Political: Moderate, Centrist, and Progressive Thread

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Oh, I self paid my Chiropractor visits and in FOUR visits, or a total of 16, I could function fine. I had never been to a chiropractor before and have not been back.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It is your resonsibility to control your daughter's sexual behaviors. If one of your daughters gets pregnant, it's your responsibility to know not the government's to inform you. It's your responsibility to know where your child is at at all times and in all circumstances. It's not the government's job to inform you as to where your child is or what she's done.

You have to parent.

So many parents think they can allow their daughters to play with boys and be in compromising situations while they stay at home and watch tv all night. Then these parents think it's the government's job to call them and interupt their favorite tv show if their daughter goes to have an abortion. That lame parent should have known where their daughter was in the first place! If parents can't parent that's a domestic issue not a political one.

Oh please. Every good parent can not expect to keep an eye on their 15 year old 24-7. Don't put the blame on the parent. A high schooler can sneak away during lunch.

My 15 year old can not go in for other medical treatment without my permission. Do you understand that? It's only abortion because of liberal wack jobs like you who think it is ok.

It's not ok! For believing it, you are just as guilty as those who perform it and those who want it performed.

Of course that is my opinion.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Do you really think you are incapable of deciding what is best for YOUR health care? Do you need a government program to decide for you. Are you libertarian or NOT? Seems you are listening to the wrong voice.

I think you've believed a myth friend. In Canada you can go to the doctor whenever you need to. The government doesn't make your health care decisions for you, they only assist in providing coverage for all. It's just like having private insurance accept everyone pays into it. Europe has very similar systems. I've been outside of the United States, have you? Here's an invite....let's find a Canadian forum and chat with some of those folks about it and get it first hand.

I had a PPO. That to the uneducated is a Physician Provider Organization. I had a problem where I suddenly could not walk, and so I went to a chiropractor. I was authorized for six visits. It was better, but not totally, so I requested six more. They were approved. Then on visit 12, not only were the additional six denied, so were all future chiropractor visits FOREVER. Seems the new person in the office approved the additional six and no way were they going to approve anymore.

Who made those decisions for you, the government or your private insurer?

Next, click the quote back and see the $56 eyedrops and $5 asparin tablets. That was two items of the $88,000 hospital bill for MrsB last year.

Why do you suppose they are that expensive? And why do you supposed the private pharmasuetical industry doesn't want compitition from Canada when it comes to medication?

Prices go down for DOCTORS? I think anyone who spends 80 hrs a week for THREE years deserves every penny they can earn. I know doctors in my town who were at the hospital at 6 AM, and there even at 8 PM at night. And that also included weekends. My wife had a specialized test. The hospital earned $4000. The doctor $146, and this year the allowed amount is going to be cut in half. The doctor admitted he soon will decide to not take on patients since he cannot work for free.

You obvious have some gross distortions of the issue at hand. Healthcare costs are inflated. They are inflated because doctors and hospitals aren't getting paid (because they often have to treat the uninsured who cannot pay the bill) and that loss is handed down to you in higher health care costs that bring higher premiums. In a Universal System all doctors and hospitals would be paid for what they do and therefore there wouldn't be a loss to hand down to you. That's why an ever increasing number of doctors and hospitals are supporting a Universal Health Insurance program. Of course...the insurance companies aren't too happy with it because they wouldn't want to compete with a nationalized system. That would mean lowering premiums and that would just cramp their profit margin.

[Aquila]

Well, I asked if any Canadians would like to have a health care system like America's and the answers were:

"Definately not."

"Nope."

"Never."

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...598#post349598

I'm courious. Is there something that we as Americans don't understand about this national health insurance stuff.

[bishopnl]

Well....lol....since the thread has ballooned way past the initial comments, I'm not going to bother following up with any point by point rebuttals, especially since most of my comments have already been echoed here in much more efficient responses than I would have done.

I would like to point out a few things though.

The first is that, Chris, your comments regarding countries with universal healthcare having longer life expectancy rates, overlooks one of the common laws of logic as taught by university professors around the country. That is that correlation does not equal causation. Taking two common points of interest and assuming that one must cause the other is flawed logic. As has already been pointed out, homicide rates in the US are higher than in other countries. There are a LOT of reasons one could point too besides the health care system that might have an affect on life expectancy rates...pointing to that one factor shows how weak and ineffectual the arguments for universal health care are.

The second is that using a group like FAIR to come to the conclusion that John Stossel is a "right wing hack" whose analysis can't be trusted shows that there probably isn't any point in continuing debating with you. Hopefully, America will wake up before your kind of ideology wins the day.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

I would like to point out a few things though.

