2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[lockmat]

Why don't we try and fix our current system first and go after the insurance companies?

Also, if we went to universal health care, how would that affect the quality? Would it decrease competition and therefore make the quality go down? Would our best doctors go to different countries who pay better?

[RedScare]

Who's going after moms? I've been inferring towards men this entire conversation. The only people going after moms are the liberals on this board who think a woman can't be a mother and a politician. How ironic.

Assuming you mean able bodied men, which programs would you be referring to? Please be specific.

[memebag]

Why don't we try and fix our current system first and go after the insurance companies?

Here's a guess: because insurance companies have great big lobbies.

Also, if we went to universal health care, how would that affect the quality? Would it decrease competition and therefore make the quality go down? Would our best doctors go to different countries who pay better?

Look at life expectancy and quality of life statistics from nations with universal health care for those answers. Also try to find a copy of "Sick Around the World", a PBS Frontline that provided a good introduction to health care in industrialized nations. It will answer many of your questions.

[RedScare]

Why don't we try and fix our current system first and go after the insurance companies?

Also, if we went to universal health care, how would that affect the quality? Would it decrease competition and therefore make the quality go down? Would our best doctors go to different countries who pay better?

To be blunt, going after insurance companies would first involve getting their Republican protectors out of office. However, I am all for reforming the health insurance industry. Let's reform the home insurance industry too, while we're at it.

To answer your earlier question, absolutely would I pay more in taxes for a universal health care system. Of course, that is a qualified 'yes'. Universal healthcare, or the more commonly used 'socialized medicine' is not a single defined system. It can be anything the citizens demand that it be. It need not be the worst examples that opponents throw out, and it need not cover designer private hospital rooms. It could look like the systems employed by Germany, Great Britain, France or Canada, all of which are different, yet all of which provide universal coverage.

A universal coverage system could piggyback on the current health insurance system by providing insurance premium assistance to low income families, or it could expand Medicaid/Medicare. Even a system that replaced private health insurance would still allow private insurance that provided better coverage and care for those who desire it. The system could function similar to Mitt Romney's system in Massachusetts, which he now disavows, or it could look more like Mike Huckabee's proposal for 'wellness', or providing preventative care, thus reducing the need for expensive surgery once the damage is done. Personally, I prefer preventative care proposals, as they are at the same time less expensive, and encourage a healthier populace, our ultimate goal.

I mentioned earlier that a primary reason that I left self employment was the cost of providing health insurance for myself and my employees. Universal coverage would have allowed me to stay self employed and insured, while also reducing the costs of hiring employees. Try hiring good employees without offering them health insurance. Universal health care is a plus for small business. Those who tell you otherwise have ulterior motives or have never been self employed. This comes from a guy who used to sign the checks.

EDIT: Commenting on memebag's post that follows, though it does not get much airplay, the head of GM has commented that it would be in GM's )and therefore, the US's) best interest to have universal healthcare, as well.

[memebag]

I mentioned earlier that a primary reason that I left self employment was the cost of providing health insurance for myself and my employees. Universal coverage would have allowed me to stay self employed and insured, while also reducing the costs of hiring employees. Try hiring good employees without offering them health insurance. Universal health care is a plus for small business. Those who tell you otherwise have ulterior motives or have never been self employed. This comes from a guy who used to sign the checks.

That's not just a benefit for small business. In that Frontline doc, folks from a Japanese rail company said it would be impossible for them to stay in business if they had to pay the insurance premiums that US companies pay.

There is no free lunch. But there are wasteful, expensive, stupid lunches, and health care in the US is one of those kinds of lunch.

[RedScare]

This is downright creepy...and scary.

[TheNiche]

The people who complain the loudest about 'self reliance' did probably not watch a friend file bankruptcy after defaulting on a loan to pay for chemotherapy, because they could only get the treatment by paying up front (over $30,000) because they were uninsured.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that someone would file for bankruptcy as a result of healthcare bills. They got the loan, probably at a pretty high interest rate (which is realistic, considering the risk of such uncollateralized loans), got the treatment, and only had to declare bankruptcy. It is only unfortunate that usury laws would probably prevent them from being able to get another loan in case they need a second round of treatment.

All the same, it seems to me like they got a pretty good deal. If I ruled the world, I'd probably relax bankruptcy protection. Indentured servitude is a viable alternative.

