The Beginning of Hope and Change

[jesselt]

How will we ever get out of this massive debt? Haha, good one.

Let's turn to the Republicans for answers. I hear cutting taxes for the wealthy lowers the debt somehow. Never mind that this health care bill will lower the debt in the long term.

Either way it doesn't matter, the death panels will be here soon.

[Sangetsu]

I wouldn't mind a national health care system if it was properly and efficiently run. But this new law does not give us such a system. It gives a confusing mix of coverage utilizing a mix of government entitlements, private insurance, and tax credits. In short, it is stupid.

Here in Japan the system is quite simple. You go to the hospital, present your card, and receive treatment. You then pay for the treatment, and then submit the bill to the national health care agency, who will later reimburse the money to your bank account. It's a simple system with a minimum of red tape. But even it is not perfect. Those who don't have jobs and don't pay into the system aren't covered. And visitors from other countries are not covered either, and illegal aliens are also not covered.

But, even with the efficient administration and limiting coverage to those who pay into the system, it still manages to lose vast amounts of money each year. As I said in another post, Japan's national debt vs GDP is double that of America. Simply said, Japan has been borrowing vast amounts of money to pay for it's social programs, and a time may come when they can't borrow any more.

All of the industrialized countries which provide free health care to their citizens are carrying huge national debts.

England's debt vs GDP is 47.2%
America's debt vs GDP is 60.8%
Canada's debt vs GDP is 62%
France's debt vs GDP is 67%
Germany's debt vs GDP is 62.6%
Italy's debt vs GDP is 103%
Japan's debt vs GDP is 170%

The amounts of money are staggering, yet no one here and now seems to care about the costs to future generations. It seems we only care about ourselves here and now, and don't mind borrowing ourselves (and our children/grandchildren) into oblivion.

Of course MMM's answer might be that such debts wouldn't exist if rich companies were taxed higher to pay for them. But that's not the case. We all know (we should) that each and every time taxes have been raised over the last century, GDP and revenue have declined. Marxism/Socialism)Communism has been experimented with in many countries, without one example of success.

It is not the government's job to take care of the people. The government is supposed to provide an environment where people can take care of themselves. It should create an environment which encourages people to be successful, through education, positive support, and the encouragement of initiative. Instead, the government increasingly does the opposite, by removing the consequences people face for making poor choices in their lives, and in fact, even rewarding them. Rewarding poor behavior only encourages more bad behavior, and kills human initiative.

But, America, like all other industrialized countries is a democracy of sorts, and in order to be elected/reelected, politicians must pander. The poorer classes are the easiest to target, as they are the least educated. You can promise them a higher minimum wage, or housing, health care, whatever, they will vote for you. Unfortunately, the policies passed at improving life for the poor have generally had the opposite effect, and tend so far only to increase the numbers of the poor.

When I was in university I got an earful of socialist nonsense. University professors and lifelong academics are enamored of Marx, but they can afford to be because they live lives sheltered from the world's realities. They can rant and rage over the evils of capitalism from their lecterns, seemingly oblivious to the fact that capitalism paid for them. Modern political "science" is nothing of the sort.

This is not the beginning of hope and change, this is the beginning of the end. One day soon all of these expensive policies will have to be paid for, and it's going to hurt.

[MonkeYMaideN]

I read (erm… skimmed) as much as I could before having a total brain fart, but I don't think I found an answer to my two biggest concerns about the reform...


1.) Is it true that if you have a health problem and go to the doctor to seek assistance, they will possibly tell you that you have to wait for 2 months <-- (random number) until you can be seen because of the hundreds of people still waiting in line?
2.) Is it true that illegal aliens and those who can work but voluntarily choose not to and live off welfare will also be covered? If that’s so, I think it’s very unfair that people who do work hard are paying to care for people who are lazy and who don’t legally belong in the country in the first place. Does the reform have rules to prevent this?

Now don't get me wrong, I’m still standing in the neutral zone here.

I'm only basing these questions off of a video documentary about Canada's healthcare system I saw in Economics class awhile ago, and a few other people who claimed that the healthcare reform could potentially result in this.

In the video it stated that citizens and even government officials in countries with universal healthcare travel to North America for treatment because the wait in their own countries was too long. Is that somewhat true, or is it biased?

My classmates and I tried to discuss it with our teacher when we learned of the new bill, but he kinda avoided the issue. I guess teachers try not to express their political views for fear of offending someone...

[MMM]

Sangetsu, I know you are more intelligent than to mix up Marxism and socialism. Sadly now these are two "key words" to describe what is going on in the Obama administration, and this really couldn't be further from the truth.

The health care reform bill is NOT universal health care, not socialized health care, or anything like it. That's way many of its naysayers the problem is that the heathcare reform bill (more accurately the heath insurance reform bill) doesn't go far enough. There is no public option and no universal health care. How is this socialist reform?

It isn't. Nothing close to it.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by MonkeYMaideN

I read (erm… skimmed) as much as I could before having a total brain fart, but I don't think I found an answer to my two biggest concerns about the reform...


