seem like a raw deal at all. You pay for the roads even though you may not drive on all of them; it’s the same concept.

Sorry, I get what you all are saying and I understand your perspective. I just personally don’t agree with taking money from people just because they have it to give it to people who don’t have it. You can still get adequate health care while being poor… ya’ll are acting like you have to have $6k cash to walk into a hospital.

“You can still get adequate health care while being poor”

Not without getting poorer.

@Ivan So get a second job. Go to school. I don’t disagree with gov. grants out there that allow anyone to get an education.

@Ivan Am I not also poorer by paying for your bills that I reap no benefit from?

@BBSDTfamily I have excellent healthcare thanks to my father’s job, but I can still see how much of a burden it would be on a person to have to think twice about seeing a doctor because they can’t afford it.

@BBSDTfamily So get a second job. Go to school. The world’s a lot more complex than you seem to think it is.

I find myself having to drive across the border when I need health coverage. Isn’t it sad that being a citizen I have to go to someone else’s country to get health care at a reasonable price? @BBSDTfamily: you are lucky enough to have a good job with health benefits. Some of us are not so lucky. I have a job, and I work very hard too. My job just doesn’t offer health coverage.

@BBSDTfamily

Just that simple right? Just work more! That will do it!

The notion that the amount of money you make is directly proportional to how hard you work is incredibly ridiculous.

“Am I not also poorer by paying for your bills that I reap no benefit from?”

1) You’re not poor to begin with.
2) That’s the most selfish sentence I’ve ever read.

“WHERE’S MY BENEFIT!?”

Dale, can you please just give us the summary of the abstract?

And that $50 a month will really go a long way to paying for the multi-million debt people can accrue if something bad happens to them. Do you realize that if I didn’t have insurance from my job, when I had my child in 2001, it would have cost me $45,000? It would take me 900 months to pay just THAT off at $50/month. I’ve been unemployed many times through no fault of my own. Once, I had to pay $1,400 a month for a family of 3 for insurance on COBRA, and that was 4 years ago. Imagine trying to come up with that when unemployment paid I believe $515 a week at the time and I had a $1,400 a month mortgage.

You’ve allowed the right wing noise machine to convince you that the real problem is that people don’t take “personal responsibility”, and I’m sorry, but that’s a load of unmitigated bullshit. As an Accountant, I pay the bills for the companies I’ve worked for…my company of just over 20 people, not all of whom were even on our plan spent $20 grand a MONTH for insurance for its employees….how can small businesses AFFORD that?

And you know what…OK, I could go without insurance, but you know what…I am diabetic…it runs in my family. I have to see the doctor 4 times a year just for blood work. My medications alone would run me $7 grand a year if I had to pay for them out of pocket, as it is it’s more like $1 grand.

Your $50 a month is $600 a year…I can’t TELL you who I’d let do me to have my medical expenses only cost me $600 a year. It’s not a matter of I had to go to the hospital. Do you realize that minimum wage comes out to be $15,000 a year, yet the average person pays over $500 a month for medical care…that’s 40% of the income of a minimum wage earner. Even someone making $60 grand pays 10% of their income on medical care. That’s too fucking much. And you’re NOT going to be able to meet your medical needs by making a payment on a hospital bill for $50 a month.

Do you see that because we have a capitalist society, you are allowed to make a much better living than the vast majority of other people…regardless of how long or hard they work? Don’t you see that the price of being able to participate in a system where the sky is the limit maybe should be that the better you do under this system, the more you should have to pay to participate?

I mean, even if we made taxation “fair” and “equal”...but it’s not. Even our so-called “progressive” tax code ends up being a regressive one when you factor in all the other taxes that people pay or that are built into the things people buy. But people with money just like to put their fingers in their ears and say “lallalalalallla…I can’t HEAR you” when anyone points out that their basic argument of “why should I have to pay a 36% marginal tax rate when everyone else only has to pay 15%” falls apart when you look at all taxes paid. Conservatives like to look at the numbers in a way that suits them…they’ll point out that the wealthiest 2% pay 90% of the taxes, but don’t point out that they make nearly 100% of the income.

Bottom line is that it’s not about ‘walking into a hospital’, that’s a myopic argument designed to minimize the actual issue. The point is, if you want insurance so that you can go to the doctor when you get sick, it’s becoming harder and harder for people to afford it, even if their employer subsidizes it. And for an employer to offer health insurance to their employees, at least in the state I live in, they HAVE to offer at least a 50% subsidy on the employee portion of the premium. Rates were going up by 18% on average year after year during the 90s and though that rate has slowed, it still goes up significantly every year. More and more employers can’t even offer health care to their employees anymore, there are 50 million uninsured Americans, not to mention the underinsured…in a nation of 325 million people. That’s over 15% of all Americans…don’t have insurance at all…they can’t get it or can’t afford it.

And another problem, consider someone who does have an illness such as diabetes. I can’t even GET insurance on my own…I’m “fortunate” if you can call it that, in that I was able to get a “conversion” policy from my insurer after my last employer shut down for lack of money (something they’d have a lot more of if they hadn’t been paying 20 grand a month for insurance), so for about $300 a month, I can get insurance which covers about 85% of my drug costs and which covers my doctor’s visits AFTER I spend $1,000 in a calendar year. And because the money doesn’t come out of a pay check, it’s paid with after tax dollars out of the $565 a week I get from unemployment, which I’d LOVE to stop collecting if any of the 100s of employers to whom I’ve employed would even interview me, much less hire me. But as someone who has 15 years of experience on top of his Bachelor’s degree in accounting, someone who had the acumen to pass the CPA exam, any job I apply for has 100+ candidates waiting and it best I’m 2nd or 3rd choice. My wife’s part time job allows her to get a $500/month personal policy for a little over $200 a month, and my son has private individual insurance with a $5,000 deductible, and so yes, AFTER the $97 a month I spend on my son’s policy, I could make $50 payments for 100 months if he ended up in the hospital…YAY!!!!

You fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation for hard working everyday Americans, because it’s far easier for you to believe that everyone just needs to “get a job” and take personal responsibility. I say, just be thankful you don’t have to live in the real world.

