The hospital does have the right to inquire whether the patient can pay. It is a violation, however, if EXAMINATION or treatment is delayed while the hospital asks the question. The hospital is not permitted to base its decision to treat a patient on whether there is an expectation of payment.
The hospital has no obligation to the patient if an emergency condition does not exist. Nor does the hospital have an obligation to a patient who refuses examination, treatment, or transfer. The hospital is required to keep a record of this and also must try to get the patient's refusal in writing. The patient should also be told about the risks incurred in leaving the hospital.
One of the arguments I heard on another board is that the EMTALA has allowed illegal aliens to use the system. I reply.. Yes? There are still millions of more US citizens that need the care.
i think our healthcare system is fine here except for a few things like insurance companies are TOOO greedy.... Can't blame them for wanting to make money, its just how things work, but if there was some way to force/convince them to find a happy medium of profit and providing healthcare for all then it might not be so bad. How that would work...? most likely can't. but maybe the govt can give some incentive to the companies to grant coverage to more people????? hell if I know though, i'm just an artist.
also a lot of the problem is people who go to the emergency room here or whatever and get work done and just don't pay. They are the type of people who dont mind getting some negative credit. Their bill is then pushed onto everyone else till its a giant clusterfuck. Most hospitals are really good with setting up a payment system if you don't make very much, but too many people are too ignorant to pay for the most basic of bills.
Hospitals are required, by law, to fix you up. Insurance or not. Have you heard of any cases like this? People being turned away from hospitals because they don't have insurance?
This is only for emergent life threatening care. You can't treat the ER like a doctors office and if some people actually had access to preventative medicine and screening then they wouldn't end up in the ER. It's sad that easily preventable illnesses turn into costly ER visits. Often at that point its too far a long (whatever it is) to have a good outcome.
Relaying on the ER as the only source of healthcare is a very stupid move and thinking that is all that society needs will only shovel more people into the ER and bankrupt the system.
Sorry to dig this back up but I was on the GOP.gov website searching for solutions and proposals and I found this very informative chart about the Democratic healthcare plan. http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/misc/house-democrats-health-plan.pdf
OOoOOo scary chart! Stop healthcare reform now before the arrows get us all!
Seriously do they think people are this stupid?
The funny part is the patients are labeled "consumers". Opps...
ok ok... I know I said I wasn't involved in this convo, but after vig's post I couldn't help but post anthony weiner's address where he shows his flowchart of medicare. Skip to 2:00 to see the chart, but the whole address is really good.
nothing will change for most of us, except slightly higher rates for a bit. Lots of poor people will probably get helped. The rich will get screwed over a little.
Democrats look good with a win.
Republicans will look stupid when Armageddon doesn't strike.
This sets us up nicely for a better reform 10 years from now.
edit: (or at least this is how I see things. maybe i'm wrong?)
when "Obama wants to make concentration camps to hold conservatives" was discussed openly on Fox news I realized I can't even trust it for the morning traffic report.
I watched an hour of fox news the other night for pure entertainment factor, being from the UK it's just laughable, do people actually hold these views in the US... are people really this stupid?
When I worked at Neversoft I had premium private healthcare. My dirt cheap German private care that cost around 650 euro a year was superior in every way. Shorter time to see the doctor, less paperwork, more time with the doctor, no limit on who I could see, no 2nd fee when I returned a week later, no fee on seeing a specialist after, my medicine was cheaper, and I got it faster and from any pharmacy I could walk into.
Couple facts about the US.
VA (military healthcare) and Medicare are both "socialized" medicine, they just have limits on enrollment. Satisfaction of care is incredibly high for both of these, way higher than satisfaction of private healthcare in the US.
60% plus of every single polled group in America wanted a government run, universal healthcare system. This is not a case of Americans being misinformed, this is a case of politicians being completely un accountable to their constituents, and the private healthcare industries pumping money into candidates pockets to get their way.
The bill that just passed is awful. There are no cost caps, the insurance is mandated, and penalties for not paying are collected by the IRS, so goodbye tax refunds if you didn't pay for the inflated insurance. As mentioned before, currently 65% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are healthcare cost related, and just under 80% of those people had some form of coverage. It's those awful cover-nothing plans that poor americans are going to be forced to buy, and will then not have enough of the fees covered to keep them out of life crippling debt.
Remember that in the past decade, zero people in UHC countries have gone bankrupt from medical costs, whereas it's a HUGE problem in the US. Medical care is just not affordable using a(n unregulated) private healthcare insurnace model. Private healthcare insurance is what got the US into this mess, and needs to be dismantled.
The current public option will not kick in till 2014, won't be able to cover all of the uninsured, some are estimating as low as only 9 million out of the 42 million uninsured, AND it will be forced to cost as much as private plans, in order not to compete them out of market, which negates the benefit of a public plan anyway.
America's healthcare isn't even that great if you can afford it, it doesn't top the list in any metric except the inflated breast cancer statistic, which they cheat at anyway. Infant mortality, life span, wait to see a doctor/specialist/surgeon, recovery periods and rates, all are far behind the other countries which spend a fraction on their citizens.
The only answer for the US is a medicare for all model, but now that this shit bill passed, good luck at something like that. It's over folks.
No, it didn't. It might be labeled as such, but this is more of the same bullshit. I've been following it closely, and this bill does nothing to address rising costs. It's a feel-good bill so Obama and the democrats can be seen as having passed something, but it's awful. This is nothing like UHC in it's execution and will result in more medical related bankruptcies.