1.) Is it true that if you have a health problem and go to the doctor to seek assistance, they will possibly tell you that you have to wait for 2 months <-- (random number) until you can be seen because of the hundreds of people still waiting in line?

In America now they can tell you that you cannot have the care you need. Your insurance company can tell you that your problem is not covered under the insurance plan you pay hundreds of dollars a month for out of pocket.

I don't think we have those kinds of line in the US, except for things like kidney and liver transplants, but that is true everywhere (except for countries like Iran where it is legal to sell unneeded organs, and there are no lines for kidneys and livers).

[quote=MonkeYMaideN;807382]
2.) Is it true that illegal aliens and those who can work but voluntarily choose not to and live off welfare will also be covered? If that’s so, I think it’s very unfair that people who do work hard are paying to care for people who are lazy and who don’t legally belong in the country in the first place. Does the reform have rules to prevent this?
/QUOTE]

Illegal aliens cannot get welfare.

But you bring up a good point.

Legally hospitals cannot turn away a sick person, or a person who is dying. So what happens is that people without health insurance get sick, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait, and when they are really really sick they go to the Emergency Room. Then they get care, and default on their massively large bill.

So who pays for that? You and me.

Ever heard the phrase "a stitch in time saves nine"?

That means it is easier to deal with a problem at its beginning than at it's end. Easier mean cheaper.

Philosophically and legally, hospitals will never turn away sick (or pregnant) people. So no matter what we say we want, we have a form of universal health care. The problem is citizens and not the government is paying for it.

If everyone pays their fair share from the beginning it is fair enough. Instead someone like me, that pays for private health insurance (like every non-government employee in the US) has to pay higher rates every year to cover the higher health costs hospitals charge to cover the defaulted (non-paid for) charges.

In a country where everyone was covered, I wouldn't have to pay for those charges, and overall it would be less expensive for everyone.

[MonkeYMaideN]

Okay, thank you for answering my questions MMM.

My mother is anemic and has to go to the doctor every now and then when she becomes extremely fatigued, so that's why I was worried about the "2 month line" thing.

And I can see how it would be cheaper for everyone if the government (with the help of people paying their fair share) paid for those who take advantage of the system, rather than just the citizens themselves paying for it.

I'll just wait and see how it effects my family and America overall before I make a final decision on whether or not to fully support it. You won’t know until you try it.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

In America now they can tell you that you cannot have the care you need. Your insurance company can tell you that your problem is not covered under the insurance plan you pay hundreds of dollars a month for out of pocket.

Never happens in the UK. (Pssstt. it does).

Originally Posted by MMM

I don't think we have those kinds of line in the US, except for things like kidney and liver transplants, but that is true everywhere (except for countries like Iran where it is legal to sell unneeded organs, and there are no lines for kidneys and livers).

Now why would you think that?
Medical professionals and doctors are screaming at what this bill is going to do. With government tightening control, doctors are losing their control to do what they do. They are having more and more problems making ends meet. Socialism leads to doctors leaving the system with lack of skilled replacements.

We will have those lines AND have the UK costs.

Originally Posted by MMM

Philosophically and legally, hospitals will never turn away sick (or pregnant) people. So no matter what we say we want, we have a form of universal health care. The problem is citizens and not the government is paying for it.

I love this... "The problem is the citizens and not the government is paying for it."
Where does the government get its money from when they are not running the printing press at 101% utilization?

Originally Posted by MMM

If everyone pays their fair share from the beginning it is fair enough. Instead someone like me, that pays for private health insurance (like every non-government employee in the US) has to pay higher rates every year to cover the higher health costs hospitals charge to cover the defaulted (non-paid for) charges.

This is a perfect example of socialist ideals: "If everyone pays their fair share".

"Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public."

The reason you pay high rates is because nothing is being done to address the rising cost of health care. None of the simple reforms such as tort or state line boundries being lifted, call for insurance pools, cuts in medicare waist without cuts in care etc. The admistration wanted nothing of it. They wanted to grow government and obtain the corner stone of control of a society.

Yep, get used to your rates MMM, because they are only going up. Look at your utopia of 1 trillion dollars in the midst of a recession and unsustainable debt. Cost of Insurance Rates going up, plus its business as usual with cost of health care going up, plus we threw in 1 trillion to the debt. The economic illiteracy of this administration and government in general is astounding.

Why would anyone believe the estimates that this is going to bring down costs in the long run? Where has a government program ever done this?

Originally Posted by MMM

In a country where everyone was covered, I wouldn't have to pay for those charges, and overall it would be less expensive for everyone.

Like the UK?

Originally Posted by MMM

There is no public option and no universal health care. How is this socialist reform?

Originally Posted by MMM

So no matter what we say we want, we have a form of universal health care.

Which is it? Do we have it or don't we?

Come on. There are pleny of congressmen that are admitted socialists and believe in socialism. Its not a evil word "socialism". It is a political idea and the various theories of economic organization. Just something America doesn't value. It is something that we fought a war over to gain independence from this ideal. Like many democrats today

Obama and the people that surround him obviously have these ideals at heart. "Fat cat bankers" and "I just want to spread the wealth around" "the rich getting too rich"... tax income of "200K" today, "150K" down the road, "100K" a little further until... ohhh.. there isn't a middle class anymore.