The people who rail against 'socialist' health insurance reform probably did not watch their best friend die of AIDS complications because they couldn't afford to buy the latest and most effective drug therapies, because despite the fact that they were educated and employed, their employer did not provide health benefits, and they were unable to buy private health insurance for $600 a month, because they were caring for an eldery parent at the same time as being sick themselves.

That's unfortunate. But AIDS is an especially good example of a case where personal responsibility is the name of the game. Why should the general public bail out someone who took a risk with their health and lost? And why should it necessarily matter to some stranger that the AIDS victim was your friend? I'm sure that there are millions of people out there that deeply care about AIDS. I would suggest that they engage in and promote AIDS-related charities. But there are definitely competing interests, not only within the realm of healthcare, but with respect to other social programs and also personal material issues. People that desire to fund AIDS treatment and research should not have a means to extort resources from those that do not share in their interests. That is criminal.

Meanwhile, of the billions spent in Iraq, how much goes to KBR, who usese tax payer-funded, no-bid contract money to hire near-slave labor from India and Pakistan to 'support the troops, ' and is moving HQ to Dubai, thereby further avoiding things like taxes and accountability.

KBR is still listed on our stock exchanges. They will have to comply with SEC regulations, no matter where their official headquarters is. To the extent that an illegal act was committed in the contracting process, an investigation should ensue and those responsible should be imprisoned and fined. If there are loopholes in the law that reduce accountability, they need to be fixed.

Corruption is an unfortunate reality; Congress cannot pass a law that will end it. But if you think KBR is a big problem, start investigating Medicare. The system is broken; fraud within the system is rampant, totally out of control. It seems almost as though privately-owned healthcare organizations are to the point that they can't even break even without embracing fraud.

What disturbs me most is how so many young people are so venomous. They must be feeling mighty bulletproof (or have a couple of hundred grand socked away in the name of 'responsibility') because fortunes change quickly, and payback is a delicate flower. Once life teaches a lessen or two in the real economics of need, sickness, and death, one gains perspective pretty damn fast.

Life has no sanctity, at least where public policy is concerned.

Life does have an economic value. Sometimes the extension of life does not justify the costs. What if an old fart without income (i.e. that is producing nothing for society) is likely to need $500,000 of care in order to live another two years...on an oxygen tank...confined to his home? If he's earned and saved the money or if those that care about him (whether family, friends, or charitible strangers) can raise the funds for his treatment, then he should receive the care. If he can't raise the money, he should not receive the treatment, even if that means that he dies shortly thereafter. He has no right to steal from a stranger. His mortality does not make him entitled.

EDIT: Incidentally, if that same man were offered the present value (in cash) of his treatment earlier in his life, say back when he was physically able to enjoy it, on the condition that it could not be applied to a medical treatment that would extend a miserable life...do you think he would opt to enjoy the money and sacrifice a couple years...or do you think that he'd keep the treatment? I think most people would live for today!

Amen. No textbook required. No hyper, theoretical, long winded economic analysis required. Just real life experience is all that is needed.

From my perspective, it seems like a lot of people here don't know how to live life and accept death. It's good to be able to do that. It's healthy.

[TheNiche]

If my taxes were raised and we received a national health plan then I'd be elated!

If my taxes were raised and we had a decent system of welfare for the working poor then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and pell grants were expanded and affordable education was offered to all then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and we spent that money on our own roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc... then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and we saw that public parks wouldn't have to worry about selling off mineral rights to make it then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and invested in funding for alternative energy research then I'd be elated.

I'm satisfied with raising your taxes to fund your social welfare issues.

I am deeply disturbed that you are so arrogant as to believe that your system of morality is in any way superior to that of individuals that would disagree with you. You're no better than religious zealots that would have their morality inflicted upon you.

[crunchtastic]

So let me get this straight. Everyone who supports universal health care, or some variation of it, does not mind having their taxes raised in order to support it?

I'm just curious.

Without getting into plan specifics, yes, I would be ok with paying more in taxes for universal health care.

And Niche, you know exactly what my point is. The current model of private insurance and big pharma- run healthcare is broken. That someone has to choose between financial ruin, or living at all, because they couldn't afford premium payments for private insurance (that they wouldn't get because they were sick to begin with) is shameful. It is unacceptable. Don't insult me by bringing up 'charity' and 'personal responsiblity'. I'm talking about people dying, or having to choose financial ruin, for no reason other than they don't have the cash.