The first is that, Chris, your comments regarding countries with universal healthcare having longer life expectancy rates, overlooks one of the common laws of logic as taught by university professors around the country. That is that correlation does not equal causation. Taking two common points of interest and assuming that one must cause the other is flawed logic. As has already been pointed out, homicide rates in the US are higher than in other countries. There are a LOT of reasons one could point too besides the health care system that might have an affect on life expectancy rates...pointing to that one factor shows how weak and ineffectual the arguments for universal health care are.

I agree completely, for example, Europeans and Canadians are more health conscious as individuals, meaning they eat healthier and exercise more. Some are satisfied with that and say, “Ah, ha! Universal health care coverage has nothing to do with that.” Oh, to the contrary my dear friend. People with health insurance tend to visit their doctors more often for physicals and checkups. They also visit their doctor more when confronted with aches and discomfort. For example, a Canadian or a European may visit their doctor for a physical at least once a year at the very least. This means they have regular medical advisory to exercise more and eat right with a full explanation of the repercussions should they fail to do so. In America, most Americans put off going to the doctor far more than Canadians or Europeans. Americans typically discover from their doctors that they are already suffering from hypertension, diabetes, or symptoms relating to unaddressed obesity. Why do Americans often put off visiting the doctor? Well for many Americans they cannot afford it. Or if they have a plan like mine, an HSA, they are in a position to seriously budget their doctor visits. I can speak from experience. I was suffering from minor symptoms relating to hypertension for nearly 8 months. Once my symptoms progressed and became more serious I decided that I absolutely had to see a doctor. Viola! The doctor found my problems and put me on a plan and now my health is much better. I also had no idea just how overweight I was according to current medical standards. Why did I put off going to the doctor so long? Money. I simply couldn’t afford an expense like that for something that I thought wasn’t that important. As you know I have contacts in Canada and my wife and I spend time in Ontario most summers. A Canadian friend of mine sees his doctor twice yearly at the least and has headed off most preventable health problems. I couldn’t imagine how much better my health would be if I were able to visit a doctor regularly without having to worry about my budget.

Here’s another interesting detail. The family plan I had before the HSA was nearly $365 a month. My friend in Canada told me that he pays roughly $110 into the provincial health care system monthly and has full coverage for his family. As private health insurance premiums rise higher and higher a national system will be far more economical.

The second is that using a group like FAIR to come to the conclusion that John Stossel is a "right wing hack" whose analysis can't be trusted shows that there probably isn't any point in continuing debating with you. Hopefully, America will wake up before your kind of ideology wins the day.

My point with FAIR is that commentary is just that…commentary. Stossel provided some commentary but it’s not real reporting. Facts are what matter, not what Stossel thinks about those facts.

Here is what we’re up against:

In America nearly 50 million are uninsured.

We who have insurance pay higher premiums to make up the difference left by the uninsured who seek medical assistance.

The number of uninsured are growing. At the current rate that premiums are increasing, my family will be part of that growing statistic in roughly 4 years. Odds are…so will yours.

The higher premiums are putting a killing on American businesses. Employers are finding it harder and harder to afford health insurance plans for their employees and maintain their current profits. This causes American business to be at a disadvantage in the local and global markets.

Premiums are already more expensive than a national system would be. As the cost of premiums increase the nationalized system will even look better to a growing number of Americans.

More and more Republicans are operating stateside by drafting legislation to cover all citizens in their given states to help drive down the cost of health care regionally but without a national standard plans are facing difficulties.

Last year roughly 25,000 Americans lost nearly everything they owned and declared bankruptcy because they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

Last year roughly 18,000 Americans lost their lives because they couldn’t afford necessary treatments that could have saved their lives or were denied coverage by private insurance companies. (Remember, at one time these were the unborn you would have argued to save from abortion…yet they were allowed to lay and die by a profit driven health care system because saving their lives was deemed unprofitable).

It’s easy to sit here and philosophize on a stupid web-forum. The rubber meets the road when we decide as a society to do what is best for us all. Bishopl, I love ya, but you’re only offer philosophical answers as to why you’re AGAINST insuring all Americans. But your philosophizing doesn’t matter to a mother whose 26 year old son is dying of cancer and the health insurance company denied coverage for the second half of his treatments. Your philosophizing doesn’t matter to a man who has been uninsured for the past 5 years because he couldn’t afford it and now he finally breaks down because of the pain and goes to the emergency room…to find after being examined that he has cancerous tumors growing throughout his body. Then he’s told it would have been treatable if he had caught it nearly 4 months ago…but he didn’t have insurance 4 months ago, because of well meaning, but misguided, people like you who are standing in our way in our effort to insure him. At this juncture your philosophizing and internet debating doesn’t amount to anything significant. What matters is what you plan to do to help remedy the situation and help the 50 million, and growing, who don’t have health insurance.

