Healcare reform

So, We all know that obviously heath care in this country is not what it once was. I would like to discuss why you are for or against reform. Furthermore, What would you reform if you were able to make these decisions?
For me I think a single payer public option is the best option at this point. 1/6th of our total GDP is made from the health care sector. Therefore we make 15% of the countries total income off sick people. However, that may sound like a good thing that must mean our healthcare is cutting edge. The sad fact is america ranks 19th in the world in healthcare quality. I am in a union we have excellent insurance however a foreman I worked with lost his wife to cancer and even after our insurance which caps out at 250,000 he had to sell 2 houses and 2 cars just to pay his bills. Medical bills in america are the primary reason for bankruptcy and home foreclosure.

I know a lot of you will say I don't want to fund a government asshole to screw up healthcare like they screw everything else up. I feel your pain, but I contend that Canada's health care system has a 1.5% overhead compared to 17% in america. Most of the overhead coming from administrative costs. All these insurance companies are is a middle man in the grand scheme. Anyhow thats my rant for now what do you think, and why?
By the way I would love to hear from folks in other industrialized countries that have universal health care.

Because it will always cost more than the previous year, because we will have to pay for MORE gov employees who will be rude/slow just like any other gov agency when you need them. Because it won't stop some whore who makes less than 25k a year from having 3 kids. Liberals want women to be able to abort an unborn child because they should have the right to choose what happens to their own body but when it comes to insurance I have no say over mine. Everyone pays except illegals and poor people... Where's the "change"? Sounds eerily familiar to the system we already have....

fitch303 said:

Because it will always cost more than the previous year, because we will have to pay for MORE gov employees who will be rude/slow just like any other gov agency when you need them. Because it won't stop some whore who makes less than 25k a year from having 3 kids. Liberals want women to be able to abort an unborn child because they should have the right to choose what happens to their own body but when it comes to insurance I have no say over mine. Everyone pays except illegals and poor people... Where's the "change"? Sounds eerily familiar to the system we already have....

Click to expand...

"Single payer" does not mean the government will run the hospitals. I'll use Canada as an example because the OP mentioned it already. In Canada, EVERY citizen is covered by a "government" insurance program, but the hospitals are PRIVATELY owned (just like ours are).

where's the "change"? It should be obvious. Under a single payer, universal coverage system, EVERY American citizen would be covered. Right now as it stands, we spend MORE money than any other country on health care and don't even cover all our citizens while insurance companies are bringing in ridiculous profits (insurance industry profits are up about 400% in the last few years)

Health care costs only rise because the insurance companies and hospitals have to make a profit. Remove the profit motive, and rates will not rise nearly as quickly as we have seen recently.

you take an interesting stance fitch. The thing is you seem to agree it is broken in the first place. You also didn't furnish a constructive solution that makes sense to you. The point i make is you are getting hit on the front and the back in the front you are hit with your costs going up because people don't or can't pay their medical bills. then when the costs get so high no one can pay them foreclosures happen and we are forced to prop up financial institutions. What seems so outrageous about taking the middle man out of the equation? wouldn't a simple policy change like performance benchmarks fix your main issue that it would bring in complacency in the workers? We spend the most on healthcare of any nation somewhere around 7,000 a year each person. Yet, canadians and british live an average of 3 years longer than we do. we also have the most overpriced drugs in the world, so overpriced that people with insurance can't afford them all because your insurance caps out. Then they are subsidized and guess what we all pay. doesn't seem right to feed money directly to these guys to me. Thanks for the input though fitch i appreciate it.

the only real issue with american health care I have is it's ridiculous cost. It is waaay to expensive. Like someone said, the US ranks 19th. If you look at the nations that stand before it, they spend a lot less on health care, and get more quality.

The idea of having the government intervene to control those costs is a good thing, in my view. They say it will cost 1 trillion over the next 10 years, or something like that. But the current system will cost 1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

There's also something to be done about malpractice lawsuits in this country. There seems to be a new batch of lawyers that make their living screwing over insurance companies and doctors. Malpractice will never go away, but there seems to be a problem with doctors taking on procedures they do not fully understand for the sake of profit.

I know for a fact that doctors sometimes receive only 1 weekend of training for "out patient" procedures. These procedures, are identified as "out patient" to make them seem less risky. These procedures carry all the risks of actual open-your-gut surgery, but doctors perform 5-6 per day, just to make a buck....

these types of practices are what drive costs up....

redivider said:

the only real issue with american health care I have is it's ridiculous cost. It is waaay to expensive. Like someone said, the US ranks 19th. If you look at the nations that stand before it, they spend a lot less on health care, and get more quality.

The idea of having the government intervene to control those costs is a good thing, in my view. They say it will cost 1 trillion over the next 10 years, or something like that. But the current system will cost 1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

There's also something to be done about malpractice lawsuits in this country. There seems to be a new batch of lawyers that make their living screwing over insurance companies and doctors. Malpractice will never go away, but there seems to be a problem with doctors taking on procedures they do not fully understand for the sake of profit.

