Forbidden Donut

I'm totally fine with universal health care in nearly any form. In fact, I welcome it! Just provide it on the state level, so I can leave if I do not approve, or at least I can exercise more of an influence over the decisions of how it should be funded and in what ways it should operate.

I absolutely do not support it on the federal level in any way, shape, or form.

State Run UHC would really fuck places in certain states. That's the only problem I see with that approach in this particular scenario. Typically though, you're absolutely right.

Think about CA. Tons of illegals who will get care, and a couple big ass cities with an abundance of poor people, and they are already experiencing a budget shortfall, and have been for quite some time. I don't think they could shoulder the burden there.

Perhaps a State Run solution with Federal support might be a workable approach, but idk.

We need this desperately though.

Californians need to make a choice about what is important to them. If universal healthcare is important to the entire state, then they would be willing to spend the money necessary to make it work (which would probably involve fixing a few of the other problems the state faces first). However, California is extremely large and some may be more willing to shoulder the burden to get universal health care going than others. In that case, more local governments can step in. I believe San Francisco already has similar plans on the books?

Regardless, I don't live in California, so I don't want a single penny of my paycheck being spent on their healthcare system. If I did want to give money to California so that they could subsidize their grandiose healthcare plans so that their out-of-control illegal immigration problem doesn't fuck with their desire not to fall behind the rest of the country, then I will do so personally. But just so we're clear, I don't.

I don't like the state of healthcare in PA. I think it could grow leaps and bounds. I think it would grow leaps and bounds if my fellow citizens stopped expecting the rest of the country to pay for issues that do not and should not concern them.

A+ for Gov

I wouldn't mind universal health care, but I don't trust our government to handle properly. What's covered? What's not covered? Currently, I get to choose what I pay for and what I don't pay for.

Secondly, what is the plan to pay for it? We are already in a deep trench of debt.

Even though this is less about my opinion of health care, it is on the topic of healthcare:

I think the democrats are starting to pull a brilliant strategy when it comes to a public healthcare option. I don't know if it is intentional (I assume it is), but more and more I hear democrats saying "the health care industry isn't competitive enough, so a public option will really apply competitive pressure, which will increase the quality of healthcare all around." That's very capitalistic of them, which will appeal to a much larger population than the traditional "the health care industry is awful, we need to step in and fix it." I don't really know why they didn't pursue this line of promotion earlier...

I think the government should stay the hell out of my life and business.

I think I enjoy my universal health care.

Why could the Canadian system not be applied successfully to the states?

The federal level would seem to be the only viable way of providing this... state by state would be a mess.

It's not a matter of the Canadian system not being able to be applied, it's a matter of getting enough Americans to support it. There are lots of people out there, myself included, that do not support a federal health care program of any kind.

I read a couple days ago that 60% of bankruptcies in America are caused by medical bills. That seems really shitty to me.

I don't think I can point out enough how my belief that there shouldn't be a federal health program does not mean I believe our current health system is a good one.

sorry if my comment seemed aimed at you. i just wanted to throw that comment in there. thinking maybe someone with more knowledge might elaborate on it or refute it. i completely understand what you're saying, court.

So what I'm getting from this... is that Court wants babies and poor people to go sick because he disagrees with health-care in every way. MIRITE!?!?!?111

More like, if it's not an enumerated federal power then they should stfu and gbtw.

However I don't suspect the complexities of our time were really within the scope of that particular document. As wonderful as it is.

Fact is, we're not only buttfucking poor people and sick people, we're buttfucking ourselves for still having to pay for them. Meanwhile the insurance industry should be shut down and anyone involved in the top 10% of management of all the companies should be burned at the stake. I think that would probably help.

Adding beancounters to healthcare was the single gravest mistake we could have ever made in regards to the long term welfare of our citizenry.

I think the complexities of our time have really helped to identify exactly how ageless the document is. I truly believe the only reason the constitution appears so outdated is that people have absolutely no fucking idea why this country exists and what ideals it was founded to promote. I don't really know why people think giving states power over their own affairs is worse than trying to get 300 million people on the same page on issues that affect every area dramatically different than other areas.

