U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[maiforpeace]

This should come as no surprise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/po ... party.html

Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, . . .

The tea partier's hypocrisy just never ends, does it?

[Woodbutcher]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

You think that doesn't apply to insurance companies NOW?

Yes, insurance companies, now, do not have to insure "children" until the age of 26. I loved the massive cheers that Obama got when he patted himself on the back about this provision. Mandating coverage of "children" on their parents policies until the age of 26... what a joke. And, yes, there is a variety of different insurance options available now with differing prescription drug, mental health and substance abuse services covered. That's because they're not mandated now.

And, yes, right now, you get to see your coverages before you buy the policy. If, however, you are too lazy to work with the insurance agent to understand what you're covered for, then you might not know what's in the policy. But, the article is mentioning that the Department of HHS would be able to decide what's covered and what's not as a matter of government policy, and they didn't have to tell us that before the bill became law (and they still haven't told us that).

So, you are in favor of an insurance system where you don't even know what's covered, or how much it's going to cost. That is good enough for most Kool-Aid drinkers though, because it's not about the facts for them, it's about a socialist ideology and long term socialist agenda. Any way we get their is fine with them - the ends justify the means.

[MissingNo.]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

I can't believe people are dragging their feet over this. Tales of long waiting times in Canadian hospitals strike me as myths. I live in the most populous city in Canada and I've been to the emergency room many times in my life thanks to my severe asthma. I've never had to wait for a stretch of time that would be considered exorbitant - maybe a couple hours at the most. If there's a life-threatening emergency where every second is critical, of course the doctors will see that patient first but this is not true for the majority of cases. I find the long wait times argument abhorrent anyway. They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!" Also, people seem to have this idea that socialized medicine means free healthcare. Everyone still pays for their healthcare, they just pay for it with taxes, cutting out the insurance company middleman who is seeking a profit. The biggest problem with this bill is it hasn't socialized healthcare nearly enough.

[Martok]

This should come as no surprise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/po ... party.html

Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, . . .

The tea partier's hypocrisy just never ends, does it?

Nope, the guy who urged tea baggers to throw bricks into windows is receiving disability.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_c ... nderboegh/

[Martok]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

I can't believe people are dragging their feet over this. Tales of long waiting times in Canadian hospitals strike me as myths. I live in the most populous city in Canada and I've been to the emergency room many times in my life thanks to my severe asthma. I've never had to wait for a stretch of time that would be considered exorbitant - maybe a couple hours at the most. If there's a life-threatening emergency where every second is critical, of course the doctors will see that patient first but this is not true for the majority of cases. I find the long wait times argument abhorrent anyway. They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!" Also, people seem to have this idea that socialized medicine means free healthcare. Everyone still pays for their healthcare, they just pay for it with taxes, cutting out the insurance company middleman who is seeking a profit. The biggest problem with this bill is it hasn't socialized healthcare nearly enough.

The problem with this health care bill is that its essentially the same thing Mitt Romney and Scott Brown supported in Massachusetts.

[Surendra Darathy]

Of course, the bill may bear no relation to the deductible, especially if there is collusion. That's how costs rise.

Yes, right. We are in agreement. The bill does bear no relationship to the deductible. Once the deductible is exceeded, then the insurance company pays, and that's that, basically (except some policies have different provisions than others).

I think what you know is that they figured out a way to cap the billing, and that "price controls" is like red flag to a libertarian boi. If they did not implement price controls, then we are all living in a pipe dream, regardless of whether we live in your universe or mine.

I'm not a Libertarian. So stop calling me one.

One does not need to be a Libertarian to oppose this new law.

Sure. Again I agree. One does not need to be a libertarian to oppose it. For example, simple-minded perfectionism could be used to justify one's opposition. As in "let's not change anything until we can fix it completely". That's the kind of wankery known as think-tankery. Such people live in a Platonic universe of ideal forms, in this case of "health care".

Reduced to its essentials, some kinds of conservatism deify the status quo. In a chess match, this is called "Zugzwang".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

SSDD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01445.html

[Surendra Darathy]

They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!"

There's another issue that dovetails nicely with this: People with money don't want to pay taxes because they can buy all the services they need. The American Dream is a society with no poor people in it, at least not visibly. Don't know where they got that from. Peru, maybe.

Two hundred years after the French Revolution, France still has wealthy people and poor people, but universal health care, and a lot less guillotining going on. Calvinism has died off a bit, there.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course, the bill may bear no relation to the deductible, especially if there is collusion. That's how costs rise.

Yes, right. We are in agreement. The bill does bear no relationship to the deductible. Once the deductible is exceeded, then the insurance company pays, and that's that, basically (except some policies have different provisions than others).

I think what you know is that they figured out a way to cap the billing, and that "price controls" is like red flag to a libertarian boi. If they did not implement price controls, then we are all living in a pipe dream, regardless of whether we live in your universe or mine.