I know for a fact that doctors sometimes receive only 1 weekend of training for "out patient" procedures. These procedures, are identified as "out patient" to make them seem less risky. These procedures carry all the risks of actual open-your-gut surgery, but doctors perform 5-6 per day, just to make a buck....

these types of practices are what drive costs up....

Click to expand...

I agree with most of that. lawsuits in general are out of control. However in the end it is the doctors that suffer the insurance companies make it back by raising rates. Doctors pay WAY too much in insurance.

The problem I have is that anytime the gov consolidates power it will try anything in it's ability to hold on to it. So if 10 years out health-care ends up costing 20% more than was estimated the gov will simply raise taxes to make up for it. I mean when has gov ever run a program of this size efficiently? How about we fix our current clusterf*ck of a problem that was created by the far left, social security. Who's to say the gov doesn't blow the healthcare funds as they did with SS, or maybe we can calculate what it will cost to fix SS and let the tax payers sit on that before asking them to pay for this new program. It's always been about money and money=power which is why the democrats didn't reform SS when Bush was in office. The thrift savings plan is offered to gov employees and military people but why can't the average joe participate? I don't enjoy violence but I also have a fanatical obsession with small government and it's just a matter of time before someone crosses the line (think of timothy mcveigh x 100) Lets start with reforming tort laws and eliminate pre-existing conditions and move from there.

I just got a letter from my private insurance company letting me know that they are getting rid of pre-existing conditions on their policies. I think the insurance companies must already see the writing on the wall for that.

fitch303 said:

The problem I have is that anytime the gov consolidates power it will try anything in it's ability to hold on to it. So if 10 years out health-care ends up costing 20% more than was estimated the gov will simply raise taxes to make up for it. I mean when has gov ever run a program of this size efficiently? How about we fix our current clusterf*ck of a problem that was created by the far left, social security. Who's to say the gov doesn't blow the healthcare funds as they did with SS, or maybe we can calculate what it will cost to fix SS and let the tax payers sit on that before asking them to pay for this new program. It's always been about money and money=power which is why the democrats didn't reform SS when Bush was in office. The thrift savings plan is offered to gov employees and military people but why can't the average joe participate? I don't enjoy violence but I also have a fanatical obsession with small government and it's just a matter of time before someone crosses the line (think of timothy mcveigh x 100) Lets start with reforming tort laws and eliminate pre-existing conditions and move from there.

Click to expand...

In other words, you'd rather blame democrats for all the country's problems rather than suggest any actual solutions to those problems.

The "party of no" is alive and well, folks.

If you'll think back to when Bush was in office, who controlled the House and Senate? The republicans. The democrats were the minority, and as such, it would have been impossible for them to garner support for any REAL social security reform. If you'll also remember, Bush's plan was to privatize social security, meaning your social security dollars would be invested in WALL STREET. Let's all thank our lucky stars that didn't happen, or SS would be much worse for the wear than it is now.

Why is SS's unfunded liability growing? Well, it has a lot to do with an increase in our aging population (baby boomers). Republicans traditionally block any measures to raise taxes to address this problem, which is a necessary "evil" that comes along with funding these programs in the first place. You can't pay for them if you can't raise the money, can you? You can't raise the money if you can't raise the taxes. Do you see the cycle?

Don't pretend like you know me because you don't, I'm a registered democrat and voted for Obama.
If there is anyone out there who doesn't have a clue, this is the best visual presentation I ever saw... Now don't be mad just remember who did this......






Franklin Delano. Roosevelt

32nd. President, Democrat

Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945

introduced Social Security (FICA) Program.



He Promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put in would go into an "Independent Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

----------THEN---------------------------------------------------



Dwight David Eisenhower

34th. President, Republican,

Term of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961

1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. It was a Democratically controlled Congress.

Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in the Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended and set aside for.





-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------



Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat

Term of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969



Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?


Answer: It was the Democratically Controlled House and Senate during Lyndon Johnson's term.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security

(FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



William Jefferson Clinton

(Bill Clinton)

42nd. President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001



Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

(Al Gore)

45th. Vice President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------------BUT THE STRAW THAT REALLY BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !-------------------------------------------------



James Earl Carter, Jr

(Jimmy Carter)

39th President, Democrat

Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981



Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!


If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve! . Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.



----------------------------------------------------------------------



Thomas Jefferson

3rd. President, Democrat

Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 196 the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.



Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A2: There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.



Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).



Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A5. Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website.
The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972.
An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website


Chain e-mails are notorious for containing misinformation and outright lies. I'd suggest you stop relying on them for "facts", as they typically contain few to none.

To quote your chain email there : " And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!"

Ok how about people with less health problems pay less in premiums and people with more problems pay more in premiums?


Is anyone else disgusted by fat people(as in 5"4 230lbs)? I don't even think of them as humans. Minus the .05% of them who actually have a medical reason to be fat.

doobnVA said:

which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website.

Click to expand...

So you work for the Social Security Admin?

Good post by they way.. From your other post I would not have expect this level of information.

Can I pose a question to you? Do you think it is right to fine people for not buying into insurance? And, do you really think that alot of companies will not faze out their insurance and encourgage people to take one of the other options?