Many people think it's just a load of poor illegal freeloaders and welfare mothers--it's not. Educated, middle class white people are increasingly falling through the cracks of the system. That was the point of my admittedly hyperbolic post.

[lockmat]

I'm satisfied with raising your taxes to fund your social welfare issues.

I am deeply disturbed that you are so arrogant as to believe that your system of morality is in any way superior to that of individuals that would disagree with you. You're no better than religious zealots that would have their morality inflicted upon you.

You can't be totally against taxes funding different things. If we use that logic, you'd be against funding anything, saying that we'd be inflicting our own desires upon others. What about taxes from pacifists funding the military, people who don't want to fund roads, pay our police? We have to pay taxes for some things, right?

Or do you think there are a few basic things taxes should fund and then nothing else? I'm not criticizing, just a little confused and curious of your logic.

Without getting into plan specifics, yes, I would be ok with paying more in taxes for universal health care.

Maybe the question should be, at what point would you not be willing to pay more taxes? there's got to be a breaking point where enough is enough. Meme says it doesn't take as much as we think to fund it. Meme, do you remember a percentage or any kind of figure pbs says those residents pay to fund universal health care?

I'm satisfied with raising your taxes to fund your social welfare issues.

I have an idea. What if funding universal health care was like your energy bill. You know, how they ask if you want to pay extra for wind energy? When you pay your taxes, you can check the box and say yes. Those who want to fund universal health care could put their money where their mouth is?

[TheNiche]

You can't be totally against taxes funding different things. If we use that logic, you'd be against funding anything, saying that we'd be inflicting our own desires upon others. What about taxes from pacifists funding the military, people who don't want to fund roads, pay our police? We have to pay taxes for some things, right?

Or do you think there are a few basic things taxes should fund and then nothing else? I'm not criticizing, just a little confused and curious of your logic.

I'm not against all government spending, and I don't know what gave you that idea. I'm only totally against government transfer payments ($1.5 trillion per year as of 2005, per the Census Bureau).

[RedScare]

Maybe the question should be, at what point would you not be willing to pay more taxes? there's got to be a breaking point where enough is enough. Meme says it doesn't take as much as we think to fund it. Meme, do you remember a percentage or any kind of figure pbs says those residents pay to fund universal health care?

The simple answer to that would be when the increase in taxes provided no improvement over the status quo. Not all plans are created equal. While it may seem like waffling, there are plenty of universal healthcare plans that would be a disaster. The trick is to advocate for an EFFECTIVE plan. And that requires answering the tough questions, such as memebag brought up, like when do we stop life saving or life prolonging procedures? There must be tradeoffs, and one of them is that a safety net for ALL people cannot be a safety net made of kevlar. To keep costs in line, we must accept that at some point we must allow some citizens with advanced illnesses or injuries to die.

[lockmat]

I'm not against all government spending, and I don't know what gave you that idea. I'm only totally against government transfer payments.

makes sense. my bad

[RedScare]

I'm not against all government spending, and I don't know what gave you that idea. I'm only totally against government transfer payments.

He is FOR government spending for those things HE approves of. Just like the rest of us. Personally, I am FOR government spending on healthcare.

Simple concept, and when more people agree with me than agree with Niche, it will happen, regardless how many economic or faux constitutional theories Niche throws out.

[lockmat]

The simple answer to that would be when the increase in taxes provided no improvement over the status quo. Not all plans are created equal. While it may seem like waffling, there are plenty of universal healthcare plans that would be a disaster. The trick is to advocate for an EFFECTIVE plan. And that requires answering the tough questions, such as memebag brought up, like when do we stop life saving or life prolonging procedures? There must be tradeoffs, and one of them is that a safety net for ALL people cannot be a safety net made of kevlar. To keep costs in line, we must accept that at some point we must allow some citizens with advanced illnesses or injuries to die.

Does this mean the govt will decide when its time to let someone die or when it's okay to go on with a life saving procedure? How do other countries deal with that problem?

He is FOR government spending for those things HE approves of. Just like the rest of us. Personally, I am FOR government spending on healthcare.

edit: i have to remember to read when responding

[RedScare]

Does this mean the govt will decide when its time to let someone die or when it's okay to go on with a life saving procedure? How do other countries deal with that problem?

