Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass healthcare legislation

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Because preventative care costs a whole shitload less than an emergency room visit. I'm a fairly good example. I was diagnosed with cancer last fall, had they caught it early it would have cost a few thousand dollars worth of chemo to fix. Instead, by the time it was apparent I ended up racking up $200,000 worth of medical bills in just over a week and a half that I had to spend in the hospital.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the health care system is a part of the community infrastructure the same way that roads, schools, etc. are. You pay for those emergency room visits by those 40 million people through your taxes, through higher prices on things you buy, etc. I mean, who do YOU think is paying for these emergency room visits? If we can get the average amount of money per person that we pay down, everyone wins.

1. I am happy you pulled through. Never wish that on anybody that isnt a 3rd world dictator.
2. Not knowing your circumstances was your situation catchable? Meaning do you have insurance and if so do you have regular checkups? When did you first notice your problem compared to the 200,000 in expenses? Was it realistic of a situation that a primary care physician could have saved that cost?
3. End of life care which in the case of cancer is far too often what happens costs a lot of money by your own experience. Which brings up another can of dirty worms in our health industry. We spend a lot(usually the vast majority) of our health care costs in the last two years of life. Does a socialized health system solve or address this issue?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

1. I am happy you pulled through. Never wish that on anybody that isnt a 3rd world dictator.
2. Not knowing your circumstances was your situation catchable? Meaning do you have insurance and if so do you have regular checkups? When did you first notice your problem compared to the 200,000 in expenses? Was it realistic of a situation that a primary care physician could have saved that cost?
3. End of life care which in the case of cancer is far too often what happens costs a lot of money by your own experience. Which brings up another can of dirty worms in our health industry. We spend a lot(usually the vast majority) of our health care costs in the last two years of life. Does a socialized health system solve or address this issue?

1.) Me too!
2.) No, not really. I was actually just using myself as an example for the difference in cost. It was inside my chest, and you don't normally x-ray the chest of a healthy 28 year old for fun. There are many types of cancer that ARE catchable by regular checkups though, so I think my point fundamentally stands.
3.) I think it depends on how we make it. Everyone agrees that we shouldn't spend that extra $100,000 on someone else's grandma to make her live another 6 weeks in a coma, but just about everyone thinks we SHOULD spend that $100k on OUR grandma. From an objective standpoint its absurd to waste so many of our resources for so little, but we don't seem to be willing to ration care. A socialized system would have greater latitude to make these tough calls, but I'm not sure at all that our society wants those calls to be made. tl;dr: i don't know.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
3.) I think it depends on how we make it. Everyone agrees that we shouldn't spend that extra $100,000 on someone else's grandma to make her live another 6 weeks in a coma, but just about everyone thinks we SHOULD spend that $100k on OUR grandma. From an objective standpoint its absurd to waste so many of our resources for so little, but we don't seem to be willing to ration care. A socialized system would have greater latitude to make these tough calls, but I'm not sure at all that our society wants those calls to be made. tl;dr: i don't know.

This is one of the most difficult points but certain procedures done by the best doctors wont happen to anybodies grandmother anyhow. If your 90 year old grandmother goes to the hospital for end of life emergency care they will treat her even if she has no insurance even today so we are still spending this money.

We need to focus on the fact that if everybody is paying into the system healthcare doesn't need to be as expensive. The hospital won't need to charge you for 2 other people who didn't pay. Now the real challenge is getting the hospitals onboard with charging the real prices for things.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh yeah? Can you point to a single instance where govt intervention made a product cost less?

Roads? Air travel? Electricity? Etc. etc. Why do conservatives believe infrastructure just appeared from nowhere.

Apples and oranges.

Essential service which private industry is unable to sufficiently provide.. apples to apples.

Private industry can provide it. Many people dont like the level of service provided for however. That is two distinctly different issues. It is like somebody complaining Delta doesnt fly a 747 into Huntsville AL for commuter service. Everybody has a right to sit on a jumbo instead of a dinky RJ right? Time for govt to provide this new "essential" service!