I just hope it means we can start focusing on other things. I'm really tired of hearing so much BS surrounding this issue. Republicans have been waving the flags of gloom and doom, and spreading false information. The Democrats have been busy patting themselves on their backs. Our politicians are making me sick and angry on a daily basis now. That's a big reason why I'm trying to avoid any of these discussions.
But don't get me wrong, I looking forward to what this will bring, and I hope it works out for the better (as it should). I would have settled for some reform on the business of offering insurance, but if this leads to people having coverage, then I'll consider that a bonus.
I'm still waiting to get some actual details on this though. The only thing I really know about it, is that pre-existing conditions should become a thing of the past. Otherwise, everything else seems like speculation.
I watched an hour of fox news the other night for pure entertainment factor, being from the UK it's just laughable, do people actually hold these views in the US... are people really this stupid?
Yes... yes they are this stupid... and sadly more-so. The mass public will believe anything on the television. If they described the Earth being flat and pink giraffes were spotted firing Cheetos at U.S. satellites in space someone... somewhere would believe it. I use to watch the news at night to laugh.. but now it just makes me sad that people are that dumb.
okay guys this is a slippery slope the next thing you know we'll be speaking russian so lets argue over social and economic issues we have no qualifications or education on as if we have anything positive to communicate.
It's a significant change....and a step in the right direction.....if cost is such a concern then we need to cut back on some shit we dont need...like the 973 billion were spending on the war machine
Yeah there was so much Fear Mongering going on from the Republican side, The facts were so muddled, and there was no real clear view for a normal person to make a decision on the subject. I am glad that is passed. I took care of my father when he was dying and healthcare was a joke. We were constantly dealing with under qualified people and stuck in bureaucratic limbo. My Mother In Law, is in the late stages of Multiple Sclerosis, and It seems as though they never get her surgeries right, there is always some sort of mess up. Health care for the Poor as it currently stood was not helping people. I saw this from my own experience. I really hope things really do change, and they just don't find new ways to screw people.
The fact that insurance can't deny pre-existing conditions is huge in my opinion. Now my wifes folks actually have options in their health insurance, rather than being at the mercy of whoever would take them.
nothing will change for most of us, except slightly higher rates for a bit. Lots of poor people will probably get helped. The rich will get screwed over a little.
Democrats look good with a win.
Republicans will look stupid when Armageddon doesn't strike.
This sets us up nicely for a better reform 10 years from now.
edit: (or at least this is how I see things. maybe i'm wrong?)
Some poor people might get helped, but not till 2014. In the meantime nothing to address rising costs has occurred, so expensive medical expenses will still bankrupt them.
Rich people are not being taxed, unless your definition of rich is a lot different than mine. People buying "Cadillac" plans will be taxed, but "Cadillac" actually equals basic coverage that other countries enjoy as a human right. So yeah some rich people will be taxed on this, but so will tons of middle class workers who just want real coverage.
How does it set it up for real reform? Why couldn't they do real reform now? oh because the healthcare insurance industry sunk billions into apposing real reform, and now every single american has to be their customer, so they will have even more billions to sink into opposition in 10 years. Every private insurance company saw stock jumps at the passing of this bill.
In the netherlands I have to pay around 112 euros a month, but I also get 50 euros back from the government as healthcare insurance resource. A couple of days ago I walked into the docters office, made an appointment, was prescribed medicine (no need to pay) and was told to come back for a blood test (also entirely covered). (I probably have Pfeipher's disease ). All they did to check was check if the number on my insurance card corresponded with the number they had in their system.
Why can't the USA just copy a good functioning system like in pretty much all of Europe? :P. I mean, it's not like they have a copyright to it...
Didn't read much about this bill, but a while ago I saw a debate with Obama and his opposition on how to solve this matter and that was pretty hope-giving.
well, the shut down private insurance option would put about 3 million people out of the job, I don't think that would fly in this economic climate.
The ones that do anything useful (ie not the ceos) could come and work at the expanded medicare offices needed to deal with all of the new members.
It's a shitty excuse not to provide needed coverage to tens of millions of americans who are literally dying in the gutter for lack of care that every other country that isn't Ghana levels of poverty can provide their citizens.
... tens of millions of americans who are literally dying in the gutter...
By and large I agree with your perspective, but this kind of hyperbole is a big turnoff. Both sides do it, and I'm generally not inclined to trust anyone who wildly exaggerates his position. Surely there aren't 20+ million Americans lying in gutters, dying as I type
Some poor people might get helped, but not till 2014. In the meantime nothing to address rising costs has occurred, so expensive medical expenses will still bankrupt them.
Rich people are not being taxed, unless your definition of rich is a lot different than mine. People buying "Cadillac" plans will be taxed, but "Cadillac" actually equals basic coverage that other countries enjoy as a human right. So yeah some rich people will be taxed on this, but so will tons of middle class workers who just want real coverage.
How does it set it up for real reform? Why couldn't they do real reform now? oh because the healthcare insurance industry sunk billions into apposing real reform, and now every single american has to be their customer, so they will have even more billions to sink into opposition in 10 years. Every private insurance company saw stock jumps at the passing of this bill.