@Ivan No it’s not that simple, and no hard work definitely doesn’t always equal more money. But I think people should quit belly aching about other people needing to pay their bills. People have their own bills to pay, and I am not rich by any means. Yes I am fortunate to have a good job, and I make no apologies for it because I earned it. I just do not want to work my butt off every day just to have the government FORCE me to give a portion of it away. I am not selfish at all in reality. I do give away a lot of money and things. I think everyone should if they can. But I do not agree with the government FORCING people to do it.

@dalepetrie well since you seem to know my personal finances, I guess I don’t have to respond? Seriously though, I understand your position like I already said. I just don’t agree with the government forcing hard working Americans to give away their money to other people, whether those people are hard working or lazy bums. The reason is because everybody has their own personal finances that they are dealing with, and if the government keeps taking more of my money and of people’s like mine, eventually we all are going to need government assistance.

@BBSDTfamily

Just like the government FORCES you to pay for the military, the police, roads, education, etc. I’m sure you think that poor people should be kicked out of school and barred from using roads, too. Or maybe they should just get a second job and pay for them with cash.

The government provides us services, and in return we pay the government. That’s not heresy, that’s not evil; that’s how it works.

I think that the answer is not taxing Americans more. I think it is getting rid of a lot of BS things that the government throws money into.

@Ivan I don’t think our health care system is going to be any better by regulating it. More people may go in for treatment, but the level of care would decrease. And like I already said, people without insurance can still go in for treatment now, so I see no real reason for taxing workers more to regulat healthcare because of all the reasons I’ve named.

@BBSDTfamily

“I don’t think our health care system is going to be any better by regulating it.”

It certainly can’t get much worse. You act like going into debt is something that all people should be able to do without any worries.

What’s that? You’re struggling to feed your family? Broke your arm? Well that’s OK, you can just allocate some of your money to the hospital debt! It’s not a big deal that your income wasn’t providing for your family in the first place, everything will work out eventually. You should just get another job!

@Ivan Next you’ll claim that I need to make your house payment too….

@BBSDTfamily

:eyeroll:

@Ivan Why not? Doesn’t everyone need a place to live? Heck let’s just smooth all the money around so that everyone gets an even piece of the pie.

@Ivan Oh and everyone needs food to eat. Why am I not being taxed for that? Oh wait, they already have that one in place….

@BBSDTfamily – again, if you don’t make $350k a year then I’m not really sure why it should bother you. You are arguing the point of someone who makes this kind of money. If you want to live in a country that doesn’t have any taxes, fine, but you’ll also live in a country that doesn’t provide any services to its citizens. One makes the other necessary, just the way it is. Personally, as I see it, there are things that people just can’t provide for themselves, there are some people who fall through the cracks through no fault of their own, and there are certain things that are so important that they simply can’t be left to the free market because the profit motive does not serve the public interest…it serves the interest of those who have the money and power. It is the very role of government to provide essential services that EVERYONE benefits from, to keep our society from falling into ruins by protecting its most vulnerable members, and to make sure that when the profit motive conflicts with the public interest, the public interest is given a fair shot. And that costs money. And because we offer every citizen the right to go as far as the combination of skill, knowledge, luck and good fortune will carry them, we should ask something of those who meet with the greatest success. In fact, we should ask something of all citizens, but the citizens who can not afford to pay, well they have not really benefited from our system. In my opinion, I have no problem with the free market, but the free market if there is no minimum wage will simply because of supply and demand drive wages down for the majority who will eventually not be able to afford the necessities of life. I say we should institute a minimum wage that says, if you are willing to work a 40 hour week, then you should be able to support a family of 3 at today’s prices. And by support I mean, feed them nutritious food, keep them in adequate clothing and housing, keep them healthy and allow them an education befitting of an American citizen. Minimum wage is nowhere near that. And basically, I would not spread all these taxes to states, cities and counties, which can pretty much only tax consumption which does not consider fairness in any way, unless you don’t tax necessities (but generally necessities are taxed in this way). So essentially I would say, let’s go with $30 grand…$15 an hour, something of that nature and say, you can’t really live a safe, healthy life (not one of luxury, just one that is decent and safe and which meets your basic human needs), and only what you make over and above $15 an hour is taxed…and every dollar that is taxed is taxed at exactly the same rate. That would be fair.

And that percentage should be set based on what government really should provide to its citizens. There are certain rights which I think we could and should afford to all Americans..not making their house payments for them, not buying them big screen TVs, not allowing them to do whatever these lazy, evil people who suck off the government teat that you seem to think is a much bigger problem than statistics bear out (but the talking heads scream it loud enough it sounds plausible). Basically as I see it, if you’re born, you should be able to get an education, you should be able to go to a doctor if you get sick, you should have some sort of safety net that keeps you alive and well if circumstances beyond your control blindside you, and you should be able to retire and have your needs met after you give 30–40+ years of your life to the American economy. I think that’s fair and that’s doable.

And in my opinion, making sure people can go to the doctor when they get sick benefits the health of everyone. And I’m all for closing loopholes, fighting abuse of the system by the lazy and making our health care system efficient as possible to achieve cost savings. But that’s not enough…you could isolate and eliminate every cheat and it wouldn’t solve this problem…because we have our nation’s health managed by a for profit system which lacks any regulations to ensure that it continues to serve the public good.

@BBSDTfamily: “In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel’s nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.”

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=slippery+slope+logical+fallacy&btnG=Google+Search

@dalepetrie If only people who make $350k were taxed at all for this, then the situation wouldn’t seem so absurd to me. However, I won’t believe that the claims that were made will be kept until I actually see it. We are very often told one thing and then get another.

“If only people who make $350k were taxed at all for this, then the situation wouldn’t seem so absurd to me.”

lol, so long as it’s not you, right? Wouldn’t the people who make >350k be making the same arguments you have been making?

@Ivan Oh no they are free to make their own arguments, and I would not fault them or assume I know if they are selfish or not. But my situation is the cause for my personal opinion on the matter.

