[Lycurgus]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The mandate is required for the bill to work - the healthy young people (who tend to eschew health insurance) are required to buy the basic minimum to subsidize the coverage of people who would normally be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition (which the bill bans). And it is laughable to talk about personal responsibility w/rt health insurance in the context of people making $10-12000 a month. Its real easy to be personally responsible at that point, when you're making 120k a year pretax. If you're making 18-22k a year pretax, the decision becomes more like... save for health care, buy health insurance, or... buy food. This bill subsidizes health care for people who simply cannot afford it, ends denial of coverage based off of pre-existing conditions, and is a huge step towards overhauling a deeply flawed system.

It's even easier to talk about them as hypothetical round numbers which are used to illustrate a point.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can make 10,000 a month (yes, I'm using round numbers because it's easy) with insurance, or 12,000 without it. In reality, person A on the first payplan will live a 10,000 lifestyle, and person B on the latter will live a 12,000 lifestyle, person B wont give consideration to the fact that they might get sick.

[Ray9]

	And it is laughable to talk about personal responsibility w/rt health insurance in the context of people making $10-12000 a month. Its real easy to be personally responsible at that point, when you're making 120k a year pretax.

Not really sure about the logic here. Personal responsibility has a pricetag? Does this mean that you can buy personal responsibility? It seems more likely that personal responsibility is embedded in an individual's personality regardless of social status or income. However taxing the responsible to pay for the transgressions of the irresponsible is something that can only exist in the philosophical mindset of utopian socialism which does not recognize the individual as a sovereign entity but as an insignificant component that makes up a larger group. Groupism by definition negates personal responsibility because it rewards apathy, conformity and irresponsibility by punishing the responsible with a tax. The healthcare reform bill is pure evil.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are two basic errors in your statements. First, you are holding the supply constant in the face of increased demand and assuming a competitive market.

I can't logically be doing both of those. But I can't tell if you meant that contradiction, or not. You're the one going on about competitive markets. I choose option A: I don't think supply will react to demand. That was my initial problem... I thought prices would just go through the roof, rather than more docs train up to meet that demand like they would in a sane world. Whereas the blogger you posted had done some very thorough math, but only for the consumers, clearly under the impression that $10,000 afterward will do what $10,000 does beforehand.

Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Increased demand happens when the price goes down for normal goods (law of demand), but that is a dramatically oversimplified model for what happens in the health care industry, because people's demand more strongly correlates with outside factors than it does with price (for example, you aren't going to go get open heart surgery merely because it is cheaper). The fact that it is not a free market system means that anything that requires assumptions regarding efficiency go out of the window, and anything requiring competition should be held in suspect. In short, and more strongly, this is not a competitive market. The foundational assumptions behind supply and demand economics are grounded in the assumption of a competitive market. In the absence of a competitive market, one has to be especially careful about trying to continue to apply the same model without a deep understanding of the system being analyzed. Can you demonstrate that this increase will be sufficient to overwhelm the supply, especially in the face of the potential reduction of stress on our ER rooms as the result of people not using it for routine care.

Like you say, it's not competitive. The amount of health care being provided will be truly arbitrary. It will not correspond with consumers' increased ability to pay. It could even go down. There is politics afoot here: by the authority that "the cost of health care is too high," the bill takes the popular route and gives consumers lots of money to spend, while ignoring or further entrenching the elements that incur the costs. There will still be third parties, outrageous hazards derived from pooled money, litigious behavior, and concerns over doctors' compensation (despite incredible price levels). But giving lots of people lots of money is really fun. It's the last 75 years of US government history in a nutshell. One only wishes it could be effective, as well as politically viable.

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Second, I think you have a misunderstanding of how insurance and health care work.

A limited understanding, definitely. So I find myself combating your extensive knowledge with common sense
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A public option to compete with the market sounds like a good idea, although it isn't necessary. The Dutch are able to deliver universal health care, for instance, relying exclusively on private insurers. Furthermore, our biggest insurer here in the U.S., Blue Cross, is a non-profit.

Oops!

Dutch health care is shoddy, expensive and profit-oriented.

Public health care is necessary if you want it to care primarily about health.

( Show Spoiler )

Don't lie about countries represented on INTJf in the future, love
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The healthcare reform bill is pure evil.

Oh, see, you misunderstood the purpose of this specific thread. TLM was asking what "those leaning liberal/democratic" thought about the bill.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, and the only time I see Fox News is when it's on the TV in the lunch room at work.

What kind of workplace has six hour lunch breaks?

[annaelizabeth]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not really sure about the logic here. Personal responsibility has a pricetag? Does this mean that you can buy personal responsibility? It seems more likely that personal responsibility is embedded in an individual's personality regardless of social status or income. However taxing the responsible to pay for the transgressions of the irresponsible is something that can only exist in the philosophical mindset of utopian socialism which does not recognize the individual as a sovereign entity but as an insignificant component that makes up a larger group. Groupism by definition negates personal responsibility because it rewards apathy, conformity and irresponsibility by punishing the responsible with a tax. The healthcare reform bill is pure evil.