By rich people, I mean people making over 200k. They get taxed more heavily from this afaik
It sets it up for reform further down along the line because everything in america changes gradually. No one is going to be able to repeal any of this bill. You can't get enough support to make it ok to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or make medication more expensive for seniors, or take people off of medicaid. That's just a losing battle. However, progressives will most certainly still be able to fight to lower costs and perhaps get a single payer system up and running. It's a gradual thing. Look how long civil rights took.
By and large I agree with your perspective, but this kind of hyperbole is a big turnoff. Both sides do it, and I'm generally not inclined to trust anyone who wildly exaggerates his position. Surely there aren't 20+ million Americans lying in gutters, dying as I type
Actually the figure is 42 thousand americans die for lack of basic care every year that you could walk into any clinic as a canadian and be treated. And 42 million americans have no coverage.
but it's a good thing your healthy skepticism has shed some much needed reluctance to the opinion that major healthcare overhaul is needed.
By rich people, I mean people making over 200k. They get taxed more heavily from this afaik
It sets it up for reform further down along the line because everything in america changes gradually. No one is going to be able to repeal any of this bill. You can't get enough support to make it ok to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or make medication more expensive for seniors, or take people off of medicaid. That's just a losing battle. However, progressives will most certainly still be able to fight to lower costs and perhaps get a single payer system up and running. It's a gradual thing. Look how long civil rights took.
Not true. Social security and desegregation are perfect parallels of radical change. Progressive healthcare reform didn't not happen because americans like incrementalism, it happened because the senate and house are beholden to the funding of healthcare industries pouring millions into their bank accounts. There was plenty of support for government run universal healthcare, despite what loud republicans and their talking heads tried to imply.
I don't have to much of a problem with the health care, but i do have a problem with the people in government not doing there job. They work for us, not the other way around. So when are the going to start listening to us, the people (the boss) instead of doing whatever the hell they want. I do think the healthcare system needed an overhaul, but not a takeover of the healthcare system.
Hey guys let's completely overhaul and dismantle a gigantic bureaucratic system in a country with a population of 307,006,550! That will totally work, and history hasnt proven that to lead to disorganization and collapse in the past!
That 'stable, incremental change' thing that people with basic understand of political science do is pussy bullshit, lets be tough and just get the wrecking ball in there so we feel like we're doing something!
I'm coming in awfully late in this conversation, but I am indeed very hopeful for the prospects of this bill. And I would personally like to welcome America to the 21st century, for being the richest country in the world we've been lagging pretty far behind our European and Canadian friends. In this day and age in such a wealthy country, there's no excuse to let people die from lack of insurance.
Hey guys let's completely overhaul and dismantle a gigantic bureaucratic system in a country with a population of 307,006,550! That will totally work, and history hasnt proven that to lead to disorganization and collapse in the past!
That 'stable, incremental change' thing that people with basic understand of political science do is pussy bullshit, lets be tough and just get the wrecking ball in there so we feel like we're doing something!
Germany has a population of 82 million, and manages it fine.
Social security was implemented for the US in under 2 years.
lol, you're full of shit, "stable" yeah that'll be great as rising costs force more and more people to choose between healthcare and paying for food. It's not stable now, and this bill does nothing to stabilize it. And plenty of people with polisci degrees are not for incrementalism, so you're argument falls doubly flat.
I know you're Mr Incrementalism, but it's shit and has no benefits over radical change. If the government was motivated by what's best for Americans, an expansion of medicare could be done in short order, especially since there is a huge number of countries to copy that have functional healthcare systems.
Tell me why small change that does nothing to address rising costs is better than expanding medicare for everyone.
Any kind of change that's worth having is radical at the time. Women's rights, social security, medicare, all of these were considered extremely radical at the time. Now, today they're so commonplace it's hard to think of such movements as radical.
Hey guys let's completely overhaul and dismantle a gigantic bureaucratic system in a country with a population of 307,006,550! That will totally work, and history hasnt proven that to lead to disorganization and collapse in the past!
That 'stable, incremental change' thing that people with basic understand of political science do is pussy bullshit, lets be tough and just get the wrecking ball in there so we feel like we're doing something!
I have no specific knowledge of germany's history, but afaik they, like most nations, made a lot of small steps to resemble the 'neo socialism european democracy' (for lack of a better descriptor, im sure there is one but forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject) before they overhauled their healthcare.
Ben, I completely agree with you that a utopian overhaul of healthcare in america would be wonderful, but do you actually think for a moment, in the beaurocratic/social mess that is america, it would work? Maybe with a massive bipartisan effort, some logistical geniuses heading it, and a complete disregard for what the (misinformed) public wants done, that shit could get put in place, but that scenario is detatched from reality to the point of being ridiculous.
This is a small, on its own, nearly irrelevant step -- but it's the only kind of step you can take with a country like america. We have a long history of Disjointed Incrementalism working in america. It's what the american public is comfortable with and what the american government is most proficient at. I cannot see how you think an incredibly risky overhaul that the government has every chance to bungle and the public has every chance to oppose, gambling an absurd amount of money, is preferable to getting off to a slow start. I respect your stance and i think your ideals of what america should have are in the right place, but i find your confidence that it could be done that way or is worth taking the risk bewildering. America has, to my knowledge, *never* preformed an organizational overhaul of that scale, and has more than a few ineffectual or failed civil projects even with its less ambitious history.