@BBSDTfamily – the only proposal (so far) that includes a tax increase is an increase on I believe the marginal income over and abover $345k. It seems really strange to me though that because it’s not law yet, one would argue against it on the basis that maybe it could conceivably result in a tax increase on lower incomes, if that were proposed and Congress went along with it and the President signed it. I see no reason to resist what IS out there based on what it MIGHT become. That to me is kind of like saying, “you know what….my favorite band is coming to town next month, but I’m NOT going to their concert, because they might spend their ticket revenue making a new album that I won’t like.”

@dalepetrie I do not like the idea either way. I just mean that it doesn’t sound as absurd if they only tax the wealthy. It’s not the only reason I oppose it.

@BBSDTfamily

Well, unlike you, my opinions are based on the good of the nation as a whole.

So what part of it don’t you like? The part where everyone can afford to see a doctor? The part where families and small business aren’t going bankrupt? The part where the profit motive is given less sway than the public interest? If you have ideas, NOW is the time to voice them to your elected leaders…the law is being crafted…if there are specifics you don’t think will work or you think could be done better, then speak up. But basically as long as we have health care that more and more people can’t get and can’t afford which gives us less and less care, then there IS a problem that needs to be fixed. If you think that because you have a good job, which provides you health insurance, so you shouldn’t have to worry about it, I just hope for your sake nothing happens to cause that job (and the associated insurance) to just go away one day. Because then no matter how talented you are, no matter how hard you work, you may find yourself wishing that part of your tax dollars paid to make sure that insurance companies wouldn’t be posting record profits at a time when 1 out of every 6 people walking the streets can’t even afford to buy what they’re selling.

@dalepetrie Okay, okay. I give. You make a good point and I will rethink my position.

You put it into a perspective that I had not thought about previously.

@BBSDTfamily – I’m glad you’re willing to give it some thought, and I do concede I see the point that we can’t just start taking money from everyone when we want to fix a problem…that’s not fair either. I just want honest, hard working people to be able to be healthy without going bankrupt, and that’s getting harder and harder to do…I’m not sure what the solution is, and I highly doubt the finished product will be “perfect” in my estimation, but I’m not willing to naysay it without seeing what the actual proposal that comes up for a vote might be, and what I know about what has been proposed and the people who will be voting on it, I highly doubt they’re going to come up with something that isn’t at LEAST far better than what we have now.

As an aside, it might interest you to know that one of the latest proposals of how to pay for it was proposed by John Kerry. He thinks we could fund it by taxing insurance companies and employers on “high value” insurance plans. Like those plans that are basically luxuries that most honest people could never afford. Kind of like a luxury tax on health insurance, that you pay if you’re trying to get the Cadillac of health care plans that will cover things that most peoples’ insurance would consider elective. I think that would be a good way to handle it and I think it resolves the tax issue. I also really like the push to convene a medical research board which could make binding decisions to ensure that the plans were delivering value.

I was listening to NPR today and they talked about this very issue in the context of the Mayo Clinic, which is not that far from where I live. They are considered THE BEST medical care money can buy, and yet they do it at a cost of 28% lower than average. If they can do it, and we have people like those making the decisions for the Mayo on a board which can help set policy to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and strong cost-benefit relationships, there’s no reason we can’t have the best health care system in the world. One which people would still bear some financial responsibility for…I am not saying we shouldn’t have to pay for our health care…I don’t think everyone should just get a free ride, but I think everyone should be able to have access to affordable health care that would cover the basics. And that’s what Congress has been charged to create…it is my hope, and my belief that if they deliver anything that doesn’t address the issue to Obama, he won’t sign it. But time will tell.

@dalepetrie I truly appreciate an intelligent, informed reply such as yours. I wish others would take your advice, maybe myself included sometimes. I am pretty opinionated, but I do force myself to open my ears to what others say and at least consider it. Thank you for the info and for shedding new light on this.

@BBSDTfamily – it’s the only way to be, my friend. If someone just spouts ignorance and doesn’t seem open to ideas I don’t waste my time on them.

Whether they change the health care system or not, I want them to streamline healthcare so there is not so much waste, I think Obama is right about that. Let’s get costs down, reduce redundancy, etc.

I think people don’t want socialized medicine, because they fear change, and there has been a brilliant campaign against it to scare people. I have plenty of scary stories to tell you in our current system to compete with what they drag out about Canada’s system.

Will the taxes they are going to charge people over $350K does that only go towards insuring the uninsured? So we will still be paying our companies to have health insurance through them right? Or, we can opt to have insurance separate from our employer, but have the same benefits as a group, and pay the insurance company directly? Or, do we pay the government like we would pay our company?

They keep saying that a large majority of Americans are happy with their health care system. Does anyone know who they are asking? I want them to take 5000 people who are ill and ask if they like their health insurance. If you are healthy it is easy to like the service you are getting. I almost had a nervous breakdown dealing with medical insurance when I was sick.

I am for socialized medicine, but I do want some time to understand how this plan being proposed will really work, and I wish I could see more options in detail before just saying yes to anything, just to have something.

To the questioner: france’s health care is rated #1 by the Paris-based WHO. If a Tripoli-based human rights organization ranked Lybia the #1 democracy would you trust their findings?

Are you okay with a punitive fiscal and social burden on individuals?

Don’t be fooled by European tax rates, they’re just a small part of the whole story. Sarkozy recently pledged to limit the total burden on individuals in the highest bracket to 50% of their income, down from around 70% not counting the standard 20% sales tax on almost all goods and services. And don’t believe only the people making 350K Euros a year had to give up most of their earnings. The bar was set high at first but had to be lowered several times until it applied to people making as little as 50K Euros a year (Sarkozy raised the bar to 70K). Confiscatory tax rates had 2 major effects: one was a mass exodus of high net worth individuals to more fiscally friendly countries (something like 150K people). Upper-middle class professionals, on the other hand, discovered that they could keep more money by earning less so they worked less. This vicious cycle led us to a situation where people who make 50K euros a year are called “the rich” by the rest of the population and that’s when the global economy is in tip top shape.