I'm not a Libertarian. So stop calling me one.

One does not need to be a Libertarian to oppose this new law.

Sure. Again I agree. One does not need to be a libertarian to oppose it. For example, simple-minded perfectionism could be used to justify one's opposition.

And, moronic idealism can be used to justify support for it.

As in "let's not change anything until we can fix it completely".

Or, "let's just do something, even if it's worse."

That's the kind of wankery known as think-tankery. Such people live in a Platonic universe of ideal forms, in this case of "health care".

And, Obama apologists just avoid thinking altogether and say "yes" because "hope" and "change" will "make it all better."

Reduced to its essentials, some kinds of conservatism deify the status quo. In a chess match, this is called "Zugzwang".

Reduced to its essentials, some kinds of liberalism deify all proposals for change that sound good. We all want everyone to receive needed healthcare, therefore anything that the guys we like and approve of suggest for getting us there is good enough for us. It's called "drinking the Kool Aid."

[Coito ergo sum]

They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!"

There's another issue that dovetails nicely with this: People with money don't want to pay taxes

Does anyone "want" to pay taxes? I mean, taxes for their own sake are not a good thing. Taxes should be paid when necessary. I don't know any poor people who want to pay taxes either.

because they can buy all the services they need.

The implication that people with money don't pay taxes is a myth. The top 20% of income earners pay 80% of all the taxes. If they paid 85% of all the taxes, would that be enough? Or, should the top 20% pay 99% of all the taxes? Somewhere between 80% and 99% of all the taxes?

The American Dream is a society with no poor people in it,

I don't think that's the American dream at all. The American Dream is, in short - liberty and opportunity. The American way has never been about guaranteeing people things. It's your right to place a negative value judgment on that, but that is the American tradition.

at least not visibly. Don't know where they got that from. Peru, maybe

From nowhere, because I don't think the concept of "the American Dream" was "no poor people."

Two hundred years after the French Revolution, France still has wealthy people and poor people, but universal health care, and a lot less guillotining going on. Calvinism has died off a bit, there.

Yes, France does have poor people, even with their version universal health care (which is not "free").

[Surendra Darathy]

I don't think that's the American dream at all. The American Dream is, in short - liberty and opportunity. The American way has never been about guaranteeing people things. It's your right to place a negative value judgment on that, but that is the American tradition.

Look who wants to give us his pre-recorded civics lecture. Perhaps you'll grace us additionally with your wisdom about just what was the meaning and result of the War Between the States. Be sure to include what you mean by "liberty" and, um, "opportunity". And what it said about how much one segment of the population is really entitled to dictate to another.

Yep, there are no guarantees in life, but that means that even if you have access to health care, it doesn't guarantee a cure. It may be that representative democracy is a pipe dream, and that the health care legislation won't fix the problems at which it is supposed to be aimed. In other words, the legislation doesn't guarantee a cure for what ails you. Live with it.

You may or may not be a first-generation American, but if you are, you'll have to do better than reciting the dogma your grandpappy brought with him from the old country.

From nowhere, because I don't think the concept of "the American Dream" was "no poor people"

.

Naah. You're right. That came much later, from the "Tea Baggers".

[Coito ergo sum]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

Platitude.

The myth of European superiority....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

Platitude.

The myth of European superiority....

'Nother platitude.

[Coito ergo sum]

With this bill the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

I can't believe people are dragging their feet over this. Tales of long waiting times in Canadian hospitals strike me as myths. I live in the most populous city in Canada and I've been to the emergency room many times in my life thanks to my severe asthma. I've never had to wait for a stretch of time that would be considered exorbitant - maybe a couple hours at the most.

Same here. Usually measured in minutes. Call an ambulance here in the States and in most places you are picked up in five minutes, and at the hospital in no time flat with immediate care.

If there's a life-threatening emergency where every second is critical, of course the doctors will see that patient first but this is not true for the majority of cases. I find the long wait times argument abhorrent anyway. They''re essentially saying "I don't want to have to wait behind all those poor people with medical emergencies - I have money!"

That's a red herring, because poor people in the US with medical emergencies do not wait longer than anyone else. The emergency room, as a matter of law, treats emergency care patients by prioritizing medical conditions.

Also, people seem to have this idea that socialized medicine means free healthcare. Everyone still pays for their healthcare,

Not everyone.

they just pay for it with taxes,

Not everyone pays taxes, and those that do often pay way less than their proportionate share per capita.

[quote="heyzeus"

cutting out the insurance company middleman who is seeking a profit.[/quote]

The new US law does not cut out insurance company middlemen.

[quote="heyzeus"

The biggest problem with this bill is it hasn't socialized healthcare nearly enough.[/quote]

Perhaps so. I too would be more supportive of single payer than this debacle. This debacle is an embarrassment. If given the choice, take Canadian single payer or this monstrosity, I'd take the former in a heartbeat.