Ray, I always love reading your posts, because they are always the exact opposite of my thinking! The pure evil you speak of is the lack of compassion, caring, or understanding towards anyone in a lower position than yourself. You speak of individual responsibility, but obviously have never come across anyone who needed public assistance through no fault of their own. And through no fault of their own, I mean because they had to drain their life savings and equity to pay for outrageous medical bills, because of our flawed health care system. If you could put yourself in someone else's shoes for one minute, you'd understand that not everyone who needs assistance is guilty of lacking personal responsibility. It is very simplistic thinking that only the responsible get ahead in life.

You always seem to speak of fear toward the government for some massive takeover that is about to happen. The power right now is with the insurance companies. I guess you're ok with that, as long as you're covered and can afford your insurance premium increases.

[Priori]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not really sure about the logic here. Personal responsibility has a pricetag? Does this mean that you can buy personal responsibility? It seems more likely that personal responsibility is embedded in an individual's personality regardless of social status or income. However taxing the responsible to pay for the transgressions of the irresponsible is something that can only exist in the philosophical mindset of utopian socialism which does not recognize the individual as a sovereign entity but as an insignificant component that makes up a larger group. Groupism by definition negates personal responsibility because it rewards apathy, conformity and irresponsibility by punishing the responsible with a tax. The healthcare reform bill is pure evil.

Respecting your vastly different thoughts then my own, my only question is how is a minor tax that detrimental to someone who makes 100+k a year?

Remembering that you also benefit from this bill as well.

[annaelizabeth]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	These leftists see the healthcare bill as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enslave the citizenry with socialism.

How tired I am of this argument. The healthcare system is broken in the US and has been for a very long time. It's not about socialism. It's about fixing something that is not working. As I've said, why are you so complacent to allow the insurance companies to be in control? Why are you ok with the premiums increasing, employers having to sign up for plans with less benefits and higher deductibles, to keep costs down? The worker suffers, the employer suffers, and the only one who is gaining anything is the insurance company.

Not to mention the deductible, higher co-pays, and list of things not covered.

I think many of your arguments are fear based and to be honest, somewhat paranoid. Unfortunately, the republicans are using this fear tactic to keep the insurance companies in control and keep things as they are. They don't want change and are doing everything they can to avoid it. Fear is a very strong emotion, and can cause people to think irrationally. Look how the fear led to the war in Iraq. Get people riled up and scared enough, and you can get them to believe just about anything.

They are using this to their advantage.

[Josephine1012]

Originally Posted by annaelizabeth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How tired I am of this argument. The healthcare system is broken in the US and has been for a very long time. It's not about socialism. It's about fixing something that is not working. As I've said, why are you so complacent to allow the insurance companies to be in control? Why are you ok with the premiums increasing, employers having to sign up for plans with less benefits and higher deductibles, to keep costs down? The worker suffers, the employer suffers, and the only one who is gaining anything is the insurance company. Not to mention the deductible, higher co-pays, and list of things not covered. I think many of your arguments are fear based and to be honest, somewhat paranoid. Unfortunately, the republicans are using this fear tactic to keep the insurance companies in control and keep things as they are. They don't want change and are doing everything they can to avoid it. Fear is a very strong emotion, and can cause people to think irrationally. Look how the fear led to the war in Iraq. Get people riled up and scared enough, and you can get them to believe just about anything. They are using this to their advantage.

Ok I think no matter what party affiliation you have we can all agree that our healthcare needs to be fixed. The way it's being fixed though is the real issue.

What needs to be done:

Insurance companies need to be allowed to compete across state lines.
Insurance company should not be able to dump someone just because they discovered new health issues
Insurance companies should not dictate what type of care a person who is insured should get, that is the responsibility of the doctor.
Doctors should not be forced to increase their rates because insurance companies routinely only cover about 40% of the bill, this of course hurts people who are uninsured.

Let's see what this bill is actually doing:

Cadillac insurance tax will be raised by 40%, meaning people who already pay a lot for their insurance will have to pay even more. I technically have Cadillac insurance, and I would describe it as adequate not Cadillac.

Everyone will be forced to buy insurance, otherwise this person will have to pay a fine. This sound well and good, but just like buying SafeAuto will keep you legal but won't keep you out of courts if you have more than $12k of damage. So will buying crappy insurance not solve all your problems. I know a lot of young, healthy people who choose to save their money for health care in case they need it rather than paying $400 a month for insurance they don't need. This takes away your freedom of choice.

This bill does not actually allow insurance companies to compete across state lines which is the main issue.

