Healthcare reform bill

withoutshoes · March 2010

Agghhh! So many good points going on that I am a bit lost. I love we are having this debate. I just wish I could take a chunk out of my day and ping topics off of each other.

I don't want to start a religion debate either but this stuck out at me and has been placed on my heart to clear this up (at least for myself)...

"I feel like this is the same as saying Christians should live word for word by the Bible. (I'm not trying to start a religious debate, I'm just making a comparison.) Do we not agree that the Bible is a good "rule of thumb" measurement for life & not a hard and fast rule"

Some Christians (myself included) feel the Bible is more than a "rule of thumb" measurement for life. And yes, I do believe as Christians we should do our best to live our lives according to His Word.

That said...onto the debate!

1. I believe someone (again, I can't remember who said what (sorry!), and I have a limited time to reply right now...) mentioned how would a "trial-run" be done for the reform bill. Well, if this bill is as good as some believe then I would assume states would be leaping at the chance to be a participant in the trial. Then, we would draw a name out of the old hat and that state would be the lucky guinea pig. Also, if it is so good, the residents wouldn't mind paying extra taxes b/c supposedly the bill says it would cut health care costs.

2. I have friends in Canada. You are right some do not complain. However, quite a few of them do. You brought up a good point about the cost of prescription meds. Which leads me to my next point...

3. Someone said we have let big business run our lives so why not the government? Here's why....

Even though big businesses run our lives, we still have the opportunity for someone else to step in and bring competition to the area. (These are by no means great comparisons but maybe you get the idea....) Most people can't stand Time Warner Cable. However, since we live in a land where entrepreneurship is valued, Dish network can come in and compete with Time Warner. Granted Dish network isn't as great (IMO) as time warner. However, once (or if) Verizion fios hits NC...buh-bye TWC. Same thing with prescription meds. If you have a Costco near by, buy prescription meds there! It is amazing how much cheaper their meds are. IF everyone bought from Costco, a couple of things would happen. One, other pharmacies would go out of business. Two, they would be forced to lower their prices!

If the government takes over...we will have no second option. There will be no competition. Our choices will be limited more so than they are now!

4. Businesses are in it to make money. Period! What's going to happen to insurance companies if the government forces their hand to take on patients. I can think of two things....1. They are going to jack up prices even more than they are now. Who do you think that will affect? Us! So, we will be paying more in taxes and more for health care. 2. They will choose to go out of business. If that happens, the government wins and they will be in control of our lives.

5. What's the fix? I don't have the answers but maybe we should look on capping the amount of money in medical lawsuits. Looking into cheaper pharmaceuticals. Don't get rid of big business....bring in competition! That will force big business' hand.

**please don't block me now that the block function is working** Embarrassed

uncharch7 · March 2010

Regarding big business...

In terms of the gov't, wouldn't big business still be vying for contracts w/ the government? Gov't on all levels is notorious for paying to the lowest bidder, why wouldn't healthcare (specifically pharmaceuticals) be the same? They're still competing, but to a different "market", if you want to call it that.

