I'm against universal healthcare because...

[Skyrad 0]

As a non american i haven't been exposed to as much of the internal debate on the universal Healthcare bill as some of you. Coming form a country where healthcare is free at the poiunt of care for all I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to restrict it from those in need who don't have money. So why are you against universal healthcare?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[434 2]

Healthcare issues creates more debate (anger) than invading and making war on false premises! God help you all!

[futuredivot 0]

It's not being AGAINST universal healthcare as being against THIS particular plan. Most reasonable people realize that reform is needed just like most reasonable people realize that what we're having shoved down our throats isn't the way to make it work while showing any form of fiscal responsibility.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Healthcare issues creates more debate (anger) than invading and making war on false premises! God help you all!

Ouch.
But that's a valid criticism.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

It's not being AGAINST universal healthcare as being against THIS particular plan. Most reasonable people realize that reform is needed just like most reasonable people realize that what we're having shoved down our throats isn't the way to make it work while showing any form of fiscal responsibility.

But now it will happen, as opposed to just saying (for decades) that it needs to happen. Now it's up to us to make sure that the legislation gets improved upon.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As a non american i haven't been exposed to as much of the internal debate on the universal Healthcare bill as some of you. Coming form a country where healthcare is free at the poiunt of care for all I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to restrict it from those in need who don't have money. So why are you against universal healthcare?

We have a 1.4T deficit last year, and 1T+ deficit this year. This conversion won't be cheap either.

Most people have good health insurance in the present day. Even if you acknowledge that the system appears to be collapsing in the next decade or two, trading what we have now for what we see in 'universal health care' nations is not attractive. Right now you can buy good health care - will that become false in the future?

This particular plan basically ignores cost control, making me question if any savings will be achieved, and more likely fear the opposite, coupled with poorer care. One of the key reasons that US HC metrics are poor despite the huge cost is that Americans refuse to live well. Too much food and driving, not enough exercise. Poor PE in the schools. If we don't attack that now, as if we were are war against fat, health care continues to get expensive and health metrics don't improve. They'll instead get worse.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

As a non american i haven't been exposed to as much of the internal debate on the universal Healthcare bill as some of you. Coming form a country where healthcare is free at the poiunt of care for all I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to restrict it from those in need who don't have money. So why are you against universal healthcare?

We have a 1.4T deficit last year, and 1T+ deficit this year. This conversion won't be cheap either.

What do you think of the CBO cost estimate?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What do you think of the CBO cost estimate?

Depends on how it presumes, or not, that Congress actually does maintain the taxes claimed, or the cuts to Medicare promised. When it comes to the budget, the CBO tends to be conservative. Not sure here.

since this is still in motion, with 'finishing bills' to follow, it's hard to make a good analysis. I'd hope that the second decade promise of 1T in savings came true, but I recall estimates of the surplus being 5 or 6T, and we saw how quickly that evaporated.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

So why are you against universal healthcare?

Because at this point, it appears unconstitutional.

To put it simply (er...as simply as American government gets, which is still rather complex), our government is supposed to function as a federal government of limited, specific powers. If we want to give the federal government a power that it does not specifically have spelled out in the constitution, we have a process to amend the constitution and allow the government that power. In the amendment process, a certain number of states have to agree on, or "ratify" the new amendment. When a federal law goes beyond the scope of what the government is allowed to do, and it is challenged in court, court must decide whether or not the law is within the power of the federal government.

What's happened with the health care bill is that the government is trying to stretch one of its powers, the power to regulate commerce between the states, to regulating end user health care services, the vast majority of which do not have an interstate component.

For example, I am a California resident, visit my doctor and hospital in California, and my California employer purchases insurance for me from a company based in California. The only thing that may be considered "interstate" in the majority of my health care is that any drugs prescribed to me may have been produced out of state, but the FDA already regulates those.

I am afraid that by avoiding the amendment process and simply passing a bill hoping it won't be challenged, the government may end up with the Supreme Court finding the bill, or key components thereof, unconstitutional, and then countless dollars and hours have been wasted that otherwise would not have been if the matter had been approached using the amendment process.

So, while I am not opposed to finding a way to provide health care for people who are not fortunate enough to afford it or have an employer who provides it, I am opposed to the current methods, as I see it as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the people of the US truly desire health care reform at the federal level, then we need to amend our constitution and do it the right way.