If you want socialism, move to a socialist country. Socialism is totally fine in my book, but the only thing that makes the US great is its ideals, and socialism is not one of them.

If you want a strong federal government, then move to a country with a strong federal government. Strong federal governments can do a lot of good for their people, but this country exists so that the people could have complete control over every single aspect of their lives so long as they don't interfere with the rights of other people. A strong federal government, no matter how perfect it is, cannot abide by that principle.

If you want to live in a dictatorship, go live in a dictatorship. A dictatorship is easily the most efficient and effective government-types possible, so it has potential to do the most good for its citizens. But that isn't the US.

etc, etc.

America is what it is; stop fucking it up with your compromises and appeals to the common good.

What happens to states that can't produce goods or services? Let em fail like a bank?

I assume you're answer is that the citizens of that state have two choices, move out to a state that's economically viable, or vote for better state leadership.

Wouldn't that be swell.

I love our mission statement as much as anyone, but while you contest that the modern age has shown it to be awesome, I contest that it has shown it to be sorely lacking when the people in charge of shaping it's future have their heads squarely up their asses. And they huff glue.

"hai guyz! lets pass this amendmant that gives the feds broader powers than r defined in the rest of the constitushun!"
"totally sweet! high five!"

And the voices of our sane leadership are drowned out in the din of self-congratulation.

It's as though you actively ignore the political realities of our government, I don't get it. Idealism is just as dangerous as pragmatism, if you ask me.

edit: oh yeah... the point.
I'd rather they work with one another and pass a small but comprehensive bill that allows people meeting certain criteria (to be reviewed every x years like the AMT) to get healthcare than have people like Bobby Jindal and Jennifer Granholm completely fucking their states beyond recognition and begging for handouts. And while there are more options than uhc, SOMETHING has to be done.

What happens if the same happens to the US as a country? I fail to grasp why a country-wide solution is safer than each state implementing its own. I can understand that the failure rate is reduced, but the risk is actually increased. If something goes wrong, we're all screwed.

Yes, you hit my response to the "cannot produce goods" question square on the head.

I don't think the modern landscape has shown the constitution to be great, I think it has shown just how viable the constitution could be if US citizens just realized why it and this country exist. We have failed to abide by the constitution, so the failure is purely our own and not of the constitution itself.

Irrational, selfish, and ignorant politicians are the consequence of US citizens ignoring the constitution for the sake of federal pragmatism. The politicians aren't the problem itself, so I hardly blame them for being inept. No, the problem is us, the US population. The problem is that idealists like me are too cowardly to pick up arms, pragmatists like you are too accepting of truly devastating compromise, and far too many others are simply ignorant of the core values of this nation.

To clarify: I'm not an idealist on all fronts. I am 100% for pragmatic approaches to constitutional issues. I'm fine with states compromising on their health care plans; I'm fine with states compromising on their education plans; I'm fine with states compromising on their defense budgets. I am only an idealist when it comes to the extraordinarily simply, yet infinitely important confines of the constitution. The reason I'm idealistic in that one particular view is that the slightest compromise on any part of the constitution will lead [and is leading] to the complete breakdown of the entire foundation of this country. At that point, I'm sure we'll all carry on as usual, but none of us will be worthy of the country's namesake, and the beautiful and righteous experiment that grew the greatest country in the history of human civilization will be a complete failure.

It's been downhill since the FDA, emirite?

It has been downhill since long before the FDA was created. And for the record, I do not support the FDA.

I'm confused as to how you would expect us to have clean meat and drugs without poison in them without a countrywide set of regulations enforced by a countrywide agency.

I don't know if we were ever the country you want us to be.

Local regulations, or buy local? I don't see why either of those are difficult concepts to understand...

Actually, I'm confused as to why you think a federal regulatory board would be more efficient or cost effective than a local one...

Hey man, you think what you wanna think, but that's completely impractical to an extreme. 50 sets of regulations on goods transported between states? No way. There has to be consistency in some of our policies when the health of our population is on the line.