shoeaholic0403 · March 2010

withoutshoes:
Agghhh! So many good points going on that I am a bit lost. I love we are having this debate. I just wish I could take a chunk out of my day and ping topics off of each other.
I don't want to start a religion debate either but this stuck out at me and has been placed on my heart to clear this up (at least for myself)...
"I feel like this is the same as saying Christians should live word for word by the Bible. (I'm not trying to start a religious debate, I'm just making a comparison.) Do we not agree that the Bible is a good "rule of thumb" measurement for life & not a hard and fast rule"
Some Christians (myself included) feel the Bible is more than a "rule of thumb" measurement for life. And yes, I do believe as Christians we should do our best to live our lives according to His Word.
I would love for you to expand on this, but we might need to start a new thread for it. I just don't think you're living biblically if you swear by some things & ignore others. That would mean it's a "rule of thumb" guide.
This could also turn into an Old vs New Testament debate. Usually it's the laws in the Old Testament that get thrown up as examples of how people don't live biblically.
Has anyone read AJ Jacobs' book? It's on my list, but I haven't gotten to it yet.
That said...onto the debate!
1. I believe someone (again, I can't remember who said what (sorry!), and I have a limited time to reply right now...) mentioned how would a "trial-run" be done for the reform bill. Well, if this bill is as good as some believe then I would assume states would be leaping at the chance to be a participant in the trial. Then, we would draw a name out of the old hat and that state would be the lucky guinea pig. Also, if it is so good, the residents wouldn't mind paying extra taxes b/c supposedly the bill says it would cut health care costs. I think both charch and I had qualms with this suggestion. I still don't think it's a good measure of how it will impact the whole country. Also, much of this plan is going to take the next four+ years to put in place. What should the other 49 states do in the meantime?
2. I have friends in Canada. You are right some do not complain. However, quite a few of them do. You brought up a good point about the cost of prescription meds. Which leads me to my next point...
3. Someone said we have let big business run our lives so why not the government? Here's why....
Even though big businesses run our lives, we still have the opportunity for someone else to step in and bring competition to the area. (These are by no means great comparisons but maybe you get the idea....) Most people can't stand Time Warner Cable. However, since we live in a land where entrepreneurship is valued, Dish network can come in and compete with Time Warner. Granted Dish network isn't as great (IMO) as time warner. However, once (or if) Verizion fios hits NC...buh-bye TWC. Same thing with prescription meds. If you have a Costco near by, buy prescription meds there! It is amazing how much cheaper their meds are. IF everyone bought from Costco, a couple of things would happen. One, other pharmacies would go out of business. Two, they would be forced to lower their prices! So they just keep playing off each other? That is exactly what happens with cable and satellite companies. My parents have switched back and forth between the two for years because they start at one rate and then when they get comfortable their provider jacks it up again. So they switch. Also, insurance companies don't offer "introductory rates" that can be rolled over and over for the life of your coverage. The rates start high and just keep climbing.
Also, the nearest Costco to me is about an our and a half drive. I'd spend more in gas than I save on my prescription. Most people here go to the small pharmacies because that is what we have. We have walmart, but many people, like myself, prefer the smaller pharmacies to the hassle of going to a bigger one. Also, don't we live in a society that is constantly telling us to support small, local businesses. Is that what a lot of smaller pharmacies are. I know we have several family run pharmacies in our area. If we all shopped at the mega store that would put them out of business. Or is "support local" only reserved for farmers?
If the government takes over...we will have no second option. There will be no competition. Our choices will be limited more so than they are now!
4. Businesses are in it to make money. Period! What's going to happen to insurance companies if the government forces their hand to take on patients. I can think of two things....1. They are going to jack up prices even more than they are now. Who do you think that will affect? Us! So, we will be paying more in taxes and more for health care. 2. They will choose to go out of business. If that happens, the government wins and they will be in control of our lives. Don't you think this is a bit dramatic?
5. What's the fix? I don't have the answers but maybe we should look on capping the amount of money in medical lawsuits. Looking into cheaper pharmaceuticals. Don't get rid of big business....bring in competition! That will force big business' hand. I just don't agree. Just not at all. I have two friends, one who is done with her suit and another who is in the middle of one, both lost their parents due to medical malpractice. Essentially these lawsuits are putting a price on the value of that person's life - not just how much they would have made in a lifetime, but also how important they were to their families. It sounds terrible and it is, but it's business. Could you put a price on how much your parent means to you or anyone you love? & then for the government (b/c this is still gov't involvement) to tell you that they couldn't be worth more than a certain "cap" is just... well the idea kind of makes me cringe, and I've lost a parent just not through malpractice. And that brings me to one of my reasons for supporting this bill. My father died with no medical coverage. His illness was curable, but the treatment wasn't affordable.
**please don't block me not that the block function is working**

I think we all agree this bill isn't the prefect answer. But it's a start, and to me any start is better than just letting things continue the way they are.