It makes more people eligible for Medicare without significantly increasing the funds (simple math goes here)

Not to mention it will raise our taxes.

So I don't know why people love the magical words "Healthcare Reform" without actually considering what it entails.

[reb]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Dutch health care is shoddy, expensive and profit-oriented.

zibber, this is my exact impression and experience with u.s.s. of a. healthcare.

Josephine, i think getting the pharmaceutical companies and the ama out of the lobbying process would be very helpful as well. i have no faith in the fda to require full testing of drugs. having dated a doctor at one time, i also know the 'incentives' put before physicians to use certain products. these incentives are, frankly, blatant bribery.

[boldbidder]

Remove profiteering from healthcare and it fixes itself. People should only need insurance for catastrophic injury/accident. There is zero reason why run of the mill type care should not be reasonably affordable for the majority of Americans, you don't file for bankruptcy because you need a brake job on your car you shouldn't need to do so either because you can't afford your diabetes meds. Smack the pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers of upside the head so hospitals and care providers can lower their prices. Smack the AMA upside the head and allow me to go see a NP for a simple script to clear up my chest cold. Lastly, remove insurance companies out of the equation altogether except in instances of catastrophic injury.

Requiring everyone to carry insurance or even letting insurance compete across state lines will still preserve the current system, removing symptoms won't treat the illness. Lastly, start a PR campaign (ala Drugs and Smoking) to encourage people to get off their fat asses (Phat Asses are cool however and should be encouraged) and get some exercise. 86 employer provided care and raise peoples salaries (you're paying for your health benefits more than you think). Instead of burdening employers with having offer comprehensive care make them the outlet for offering catastrophic care to still allow for group bargaining power when dealing with Insurance companies.

Like most everything in the United States we make things waaaaaaaaaay harder than they need to be. 99.9% of the best solutions in the (un)natural world are simple; not complicated.

[nacht]

The president has
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. The CBO will take at least a week to weigh in on it, but it basically looks like a conglomerate of the house and senate proposals, but modified in such a way that it can be passed via reconciliation.

[Hamburglar]

It will be extremely fascinating to see the "summit" tomorrow morning. I'm glad the republicans had the courage to attend and advance whatever it is that they think is a better policy.

I should also note that Rep. Boehners office is saying that the Presidents legislation is TOO Short...First it's too long, now it's too short. What is this Goldilocks and the Bears?

[Caedus]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[LaoTzu]

	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The state already subsidizes the cost of medicine for millions of Americans.

Socialism FTW!

[Shauru]

I'm actually enjoying this quite a lot. I think this is probably the most useful conversation these people have ever had. Obama's doing a good mediating job.

[nacht]

We're in the endgame for this. Some observations and things to keep in mind:

1) Bet on this passing. It is
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and they only need 50% + 1 in both houses (50% in the senate + the VP). The president is seriously engaged in getting this through, which given the amount of political capital already spent on this is not surprising, but also means that there will be a lot of clout coming into play to make sure this goes through.

2) Don't expect this to pass by a large margin. It is in a lot of congress members' in more conservative districts interest to vote against the bill
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. If democrats vote against the bill and it doesn't pass, they stand a good chance of being eliminated in primaries.

3) Any pundit (or congress member, or newscaster) who makes reference to what "the public" wants without a) citations b) qualifiers
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. The level of support depends on how the question is phrased and the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and any attempt to talk about what "the public" thinks should mention this or it is being dishonest in the presentation.

4) They are not "shoving this down our throats via reconciliation." They have already passed the bill, and they are using the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, which is a well-established and legitimate use of reconciliation.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is in a lot of congress members' in more conservative districts interest to vote against the bill To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . If democrats vote against the bill and it doesn't pass, they stand a good chance of being eliminated in primaries.

I find this particularly amusing. So much for discernible principles and genuinely reasoned stances: just make sure you can cover your own behind from both parties!

[Tristan]

I almost hope it passes. They could lose congress over it this year. The House in the least.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I almost hope it passes. They could lose congress over it this year. The House in the least.

On what are you basing your opinion that passing it will somehow hurt them?

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	4) They are not "shoving this down our throats via reconciliation." They have already passed the bill, and they are using the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , which is a well-established and legitimate use of reconciliation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House has not voted on the Senate version of the bill.

The House is considering using a "deem and pass" tactic which seems somewhat nefarious, regardless of whether it has been used in the past or not.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On what are you basing your opinion that passing it will somehow hurt them?

The most basic issue. If the bill passes, the congressional midterms will cease to be about the theory of public health care, and instead be all about the bill. A nasty business. The bill is not the same thing as the theory, and does not preside over such a wide fan club.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House has not voted on the Senate version of the bill. The House is considering using a "deem and pass" tactic which seems somewhat nefarious, regardless of whether it has been used in the past or not.