And, lastly, i have tons of sympathy for the poor -- i was never totally horribly off financially, but there were long periods when i was young where my parents had to skip a lot of meals to feed me and my sister -- but the dying in the streets hyperbole is ridiculous. Our healthcare system is terrible, but it simply is not leading to mass deaths or tons of people to pestilence and disease. The fact that poor people have to endure being sick longer, or much more plausibly waste what meager savings or opportunities they have to scrape together for healthcare they should be assured is a damn shame, but going to the doctor is not impossible for americas working poor.
Have you ever in your life picked up a book on, in any form, political science or economics? I don't claim to be some kind of educated authority on the subject but the utter lack of a whatsoever developed standpoint by pretty much anyone but ben here is appalling. The fact that i don't believe america can magic up UHC in a day has absolutely nothing to do with asinine partisan talking heads.
Not every political view has to be either bill clinton or ronald reagan
Have you ever in your life picked up a book on, in any form, political science or economics? I don't claim to be some kind of educated authority on the subject but the utter lack of a whatsoever developed standpoint by pretty much anyone but ben here is appalling. The fact that i don't believe america can magic up UHC in a day has absolutely nothing to do with asinine partisan talking heads.
Not every political view has to be either bill clinton or ronald reagan
No one said it was going to be done overnight. Most of the benefits don't kick in for several years.
Have you ever in your life picked up a book on, in any form, political science or economics? I don't claim to be some kind of educated authority on the subject but the utter lack of a whatsoever developed standpoint by pretty much anyone but ben here is appalling. The fact that i don't believe america can magic up UHC in a day has absolutely nothing to do with asinine partisan talking heads.
Not every political view has to be either bill clinton or ronald reagan
I don't need to be a political science major to know when somebody's collecting logical fallacies like goddamn pokemon.
It is a *fact* that 45 thousand americans die a year for lack of basic care. You are wrong. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917 (first google for "americans die a year for lack basic care, but there are plenty more.)
I agree with you that incrementalism is the best American can hope for (just not that it is superior system) with it's completely broken political system. but this was an incremental step in the wrong direction. It does nothing to address rising costs, which was the problem in the first place, paying for it all.
The "public option" will not kick in till 2014.
It has really crappy rules for who is eligible (ie, only the completely destitute).
It will be forced to be "price competitive" (that means as expensive) as private plans, so as not to outcompete and have everyone want to jump on the public option. (were it allowed to be at cost it would be much much cheaper since it lacks a profit margin, and everyone would want on it, this is the major thing the private companies fought)
It will only be able to handle an estimated 9 million Americans it's first year, and just this year lone there are 42 million uninsured. Again this is because it will be a new agency, rather than an extension of medicare with all it's already-in-place- features, which would be able to ramp up much more quickly.
No one said it was going to be done overnight. Most of the benefits don't kick in for several years.
Unless i'm completely mistaken me and ben are debating whether the system needs to be replaced with an immediate UHC overhaul, which is what i exaggerate as 'overnight'
MattQ86, shit, you did not waste any time giving your strawman a thunderstone and evolving it into a red herring
I agree that the bill does not address many of the most important cost saving mechanisms for complete reform. But honestly, I don't agree with politicians like Jane Hamsher who were pulling to kill the bill because it wasn't progressive enough. I am progressive, but some reform is better than none. And when we were barely able to pass this legislation by the skin of our teeth, I don't think that making the language of the bill more liberal would have allowed it to get far at all. I think there is a lot of chances for improvement further down the road, when people realize that it is not completely evil. Maybe then we can actually implement the public or single-payer option, I have my fingers crossed and hope it will lead to a better system eventually.
It is a *fact* that 45 thousand americans die a year for lack of basic care. You are wrong. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917 (first google for "americans die a year for lack basic care, but there are plenty more.)
I agree with you that incrementalism is the best American can hope for (just not that it is superior system) with it's completely broken political system. but this was an incremental step in the wrong direction. It does nothing to address rising costs, which was the problem in the first place, paying for it all.
Come know, you know better than to call the results of one study that even then boasts only a tenuous link to poor healthcare a *fact*. I will concede that it's evidence, but even if that number is totally accurate vastly more people die from medical errors, which would probably be a much cheaper/more efficient thing to add some lifesaving oversight to.
That, really, is the heart of my point. I don't mean to say that an incremental system is necessary or ideal for every country -- it is by its very nature a system grounded in concession to defeat, but america is certainly defeated as far as an efficient bureaucracy goes.
As for it being a step in the wrong direction, man, i guess i just think its good that it's a step at all.
Once this movement picks up momentum and the red scare bullshit the right is putting out gets discredited, legitimately meaningful, positive healthcare changes can take place. This is a pretty bad healthcare system, i agree, but if wasting some money on this is what it takes to get the public to understand how much a real UHC implementation would benefit the country then i think it's definitely worth it.
I agree that the bill does not address many of the most important cost saving mechanisms for complete reform. But honestly, I don't agree with politicians like Jane Hamsher who were pulling to kill the bill because it wasn't progressive enough. I am progressive, but some reform is better than none. And when we were barely able to pass this legislation by the skin of our teeth, I don't think that making the language of the bill more liberal would have allowed it to get far at all. I think there is a lot of chances for improvement further down the road, when people realize that it is not completely evil. Maybe then we can actually implement the public or single-payer option, I have my fingers crossed and hope it will lead to a better system eventually.
The opposition for government run universal healthcare was completely manufactured. There was no opposition other than the healthcare insurance companies flat out funding the opposition of anyone that went for a strong public option. Americans themselves would not have put up a fight against UHC other than the crazy white republicans which really are louder than they are in number, and being lead around by the nose by healthcare funded republican mouthpieces.