I keep reading that government shouldn't control our choices/lives, but all the alternatives that have been offered here still include government involvement in some way.

One more thing:

DH's big issue with this bill is that it charges people a penalty for not having coverage. This upsets him because even with all the tax credits to help with coverage he thinks there will still be people who won't be able to afford coverage or the fine. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned that.

uncharch7 · March 2010

shoeaholic0403:
One more thing:
DH's big issue with this bill is that it charges people a penalty for not having coverage. This upsets him because even with all the tax credits to help with coverage he thinks there will still be people who won't be able to afford coverage or the fine. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned that.

I think the fine is more of a choice than it is not being able to afford it. The percentage of your income that is actually "taken" if fined is something like 2.5%. I have talked to a couple people that will gladly pay the fine out of principle, they don't want to be forced into buying health insurance (their choice, I guess). At a certain point though, based on income, the subsidies should make it, in theory, cheap enough for people to pay. Just like everything else though, it's a matter of priorities.

shoeaholic0403 · March 2010

uncharch7:
shoeaholic0403:
One more thing:
DH's big issue with this bill is that it charges people a penalty for not having coverage. This upsets him because even with all the tax credits to help with coverage he thinks there will still be people who won't be able to afford coverage or the fine. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned that.
I think the fine is more of a choice than it is not being able to afford it. The percentage of your income that is actually "taken" if fined is something like 2.5%. I have talked to a couple people that will gladly pay the fine out of principle, they don't want to be forced into buying health insurance (their choice, I guess). At a certain point though, based on income, the subsidies should make it, in theory, cheap enough for people to pay. Just like everything else though, it's a matter of priorities.

This is what I said to DH. He just can't seem to get past it. It's like he thinks it's just another way for the government to take our money, but we'll already be paying extra taxes to support the insurance tax credits. He doesn't have any kind of solution, but it still makes him mad.

I think there will be a lot of people who just pay the fine. Which is one major problem with this bill. It certainly isn't insuring everyone if there is a way to opt out, fine or no fine.

derky17 · March 2010

shoeaholic0403:
withoutshoes:

"I feel like this is the same as saying Christians should live word for word by the Bible. (I'm not trying to start a religious debate, I'm just making a comparison.) Do we not agree that the Bible is a good "rule of thumb" measurement for life & not a hard and fast rule" . I thought I was done with the debate, and at the end of the day, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I do think there's a very real difference between the Bible and Constitution.  If you are an American, regardless of what your spiritual belief system (if you even have one) the Constitution is the law of the land and there is a rule that specifically tells us--whatever isn't specifically mentioned here (ie whatever "we" the founding fathers don't know about that will come in the future) gets delegated to each state to decide what is the best way to rule on that issue. God came up with his 10 commandments, and the 10th wasn't "whatever I have left off this list is/isn't a sin" or "in the case that something new comes up, refer to St. Jude for how best to proceed."   I mean, wouldn't you have a problem if someone tried to mess with your right to freedom of speech? That's just as much a part of the Constitution as States' Rights, and I DO think they intentionally were specifically vague (pardon the oxymoron there) about certain liberties on purpose. Clearly we disagree, so again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

1. I believe someone (again, I can't remember who said what (sorry!), and I have a limited time to reply right now...) mentioned how would a "trial-run" be done for the reform bill. Well, if this bill is as good as some believe then I would assume states would be leaping at the chance to be a participant in the trial. Then, we would draw a name out of the old hat and that state would be the lucky guinea pig. Also, if it is so good, the residents wouldn't mind paying extra taxes b/c supposedly the bill says it would cut health care costs. I think both charch and I had qualms with this suggestion. I still don't think it's a good measure of how it will impact the whole country. Also, much of this plan is going to take the next four+ years to put in place. What should the other 49 states do in the meantime?