So, aside form your philosophizing…what do you plan to do? Don’t compromise patient rights by giving doctors a license to kill or be negligent. Don’t compromise by just accepting the Social Darwinist ideals that the strong will survive. And don’t claim that health benefits will trickle down as we benefit these multibillion dollar corporations. They’ve reported RECORD PROFITS. If your ideology were correct we would have record numbers insured!

I’m not asking you what you “believe”…I’m asking you what you plan to do and if you have the guts to do it though it go against your Republican social conditioning. This subject isn’t about debating. This subject is about motivating. Motivating you to look around you and consider that maybe you’re mistaken. I was there bro. Leaving the country and talking to people outside of the US was quite a shocker for me. I was confronted with a reality that I had denied far too long. I walked away honestly believing in my heart that America can and should do better. We’re the only Western Nation that doesn’t have a national health insurance program. And we’re lagging behind with third world nations that don’t. That’s no coincidence.

What do you suggest we do to save these people? I’m sure if they were unborn you’d scream bloody murder that we do something. We need to honor live from the womb to the tomb. And that requires adequate health care between the two. You can’t tell me a young person has the right to live before they’re born… but then tell me its fine if they die because they cannot afford treatments after their born. The 18,000 or so Americans who died last year because they couldn’t afford treatments that could have saved their lives had a right to live and were denied that right by our privatized system. I’m sure if United Health Care flew a plane into a building killing 18,000 Americans you’d care.

What do you suggest we do bro?

[bishopnl]

Chris,

I think you missed my point regarding correlation and causation. My point is that just because European countries have longer life expectancy rates and universal health care, that does not mean that universal health care is the cause of longer life expectancy rates. Instead, you launch into personal anecdotes and how government paid doctor visits save lives.

If the US homicide rate is 10x higher than that of various European nations, it is A. going to effect life expectancy rates here in the US, and B. cannot be prevented by the federal government paying for you to go to the doctor. You seem to want to overlook these kinds of vital points...instead, you choose to believe that b/c European countries have universal health care and higher life expectancy, that that must be the determining factor. THIS IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.

Further, personal anecdotes don't mean squat too me. Meeting two dozen people in Canada who love their health care system means nothing to me, nor does it say anything to me about the overall health care system in Canada. In fact, as has already been suggested, it's my opinion that just like everyone else, your personal life experiences color your perception. You are a liberal government employee making the occassional trip to a liberal country. Am I supposed to be swayed by the fact that you met a fellow liberal who has no complaints about his country's health care system? I acknowledge that I'm a conservative working in the private sector who has made the occassional trip down south, so my perception is tainted as well...but the difference is that I'm not demanding of other people that they pay out of pocket for my beliefs.

As for Stossel and the lack of facts, he says:

The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

Assuming that he isn't misrepresenting those numbers, (and I freely confess that right now I don't have time to look them up), it says to me that he had plenty of facts. They are facts that groups like FAIR do not like.

As for the rest of the post, I'll post an article that does a pretty good job of explaining how health care costs can be lowered/handled without the government intervention you are advocating.

[bishopnl]

Lowering the Cost of Health Care

by Ron Paul

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

August 23, 2006

----------------------------------------------------------

The fact is, Chris, that it was government intervention that messed health care up in the first place. More government intervention is not the answer. Give people BACK their money...then they'll have the money to pay for medical costs.

[bishopnl]

I’m asking you what you plan to do and if you have the guts to do it though it go against your Republican social conditioning.

So in other words, your way is the only right way?

Sorry, Chris, I'm not buying it. Government intervention is a fast track to disaster. The "guts" i have are going to be used standing up against facist liberal politicians who, rather than giving people back their hard earned money, want to take it with vague promises of "taking care" of people. In the meantime, Christians have shirked their God given responsibility of helping the needy b/c big daddy government is doing it for them. In my opinion, it's not just a wrong headed philosophy, it is an immoral one contradictory to God's chosen plan.

[ChristopherHall]

I think we agree that the current system is failing. I look at my son and wonder if we'll have health insurance in the next four years. I think most Americans are concerned with the well being of their families. It's not pro-goverment, it's pro-family. The corporate powers that be are hanging our families out to dry and milking us into poverty. These guys recorded record profits...yet rates increased. It would make sense if they were taking a beating but they're not. It's pure greed.

