Senate votes on amendment for UHC

[Medic]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Hahaha. That is comedy gold. The amendment only passed 12-11. It's hilarious to see politicians scream for universal health coverage, yet when the rubber meets the road and they would be subjected to having the same coverage as us lowly proletariat, they weasel out and say "No".

As one person said "I guess some of us are more equal than others".

edit: Holy shit, this health care is way worse than I originally thought. Beyond the CBO's estimates of insolvency within 4 years of implementing the house version of UHC, it makes holding individual private medical insurance illegal. Cross linked from Investor's business daily:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

Not that I needed anymore confirmation that politicians in congress don't read the legislation they vote for, but this takes the cake. Who the hell thought this would be a good idea? Yeesh.

[Wolvrin704]

Thought for the day:

If the UHC does pass (and most likely it will because Obama says it must) and it eventually drives most employers into the plan what will happen to all the private health insurance companies and their employees?

Oh wait they can go to work for the giant beauracracy that will be created by UHC. So then Obama can take credit for creating jobs and saving the econmoy and healthcare all in one fell swoop.

I do agree that perhaps there should be some type of insurance availability for the un-insured but this whole things seems to be ill-conceived and thought out with its goal as being the foundation of something much larger.

[Mike Furley]

I don't know if this would work or not, but here are my ideas to fix the health care "problem":

1.) Eliminate all employer provided health care

2.) Mandate everybody needs to have their own individual health insurance or else you are fined out the wazoo.

3.) Provide the Insurance companies an incentive to sign up the currently uninsured or people with chronic diseases. i.e - for whatever percentage of customers they have that have chronic illnesses or were previously uninsured, they get a percentage of their corporate taxe rate knocked off.

4.) No governnent option.

[Mich97c]

How about mandate people take care of themselves. Something like 70% of healthcare costs can be prevented by exercise, life style changes (quit smoking) and a healthy diet. Ban all fast food, reward people that take care of themselves and see their doctor on a regular basis, ban video games, healthier lunches for our fat kids.

[Mike Furley]

How about mandate people take care of themselves. Something like 70% of healthcare costs can be prevented by exercise, life style changes (quit smoking) and a healthy diet. Ban all fast food, reward people that take care of themselves and see their doctor on a regular basis, ban video games, healthier lunches for our fat kids.


I don't think that should be a government mandate, but if they are great ideas, the insurance companies would provide incentives for their consumers to embrace them - much how they do with car insurance. If you don't have accidents your rate is lower. Where you live and park your car, the length of your commute, your age, the type of car you drive, etc, - they all influence our behavior to trim our rates. The same should apply to health care too.

Drug testing, cholestoral levels, doctor appointments/annual check ups, blood pressure, body fat content, etc - all are things insurance companies could offer for their consumers to do on their own to reduce their insurance rates.

[Medic]

How about mandate people take care of themselves. Something like 70% of healthcare costs can be prevented by exercise, life style changes (quit smoking) and a healthy diet. Ban all fast food, reward people that take care of themselves and see their doctor on a regular basis, ban video games, healthier lunches for our fat kids.

You take away my video games and I'll give YOU some health issues :)

edit: I really don't think you want the government dictating to people what they can and cannot do/have. Those are all good ideas that should be *promoted* heavily (except your bans, my god...no Fallout3 AND you're taking my whopper away!? fu Mich97c!). You don't want fat kids? Put them in sports.

[Wolvrin704]

Schools are already mandated to provide healthier lunches.

[zilla]

"Eliminate all employer provided health care"


I have very good insurance with my work and only pay $150 a month for a family of 3. Why should I support any plan that takes this away from me?

[Mike Furley]

"Eliminate all employer provided health care"


I have very good insurance with my work and only pay $150 a month for a family of 3. Why should I support any plan that takes this away from me?



I assume then you similarly oppose the two bills floating through the House & Senate?

[zilla]

I think they are too expensive and with our debt we simply can't do this.

But back to my question, why would I support any plan that takes away my excellent employer insurance?

[Mich97c]

You take away my video games and I'll give YOU some health issues :)

edit: I really don't think you want the government dictating to people what they can and cannot do/have. Those are all good ideas that should be *promoted* heavily (except your bans, my god...no Fallout3 AND you're taking my whopper away!? fu Mich97c!). You don't want fat kids? Put them in sports.

You're too old for video games - and put the whopper down!