Ah, silly me, I forgot about the airport tree. Quite amazing how they just grow out of the ground, typically the larger ones are conveniently located in major metropolitan areas. A wonder of nature.

 

[Beattie]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to debate whether universal healthcare is a good or bad thing, but whether congress should use reconciliation to pass such a massive change in American society. Budget reconciliation was invented as a way for congress to pass budget cuts that are typically unpopular. Using a rule designed to cut spending to increase it and at the same time change the fundamentals is, I think, bad.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Genx87
3. End of life care which in the case of cancer is far too often what happens costs a lot of money by your own experience. Which brings up another can of dirty worms in our health industry. We spend a lot(usually the vast majority) of our health care costs in the last two years of life. Does a socialized health system solve or address this issue?

The end-of-life issue is more of a cultural issue. In the United States, our top priority is always prolonging life. It doesn't matter if the patient is 1 or 100. It doesn't matter if the treatment to prolong life only extends misery.

Much of this is due to demands of the family. Everyone wants old Gramps to live to 100, but don't consider his quality of life. Letting him go in peace feels like "giving up." This is a cultural thing. We place more value on trying everything then simply accepting that a peaceful ending really is the best thing.

A socialized system might help to put this whole thing in perspective. Spend $500,000 on Gramps for six months of life or spend that on a 6 month old baby? When we're all in the same insurance pool, arguments like this make a lot more sense.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Beattie

Originally posted by: marincounty

Republicans used this to pass Bush's tax cuts. Did you have a problem with that?

At least tax cuts are a budget item...

So is health care... Or do you think it comes free from the health fairy? :roll:

You're right - the middle class will pay for it, and in return get the government cheese class of healthcare. Those with means will continue to be able to purchase their high quality healthcare, and will continue to employ their (legal) means to minimize their tax burden, including direct payoffs to politicians. End result - the poor get marginally better care (if you want to consider a DMV level of service provision an "improvement), the middle class gets hosed, and the wealthy will continue to not give a sh!t about this issue.

Do you have the winning lottery numbers by chance? You certainly are sure enough about what some unknown will be that hasn't even been fleshed out by the experts.

I don't need the winning lottery numbers. I'm decently well-off, and I can speak from first-hand experience that I have high-quality healthcare, far better than anything the government will provide with this program. I can also vouch that I take full advantage of the tax code to minimize my tax burden, and have far more options for doing so than the middle class (e.g. deferred compensation, trusts, tax-exempt investments, charitable giving to causes that I actually support, etc). And finally, I can vouch that I don't give a shit what sort of system you come up for the rest of you, since I won't be using it I support this as a "bread and circus" type of government program.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Beattie

Originally posted by: marincounty

Republicans used this to pass Bush's tax cuts. Did you have a problem with that?

At least tax cuts are a budget item...

So is health care... Or do you think it comes free from the health fairy? :roll:

You're right - the middle class will pay for it, and in return get the government cheese class of healthcare. Those with means will continue to be able to purchase their high quality healthcare, and will continue to employ their (legal) means to minimize their tax burden, including direct payoffs to politicians. End result - the poor get marginally better care (if you want to consider a DMV level of service provision an "improvement), the middle class gets hosed, and the wealthy will continue to not give a sh!t about this issue.

Do you have the winning lottery numbers by chance? You certainly are sure enough about what some unknown will be that hasn't even been fleshed out by the experts.

I don't need the winning lottery numbers. I'm decently well-off, and I can speak from first-hand experience that I have high-quality healthcare, far better than anything the government will provide with this program. I can also vouch that I take full advantage of the tax code to minimize my tax burden, and have far more options for doing so than the middle class (e.g. deferred compensation, trusts, tax-exempt investments, charitable giving to causes that I actually support, etc). And finally, I can vouch that I don't give a shit what sort of system you come up for the rest of you, since I won't be using it I support this as a "bread and circus" type of government program.

LOL, your arrogance is surpassed only by your misplaced confidence.