I suppose the meatpacking plants would have more freedom under your model though. And the pharmaceutical companies could all move to WV where there are no regulations in place preventing them from putting manure in their pills or forcing them to inform you of that ingredient.

Another more modern example is credit companies who are about 30% responsible for this recession if you ask me. All the intelligent state by state regulation of the industry adds up to exactly squat when credit companies can just go to Delaware and exercise their freedom to fuck us with shoddy contracts and high risk loans. But that doesn't deal directly with people's health. What credit companies do is wrong, what insurance companies do is extortion.

Who says that 50 different regulatory agencies must have 50 different sets of regulations? When universal access is of cost-benefit (which interstate food processing would fall into), standards arise that are adopted by most involved in the industry. Look at the web as an example. In less than two decades since it was created, universal standards are widely accepted for how to design and develop all sorts of code and even how to present material to users. That is without any authority to force the standard upon anyone. And believe me, there are tons of corporate interests, from some of the largest organizations on the planet, that would love to ignore the standards and push their own proprietary stuff into the market. But then people wouldn't use their shit.

The exact same principle can be applied to the meatpacking industry (since that is the example you brought up). There is no reason why people can't come together to develop standards for this sort of thing, and if organizations aren't willing to adopt them voluntarily, a local regulatory committee can restrict the imports (or local production) based on the standard. This only seems impossible now because all of our regulations exist on a highly centralized, non-republican federal government with no local influence at all.

So the community in central PA is upset with the quality of meat products being imported from New Mexico? Too fucking bad; the meat industry simply throws money at the "problem" and while 2 of the senators from your state might actually give a shit, the other 98 don't have any reason to care about your community's concerns.

There is no substantial state-by-state regulation of the banking industry because the federal government is charged with handling it. PA doesn't have the authority to say "this bank is being unethical and shitty, so they're not allowed to do business in our state" because it is federal jurisdiction and currently assumed federal responsibility. The people literally have no fucking control over any of this exclusively because of the federal government you deem necessary to protect us from all of the horrible shit that it keeps failing to stop from happening.

If Delaware wants to engage in bad banking practices, good for them. If the entirety of the US wants to still utilize Delaware's shitty credit market, then good for them. The economy will grow, the bubble will pop, and we will be in a horrible recession where the working man gets fucked over and over again. No federal regulations would stop that from happening since the entire country was totally fine with the bad practices going on. The difference between my scenario and yours is that in mine states would at least be able to exercise a greater influence over their own regulation to help protect their own population.

What credit card and insurance companies do is exactly what they can be expected to have done and to continue to do. They exist to make money, and they make quite a lot of it. It is easier for them to control a centralized federal government through lobbying and money than it is for us to influence it with our vote, and that is why every fucking thing that the federal government touches turns to shit. In that way, I think my ideals are far more realistic and plausible than yours. I don't have any allusions of the very real fact that industry will always do whatever they possibly can do to make as much money as possible without ever considering the costs to the average person. You assume that by giving more and more power to a centralized group of people, we can stop those companies from hurting people, whereas I believe those companies are so equipped to hurt people due to overwhelming power given to a more and more centralized group of people that are naturally easily influenced by the same fundamental human traits that make people want to make money in the first place.

We don't have health care in this country, we have sick care.

It's so stupid it hurts.

I wouldn't care about opposition to the idea of public healthcare if the reasons weren't so on their face retarded.

"It wouldn't be fair to private insurers." is a reason I guess.

Effectively the new proposal seems to read:
"We hate the idea of public insurance, but we LOVE the idea of excessive government waste and intrusion into states rights."

So they got EVERYTHING wrong. I figured no matter what happened I'd agree with it in some theoretical way. But they somewhat predictably fucked it up... it's incredible.

It's still really early in the process, of course. This is far from the done-deal.

I'm reading a lot about a provision in Section 102 of the current draft that would apparently outlaw private insurance. Anybody heard/read something about this that isn't completely retarded?

Here's the language that I'm WAY too lazy to wade through this afternoon:
The offending section: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Section 102.