I would absolutely have voted against this bill. This gives the veneer of reform, and when it fails to do anything against costs, it *will* sour the average american against "socialism/marxism/whateverism" of any further real overhauls. Not only that, but it's now a "democrat/Obama" bill, and as lame duck as democrats are, them losing face gives republicans political gains, and they are even worse. What I wouldn't give for the destruction of the two party system.
It's a step in the right direction for the US. I'm from Canada, and alot of the socialism horrors you guys were fed from the GOP was just plain bullshit. No system is perfect, and neither is ours.
That being said, the Health care reform bill that passed has a lot of good, with a bit of bad.
It's good that it doesn't allow preexisting conditions to be a factor in coverage anymore. It's good to give breaks to small buisnesses and individuals who cannot afford insurance.
But the biggest problem still remains, the elephant in the room, the insurance companies. This is a sector of buisness that only benifits when it does not pay out. The profit motive, capatalism, should not be in health care, it's a direct conflict of interest.
The bill does nothing to reduce costs of health care insurance, provides no incentives to the big companies to do so. On the other hand, it mandates every american to buy insurance, even though the price of that insurance for the mos tpart, will not change. (estimates in reduced costs for the average person is maybe 1%, or it may even go up!)
But thats the problem with Washington, and honestly every sector of the US government, it's controlled for corps, and really, not even the president has the power to change that.
As long as you guys have so much private involvement in your government, you will always be getting the short end of the stick.
Socialism is not the answer.
Capatalism is not the answer.
You need a happy medium, common sense.
BTW, if anyone gets sick and cannot afford the premiums, come on up to canada, well treat you even if you aren't a citizen.
Its horrible what this guy is doing to our country.
PS Obama, it would have been cheaper to buy everyone who doesn't have healthcare healthcare rather than this.
Canada has the type of healthcare that Obama wants to implement. And Canadians come across the border to the US to get immediate attention for surgery rather than being told to wait a couple months, which can mean life or death for many patients.
The plan will put a cap on how much money doctors can make, and we already don't have enough doctors to support this plan. So as soon as young wanna be doctors hear about the salary cap they may have second thoughts of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the education needed. We also wont have enough resources to support this plan either.
This healthcare is not free, don't let the bill fool you. Its only free to the people who would never pay for it in the first place. All it does is make the people who work for their money pay for everyone else.
Im sure we'll all change our views when we are very sick with cancer and can't get it removed because a homeless person deliberately hurt himself so he could have 'free'(see above) shelter and food.
The plan doesn't take affect for 4 years, and by time we have someone in office to untangle this wad of crap called a presidency it will be to late.
Come know, you know better than to call the results of one study that even then boasts only a tenuous link to poor healthcare a *fact*. I will concede that it's evidence, but even if that number is totally accurate vastly more people die from medical errors, which would probably be a much cheaper/more efficient thing to add some lifesaving oversight to.
Once this movement picks up momentum and the red scare bullshit the right is putting out gets discredited, legitimately meaningful, positive healthcare changes can take place. This is a pretty bad healthcare system, i agree, but if wasting some money on this is what it takes to get the public to understand how much a real UHC implementation would benefit the country then i think it's definitely worth it.
That's why I said it's just one of many. There are plenty of studies that link thousands of american deaths to problems we don't even *think* about in socialized health care countries.
THE BILL DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS RISING COSTS. The number one problem in America that affects people's health is PAYING for healthcare. The quality isn't that great, but it's not awful, it's solidly middling. This bill will result in *more* people going bankrupt that currently are. If anything, it will increase the red scare and anti socialism sentiment.
The opposition for government run universal healthcare was completely manufactured. There was no opposition other than the healthcare insurance companies flat out funding the opposition of anyone that went for a strong public option. Americans themselves would not have put up a fight against UHC other than the crazy white republicans which really are louder than they are in number, and being lead around by the nose by healthcare funded republican mouthpieces.
I would absolutely have voted against this bill. This gives the veneer of reform, and when it fails to do anything against costs, it *will* sour the average american against "socialism/marxism/whateverism" of any further real overhauls. Not only that, but it's now a "democrat/Obama" bill, and as lame duck as democrats are, them losing face gives republicans political gains, and they are even worse. What I wouldn't give for the destruction of the two party system.
The CBO says that it will eventually cut costs in the trillion dollar area further down the road. I don't pretend to know everything, and I agree most if not all opposition to this bill was ridiculous and manufactured by insurance companies wanting to continue to make their billions of dollars by denying or overcharging for insurance. But I also think a lot of the opposition was sheer obstructionism. Still a band-aid on a wound is better than giving up on it and ignoring it completely.
Its horrible what this guy is doing to our country.
PS Obama, it would have been cheaper to buy everyone who doesn't have healthcare healthcare rather than this.
Canada has the type of healthcare that Obama wants to implement. And Canadians come across the border to the US to get immediate attention for surgery rather than being told to wait a couple months, which can mean life or death for many patients.
The plan will put a cap on how much money doctors can make, and we already don't have enough doctors to support this plan. So as soon as young wanna be doctors hear about the salary cap they may have second thoughts of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the education needed.
The plan doesn't take affect for 4 years, and by time we have someone in office to untangle this wad of crap called a presidency it will be to late.
SupRore, I apologize for calling your use of loaded words a "firebrand logical fallacy filled rant" and cheerfully place the label on this guy. Your arguments come out a lot more level headed when you're not using words like "collapse".