Something has to be done.

Originally Posted by bishopnl

If the US homicide rate is 10x higher than that of various European nations, it is A. going to effect life expectancy rates here in the US, and B. cannot be prevented by the federal government paying for you to go to the doctor. You seem to want to overlook these kinds of vital points...instead, you choose to believe that b/c European countries have universal health care and higher life expectancy, that that must be the determining factor. THIS IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.

The statistics are based on an overall statistical comparison of health. For example, they will take 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians. Some studies might take more, some might take less. There has been more than one study on this. Regardless, each group is demographically the same. The overall life expectancy is higher among every 1,000 (in this example) Canadians and Europeans when compared to demographically matched grouping of 1,000 Americans. Some studies use smaller groupings and some may use more. The interesting thing is that statistically the data matches percentage wise regardless as to size of grouping. This has nothing to do with homicide rates bro. The study is perfectly scientific, verifiable, and has been duplicated in other studies conducted by other sources. It is your argument that is fallacious or ignorant at best dear brother. You should know better than this. I suspect you do know better seeing that you have an ideological agenda.

…your personal life experiences color your perception. ….so my perception is tainted as well...but the difference is that I'm not demanding of other people that they pay out of pocket for my beliefs.

Really, many don’t want to pay for the unjustified war in Iraq. Pre-emptively bombing a country without solid intelligence as to if they are indeed a significant threat is something many cannot support. Hey, bomb the Taliban all you like. Pursue bin Laden…but don’t bomb a nation pre-emptively without rock solid evidence and make me pay for it. I don’t like the idea of paying for corporate bail outs because the company couldn’t manage its money. Also when these companies are given massive tax breaks, the government doesn’t go out of business, we pay the difference. So technically we pay for corporate tax breaks. I don’t like the idea of paying for that. I’m not a big advocate of the death penalty, I don’t like my money being used for that. But you know what…you would use the police power of government to force me to pay for things that I find questionable. We all got to pay for things we don’t personally support or desire. I’d rather pay for the uninsured to have health insurance than for bombing a nation under false pretenses. Tax breaks and corporate bailouts…those may be justified given the climate of the economy so I don’t swear against them entirely.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

You’re exactly right on the money here! However, I look at it as a mandate. The reason so many living in well to do house holds don’t have health insurance is because it’s so expensive. It’s a crime that so many work hard enough to make a good living but don’t have health insurance. The 19% that making more than $75,000 a year most likely don’t have insurance because they choose to pay out of pocket. The 20% that are not yet citizens I can understand not insuring, but you have to ask yourself…if they are sick, like those who make $50,000, they still go to the emergency room and therefore we still pay for them in higher premiums. The 33% who qualify for existing government programs but are not enrolled are scattered throughout the states and are mostly uninformed about the program’s existence or unaware that they qualify. On these level we are talking about state programs that receive federal dollars. And it’s important to note that since these programs are on the state level the entire 33% are not eligible for all the same programs because they live in different states. A resolution would be to at the very least expand Medicare to cover these individuals by channeling those funds for these unused programs into Medicare. Those using the programs would be integrated into the national system. All would then be eligible for the same programs and all could be made aware that they qualify for the new federal program. Because these programs are often unused by so many who are eligible, if we were to channel all this funding into a federal system to cover all Americans that system will be funded roughly 60% at current levels. The increase in taxes would therefore be relatively minimal. Then factor this into the equation; let’s say that you were paying $365 a month for your current family plan. If you choose to go with the government system you would no longer have to pay that premium. Instead you would specify on your taxes that you are using the government system and the cost would be applied to your taxes. At current estimates most Americans wouldn’t even pay what Canadians pay, but let’s say you’d pay around $110 extra on your taxes a month…you’re not paying the $365 premiums any more…you just got to keep $255 a month of your own money that would have otherwise been spent on the inflated premiums.

As for the rest of the post, I'll post an article that does a pretty good job of explaining how health care costs can be lowered/handled without the government intervention you are advocating.

I’ll look it over. Traditionally I hear whining about the cost of malpractice insurance and the suggestion of capping malpractice claims. But what they don’t understand is that this insurance only accounts for a little over 6% of the over all cost of American health care. Over 30% is spent on records and clerical staff alone. Even if we just used a national records database that doctors and private insurers could tap into it would reduce costs drastically. I believe that was one plan suggested by Newt Gingritch, it’s really not a bad idea.

I think we agree that something has to be done. And theoretical trickledown schemes aren’t going to work. We need to look at what has worked elsewhere modify it for our nation, and make it the best health care system on the planet.