It isn't even slightly "nefarious": It is a common procedure that is used to combine two votes into one. In essence, by voting on one bill they are voting on the Senate bill simultaneously. Nothing "nefarious" about it.

---------- Post added 03-18-2010 at 05:17 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The most basic issue. If the bill passes, the congressional midterms will cease to be about the theory of public health care, and instead be all about the bill. A nasty business. The bill is not the same thing as the theory, and does not preside over such a wide fan club.

You do realize the more people know about the bill, the more likely they are to support it, right?

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It isn't even slightly "nefarious": It is a common procedure that is used to combine two votes into one. In essence, by voting on one bill they are voting on the Senate bill simultaneously. Nothing "nefarious" about it.

The deem trick wouldn't be needed if they could legitimately muster the votes to pass a single bill in both the House and the Senate. If the term "nefarious" strictly describes the picture of them dodging the intent of the constitution with parliamentaries, it would be absolutely accurate.

If I were a Democrat, I would have put forward a small, simple bill that was palatable to the RINOs. Culling those moderates away, I could exploit the occasion of successful passage to get another one in the works. But no, they want to pass a monstrosity trillions of dollars in scope, here and now. Honestly, looking at history over the last eighty years of federal ascendancy, this health bill isn't a very well thought-out assault. The successful guys usually made their bids with skill and patience, not biting off more of the economy than they can chew quietly. To use the phrase from Mayor Daley's office, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You do realize the more people know about the bill, the more likely they are to support it, right?

Certainly. That's what happens with all policy packages and with all political candidates. The more we know about them, the more we love them. It will be a steep, uphill battle. The 3/17 WSJ/NBC poll pegs Americans at 48 to 36 against the bill. FOX finds 55 to 35 against. Pew finds 48 to 38 against. Washington Post/Gallup finds the yokels 55 to 33 believing that the bill will increase the cost of health care. Despite having relatively few supporters and many passionate detractors, the plan will no doubt grow on all of us, as those benighted detractors peruse through its bulk and realize what a fabulous thing it is. But more important than principles is money-- this new plan will shuffle it around like every entitlement, and those motions will draw the future battle lines.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The deem trick wouldn't be needed if they could legitimately muster the votes to pass a single bill in both the House and the Senate. If the term "nefarious" strictly describes the picture of them dodging the intent of the constitution with parliamentaries, it would be absolutely accurate.

Where are you getting this "dodging the intent of the constitution"? Please demonstrate where this comes from, and how having them vote on the bill in a manner consistent with their own internal proceedings, that still involves a vote, and which really comes down to nothing more than combining two votes into one is in any way a "trick" or nefarious.

	Certainly. That's what happens with all policy packages and with all political candidates. The more we know about them, the more we love them. It will be a steep, uphill battle.

If the more they know about it the better they view it, which you agree with, then the only way it will be a "steep, uphill battle" is if the other side takes to actively lying about it in such a way that it is difficulty to refute, and people believe them over the truth.

Otherwise more talking about it can only be a good thing for the democrats if they can pass it, because as they learn more, their impressions will improve.

	The 3/17 WSJ/NBC poll pegs Americans at 48 to 36 against the bill. FOX finds 55 to 35 against. Pew finds 48 to 38 against.

This is what we call "Cherry Picking." YouGov/Polimetrix (3/6-8) places it at 50-50. PPP (3/12-14) puts it at 45-49. Ap-GfK (3/3-8) puts it at 41-43. The
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is 43.4% for and 48.9% against.

But these are just the topline results. The numbers have been
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. The
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
has a majority of support when taken individually, with some parts of it (the health insurance exchange, tax credits) gaining extremely large shares.

	Despite having relatively few supporters and many passionate detractors,

Nice rhetoric, but I've never known having 43% of the country--and climbing--support something to qualify as having "relatively few supporters."

	the plan will no doubt grow on all of us, as those benighted detractors peruse through its bulk and realize what a fabulous thing it is.

Again, many of those detractors find that they like large amounts of the bill, even if there are things in it they don't like.

	But more important than principles is money-- this new plan will shuffle it around like every entitlement, and those motions will draw the future battle lines.

More rhetoric: The CBO's estimate is that this saves money over the next ten years.

[rahdam]

Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But these are just the topline results. The numbers have been To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . The To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. has a majority of support when taken individually, with some parts of it (the health insurance exchange, tax credits) gaining extremely large shares.

If I wrote a bill that promised everyone in America a free dinner once a week, it would have widespread support. In this same bill, I also give all Americans an automobile entitlement and a gasoline entitlement. To provide this entitlement, I will raise income taxes. Sure, most of the provisions in this bill will have widespread support. But taking the provisions individually does not paint a fair picture of the reality of those entitlements.

Then again, Americans do have a certain disconnect between desire and cost.