Replies
In fact, Mrs. Obama had to make that choice for her hospital.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article
Here is a bit more.
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/treatment-without-insurance
One of the arguments I heard on another board is that the EMTALA has allowed illegal aliens to use the system. I reply.. Yes? There are still millions of more US citizens that need the care.
also a lot of the problem is people who go to the emergency room here or whatever and get work done and just don't pay. They are the type of people who dont mind getting some negative credit. Their bill is then pushed onto everyone else till its a giant clusterfuck. Most hospitals are really good with setting up a payment system if you don't make very much, but too many people are too ignorant to pay for the most basic of bills.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111936073
Relaying on the ER as the only source of healthcare is a very stupid move and thinking that is all that society needs will only shovel more people into the ER and bankrupt the system.
OOoOOo scary chart! Stop healthcare reform now before the arrows get us all!
Seriously do they think people are this stupid?
The funny part is the patients are labeled "consumers". Opps...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTh-Yu9RfF0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2009%2F7%2F31%2F760190%2F-Lol!-Anthony-Weiners-Masterstroke-Of-Genius-%28Late-Update%2C-Single-Payer-On-The-Fl&feature=player_embedded
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/22/what-change-looks
Democrats look good with a win.
Republicans will look stupid when Armageddon doesn't strike.
This sets us up nicely for a better reform 10 years from now.
edit: (or at least this is how I see things. maybe i'm wrong?)
the reform is a good thing to spend money on
I watched an hour of fox news the other night for pure entertainment factor, being from the UK it's just laughable, do people actually hold these views in the US... are people really this stupid?
Couple facts about the US.
VA (military healthcare) and Medicare are both "socialized" medicine, they just have limits on enrollment. Satisfaction of care is incredibly high for both of these, way higher than satisfaction of private healthcare in the US.
60% plus of every single polled group in America wanted a government run, universal healthcare system. This is not a case of Americans being misinformed, this is a case of politicians being completely un accountable to their constituents, and the private healthcare industries pumping money into candidates pockets to get their way.
The bill that just passed is awful. There are no cost caps, the insurance is mandated, and penalties for not paying are collected by the IRS, so goodbye tax refunds if you didn't pay for the inflated insurance. As mentioned before, currently 65% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are healthcare cost related, and just under 80% of those people had some form of coverage. It's those awful cover-nothing plans that poor americans are going to be forced to buy, and will then not have enough of the fees covered to keep them out of life crippling debt.
Remember that in the past decade, zero people in UHC countries have gone bankrupt from medical costs, whereas it's a HUGE problem in the US. Medical care is just not affordable using a(n unregulated) private healthcare insurnace model. Private healthcare insurance is what got the US into this mess, and needs to be dismantled.
The current public option will not kick in till 2014, won't be able to cover all of the uninsured, some are estimating as low as only 9 million out of the 42 million uninsured, AND it will be forced to cost as much as private plans, in order not to compete them out of market, which negates the benefit of a public plan anyway.
America's healthcare isn't even that great if you can afford it, it doesn't top the list in any metric except the inflated breast cancer statistic, which they cheat at anyway. Infant mortality, life span, wait to see a doctor/specialist/surgeon, recovery periods and rates, all are far behind the other countries which spend a fraction on their citizens.
The only answer for the US is a medicare for all model, but now that this shit bill passed, good luck at something like that. It's over folks.
No, it didn't. It might be labeled as such, but this is more of the same bullshit. I've been following it closely, and this bill does nothing to address rising costs. It's a feel-good bill so Obama and the democrats can be seen as having passed something, but it's awful. This is nothing like UHC in it's execution and will result in more medical related bankruptcies.
But don't get me wrong, I looking forward to what this will bring, and I hope it works out for the better (as it should). I would have settled for some reform on the business of offering insurance, but if this leads to people having coverage, then I'll consider that a bonus.
I'm still waiting to get some actual details on this though. The only thing I really know about it, is that pre-existing conditions should become a thing of the past. Otherwise, everything else seems like speculation.
Yes... yes they are this stupid... and sadly more-so. The mass public will believe anything on the television. If they described the Earth being flat and pink giraffes were spotted firing Cheetos at U.S. satellites in space someone... somewhere would believe it. I use to watch the news at night to laugh.. but now it just makes me sad that people are that dumb.
The fact that insurance can't deny pre-existing conditions is huge in my opinion. Now my wifes folks actually have options in their health insurance, rather than being at the mercy of whoever would take them.
Some poor people might get helped, but not till 2014. In the meantime nothing to address rising costs has occurred, so expensive medical expenses will still bankrupt them.
Rich people are not being taxed, unless your definition of rich is a lot different than mine. People buying "Cadillac" plans will be taxed, but "Cadillac" actually equals basic coverage that other countries enjoy as a human right. So yeah some rich people will be taxed on this, but so will tons of middle class workers who just want real coverage.
How does it set it up for real reform? Why couldn't they do real reform now? oh because the healthcare insurance industry sunk billions into apposing real reform, and now every single american has to be their customer, so they will have even more billions to sink into opposition in 10 years. Every private insurance company saw stock jumps at the passing of this bill.
Why can't the USA just copy a good functioning system like in pretty much all of Europe? :P. I mean, it's not like they have a copyright to it...