In a word, yes. A likely scenario would involve a panel of medical experts that would decide which procedures could be funded and at what cost. Then Congress decides how much money will be allocated. Those procedures that are affordable would be included and those procedures that are not affordable are not. Ultimately, the voters decide just how much healthcare we should provide. Gap insurance can cover procedures not covered by universal healthcare, just as it does with Medicare.

[BryanS]

This is downright creepy...and scary.

Saw this earlier today... The Iraq war, part of "God's plan." ... "Let's all pray for that multi-billion dollar pipeline..." or whatever it was.

Actually, Palin may just do the trick. McCain knows he's old. The radical right republican base knows he's old. What better way to turn out the vote, for him, than by giving them the gift of a Scalia/Thomas like person in the executive position... to appoint the next three judges, also like Scalia/Thomas...

They love it.

Interesting that she holds the view that no abortions, under any circumstances. You'd think that rape or incest would be a sensible exception, but not with types like her.

[lockmat]

In a word, yes. A likely scenario would involve a panel of medical experts that would decide which procedures could be funded and at what cost. Then Congress decides how much money will be allocated. Those procedures that are affordable would be included and those procedures that are not affordable are not. Ultimately, the voters decide just how much healthcare we should provide. Gap insurance can cover procedures not covered by universal healthcare, just as it does with Medicare.

and the same for emergency situations? This seems awfully ineffeicient. Is it? How do they combat that?

[BryanS]

So let me get this straight. Everyone who supports universal health care, or some variation of it, does not mind having their taxes raised in order to support it?

I'm just curious.

We collect plenty in taxes. Maybe a little more would be needed, but not much. I would gladly pay more. But at the end of the day, we just need to adjust our priorities. Over 40 million have no health care insurance. That is a national disaster.

If socialized "free" health care is good enough for the US military, and the entire nation of Canada, certainly it can be good enough for all of us.

[lockmat]

We collect plenty in taxes. Maybe a little more would be needed, but not much. I would gladly pay more. But at the end of the day, we just need to adjust our priorities. Over 40 million have no health care insurance. That is a national diaster.

If socialized "free" health care is good enough for the US military, and the entire nation of Canada, certainly it can be good enough for all of us.

In a perfect world, we'd eliminate all earmarks and pork barrell spending and we could easily fund needed things. Looks like our govt. spends like many americans. Or is it the other way around?

Too bad it's not a perfect world, eh?

[crunchtastic]

Does this mean the govt will decide when its time to let someone die or when it's okay to go on with a life saving procedure? How do other countries deal with that problem?

Yes, just like the government decides who lives and dies when it executes someone, or shoots mortar rounds into a village in the desert and hopes they're hitting the bad guys. Government is too far down the 'playing god' slope to let that be an argument against health care reform. Currently, private insurance companies are doing the deciding.

Like Red says, treatments would have to set by guidleines and gap insurance covers the rest. The good news is, there are many lessons to be learned from the rest of the world. Other countries have covered this ground before and we can benefit from analysis of their policies.

[BryanS]

So is the pre-requisite for being self reliant and independent in this society that you have to watch someone else suffer because the system failed them? What a crock. How about instead of crying for those on welfare all day because their company doesn't pay them enough, you instead encourage them either financially or emotionally to find a better job, or to join a union?

Of course not. And its not about the system failing them, it's about the system failing you. Even with your good job, and insurance, you could still lose it all. Policy limits could kick in, forcing you into foreclosure. You may be changing jobs and not have coverage. You could get fired. All this means, that you are vulnerable. We all are. If there is one safety net our society needs, it is universal health care. That is what I was commenting on, not necessarily welfare as we know it today.

[musicman]

I think I'll leave this topic to the shallow.

[BryanS]

In a perfect world, we'd eliminate all earmarks and pork barrell spending and we could easily fund needed things. Looks like our govt. spends like many americans. Or is it the other way around?

Too bad it's not a perfect world, eh?

Well. The country to the north has a good pattern we could follow. Right there under our nose. Not a perfect world, but this isn't rocket science either.

[crunchtastic]

and the same for emergency situations? This seems awfully ineffeicient. Is it? How do they combat that?