Do you think your country should slash its defense budget by half or more?

france needs an army like a quadraplegic needs running shoes but I’m not sure Americans would like their government to spend barely enough money to maintain existing defenses in operational conditions. European politicians understood that US troops and missiles based on European soil were enough of a deterrent to shield us from Russian expansionist ambitions so they slashed defense budgets to not even the bare minimum and instead used the money to buy popular vote with attractive, “free” social services. Do Americans have a sugar daddy that can protect them?

Are you okay with chronically high unemployment rates?

In france a “worker” costs twice his salary because of social charges. Businesses only employ people when they cannot afford not to and stick to minimum wage whenever possible. Naturally, france’s unemployment rate has been hovering around 11% since the early 80s. To keep unemployment rates artificially lower, socialist governments took anti-business measures like making firing people legally difficult and extremely costly. They also shortened the work week. First, from 42h/week down to 40, then to 39 and more recently to 35. Naturally, paid overtime was outlawed.

Are you okay with crumbling and understaffed hospitals?

There’s not enough money to pay hospital staff decent salaries, and no one wants to do that ungrateful job anymore. Resources are overstretched and nurses overworked. Hospitals spend a lot of money trying to recruit nurses in poorer countries with highly qualified workers and low wage expectations, but guess what, even they aren’t thrilled by the idea of working in french hospitals. My best childhood friend has been an anesthesiologist for over 10 years and I’ve had a few acquaintances who were nurses. The whole system has been on the breaking point for 2 decades.

Do you want your doctor to lose his dedication and leave the medical field?

We had to find a new doctor like 3 times in 2 years because ours retired as soon as they could afford to. Doctors are sick and tired of bureaucrats deciding how they should treat patients. They believe a doctor should treat his patients based on medical needs, not cost.

Are you okay to pay non-reimbursed bonuses to be operated on by a reputed surgeon instead of one of his students?

In order to make a decent living, surgeons and anesthesiologists ask for extra money to take care of you themselves. So if you work hard and make good money you have to give most of it to the government. You also have to buy a complementary private insurance because the government had to cut reimbursement rates. But if you want quality care you also have to pay several thousand euros that can’t be reimbursed.

Now, france is an extreme example and Americans are probably far more civic-minded, community oriented and nowhere near as individualistic as the average french but it still would be unbelievably stupid to emulate france’s socialist failures when even the french have started to wise up. Oh and there has to be a reason why french people who can afford it go to the US for treatment.

Hopefully Americans are waking up to Mitterrand Obama’s radical agenda and opt for American solutions to the

Successful Repuglycan campaigning.

I’m sorry I didn’t read all 73 responses (HOT TOPIC!.)
I just wanted to say that I am a hard core Obama supporter, but even I have to admit that he needs to start LEADING on this. The Democrat’s in congress have been asked to “create” a program on their own and they are afraid they will end up taking the heat on their own. Obama needs to say loudly how HE wants the program to work. He needs to LEAD even on the details. We’re calling it Obama’s plan but he is leaving the planning up to congress. Maybe he’s afraid of taking all the heat like Hillary did when she tried to do this when it should have been done, but if he wants it to pass HE needs to make some hard decisions and take a stand on them. We will all back HIS plan, but congress knows that the American people are leery of Congresses plan.

@Judi – I’m guessing that in Obama’s estimation it’s the Congress which actually writes the laws and the President who approves them. So far at least I’ve seen him kind of step in here and there, like with his suggestion of a binding medical panel of experts…I think it’s kind of like he’s the parent and Congress are the children…he wants to let them figure it out but he’s willing to step in if they can’t figure out how to play nice. And I think he’s probably also well aware of what you said, that Americans would back HIS plan, but are leery of Congress…I imagine he probably thinks Congress need to repair its image a bit, and he thinks it might be better in the long run if they can actually work something out, to show that they really can work together and get something done, and that might lead to less resistance in the future. It will also silence the critics who say Obama is just another dictator who’s going to push through his agenda without listening to anyone else’s input…that’s just not who he is. I say have faith in his methods, I think he wants the solution to be one with broad appeal and if he just says “this is what I want” it’s going to be a LOT harder to push it through….sure he’ll have the backing of the American people, but it will be easier for the contrarians to put up a fight, and it would make the law if it was just pushed through over minority objections in that manner, all that much easier to take down or weaken over time as opposed to a bill that was hashed out over a long period with the input of many contributors. Congress is probably best suited to write a bill that will be aware of the potential pitfalls so that it can write language into the bill to avoid those pitfalls. Obama acting somewhat unilaterally and whipping Congress would be bound to walk into a trap.

I actually think that congress is best suited to push a bill with special interest pork because of the “collective” nature of it. A clean bill needs to have someone take ownership of it and if he wants it to pass I think it needs to be Obama. I desperately want it and I know others do too.
My son is on disability. He wants to work and could probably hold down a job, but he couldn’t get a job with health insurance. If he doesn’t have his medication he can’t work. If he can’t work he needs to be on disability, where he can get medical coverage. How much money would it save our country if people could get the medical care they need in order to be productive contributors to society?!
I hope and pray this passes. I just think it’s time for the president to BE THE PARENT and lay down the law to the squabbling kids.

@Judi – FWIW, Obama wants it to pass, and therefore it shall. It’s really a delicate balancing act, and I don’t think he’ll let what’s important fall by the wayside here. Even though the Dems have a 60 vote, filibuster proof majority on this, there certainly are Dems who might oppose what the Senate puts forth, but essentially the Dems can be whipped into line, or they can invoke procedural rules which allow them to pass it with only 50 votes. There’s a lot of wrangling going on right now, everyone needs to get something changed to be happy with the finished product, but if they don’t play hardball now, they lose their chance. Bottom line is, for most Dems there’s just too much to lose by not voting for something, even if it’s not exactly what they want. What you’re likely to hear right now is the pessimism and the voices coming out against the bill, because it’s the opposition, which is in the minority, which needs to speak loudest to get its voice heard. And even though public support is somewhat eroding (the PR specialists hired by the special interests are doing their jobs well and are being well compensated for so doing), there is still a firm majority of Americans who aren’t going to take inaction lying down anymore. I can’t tell you what the finished product will look like, but I’d be willing to bet that a) something will pass, b) it will be a damn sight better than what we have now, and c) it won’t be perfect by any means.