Didn't read much about this bill, but a while ago I saw a debate with Obama and his opposition on how to solve this matter and that was pretty hope-giving.
anyway: good luck America! :P.
got it from hanging around with polycounters
The ones that do anything useful (ie not the ceos) could come and work at the expanded medicare offices needed to deal with all of the new members.
It's a shitty excuse not to provide needed coverage to tens of millions of americans who are literally dying in the gutter for lack of care that every other country that isn't Ghana levels of poverty can provide their citizens.
probably got it from an unwashed mug at uni, the girls i've been kissing didn't have it
Poop: Thank you for being more eloquent than me (I? :P) +1
By and large I agree with your perspective, but this kind of hyperbole is a big turnoff. Both sides do it, and I'm generally not inclined to trust anyone who wildly exaggerates his position. Surely there aren't 20+ million Americans lying in gutters, dying as I type
By rich people, I mean people making over 200k. They get taxed more heavily from this afaik
It sets it up for reform further down along the line because everything in america changes gradually. No one is going to be able to repeal any of this bill. You can't get enough support to make it ok to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or make medication more expensive for seniors, or take people off of medicaid. That's just a losing battle. However, progressives will most certainly still be able to fight to lower costs and perhaps get a single payer system up and running. It's a gradual thing. Look how long civil rights took.
Actually the figure is 42 thousand americans die for lack of basic care every year that you could walk into any clinic as a canadian and be treated. And 42 million americans have no coverage.
but it's a good thing your healthy skepticism has shed some much needed reluctance to the opinion that major healthcare overhaul is needed.
Not true. Social security and desegregation are perfect parallels of radical change. Progressive healthcare reform didn't not happen because americans like incrementalism, it happened because the senate and house are beholden to the funding of healthcare industries pouring millions into their bank accounts. There was plenty of support for government run universal healthcare, despite what loud republicans and their talking heads tried to imply.
That 'stable, incremental change' thing that people with basic understand of political science do is pussy bullshit, lets be tough and just get the wrecking ball in there so we feel like we're doing something!
Germany has a population of 82 million, and manages it fine.
Social security was implemented for the US in under 2 years.
lol, you're full of shit, "stable" yeah that'll be great as rising costs force more and more people to choose between healthcare and paying for food. It's not stable now, and this bill does nothing to stabilize it. And plenty of people with polisci degrees are not for incrementalism, so you're argument falls doubly flat.
I know you're Mr Incrementalism, but it's shit and has no benefits over radical change. If the government was motivated by what's best for Americans, an expansion of medicare could be done in short order, especially since there is a huge number of countries to copy that have functional healthcare systems.
Tell me why small change that does nothing to address rising costs is better than expanding medicare for everyone.
How much Fox News do you watch?
Ben, I completely agree with you that a utopian overhaul of healthcare in america would be wonderful, but do you actually think for a moment, in the beaurocratic/social mess that is america, it would work? Maybe with a massive bipartisan effort, some logistical geniuses heading it, and a complete disregard for what the (misinformed) public wants done, that shit could get put in place, but that scenario is detatched from reality to the point of being ridiculous.
This is a small, on its own, nearly irrelevant step -- but it's the only kind of step you can take with a country like america. We have a long history of Disjointed Incrementalism working in america. It's what the american public is comfortable with and what the american government is most proficient at. I cannot see how you think an incredibly risky overhaul that the government has every chance to bungle and the public has every chance to oppose, gambling an absurd amount of money, is preferable to getting off to a slow start. I respect your stance and i think your ideals of what america should have are in the right place, but i find your confidence that it could be done that way or is worth taking the risk bewildering. America has, to my knowledge, *never* preformed an organizational overhaul of that scale, and has more than a few ineffectual or failed civil projects even with its less ambitious history.
And, lastly, i have tons of sympathy for the poor -- i was never totally horribly off financially, but there were long periods when i was young where my parents had to skip a lot of meals to feed me and my sister -- but the dying in the streets hyperbole is ridiculous. Our healthcare system is terrible, but it simply is not leading to mass deaths or tons of people to pestilence and disease. The fact that poor people have to endure being sick longer, or much more plausibly waste what meager savings or opportunities they have to scrape together for healthcare they should be assured is a damn shame, but going to the doctor is not impossible for americas working poor.
Have you ever in your life picked up a book on, in any form, political science or economics? I don't claim to be some kind of educated authority on the subject but the utter lack of a whatsoever developed standpoint by pretty much anyone but ben here is appalling. The fact that i don't believe america can magic up UHC in a day has absolutely nothing to do with asinine partisan talking heads.
Not every political view has to be either bill clinton or ronald reagan
No one said it was going to be done overnight. Most of the benefits don't kick in for several years.
I don't need to be a political science major to know when somebody's collecting logical fallacies like goddamn pokemon.
I agree with you that incrementalism is the best American can hope for (just not that it is superior system) with it's completely broken political system. but this was an incremental step in the wrong direction. It does nothing to address rising costs, which was the problem in the first place, paying for it all.
The "public option" will not kick in till 2014.
It has really crappy rules for who is eligible (ie, only the completely destitute).
It will be forced to be "price competitive" (that means as expensive) as private plans, so as not to outcompete and have everyone want to jump on the public option. (were it allowed to be at cost it would be much much cheaper since it lacks a profit margin, and everyone would want on it, this is the major thing the private companies fought)
It will only be able to handle an estimated 9 million Americans it's first year, and just this year lone there are 42 million uninsured. Again this is because it will be a new agency, rather than an extension of medicare with all it's already-in-place- features, which would be able to ramp up much more quickly.