-N-

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

at this point, it appears unconstitutional.

To put it simply (er...as simply as American government gets, which is still rather complex), our government is supposed to function as a federal government of limited, specific powers. If we want to give the federal government a power that it does not specifically have spelled out in the constitution, we have a process to amend the constitution and allow the government that power.

I don't agree. As I said in one of the other 30 threads on health care, I'd predict that the SCOTUS will rule, by a typically divided Court, that a Commerce Clause argument prevails over a 10th Amendment argument. If they nullify HC on constitutional grounds, they'd similarly have to nullify Social Security and Medicare; and that ain't gonna happen.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I don't agree. As I said in one of the other 30 threads on health care, I'd predict that the SCOTUS will rule, by a typically divided Court, that a Commerce Clause argument prevails over a 10th Amendment argument. If they nullify HC on constitutional grounds, they'd similarly have to nullify Social Security and Medicare; and that ain't gonna happen.

Personally, I think we should've had amendments for those too. Just because we've been doing something this way doesn't make it the right way, and the expansions of government power since the new deal have been appalling. Also, the supreme court has reversed themselves before, so what is okay with one court may not be okay with the next if someone can come up with a new way to challenge it. An amendment would make it very clear what is and is not constitutional and an appropriate use of federal government power.

Right now there are a bunch of republicans ready to file lawsuits over this. If they'd gone through the amendment process, those suits probably wouldn't be happening. They might be decided in favor of the government. Maybe they won't be, and countless hours of debate and millions of dollars will have been wasted.

I'm not saying "don't do it." I'm saying that there is an appropriate process for expanding the power of the federal government, and that we ought to use it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What do you think of the CBO cost estimate?

I'll tell you what I think.

The CBO cost estimate was based on the bill as passed and not on the bill as they state it will be after reconciliation. As it is, I undertstand that the bill seeks to limit compensation to physicians. That likely won't happen. Meaning that the the cost estimates are on the low end. Other factors are likely included that will be increased.

Second, the funding really doesn't kick in for a few years. So the bill will cost $900 billion over ten years? That doesn't sound too bad until one thinks, "$800 billion of that is in the last five years." It'll therefore be probably 3-5 trillion in years 11-20.

Third - governments already spend over a trillion per year on healthcare. Will this bill actually take away that spending? Or add to it.


Fourth - does is actually redfuce the deficit? No. It just reduces the INCREASE in the deficit. In governmentspeak, when something is expected to be a trillion dollar deficit, but only is a 900 billion deficit, they call that "deficit reduction." They cheer themselves for spending ony $900 bilion they don't have versus $1 trillion.

Yay.

So, there are my problems with it. That's just getting started.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

There was also something that they are planning on adding on about monitoring doctors, that's estimated to cost quite a lot and isn't included in the current estimates, IIRC.

[klingeme 0]

I'm for universal (single payer) health care. This is not what was voted on. I'm for the preexisting condition clause, but not for my tax dollars going to fund abortions that I do not believe in.

[klingeme 0]

Quote

Most people have good health insurance in the present day. Even if you acknowledge that the system appears to be collapsing in the next decade or two, trading what we have now for what we see in 'universal health care' nations is not attractive. Right now you can buy good health care - will that become false in the future?

I (as do a lot of my co workers) have an HSA plan that says I need to spend $1,500 out of pocket before they will cover anything. I have not been to see a doctor in over 8 years because of this. Just today, I had a conversation with one of my co-workers who is planning on having as many MRIs/expensive tests she can have this year as she has already spent her $1,500 and now everything else is covered, so why not have the tests done.....

Is this what they are saying is a "good plan"? Avoid preventative care until you need something done, and then spend every dime you can in that year, because it will be several years until you and afford the $1,500 for the initial visit (and subsequent overspending)....

Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.....

Mark Klingelhoefer

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Quote

Most people have good health insurance in the present day. Even if you acknowledge that the system appears to be collapsing in the next decade or two, trading what we have now for what we see in 'universal health care' nations is not attractive. Right now you can buy good health care - will that become false in the future?

I (as do a lot of my co workers) have an HSA plan that says I need to spend $1,500 out of pocket before they will cover anything. I have not been to see a doctor in over 8 years because of this. Just today, I had a conversation with one of my co-workers who is planning on having as many MRIs/expensive tests she can have this year as she has already spent her $1,500 and now everything else is covered, so why not have the tests done.....