Very rarely do I talk publicly about politics, but this thread has gotten me riled up.

I was hospitalized in 2008 because I had a virus that took a turn for the worse. I spent 3 hours in the ER. At the time, I was paying $450 a month in health insurance, because I thought health insurance was really, really important. That was a quarter of my rent at the time. Fortunately, I was able to pay that premium because I come from a privileged family, I went to an Ivy League school, and I was quite talented at what I did so I was able to provide for myself.

How much did this 3 hour stint at the hospital cost me? Keeping in mind that I had already paid over $2000 in health insurance premiums?

$4000.

So don’t raise some straw man argument that I could have chosen a better job, or bettered myself in some way. Until I stop seeing people take dead-end jobs and not do what they are capable of doing, simply because they need health insurance, the system is completely and totally broken.

Thank god I’m in a union now, where I can actually get affordable health care, because the government sure as hell isn’t going to help me out.

People having to take jobs for the sole purpose of being able to afford health insurance is unamerican.

To answer the question, though, people fear change, and the fear of beurocracy runs deep in this country.

I’m up for health care reform, but a big issue at hand seems to be the president jamming this bill down our throats and saying we need to pass it now. If we are going to reform this HUGE industry perhaps we should define the implications of the plan before we just move forward?

@critter1982 Its usually best to have something go down your throat before you try to pass it.

@filmfann: That’s what she said

@critter1982 – the problem I have with your thinking is that health care reform was crucial to the well being of American families back in the early/mid 90s when the Clintons first tried (and failed) to push it through. It is beyond crucial and has reach crisis, 50 million uninsured Americans, 1/6th of our population has no insurance and countless others pay more than they can really afford for health care.

So to keep people from saying, “seems to be the president jamming this bill down our throats and saying we need to pass it now,” he basically did NOT create a bill, he gave Congress several months to work one out, and part of that should be, and hopefully was defining the implications. There is no “THIS” bill being jammed down anyone’s throat because the bill has not yet been approved, it is being hashed out. If we waited another year, or two, or eight, we’d still have people saying he was trying to jam it down our throats. The time for considered action IS now, in fact it WAS years ago, and now we have someone doing something about it…it’s hard to believe when people worry about “moving too quickly” that they’re being sincere or at least that there would EVER be a right time.

I hear the Republicans saying that they understand something has ot be done about health care. Then why did they ignore it for 8 years? They talk abou thow the gov’t does nothing well. I think the gov’t screws up a lot of stuff, but I think Social Security was and is a fantastic plan. Does anyone want to give up social security? From what I understand the government has stolen money from social security to use on other things? That is what seems wrong to me.

@dalepetrie I want socialized medicine, but I think in the minds of the people opposing Obama’s plan (not the politicians, but the average citizen) they feel like all of a sudden we are going to change the whole system. People like us, since Clinton, if not longer, have wanted something done, so for us it is a long time in coming. Or, that is how it seems to me. I actually want to undertsand the plan better myself before it is voted on and passed.

@JLeslie – believe it or not, YES, there are a TON of Republicans who’d LOVE to do away with Social Security. W was going to use his political capital after being “re” elected in 2004 to push for privatization of Social Security…the right wing is still HUGE on this idea because they believe success and failure is 100% dictated not by circumstance, where you start in life, etc., but by the degree of “personal responsibility” you take. It’s a very selfish mindset (and before anyone jumps all over me, I’m not talking about ALL Republicans, just the assholes who push an every man for himself agenda, about 26% of the US electorate basically). Because they either have never fallen on hard times, or because they have but managed to overcome it through hard work, they feel that any government handouts, no matter whom they go to or why in whatever form, are just a waste of the money THEY put into the system with THEIR tax dollars. Remember that 30 years ago, most people had pensions, if you worked hard your whole life, even 20 years, you could probably retire and not have to worry about it. But that became expensive as people began to live longer, and companies adopted 401(k)s instead so that people could take “personal responsibility” for investing in their retirement. Only problem is, now the increasing costs of living and the greater longevity mean not only a burden the employee didn’ used to have, but one that gets greater and greater all the time. The other big problem is, by moving people’s income security into the stock market, the whole idea of investing is that there are winners and losers….just like any other form of gambling. If you know what you’re doing, you can make a ton of money, while the unwashed masses who are throwing their 401(k) money in the pool and who DON’T know what they’re doing will finance your fatcat lifestyle. So, hey…let’s also put Social Security in here. That way people can take “personal responsibility” and then if they lose their entire retirement savings, they have no one to blame but themselves for not figuring out how to invest wisely, and the rest of “US” who know how to invest will reap the benefits. Because you see, they took “personal responsibility” and learned how to make a killing in the stock market.

I’d prefer a single payer system too…it seems that the main argument against this is that the government does not operate as efficiently as private business, but I say sometimes things are too important to worry more about efficiency than efficacy. And there is no reason the government could not put in place a public system which would look for cost efficiencies and be monitored in a way that would keep it less prone to fraud and waste, but the Health Care industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and they aren’t going to cede that for ANYTHING. They don’t even want a public option, but it’s clear there needs to be one. People who are against it ignore that Congress has a public option, and that seems to be doing just fine.

And just so no one harbors any illusions about what’s at stake (for either side), here are some stats I just got my hands on this morning.

Every DAY 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance

Every WEEK 17,000 Americans are force to file bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills.

The lobbyists supporting the health care industry are currently spending $1.4 million a DAY to fight health care reform from passing.

Anyone who really thinks this is not a crisis and people need to take more personal responsibility needs to get his head out of his ass and look at what’s going on, and stop letting the wealthy, selfish right wing blowhards tell them that this is a partisan issue. This is an issue which transcends politics, at least in the minds of American people (Bush failed to privatize Social Security because 74% of Americans believe we need a strong social safety net), though the politicians and the big money interests which give these people their ultimate power are going to continue to look for some angle, some way to trick the public into thinking this is going too fast or is going to cost too much or is just unnecessary. But clearly, we’re at a crossroads, we’re at a time where this HAS to happen, or I believe our entire system will finally go down in flames.