And increasing the income level that people can get "free" coverage up to 200 % of the poverty level will add up to 30 million people to the rolls? Where will that money come from?

fitch303 said:

Ok how about people with less health problems pay less in premiums and people with more problems pay more in premiums?


Is anyone else disgusted by fat people(as in 5"4 230lbs)? I don't even think of them as humans. Minus the .05% of them who actually have a medical reason to be fat.

Click to expand...

Ha, ha! So basically. . . you don't want anything to change. That's why some people are arguing the whole point of pre-existing conditions having to be removed from health insurance policies.

yeah, the social security post pretty much nailed it. The problem with social security is that when it was conceived there were more workers than old people, and it was assumed that the population would remain that way. Demographics have shown that there are two generations with huge BOOMS. the baby boomer, post war generation, AND the current generation in high school/college/starting to enter the workforce. The current generation is still about 2 million short of the baby boomer generation, and since all other generations were about 1/3 to 1/2 of this amount, the funds in the social security went on low. Now with all those oldies retiring it is putting a strain on the fund.

but social security is a good program, not perfect, but it works.

i hate how easy it is for people to commit fraud though... old people can die, and people can still cash their checks for years without them finding out..... the lack of control is kinda embarrassing...

Essentially, I eat healthy and work out as much as I can to be healthy so why punish me? Death due to heart disease account for 28% of deaths in this country per year as a direct result of being overweight. Everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy but these people obviously don't care enough to change their lifestyle so if they die then I don't care one bit. Just because there isn't a gov option does not mean reform can't happen.

fitch303 said:

Essentially, I eat healthy and work out as much as I can to be healthy so why punish me? Death due to heart disease account for 28% of deaths in this country per year as a direct result of being overweight. Everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy but these people obviously don't care enough to change their lifestyle so if they die then I don't care one bit. Just because there isn't a gov option does not mean reform can't happen.

Click to expand...

Is this in reply to my last comment? 'Cause I couldn't tell since you didn't quote anything.

If it is. . . I didn't say anything about a govt. option. I was just pointing out that health insurance policies already have extra charges for pre-existing conditions.

I would agree that healthcare starts with you. however, I also contend that yo yoing your weight is worse than being overweight. I appreciate the information this thread has presented. Now let me ask something where was the money to fund the wars? the ones we didn't get to vote for.
That is the core problem with our system though we are creating these self inflicted problems because people can't afford to go to the doctor for preventative care or nutritional counseling what have you. I agree fitch about government being too big I am a libertarian. However, privatization does the same thing because it is directly tied to government in our system. So if corporations are making money off of incarcerating smokers, they aren't going to give that up without a fight. I believe there are certain things with the right checks and balances the government can and should do healthcare, military, police, and prisoner reform. I would like to hit on it again that the food we eat is what makes us sick a lot of times in this country and you don't have to be overweight to have heart disease. Some people believe it or not don't know what to eat or how to eat healthy. Thanks again for the great replies folks

StreetRider said:

So you work for the Social Security Admin?

Good post by they way.. From your other post I would not have expect this level of information.

Can I pose a question to you? Do you think it is right to fine people for not buying into insurance? And, do you really think that alot of companies will not faze out their insurance and encourgage people to take one of the other options?

And increasing the income level that people can get "free" coverage up to 200 % of the poverty level will add up to 30 million people to the rolls? Where will that money come from?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's right to fine people for not buying into insurance.

I don't think insurance companies are going to give up customers so readily (after all, they are in it to make a profit).

There's already enough money being pumped into the system to take care of everyone, it's just a matter of reducing the insurance company's profits and putting MORE of that money to WORK actually providing health care to people. right now, it's just lining the pockets of a few very wealthy executives while our hospitals and doctors are LOSING money because people can't pay.

The insurance companies are NOT on our side. They don't care about health, they are out to make a profit - plain and simple. I don't think the "american dream" was for huge corporations to make billions of dollars off of the people's misfortune.

Hospitals and doctors deserve to be paid for every patient they treat.

I think the Baucus bill is a big pile of horseshit.

SINGLE PAYER, universal coverage is what we need.

fitch303 said:

Essentially, I eat healthy and work out as much as I can to be healthy so why punish me? Death due to heart disease account for 28% of deaths in this country per year as a direct result of being overweight. Everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy but these people obviously don't care enough to change their lifestyle so if they die then I don't care one bit. Just because there isn't a gov option does not mean reform can't happen.

Click to expand...

As long as the insurance companies are allowed to continue making MASSIVE profits at the expense of everyone, while our hospitals and doctors are losing money because people can't pay - well, there IS NO reform.

When you think of our "health care system" you need to think about doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals and the hospitals and clinics they work in. The insurance companies have effectively inserted themselves into this system and are draining out money at an astonishing rate, and they aren't even the ones providing the actual care! Most of the money you're paying in "insurance premiums" is going right into their pockets.

Let's say the insurance companies made 30 billion in profits last year. Do you realize how far that money would go in providing actual health care to people who need it? Pretty fucking far.