Is this what they are saying is a "good plan"? Avoid preventative care until you need something done, and then spend every dime you can in that year, because it will be several years until you and afford the $1,500 for the initial visit (and subsequent overspending)....

Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.....

Mark Klingelhoefer

Well if there was a 'Health savings account' in place non of you would have to worry about that.

With all the self inflicted diseases and morbidity I simply find it amazing that people think health care should be "free".

ETA: It also amazes me that there are people that complain about having to pay a $5 co-pay for office visits. Just goes to show the illogical mentality of some.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[klingeme 0]

Quote

ETA: It also amazes me that there are people that complain about having to pay a $5 co-pay for office visits. Just goes to show the illogical mentality of some.

15 years ago, I had a plan like this and had no complaints about it......$5 to $1500 in 15 years.......Ouch!

[lawrocket 3]

I must agree with Andy on this one. As Justice Thomas stated, the commerce clause argument was at its zenith in Raich versus Ashcroft. There, the "conservative" wing of the court opined that the federal government cannot regulate and criminalize completely intrastate conduct. The liberal wing found that the feds can regulate and make a federal crime out of anything - like wholly intrastate possession and cultivation for personal use of marijuana.

So, if the government wanted to criminalize pissing in my backyard, the SCOTUS (thank you, "progressives") would allow it.

Unfortunate. To all people excited about the prospect of government healthcare I offer this: imagine your healthcare if Sarah Palin is elected POTUS. Would you enjoy that prospect? How about Dubya running healthcare?

Be careful what you wish for, folks. It looks like you just got it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[klingeme 0]

Quote

I must agree with Andy on this one. As Justice Thomas stated, the commerce clause argument was at its zenith in Raich versus Ashcroft. There, the "conservative" wing of the court opined that the federal government cannot regulate and criminalize completely intrastate conduct. The liberal wing found that the feds can regulate and make a federal crime out of anything - like wholly intrastate possession and cultivation for personal use of marijuana.

So, if the government wanted to criminalize pissing in my backyard, the SCOTUS (thank you, "progressives") would allow it.

Unfortunate. To all people excited about the prospect of government healthcare I offer this: imagine your healthcare if Sarah Palin is elected POTUS. Would you enjoy that prospect? How about Dubya running healthcare?

Be careful what you wish for, folks. It looks like you just got it.

To everyone that says this, I have to ask, when you are eligible, will you take social security and Medicare? Both are Socialist programs, however I have yet to find someone who plans on sending the check back, or keeping their own full private health care when they are eligible.

[jdfreefly 1]

...and I am not for my Tax money going to fund wars I don't believe in so I guess were both fucked

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Anvilbrother 0]

No more private student loans. The Feds are the only
way to get a student loan for college. Interest 2.8-9%.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[ridestrong 1]

...and it won't be long until someone making $100,000/yr has the same take-home-pay as someone making $50,000/yr.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[billvon 2,426]

>I'm for the preexisting condition clause, but not for my tax dollars
>going to fund abortions that I do not believe in.

Fortunately for you, they will not go to that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I (as do a lot of my co workers) have an HSA plan that says I need to spend $1,500 out of pocket before they will cover anything. I have not been to see a doctor in over 8 years because of this.

Here you see exactly why the health care system has its issues. People who spend their own money on healthcare decide for themselves, "what is worthy of treatment?" You have insurance, and it is there to help you with major costs.

You even get a tax-free $1500 dollars to put into an account and spend each year. In exchange, you get lower premiums. I got and HSA - $35 is mine. And a lower monthly. I could use up the $3500 and still pay less total that a no deductible coverage plan. That which I do not use is tax-free into my savings. I've got about 11k saved up.


[Reply] Just today, I had a conversation with one of my co-workers who is planning on having as many MRIs/expensive tests she can have this year as she has already spent her $1,500 and now everything else is covered, so why not have the tests done.....

[billvon 2,426]

>Imagine if gasoline was insured and a $5 deductible each time at the
>pump. People would use a lot more of it.

Yes. However, using gasoline earlier and more frequently does not reduce your use of it later. Using health care earlier and more frequently does often reduce your use of it later. Prenatal vitamins and breast cancer screenings are good examples here.