I've heard 2 arguments made:

1. this means you won't be able to switch to any plan ever unless it's the government plan.
or
2. this passage specifically defines and limits 'grandfathered health insurance' such that when new federal regulations are placed on private insurance companies, you get to keep your current insurance for as long as you like. After Y1, all newly designed health coverage will have to abide by these regulations.

#1 sounds like bullshit
#2 sounds like apologist bullshit

It sounds to me like if you have an insurance plan before the effective date of the bill then you get to keep it and it counts as full health insurance. However, if you have a grandfathered-in policy and decide you want to switch plans after the effective date of the bill, then you can either go with a government plan or go with a private plan that passes government muster (it MUST offer benefits the government tells it to offer). Basically, if a private insurance company wants to write a new plan after the effective date of the bill then the plan must meet federal guidelines.

My argument against that would be that what if you want certain benefits and not others and want to be able to pay less or more for them? Their argument would be that the last section says you can get lesser benefit coverage but it will not count as full health care coverage. My argument back is what if the government requires each individual to get full health care coverage and the plan they like is not defined as full health care coverage under the bill unless it offers all the benefits the federal government mandates that it offer.

hm...

That's kind of what I got out of it too, with a bunch of what ifs attached.

Do these "mandates" define what must and must not be covered? I read bits and pieces of the draft and saw one thing that I'd characterize as a mandate, and it was that there will be no such denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, which I'm totally cool with.

It's completely valid to be concerned with the federal government getting involved in stuff, but all the things that the big scary government CAN do to us with our health care (deny coverage, charge penalties, dictate which doctors you can go to...) are things that health insurance companies in the private sector already do.

One thing's for damned sure though, I have no idea what this bill will look like by the time it passes the president's desk.

/questions and comments not directed at you in particular Eves. Just talkin'.

well, the mandates will come out of some created agency. pretty shitty if you ask me. and for the pre-existing conditions thing, I hope it is just that the govt plan won't deny you coverage, not that any private insurance company that wants to write a new plan after the effective date of the bill will have to cover those with pre-existing conditions because that would bankrupt the private insurance industry.

If they can't come up with a viable model of insurance that doesn't involve not insuring people, how worthy are they of staying in business?

I can start a business offering protection from burglary, and make TONS of cash charging an arm and a leg for the service and simply not provide the service if you live in a high burglary area. People would simply not buy it when they found that out however.

But you're not just talking about somebody's stuff, you're talking about their life and health. There is no option to simply not have health insurance. I mean, it's an option, but an insanely undesirable option. It's extortion, and such business practices usually are, and should be, illegal. We don't let private industry run the police, because it's bad business to actually do police work, and so the service would be sub-par in areas with high crime where it's needed most. This is *exactly* the same in my mind.

dude, it is a semi-viable model at the moment. 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance and are willing to pay for it.

the whole point of the govt option covering people with pre-existing conditions would be to help those people out. and once those people are helped out, then why force the private insurance industry to do the same thing? it would be unneccesary. i doubt the bill would force companies to cover any and all people with pre-existing conditions for a low rate.

Yeah, you're right. The viability of a model is directly related to the number of people who buy into it willingly and have satisfactory experiences with it.

um yeah

From the WHO Top 50 Countries as of 2000
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

As much pride as I get from being one slot up from Slovenia, I can't help but think that MAYBE we're doing it wrong. Notice anything about the top 10?

They are all countries that lost more than one war?

I endorse this product and/or service.

-dan

Good thing that never happened to us. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Fortunately, you're smart-ass comment has nothing to do with anything, and I'm fairly certain it's incorrect.

I don't think San Marino, Andorra, Malta, or Oman ever technically lost a war. Granted, they haven't fought very many, but that's kind of a good way to keep your country out of harms way when it's that tiny.

The model of buying private health insurance and being happy with it DOES WORK, but it does NOT mean that we cannot supplement the overall health care system to make it work for the people who are not adequately covered by it.

And think of how huge and rural a lot of our country is... It is not easy to get services out to all of those people and drags us down in the ratings.