But why not? Why would the impact that this "study" for say, Indiana not be valid for the entire US? Are the folks from Indiana less American than the other 49 states' citizen?  Or are the citizens of Indiana too different than the citizens of NY, NC, or CA?  Would their needs be too different? That's kind of exactly my point--why would 1 blanket system be OK for every single state in the Union if you don't think the results from one would be "valid."? Really....please think about it from my perspective. If you simply want something done, then why not go ahead and put into place the reforms to a state like Massachusetts that already has a similar system going and look at that impact for a while? And though it isn't widely publicized, there ARE states that are taking measures to better their citizens health care options. I believe PA has started to reform their health care to make it more affordable, we already know about MA, I think TN and a few others are taking steps....the national media just prefers to focus on the bigger circus than the smaller ones.

With your reasoning, we wouldn't have medical studies--pharmaceutical companies would just put their drugs out to the market before looking at the side effects. That's a low-blow analogy and I'm sorry--but this IS a really big deal to a LOT of people. Something that is getting so many people in a stir is CLEARLY something that IMO deserves a lot of analysis, a lot of revision, a lot of tweeking before going into effect.

At the same time here, I don't want to be a total hypocrite. I'm usually the one saying "what we've done in the past isn't working, why not try something new?"  In which I refer to my earlier post. This is about as "grey" as I think we're going to get until we get more Independents into power. I think its the step in the wrong direction ultimately because I do think it will progress into total gov't control of health care....and all the pork, the other 1,500 pages of BS that is attached to the bill is what scares me more than the actual reform itself.  Just remember, Social Security was formed back in 1935 as a "temporary" government service back in 1935.  Politicians need and want people to feel dependent on them--that is how they win elections and keep their jobs.

I keep reading that government shouldn't control our choices/lives, but all the alternatives that have been offered here still include government involvement in some way.

A tax deduction really isn't getting government involved. Less money to the Federal Government means less $$ for various government agencies, meaning less government presence overall. I don't understand how getting a tax credit if you self-insure really involves the government much--and while I don't believe in THIS particular government program, there ARE some programs that I do realize requires my tax dollars.

Also, and this is just hypothetical--what if the President said to us today--Congress and I have come up with a plan-- we're asking for volunteers here--give us $1,000 a year on top of you annual taxes a year--and we promise everyone in America will have health care.  What if the next year it was $5,000? Then the next year it rose to $10,000?

Would you give it? Why/Why not?

shoeaholic0403 · March 2010

derky17:
shoeaholic0403:
I keep reading that government shouldn't control our choices/lives, but all the alternatives that have been offered here still include government involvement in some way.

A tax deduction really isn't getting government involved. Less money to the Federal Government means less $$ for various government agencies, meaning less government presence overall. I don't understand how getting a tax credit if you self-insure really involves the government much--and while I don't believe in THIS particular government program, there ARE some programs that I do realize requires my tax dollars.

They would have to make the decision to allow the credit. True it would mean they had less $$ in their pocket, but they would still have to make the decision. Somehow, someway their hand is still in the control cookie jar.

derky17:
Also, and this is just hypothetical--what if the President said to us today--Congress and I have come up with a plan-- we're asking for volunteers here--give us $1,000 a year on top of you annual taxes a year--and we promise everyone in America will have health care. What if the next year it was $5,000? Then the next year it rose to $10,000?

Would you give it? Why/Why not?

That is a good question. I would have to see their plan first. I'm not just going to give my money to support a plan I don't know anything about.

Second, I would be ok giving up some of my own money to provide healthcare for others. Isn't that what we'll be doing with this new HC plan anyway?

This hypothetical gov't plan is voluntarily funded. People regularly volunteer to give their money to various organizations to help others in need. It's true that they're choosing which organizations to donate to, but they are still trusting the people that run it to use that money in the way it was intended.

We're also trusting the gov't to spend our tax money wisely, but we can vote on the leaders and write letters and get involved in our local gov't.

As far as the cost rising, I think that's just economics. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but rising cost isn't something we can avoid.

Healthcare reform bill

Re: Healthcare reform bill

Choose Another Board

Search Boards