[Medic]

You are never too old for video games
Whoppers are the best burgers ever made
You are a tree hugging communist if you don't believe the first two items
The family that plays together stays together


Sorry man after my athletic days at Michigan were over I embraced my inner nerd. That does not include getting fat! (doc says I could stand to lose 10 pounds though).

But back to the point shouldn't it be my decision to eat that entire strawberry cheesecake by myself or not?

[Mich97c]

You are never too old for video games
Whoppers are the best burgers ever made
You are a tree hugging communist if you don't believe the first two items
The family that plays together stays together


Sorry man after my athletic days at Michigan were over I embraced my inner nerd. That does not include getting fat! (doc says I could stand to lose 10 pounds though).

But back to the point shouldn't it be my decision to eat that entire strawberry cheesecake by myself or not?

Since your 10 pounds overweight you are not allowed to make your own decisions anymore. You must now get a diet coke with your whopper. Make sure you drive your hybrid to BK.

dude, I think I'm going to get a whopper for lunch - maybe I can order two and stack them on top of each other.

[gator]

I'm with Medic on this one, boys. I never like a solution when it starts with, "The government should... ." Personally, I'm always hoping for less restriction and less involvement from them. Once you let the government start restricting your activities/privileges for your "benefit," watch out! First it will be the obvious things such as tobacco products, alcohol, and fast food. Next, we wouldn't need anything with sugar (no sodas, candy bars, or ice cream). Then, maybe they start regulating activities such as banning video games. Who knows, in time maybe there could be government santioned workouts every morning. Then etc., etc. Point is, they may be trying to help us, but how are we any different than state prisoners that have their whole day and every meal planned for them?

Wasn't there a movie kind of like that a few years back? Some computer was charged with keeping humanity safe, but it reasoned the only way to do that was to basically take away freedom and turn everybody into a prisoner. Well, it was something like that. So what's the point of being healthy or being safe, if you take away one of the best things in life - freedom.

I always thought the best way to deter and/or encourage behavior is to let people suffer and/or reap the consequences of their actions (hence, my dislike of the Bush and Obama bailout plans). For those of you who haven't figured me out yet, I will always side with personal responsibility. Therefore, the yearly checkup idea (whoever said that) is great. Oh, you're 50 lbs overweight...guess what your premiums are 50% more than someone at or below a target weight. Maybe we could also benefit from some laws that limit the kind of medical treatment you can receive when the condition is self-inflicted, e.g., you could become ineligible for organ transplants if your condition is the direct result of smoking, dipping, drinking, overeating, etc. Maybe you sustained a serious head injury while riding a motorized bike with NO HELMET. At bare minimum, you should have to pay everything out of pocket. This way, the government doesn't tell you what you can and cannot do, but if you get caught with your pants down around your ankles, there are consequences to your behaviour. Think of the resources and money that could be freed up by eliminating those types of cases. You want to live a certain lifestyle? Hey, you got every right, but don't come calling on the rest of us to help you out after you walked a tightrope and fell off. It's kind of like those idiots who ride out a big-time hurricane, realize it's worse than they thought, and then want to be rescued at the height of storm conditions. Like the emergency personnel will tell you at that point....SORRY! Hence, I'm rarely in favor of limiting or resticting behavior by government mandate (unless it is to prevent harm to others). I always want to focus on rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior/decisions.

Furley, I got a question about your taxing/fining people without insurance comment. I'm not trying to be a smartass; I am simply perplexed by this comment, which I have also heard from several politicians (wasn't Hilary saying the same thing?). I think most people will agree that the #1 problem with the current system is that too many people are uninsured, which is actually a result of cost since the majority of those without coverage cannot afford it. So how is fining or taxing those people, who can't afford health insurance to begin with, going to solve the problem? What did I miss? I understand that with more people signed up, the cost is more widely distributed, and premiums should go down. However, if everyone has health insurance, it is guaranteed that the insurance companies will have to cover all of the sick. Just reasoning something out here, I suspect that those that are currently uninsured have not been on a health regimen, have a plethora of preexisting conditions which have not been addressed, and are the most likely group in the populus to live on a fast food diet. If these predictions are correct, these new clients will likely cost health insurance companies and I think premiums could actually go up by including them. Maybe you can explain the logic behind your earlier statement. I guess I'm just coming from the position that failure to have health insurance should not be a crime (which was the essence of your comment, as far as I could tell).