Also, http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html :

sounds like the only way to make things perfectly "equal" under their categories is through universal healthcare.
And where are the categories that measure the technological advantages of a country?

Boy, aren't you a defeatist.

Our SOCIALIZED OOGA BOOGA post offices can deliver mail to fucking Alaska in 3 to 5 business days, and not lose it, for 42 cents.
Those same rural areas are patrolled by our SOCIALIZED OOGA BOOGA police stations.
They have SOCIALIZED OOGA BOOGA public schools.

In fact, rural locations are typically the ones best served by centralization of service. So in order to bring ourselves up to the same level as the rest of the world, yeah, perhaps UHC is the only way.

But it could never work HERE. Because we suck compared to Malta, Italy, France, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Norway...

Your*

-dan

II'm all for eliminating the pre-existing BS. If the insurance company can discover a pre-existing condition quick enough to drop your coverage WHEN you absolutely need it. Why is it out of the quistion to have them do the research and charge you approproately when you sign up. Isn't that how every other insurance company work? Gauge the risk, charge appropriatly.

Besides, you have to take a physical and fill out a bunch of forms anyway. If my insurance company pulls my coverage when I need it, I'll see them in court from my death bed.

sounds fine by me Jedd

so is anyone going to ask evestay to provide a source for his "80% of americans are happy with their healthcare" statistic because to my naked eye it sounds like the biggest load of bullshit anybody has ever spewed in the history of this great nation

It especially stinks when you try and find it on your own and see the top 12 Google links all go to right wing blogs and fox...

But the factoid that people who have insurance are *satisfied* with their insurance is largely irrelevant to the debate about health care reform. So I thought I'd let it slide.

Particularly since I easily found stats saying stuff like 55% of Americans are dissatisfied with hospital wait times, or doctor choices, etc. I don't buy those either, and those too are irrelevant to the debate on health care reform.

And you'll still lose. And you'll be dead. Congratulations, welcome to American health care. Home of the most advanced medical science in the world! Home of ZERO wait times. Home of the cheapest, most efficient form of health insurance.

I can't believe this pre-existing condition crap doesn't piss people off more.

It's not that they make you pay more. It's that they WON'T insure you for it. There's no way to make it cost effective.

For the record:
"One of the most important protections under HIPAA is that it helps those with preexisting conditions get health coverage. In the past, some employers' group health plans limited, or even denied, coverage if a new employee had such a condition before enrolling in the plan. Under HIPAA, that is not allowed."

ZOMG HOW WILL TEH PORR INSURANCE COMPANEES SURVIVE!?

"Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007"

oh...

dude, do you understand how hard it is to maintain a business without increasing profits four-fold in just 7 years?

And only 4 years after they were CRIPPLED by being FORCED by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to cover pre-existing conditions for people with good jobs.

Andrew, serious question. Do you do any actual "work" at your job? I don't disagree with most of what you've said, I'm just trying to figure out where you find the time to look all this shit up, and then post 15x a day in a relatively well spoken manner. How much actual work, would you say... You do during any given day?

This morning I got into work, fired up email, answered 2 questions and asked 4 more. Then I set up a Thermal Vacuum RF Insertion Loss test and while waiting for the vacuum to pull down I went and ran a 10 minute DWV electrical test on the cables that came out of that chamber last night, then took them upstairs to the RF lab for further testing. Then I had to wait an hour for the Thermal Vacuum test after it reaches pressure. During this hour I posted and double checked some facts while reading Fark and Kotaku.

Now I just ran the first measurement for that test and have to wait another 2 hours for it to reach temperature and then 1 hour to stabalize, then measure again. During this time period, I plan on getting lunch, going upstairs to learn how to test Phase Stability in an hour or fail to do so and let them handle it in the RF lab for now.

The rest of this afternoon will be spent running the second measurement, repairing the unused Vacuum chamber's liquid nitrogen valve, scheduling time in a thermal shock chamber, and writing a report.

I have no idea how I find time to post 15x a day... actually.

Fast fingers?