Speaking of Fat Cat Bankers: Why is it illegal now for banks to give student loans and only the government can... oh I'm not off topic... this little tid bit of legistlation was in the health care bill.

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million
Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts
Voted NO on permanently repealing "death tax."
Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
Strongly opposes the reduction of taxes on capital gains
Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends
Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends
Supports universal health care which provides access to health care regardless of ability to pay.
Supports increased government spending on health care.

Year - Tax Burden

1900 5.90%
1910 5.02%
1920 11.96%
1930 11.61%
1940 17.98%
1950 24.87%
1960 27.88%
1970 29.90%
1980 30.68%
1990 30.80%
2000 33.98%
2001 33.01%
2002 30.27%
2003 29.51%
2004 29.69%
2005 31.53%
2006 32.29%
2007 32.69%

When we reach 50% you are officially a slave.

I don't want a socialist state because we will have more of:
*Reduced prosperity
*Distorted or absent price signals
*Reduced incentives for workers
*Slow or stagnant technological advance

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

going to hurt.

This was a clean cut well written post. The problem is it is hurting already... but I get your point.

[MMM]

Why would you make me repeat myself?

Legally hospitals cannot put the sick and dying on the street.

However that comes at the point they are sick and dying.

"A stitch in nine saves nine."

I know you get that.

When is it better to treat the cancer tumor? Early or later?

When is it cheaper to treat the cancer tumor? Early or later?

When is the success rate higher when treating the cancer tumor? Early or later?

These are the fundamental questions that every other industrialized countries in the world have answered.

However we somehow don't come up with the same answer. We also allow lobbyists to influence politicians...another industry that doesn't exist in a lot of other First World countries.

And now our Supreme Court has ruled that a Corporation has the same rights as a Person, and the same Freedom of Speech...and that Money equals Speech.

Good times.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Year - Tax Burden

1900 5.90%
1910 5.02%
1920 11.96%
1930 11.61%
1940 17.98%
1950 24.87%
1960 27.88%
1970 29.90%
1980 30.68%
1990 30.80%
2000 33.98%
2001 33.01%
2002 30.27%
2003 29.51%
2004 29.69%
2005 31.53%
2006 32.29%
2007 32.69%

Adjust that pre-Reagan and post-Reagan for people making over $250,000 a year.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

Why would you make me repeat myself?

Legally hospitals cannot put the sick and dying on the street.

However that comes at the point they are sick and dying.

"A stitch in nine saves nine."

I know you get that.

I get that your utopia bill doesn't address that, those since it doesn't address the most important problem, health care costs... it is a stupid bill that didn't address a thing of true consequence.

Originally Posted by MMM

When is it better to treat the cancer tumor? Early or later?

When is it cheaper to treat the cancer tumor? Early or later?

When is the success rate higher when treating the cancer tumor? Early or later?

These are the fundamental questions that every other industrialized countries in the world have answered.

This bill surely doesn't answer it nor iis it anywhere close to a "step" towards fixing it WHILE be unsustainable, hurting medicare coverage, and costing a trillion bucks we haven't got.
Plus it grows the public sector like a tumor.

This bill isn't reform and it isn't going to lead to anything good. I know you can see that.
You enjoying your reform yet? Those health care credits aren't going to help much when you are going to be taxed more in the end.

Like UK and Canada and death panels and health care rationing from a bureaucrat? Like Canada win the lottery and hopefully three months from now you will get your MRI? Yeah, they are great.

Originally Posted by MMM

However we somehow don't come up with the same answer. We also allow lobbyists to influence politicians...another industry that doesn't exist in a lot of other First World countries.

This is why you don't want government to have this amount of control to begin with.

Originally Posted by MMM

And now our Supreme Court has ruled that a Corporation has the same rights as a Person, and the same Freedom of Speech...and that Money equals Speech.
Good times.

Well I do like that it is easier for big business to promote a canidate that approves of the free market and doesn't crap on capitalism at every turn. Obama knew this when the decision went through... he knew that he wouldn't have a chance for his hope and change in a second term after what he was going to do to the free market and capatilism.

Don't worry, you'll see in the coming years. Hopefully a change in parties with defund this sucker so the country can get back on its feet and do real reform. The damage though is done and this debt is "going to hurt"

Speaking of the courts, I can't wait until the lawsuits on the unconstitutionality of this health insurance reform bill to hit the courts. Should be great talking points at the next State of the Union Pep Rally. Maybe he'll give a shout out.
Speaking of shout-outs:
[Michael Tomasky: Obama speaks on the mining disaster — and badly
The audio of this is rancid.


Did you say Reagan? Third best president.
Ronald Reagan On Universal Healthcare - VidoEmo - Emotional Video Unity

Edit:
Alt Link:
Ronald Reagan Speaks out against Socialized Medicine - LiveVideo.com