Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[rjs246]

Who will the quality of care go down for? Will it go down for the people who can't afford health care and therefore go without? Will it go down for the people who think that they have health insurance and then get dropped after they get sick? Or will it only go down for healthy wealthy people who can afford health insurance and only have minor health problems?

Oh right, quality of care will only go down for that last group because they're the only ones who currently get decent affordable care. But guess what. That group is rapidly shrinking as health insurance costs go up.

I get that you think you are only attacking the specifics of the most recent attempt at reform. In theory you're all for reforming the system. The problem is that there is no perfect bill and reform as always will have to come in phases (lacking some sort of social societal revolution, the likes of which this country has never seen). The general tide of people who are currently fighting Health Care reform are doing way more harm than good.

[Seabiscuit36]

ME A ZOMBIE I EAT OUT YOUR BRAIN....SHOOT HEROIN AND SChMOKE COCAIiiIIIN!!

[rjs246]

BTW, I don't like the current bill either. But if it gets passed the government will be forced to try to make it work which will force changes, hopefully for the better. I hate to take that stance and attitude but this never-ending trend of obstructionist politics is infuriating.

Edit: Holy shtein. Seabiscuit wins.

[Munson]

BTW, I don't like the current bill either. But if it gets passed the government will be forced to try to make it work which will force changes, hopefully for the better. I hate to take that stance and attitude but this never-ending trend of obstructionist politics is infuriating.

Edit: Holy shtein. Seabiscuit wins.

This. America would be so much better off if politicians spent more time on finding ways to get bits and pieces of their philosophies into bills through compromise and less time worrying about trashing the other sides ideas and stopping them at all costs.

[shorebird]

Who will the quality of care go down for? Will it go down for the people who can't afford health care and therefore go without? Will it go down for the people who think that they have health insurance and then get dropped after they get sick? Or will it only go down for healthy wealthy people who can afford health insurance and only have minor health problems?

Oh right, quality of care will only go down for that last group because they're the only ones who currently get decent affordable care. But guess what. That group is rapidly shrinking as health insurance costs go up.

I get that you think you are only attacking the specifics of the most recent attempt at reform. In theory you're all for reforming the system. The problem is that there is no perfect bill and reform as always will have to come in phases (lacking some sort of social societal revolution, the likes of which this country has never seen). The general tide of people who are currently fighting Health Care reform are doing way more harm than good.

You have insurance don't you? Are you wealthy?? What is with the attitude that only the wealthy get decent affordable care?? Rediculous. What about the guy who works for a company making 50k a year and has insurance his company helps pay for? The quality will go down for him and his family if you have the friggen' government telling his doctors what they can and can't do for him.

But, hopefully you're right, and changes will be made. By the looks of it now, they must be made and I think physicians should have a big hand in how it's done. I haven't seen one single doctor who likes whats in the bill. Even Obama's old doctor from Chicago has said that the bill is bound for failure.

Check out what this guy says.

[rjs246]

You have insurance don't you? Are you wealthy?? What is with the attitude that only the wealthy get decent affordable care??

I have great health insurance because the company I work for is European owned. It covers everything that my my (relatively) young and (relatively) healthy ass could need. But the insurance company is American and guess what, if I got diagnosed with some sort of congenital heart defect and had to stop working to get treatment and my insurance company found out that I smoked regularly in college and occasionally after college they could, and probably would, drop my coverage.

That would leave me on my own to find an insurer who would be willing to cover me with what is now considered a 'pre-existing' condition. I would probably have to go back to work and pay an inflated price for the insurance myself, assuming I could find an insurer who would even cover me. I would go bankrupt from paying exorbitant premiums, or I could go bankrupt faster by having to pay for treatment out of pocket, just like people do every day.

But yeah, I've got insurance. It even covers acupuncture up to 4 visits a year!!

[phillymic2000]

Something defiantly needs to be done, but this ain't it. I don't want health care that has the government telling my doctor what he can do for me, how to treat me, or what meds to give me. If I get sick I don't want the government giving me a number and telling me to get in line to be operated on or treated. I don't want the government telling me I can't get a kidney or whatever, because I'm too old. I don't want health care that tells doctors what they can and can't do based on how much money is available. If people have the money or the insurance they should be able to get the best care they can afford. I'm not saying that the current health care situation isn't flawed, because it is. I just think whatever happens that the government shouldn't be in so much control over it.

You miss my point. Insurance companies are crooks, period. My problem is with the government telling doctors who to treat and how to treat them.

Well if this ain't it--and by "this," I'm not sure what you mean because we've got several different ideas kicking around--what should it be?  Right now all those things you are talking about are happening, but instead of the big evil government you so enjoy hating, the beaurocracies making those decisions are the filthy rich insurance companies.  Insurance companies are telling doctors how to treat patients.  Insurance companies are bankrupting hard working Americans.  Insurance companies are denying coverage because it won't make them any money.