@dalepetrie I know, I have a friend who said, “Social Security is extra money to buy your grandchildren gifts.” Can you believe it?! I have a couple of friends who wanted to privatize when W was pushing for that, saying that it’s “my money.” Thank Goodness that did not happen. By the way my friends are NOT wealthy, and do not have large 401k’s. American’s can’t save worth a s*!t on average, But, is it true that they steal from the SS pot? I have a real problem with that. I am fiscally very conservative. I want to be able to pay for everything, kind of Dave Ramsey like. These last 8, now going to be 9 years, with out of control spending freaks me out.

So, I REALLY want socialized medicine, but I really want a balanced budget. I think they can work on both at once, but I don’t think Obama is using “worst case scenario numbers” and I want him too.

If you go to the Clinton Library, which is awesome, one section is the budget over 8 years, and the book gets smaller and smaller. He really did stream line things. This was part of te reaon I wanted Hillary, I felt she would probably put a lot of focus there. I’m off topic :)

I say the Republicans who HATE paying taxes…tons of them around me, not wealthy, not close to wealthy…fine don’t pay taxes. Pay every time you want to drive on the interstate, your kid can pay for public school directly (that might lower my taxes, I have no kids) pay the police department and the fire department if you need their services. Or better yet, buy INSURANCE that pays for the fire and police department to come, lets create another company as the intermediary who is a for-profit business.

I know their will be innefficiencies in gov’t run health care. I say there are when business runs it also. But, business also has the worry of stock-holders. I prefer the intention of health care with waste, to the intention of profit and greed.

I can’t remember if I mentioned above, I really do want them to make things more efficient no matter what, and I want someone watching over the AMA and the industry in general, no matter what system.

Social Security

Social Security’s current level of benefits will not be sustainable with currently scheduled tax rates, so by the year 2037 social security benefits will reduced by 24%. Social Security is just one example of how the government can screw up a well intentioned program.

My understanding of Social Security is that it’s soon to be taking in less than it puts out, but you’ll hear wild stories of it going “bankrupt” by a certain date…that date is actually probably no in our lifetimes. Basically there are two ways to fix the problem so that it will never run out of money. One would be to continue to raise the age caps and lower the benefit amounts, which is what the “personal responsibility” folks want. The other would be to remove the cap on payroll taxes. One of the most unfair things in our tax structure is that once you make something like 105k a year, you stop paying that 6.2% on your income. So, someone making 10 grand a year, barely getting by is having 6.2% of their income taken out for social security. Someone making 10 million a year is having 6.2% of the first 105k taken out for social security and 0% of the other 9,895,000 taken out. So basically 65 thousandths of one percent of their income is taxed. Basically, Social Security was meant to be retirement insurance and should not be subject to caps because you won’t reap an appropriate benefit. It’s NOT a savings program, it’s an insurance program…if you do better, you pay more, if you do less well you don’t pay as much.

I think what you’re referring to is the fact that the cash may not be there. But basically it’s just one part of the government borrowing from another part, and it doesn’t bother me so much because the whole government would have to go down and be unable to pay it back to the other part of the system…if that happens, Social Security isn’t going to save anyone.

@critter1982 do you and your loved ones have enough money to last the rest of your life once you retire? Don’t really answer, I would never expect anyone to reveal anything about personal finances. Many many Americans don’t, and social security is a huge help. We have to force people to save, because too many people don’t do it. Look at what is going on in the country today! People buy things they can’t afford. They lose their job and within a month they are through their savings. I am not talking about the working poor. I am talking about middle class people who make plenty of money to live and save, and choose to spend spend spend. You want to trust them to save for themselves? Let’s see what happens over the long term with this economic scare. Will Americans continue to save more and spend less, or as soon as they have jobs again will they make more financially ridiculous spending decisions. Maybe if we have really reformed you will convince me to get rid of SS. Still, SS is for te rest of your life once you retire. What if you estimated you would live until the age of 85, and you live to be 105, are you sure you have enough saved up? That’s not even counting if God forbid there is a horrible health problem with high expenses.

@dalepetrie I think they should just raise the $105 to $130, or some sort of increase to add some more money into the SS system, not the entire income of the individual, just my opinion.

I guess maybe you could argue that a private company could run a social security type business, is that something some people who are against SS might want? Or just personal savings to get you through? Many companies are not offering pensions anymore.

@JLeslie: I absolutely disagree with you. It’s not the governments job to force it’s citizens to pay for retirement. Just like it shouldn’t be the governments job to force citizens to wear seatbelts, or to not smoke pot because it’s bad for you, or to not inject yourself with heroine, or to not have unprotected sex. I should be allowed to do whatever I want to with the money I earn, whether I want to buy a huge television or whether I want to save for retirement. It’s called personal responsibiilty, and Americans need to learn that. If they can’t learn to save for retirement then these people who bought things they couldn’t afford will just have to work their whole lives.

@Dale: My point regarding SS is that the government does not do anything well. They are corrupt greedy people just like many business’s. IMO, I don’t see any reason to trust our government with my health care benefits. Until they can prove to me that they can run a non-biased, efficient program which doesn’t happen to generate tons of debt every year, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

@critter1982 So, would you be happy to pay no taxes and be totally independent? If you had that option? Like, lets say the state of Alabama (totally random, not picking on Alabama) became a tax free zone, everyone has their own land and private business takes care of everythng. Is that your utopia?

@JLeslie: No absolutely not. IMO our government exists for a couple reasons.
1. To protect the country from others.
2. To define laws for its citizens so that your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not impede on my right.
3. To legislate and define laws so that companies do not restrict my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
4. Enforce laws that have been se forth

Roads be damned!

@critter1982 I should have been clearer, I didn’t mean total anarchy. Lets assume the 4 you listed. But then everything else…schools, roads, retirement, health care, medical research, fire department, natural disaster releif, all to be done by private business and citizens themselves, right?

@critter1982 – Social Security is not meant to be a “free retirement” plan. It’s meant to be a program that keeps people from slipping into abject poverty once they’re too old to work.

And if you want an example of a government health care program that works, look at what we give to Congress.