Unless i'm completely mistaken me and ben are debating whether the system needs to be replaced with an immediate UHC overhaul, which is what i exaggerate as 'overnight'
MattQ86, shit, you did not waste any time giving your strawman a thunderstone and evolving it into a red herring
I agree that the bill does not address many of the most important cost saving mechanisms for complete reform. But honestly, I don't agree with politicians like Jane Hamsher who were pulling to kill the bill because it wasn't progressive enough. I am progressive, but some reform is better than none. And when we were barely able to pass this legislation by the skin of our teeth, I don't think that making the language of the bill more liberal would have allowed it to get far at all. I think there is a lot of chances for improvement further down the road, when people realize that it is not completely evil. Maybe then we can actually implement the public or single-payer option, I have my fingers crossed and hope it will lead to a better system eventually.
Come know, you know better than to call the results of one study that even then boasts only a tenuous link to poor healthcare a *fact*. I will concede that it's evidence, but even if that number is totally accurate vastly more people die from medical errors, which would probably be a much cheaper/more efficient thing to add some lifesaving oversight to.
That, really, is the heart of my point. I don't mean to say that an incremental system is necessary or ideal for every country -- it is by its very nature a system grounded in concession to defeat, but america is certainly defeated as far as an efficient bureaucracy goes.
As for it being a step in the wrong direction, man, i guess i just think its good that it's a step at all.
Once this movement picks up momentum and the red scare bullshit the right is putting out gets discredited, legitimately meaningful, positive healthcare changes can take place. This is a pretty bad healthcare system, i agree, but if wasting some money on this is what it takes to get the public to understand how much a real UHC implementation would benefit the country then i think it's definitely worth it.
The opposition for government run universal healthcare was completely manufactured. There was no opposition other than the healthcare insurance companies flat out funding the opposition of anyone that went for a strong public option. Americans themselves would not have put up a fight against UHC other than the crazy white republicans which really are louder than they are in number, and being lead around by the nose by healthcare funded republican mouthpieces.
I would absolutely have voted against this bill. This gives the veneer of reform, and when it fails to do anything against costs, it *will* sour the average american against "socialism/marxism/whateverism" of any further real overhauls. Not only that, but it's now a "democrat/Obama" bill, and as lame duck as democrats are, them losing face gives republicans political gains, and they are even worse. What I wouldn't give for the destruction of the two party system.
That being said, the Health care reform bill that passed has a lot of good, with a bit of bad.
It's good that it doesn't allow preexisting conditions to be a factor in coverage anymore. It's good to give breaks to small buisnesses and individuals who cannot afford insurance.
But the biggest problem still remains, the elephant in the room, the insurance companies. This is a sector of buisness that only benifits when it does not pay out. The profit motive, capatalism, should not be in health care, it's a direct conflict of interest.
The bill does nothing to reduce costs of health care insurance, provides no incentives to the big companies to do so. On the other hand, it mandates every american to buy insurance, even though the price of that insurance for the mos tpart, will not change. (estimates in reduced costs for the average person is maybe 1%, or it may even go up!)
But thats the problem with Washington, and honestly every sector of the US government, it's controlled for corps, and really, not even the president has the power to change that.
As long as you guys have so much private involvement in your government, you will always be getting the short end of the stick.
Socialism is not the answer.
Capatalism is not the answer.
You need a happy medium, common sense.
BTW, if anyone gets sick and cannot afford the premiums, come on up to canada, well treat you even if you aren't a citizen.
PS Obama, it would have been cheaper to buy everyone who doesn't have healthcare healthcare rather than this.
Canada has the type of healthcare that Obama wants to implement. And Canadians come across the border to the US to get immediate attention for surgery rather than being told to wait a couple months, which can mean life or death for many patients.
The plan will put a cap on how much money doctors can make, and we already don't have enough doctors to support this plan. So as soon as young wanna be doctors hear about the salary cap they may have second thoughts of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the education needed. We also wont have enough resources to support this plan either.
This healthcare is not free, don't let the bill fool you. Its only free to the people who would never pay for it in the first place. All it does is make the people who work for their money pay for everyone else.
Im sure we'll all change our views when we are very sick with cancer and can't get it removed because a homeless person deliberately hurt himself so he could have 'free'(see above) shelter and food.
The plan doesn't take affect for 4 years, and by time we have someone in office to untangle this wad of crap called a presidency it will be to late.
That's why I said it's just one of many. There are plenty of studies that link thousands of american deaths to problems we don't even *think* about in socialized health care countries.
THE BILL DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS RISING COSTS. The number one problem in America that affects people's health is PAYING for healthcare. The quality isn't that great, but it's not awful, it's solidly middling. This bill will result in *more* people going bankrupt that currently are. If anything, it will increase the red scare and anti socialism sentiment.
The CBO says that it will eventually cut costs in the trillion dollar area further down the road. I don't pretend to know everything, and I agree most if not all opposition to this bill was ridiculous and manufactured by insurance companies wanting to continue to make their billions of dollars by denying or overcharging for insurance. But I also think a lot of the opposition was sheer obstructionism. Still a band-aid on a wound is better than giving up on it and ignoring it completely.
SupRore, I apologize for calling your use of loaded words a "firebrand logical fallacy filled rant" and cheerfully place the label on this guy. Your arguments come out a lot more level headed when you're not using words like "collapse".