Now I'm a pinko commie fag liberal, so given the choice between a government run plan and a corporation run plan, I prefer the former by far, if only because the government is held to a much higher legal standard for fairness, transparency, and accountability.  Corporations can do whatever they want behind the curtain of "trade/competition secrets," and don't have to give an open account of damn near anything they do.

The holy holy free and wild capitalism you conservatives worship flat out doesn't work as the sole model of delivering health care.  The profit motive simply cannot compete against the health motive.

rjs' post above is spot on.  The last point in particular begs the question of all you conservatives:  where is your patriotism now that you will be asked to pitch in for the good of the country?  You people demand that you get everything you have now or better, that you suffer no cost of any kind whether monetary or even simple inconvenience, even as 47 million Americans struggle through life without health care.   The degree of selfishness and obstinacy on display amongst your tribe is appalling. 

To borrow and re-purpose a phrase already well directed at your kind before: Have you people no decency?

I pitch in every day, I work and pay taxes.

farg you, I work my ass off to provide for my family, and I have no problem paying taxes, it's the dipshteins (both sides) that cant run the gov.

been there, I went from the age of 19 to 25 without insurance ( 4 of those years with the wifey also uninsured). it is a problem, but this answer is not it. THe fargin big man himself does not know what the whole plan is, but pimps it like its the fargin bomb. The plan written as of now and everything the president has said is pointing for a single payer with insurance companies being wiped out and the gov. running everything. THe proof has been posted on this thread so deny all you want.

[Sgt PSN]

i wonder what insurance company gerard butler uses.  i bet it's a good one. 

[phillymic2000]

i wonder what insurance company gerard butler uses.  i bet it's a good one. 

is it the same one Teddy K. used? that has seemed to work pretty well for him, since he was the maker of the HMO's and all.

[ice grillin you]

at this point i hope whatever health bill the right wing loonies dont want passes...nothing is going to change for me....millions of uninsured will get coverage...and best of all it will piss those hatemongering lunatics off to no end

[fansince61]

Also, I don't care how many times you say that the insurance countries tell doctors how to treat patients now, they don't do it to the extent that the government will if this plan passes. But keep saying it and eventually it might become true.

This is the dumbest shtein I've ever read. Insurance companies are driven by one factor. Profit. And yet somehow you expect them to provide better more consumer friendly oversight than a government that is basically in place to assist the people in a program that is designed to provide a service to those people?

Dumbest farging thing I've ever heard.

Anyone who believes the government can run a better healthcare plan than competing private sector companies easily qualifies as "centerfold of the century" for "Liberal Delusional Magazine"  

[rjs246]

Also, I don't care how many times you say that the insurance countries tell doctors how to treat patients now, they don't do it to the extent that the government will if this plan passes. But keep saying it and eventually it might become true.

This is the dumbest shtein I've ever read. Insurance companies are driven by one factor. Profit. And yet somehow you expect them to provide better more consumer friendly oversight than a government that is basically in place to assist the people in a program that is designed to provide a service to those people?

Dumbest farging thing I've ever heard.

Anyone who believes the government can run a better healthcare plan than competing private sector companies easily qualifies as "centerfold of the century" for "Liberal Delusional Magazine"

Ronald Reagan made a campaign statement 30 years ago and you still haven't recovered. Government is not inherently inept. Cutting government out of everything is not the solution to every problem. In fact, Government is held far more accountable than insurance companies are. Not to mention the fact that government largess is almost universally caused by providing services for its people. Insurance companies are driven by profit. Not by quality of service or a desire to assist its 'people'. Profit. That's it. And what that has led to is a system where coverage gets more and more expensive while more and more people are dropped from coverage and are left to rot while they go bankrupt trying to get treated.

Not one person has come up with one iota of information that suggests that insurance companies are doing a better job of providing quality coverage than the government could. Meanwhile there are literally mountains of evidence that they are deliberately screwing over the entire population in the name of the almighty buck. But people are clinging to this kneejerk asinine belief that government 'is the problem'. It would be laughable if it weren't so goddamned pathetic.

[ice grillin you]

what kills me about the conservatives is that they worship reagan because he was supposedly so anti govt....yet the federal govt actually grew under reagan....he saved and then greatly expanded the social security program....he created a new agency in the dept of veteran affairs and expanded the federal work force by over 50,000 (in contrast clinton cut it by over 300 thousand when he was in office)...he also raised taxes four times in his first term alone

[fansince61]

Government does things that nothing else can but "saving money and controlling costs" are not what government does.  Unionized monopolies never have and never will be competitive or efficient (staffing, salaries, benefits and retirement packages are way out of line).

And yes, executives at some private insurance companies should be charged with manslaughter and spend the rest of there lives clearing swamps in Georgia.

BTW, how many new corporate jets did congress order for their travel?  What happened to flying commercial when you're losing money?

[rjs246]

You're talking about two different things. The government can and has controlled costs. See the Clinton years for an example.

Unions are not in the business of controlling costs. You're very right about that. They are in the business of getting as much for their members as they can. Opposition and side effects be damned.

I agree that unions need to be put in check much more stringently than they currently are, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this conversation.