@dalepetrie: I’m looking for a government program that has already worked, not one that you think will. Find me a program that hasn’t run itself into debt and hasn’t been run inefficiently and maybe you could convince me that government would do better running our health insurance than the private sector. At this point I have NO reason to believe our government won’t bankrupt this system too.

@JLeslie: schools, retirement, health care, medical research, and natural disaster relief would be much better off in the private sector. I’m not so sure about roads and/or fire departments. I do know however know that if the government would subsidize private companies to fix roads it would get done much faster and cheaper. Regarding disaster relief, just look at New Orleans. Christian funded missionaries are one of the largest supporters for rebuilding New Orleans.

@critter1982 – I don’t know HOW many times you’re going to make me say this.

LOOK AT CONGRESS’ HEALTH CARE PLAN. The plan that you get if you become a member of Congress.

Known as the FEHBP, it does not experience financial problems, it is publicly funded, it does not seek to set prices for doctors and hospitals, it offers exceptional benefits, gives enrollees comprehensive information at the outset, and it uses a payment system that blends a formula with negotiations to achieve an outstanding level of cost control while constantly improving benefits and enjoying wide popularity. It has a stable premium structure, negotiated premiums, a variety of competing plans from which to choose, low overhead, negotiated service contracts, and fairly low regulation. It works. It’s run by the government.

But even if there weren’t an example, you’d choose not to try, because you don’t trust government can do it well. Well, if they can’t do it in a way that doesn’t leave 50 million uninsured Americans, probably 100 million more underinsured, 14,000 Americans a day losing their coverage and 17,000 a week declaring bankruptcy, then there’s something REALLY wrong. A retarded monkey could design a better plan than we have today, and one thing that would basically make a public option FAR better than any privatized plan could ever be is the fact that the profit motive would be removed…that alone, I don’t care HOW bad the government fucks it up, would be better for 100% of Americans. But by your logic, because maybe the government would do it wrong, we should just let this crisis keep getting worse, and fuck everyone if they can’t take personal responsibility for their cancer.

@critter1982 ok, so you have to educate me on the roads. I know many local roads are actually put in by developers and gifted back to the city/county, but the interstates and highways, how exactly is it done now, and how do you see it being done? Doesn’t the gov’t contract private companies to build them? Isn’t there bidding process of some sort? Or, is it actually government workers laying the roads? I’m serious here, not trying to argue, I’m not clear on this. I did see this one segment on a tv show that had a road surface that had used tire in it, I guess the proper term might be aggregate? that had signiicantly fewer pot holes, lasted much longer than the typical material used in roads, but the unions lobbied against using it, because fewer repairs meant fewer men working (sounds like the American car manufacturers 40 yers ago). So I can see how that type of thing might go away in your world. Major roads would have to be toll roads I think without gov’t. I realize you said you were maybe ok with gov’t/taxes paying for these roads, I’m just thinking it through.

I started a topic on this subject, mentioned your name and what you said about gov’t responsibility, I don’t know how to give you the link?

@JLeslie:

It depends. There are different categories. There are private roads owned by citizen(s). There are public roads owned by companies, and there are private roads owned by the government. Everyone is responsible for keeping up their own roads. The government does a little of both as far as contracting out work on roads. States have been increasingly contracting out roads to private companies because it is cheaper and more efficient. Regarding the aggregate comment. This is another reason to get government to only subsidize our roads. Companies who are competing for business will increase research on materials and tooling for roads making them last longer and allowing them to be manufactured and maintained more quickly. Competition will drive more of this innovation.

@critter1982 Yes, I was siding with you on the new materials for roads, that a business not influenced by lobbies (or is it lobby’s?) would be better I think.

to answer the original question:

Because I DO NOT TRUST the GOVERNMENT to manage something as important as my health.

Our healthcare system is fantastic—it’s the payment system that is in disarray. Do you really think the government will “reform” the payment system without destroying the quality of healthcare?

I have worked in the healthcare system and in government AND have worked with politicians. I know all 3 worlds from the inside and this is what I have seen:

In general, healthcare workers (of all strata) work hard to provide the best care they can for those for whom they are responsible. There is a very small percentage who do not, but they are exceptions to this generality.

The dedication of government workers, on the other hand, is inversely proportional to that of healthcare workers—the majority care for nothing other than getting their paycheck and retiring on their pension. (Before anyone takes offense, I am a government employee and challenge anyone to honestly rebut this assertion.)

The dedication to purpose of the workers in both these systems buck the Pareto Principle (the “80/20”)—one for our betterment and the other for our detriment. It’s been my observation that in government agencies, the 80/20 rule is more like the 98/2 rule: 98% of the work done is produced by 2% of the government workforce. When I first moved from the private sector into government service, I remarked to a colleague that government service is really just an extended welfare system for those who are generally un-employable anywhere else. I stand by that remark to this day (10 yrs later). Although the 2% of us would like to help you, chances are, we won’t be able to get to you in time due to our workload and that of the other 98% that we’re carrying.

As for politicians—you can’t really blame a snake for being a snake. Politicians are not in office because of what they will do for you. They are in office because they are “electable.” That means that the party (choose either party here because they are interchangeable) that they are working for deems them malleable enough to be counted on to do the party’s bidding when given the right incentive (spelled CA$H or coercive pressures, i.e. the old “dirty laundry” or “scratch my back” play).

The party’s (yes, singular because they are just 2 sides of the same coin) real interest in you is that you are so polarized in your thinking at election time that they do not have to worry about your vote—they can either put you in the plus column or minus column and move on to figure out how to get the majority of the “undecideds.” The politicians follow the 98/2 principle as well: only 2% (and that’s an optimistic estimate) give a crap about you. They are purely out for themselves.

So next time you go to the polls (and please, DO VOTE), do yourself and everyone else a favor vote for ANYONE except a representative of one of the 2 parties. And if you really want to do something to improve our country—convince at least one other person to do the same and take them with you to the polls.

@insider – Welcome to fluther!

I enjoyed the insight in your question. I know enough people in the health care industry, that is to say workers, to agree with your belief they want to help. My wife was one of them. But she left after just one year do to what I believe is the problem.