Emergency situations are far different from experimental procedures, or the expense involved in keeping someone alive in a vegetative state. In energency situation, the medical code of ethics and available resources in terms of medical equipment dictate what doctors to do keep a patient alive.

Assume we have single payer universal health coverage. When you get wheeled into the emergency room because you chainsawed your leg off, the triage nurse is not going to be consulting the Big Book of Procedures. They're going to keep you from bleeding to death. Just like they do now.

The difference is, you don't get 6 different bills totalling $5,000 for your trip to the ER, even though you had health insurance. I have good insurance, and I was shocked at how much it cost me out- of- pocket to ride in an ambulance to an out of town emergency room just to get 50 stitches in my leg. Nearly 3k!! And that was after arguing some of the charges.

[sarahiki]

Emergency situations are far different from experimental procedures, or the expense involved in keeping someone alive in a vegetative state. In energency situation, the medical code of ethics and available resources in terms of medical equipment dictate what doctors to do keep a patient alive.

Assume we have single payer universal health coverage. When you get wheeled into the emergency room because you chainsawed your leg off, the triage nurse is not going to be consulting the Big Book of Procedures. They're going to keep you from bleeding to death. Just like they do now.

The difference is, you don't get 6 different bills totalling $5,000 for your trip to the ER, even though you had health insurance. I have good insurance, and I was shocked at how much it cost me out- of- pocket to ride in an ambulance to an out of town emergency room just to get 50 stitches in my leg. Nearly 3k!! And that was after arguing some of the charges.

To get back to the topic of Obama v. McCain, it's worth noting that Obama isn't proposing socialized medicine, like they have in Canada or the UK. It's a system like we have now, but with the gaps in coverage filled in. Theoretically, everyone saves money because the guv'ment will get involved (gasp!) and cut costs. Examples of how costs would be cut, and answers to questions such as "how will this be paid for?" and "how will small businesses cover their employees?" can be found here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

[lockmat]

Well. The country to the north has a good pattern we could follow. Right there under our nose. Not a perfect world, but this isn't rocket science either.

I'm pretty sure it was PBS when I saw this, but they showed people in Canada were going to vetinary hospitals to get simple things done like x-rays and MRIs.

To get back to the topic of Obama v. McCain, it's worth noting that Obama isn't proposing socialized medicine, like they have in Canada or the UK. It's a system like we have now, but with the gaps in coverage filled in. Theoretically, everyone saves money because the guv'ment will get involved (gasp!) and cut costs. Examples of how costs would be cut, and answers to questions such as "how will this be paid for?" and "how will small businesses cover their employees?" can be found here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Would middle and upper classes benefit at all? Will they save any money on an ambulence ride etc? Or do only the lower middle class and poor benefit when the govt. fills the gap?

[sarahiki]

I'm pretty sure it was PBS when I saw this, but they showed people in Canada were going to vetinary hospitals to get simple things done like x-rays and MRIs.

Would middle and upper classes benefit at all? Will they save any money on an ambulence ride etc? Or do only the lower middle class and poor benefit when the govt. fills the gap?

Well, according to the information posted in the link, an average family could save $2500/year because of reduced costs. I guess you can give it a read and see if you find that figure credible.

[BryanS]

I'm pretty sure it was PBS when I saw this, but they showed people in Canada were going to vetinary hospitals to get simple things done like x-rays and MRIs.

Really? Even pets in Canada get better health care than pets in the US. MRIs? For a pet? I find that hard to believe.

If you want a more balanced view of Canada's health care system, and the problems with ours, I highly recommend a movie made by this man on the subject.

EDIT: I couldn't resist. Did a google search for MRIs for pets... found this:

General anesthesia is necessary, since the MRI generates considerable noise and requires that the patient remain still for 10-60 minutes. Due to expense and space requirements, veterinarians who want to use MRI technology usually have the procedure performed at a nearby human hospital.

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=0&cat=1475&articleid=1003

So I guess in Canada... they have MRIs at both hospitals and the vets office. Good for them. Here in the states, we have to send pets to human hospitals to get MRIs... yet we probably wouldn't offer an MRI to a human (or human's insurance company) that can't/won't pay for it...

[lockmat]

If you want a more balanced view of Canada's health care system, and the problems with ours, I highly recommend a movie made by this man on the subject.

Ok, really. I've tried to be fair, but this is just too much.