Yours, mine and everyone’s health, as well as the ability to treat it is still being channeled through and in a business. That is to say some where in that machine of wanting to help there is the fuel of wanting to make money that is driving it.

How do we remove the obscene control the drug and managed health care companies have over such things so that the people who care really can do just that?

I would trust the government more than for profit insurance companies. Don’t be decieved. You and your doctor are NOT making your medical decisions, some money cruncher in an office is.

@Bri_L: I think a big issue with removing the drug companies is that it costs so much money to invent/create drugs. I had a friend in one of my MBA classes who was a scientist at a reputable drug company. He said for every 1 drug that goes through and gets positive results you have 150 drugs that fail. He said many of those failing drugs cost the company 10’s of millions of dollars in design. That company then has 5–10 years until their patent runs out to make up all of their lost money. Now obviously some of the companies are doing pretty well, I know several overpayed drug rep’s. But the issue is if we take the drug company component out of health care, where does it go. Who forks up the money for R&D?

@Judi: I struggle trusting our government with much of anything. Their solution to every issue seems to be to spend more of yours and my money. That’s not the major issue, and if it was I wouldn’t have a problem spending money for what I get. The major issue is accountability. There is nobody that seems to hold the government in general, accountable, and who really can? Sure if a politician goes off the DEEP DEEP end then there are potentially rights for impeachment. Of course how do you define the deep end and for those that agree with impeachment you have those that don’t. Look at G.B. The good thing about for profit insurance companies and the free market in general is competition (which generally drives down prices), accountability (If you don’t like the company you use, then you can switch), and efficiency (Companies have to utilize their money well or else they won’t make it in their respective industry). With respect to morality and ethics I find it hard to trust both our government and the free market. To me it seems that the free market happens to be the lesser of both evils. The government should be here to impose restrictions on this industry but I don’t see them running it very well.

@critter1982 – While I totally and completely believe the cost for creating drugs. Once they have them they frequently profit from many uses beyond their devised use.

I would also like to see a cost analysis of what they spend marketing, lobbying and seducing politicians, doctors and hospitals..

@insider Welcome to fluther. Lurve.

I’ve never been a user or reader of forums but the discussion between @dalepetrie and @BBSDTfamily made me want to join.

Instead of just watching our pundits on MSNBC and Fox, I think it is crucial that we debate so we can see the other side of issues.

@willm – Welcome to Fluther!

and you have read two of the best when it comes to well informed yet polite debaters. They are tops!

@willm I do think that Morning Joe on MSNBC is excellent, and the most balanced for politics, in case you are unaware of that show. dalpetrie and BBSDTfamily are awesome I agree.

Someone Explain the healthcare reform bill…now…. or else…

@w2pow2 – can’t really explain something that doesn’t exist yet. Congress is still trying to get a bill to vote on (well, they’ll be trying once they get back from their several week vacation). Basically right now, Obama’s core belief is that every American should have health care, and the only way to do that would be to create a government run system to replace our current for profit system. But, he knows that this would never fly in America, they’d call him a Socialist, a Communist, they’d spread lies about how horseshit the other countries who have Socialized medicine are (even though the World Health Organization consistently ranks the countries with Socialized health care as way better on average than the US)....opponents will take the few horror stories about Canada and France that they can dredge up and say “do we want THAT here”? They’ll compare it to other ineffective and inefficiently run governmental agencies and they’ll scare everyone into thinking their taxes will go up and all the money will be given to lazy people.

And to stave off this type of unfair tactic, Obama realized that though not going with a completely socialized system would not achieve the impact of insuring every American, he pushed Congress to reform the current for profit structure so that 1) people would pay less for their health care, 2) everyone would have access to health care, and 3) people would no longer be able to be denied coverage for things that are necessary which they paid for buy buying insurance in the first place, nor could sick people be refused access to health insurance. There are a number of problems with the current system, and the worst problem of all is that we’ve left something as important as our health to the mercy of those who make profit on our sickness. So, Obama wants a plan that basically does away with inefficiencies (for example, moving to computerized record keeping), which is more open (so people know what they’re paying for), which has competititon from the public sector via a publicly financed option, the expense for which will NOT be born by the average US taxpayer. He doesn’t want us to be the richest country in the world where 50 million people are uninsured, countless more are underinsured, 14,000 people a day lose their health insurance and 17,000 a week file bankruptcy for medical bills.

But despite him conceding that he won’t take the entire industry down by instituting completely publicly financed health care, everything I said they would have thrown at him, they’re throwing at him ANYWAY, because if we actually get a system in place that functions the way Obama wants it to, it will mean that the health insurers’ profits will go from billions a year to maybe 10s or 100s of millions.

So right now, because you’ve got Republicans willing to roadblock anything resembling reform as a lock step message to show just how good they are at not spending money, you’ve got Blue Dog Democrats who get tons of campaign contributions from the same people who want to derail health care reform (it’s worth giving millions to a politician if you can make billions by buying his vote after all). So, we’re in a situation where Obama SHOULD have just told them to suck it and rammed a system that would solve all these problems down Congress’ throats and told the Dems to pass it, whip their membership into voting along party lines or go with the nuclear option and pass it through parliamentary means…whatever, but he has a whole bunch on his plate and doesn’t want to spend all his political capital in one place. So, he’s taken a hands off approach, and right now there are a couple of bills drafted which will undoubtedly look nothing like the final bill, which hopefully will not have all the teeth taken out of it, and which will hopefully finally be voted on by September. So, next month, when we know what the actual bill is, that would be the right time for someone to explain it to you. Right now all there is to explain is that we have a problem that needs to be fixed, and we just have to hope that the solution actually does the job.

@BBSDTfamily, I am permanently disabled, and cannot work. I was fortunately able (after 2 years and hiring a lawyer!) to win SSD. BUT if I hadn’t, there was NO way, no matter how much I wish there was, that I could have health insurance. NO way. It isn’t that I don’t want to work, it is that I cannot, and even if I could work at a job that would enable me to receive health insurance, most plans would not pay for a pre-existing condition, and that is what I now have. I would be thrilled to be able to have a public option. Even though it isn’t perfect, Obamacare is better than ANYTHING else the US has now.