DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

I must have missed where they have proposed a plan that does this.

I certainly hope not. I am hopeful that congress will listen to the will of the people and not let him nationalize our health care system.

I think the corporations have gotten to your head just a little too much.

That's his intention.

I'm sure it will happen, just by a slight margin. No one knows what they are talking about.

No. It's the intention that people have assumed is the case. I don't see in the current plans, at least the ones likely to pass, a national health care system.

Usually fear is better used to prevent changes (or at worst, to remove interference to a proposed change taken by a few over the many). It's understood to be a far better inhibitor to action than it is a purpose to act.

That's why the country is "messed up" in certain aspects. In other countries, the government is afraid of the people, which is why things are much better.

He said it's going to take 4 years, so I guess we won't be seeing a plan anytime soon.

I just wish Obama would be straight-forward about what he wants. Everybody knows his aim is a single-payer, just like everybody knows he bowed to the Saudi king. Can't he just 'fess up and be a man?

Right. None of the plans go into effect, for the most part, until 2013 at the earliest. That still doesn't make them national health care.

Do you think 2013 is a move to get him re-elected or does it actually take that long?

The guy is practically in the media every day. He is probably one of the best Presidents so far when it comes to communicating with the public.

Wisdom comes with age, I guess you will figure some more stuff out in a few years or so.

I think it's a move to get Congress re-elected.

I think Obama's re-election chances are ordained by the fact that there isn't a clear opponent in the GOP. The only candidate who has emerged with even a ghost of a chance based on polling is Romney (it's still very slim), and the likelihood of his nomination within an increasingly marginal political party is diminishing rapidly. Because he has to move way out to the right in order to be taken seriously by it. Everybody else who comes up gets crushed because they have zero appeal with independents, swing voters, and moderate Democrats. You can't win a Presidential election with just a bunch of southern conservatives voting for you.

You can however set up a voting bloc in Congress by using the districts to your advantage. Since the bill is largely a product of Congress, it's instead a production to lock in their own re-election bids by postponing judgment on their projects until a long way off (at a point when the public won't care as much what they did).

Not if I can help it. The whole reason there's a problem with health care now is because the government tied insurance to employment, which hides costs allowing hospitals and pharma companies to take us for a ride. If you want companies to stop cheating us using the government, then the key is to stop arbitrary government regulation that destroys competition. Obama needs a few lessons in economics and a bit more cynicism.

Yea. Even though a lot of us might disagree whether or not universal healthcare is a good idea, it’s scary how these politicians and lobbyists can put the fear into people to promote change.

It's not about competition. There's a lot of competition with Insurance companies. The problem is that these insurance companies are very unethical in their behavior and they try to find every single possible way not to pay your hospital bill. In other countries, with national healthcare, everything is on the house, and no phone calls are made as soon as you enter the hospital. You can't gamble with people's lives. The lobbyists and the private insurance companies are trying to put fear into the public that national healthcare is not the answer. It's the only answer.

I've experienced this recently. First, they try to tell you that you didn't call, then they try to drop you. It's all about profits. You cannot have a profitable company when it comes to life insurance. It has to be government-run so that everyone has equal coverage and doesn't have to worry about their insurance company trying to get out of paying it.

The reason they "can" treat you that way is that you are not the customer.

And you can certainly have a profitable company when it comes to life insurance. During the Depression, 98% of life insurance companies made a profit and remained solvent. Even with banks failing all around them. Health insurance, if it is in fact, "insurance" and not health care financing that we currently have instead, is also quite likely to be profitable without consumer abuses such as you are suggesting.

"There's a lot of competition with Insurance companies"

This is false. There isn't a lot of competition with insurance companies. They are usually captive markets within a given state's regulatory compliance requirements. New York is a perfect example of how this works. The market concentration, HH index, is very high in your state with the largest insurer having over a quarter of the market. GM would be proud to have that high of a market share of automobiles anywhere in the globe for example (and when it did, the reason was precisely the same, regulations which controlled how easy it was to enter the vehicle marketplace). The reason for health insurance is largely the extraordinarily complex web of regulations governing what insurers must cover, and hence limiting the amount of players in the field to those with larger economies of scale. The insurers like it that way because it guarantees a stable marketplace which they have little accountability over (because the average NYer doesn't see the actual cost of their premiums, just the parts they have to pay for beyond what the employer does). And the government likes it that way because it makes it look like they've done something good for the public, insuring that some ailment or condition is to be covered by the evil insurance companies. To be sure there are bad business practices or exercises of bad faith on the contractual agreements of insurers. But this isn't because they must compete against anyone in particular.

More to the point, if they actually had to compete against any other insurer, they wouldn't be able to get away with such things. The marketplace would revolt against it and move its business to insurers that provided a better more useful product.

I guess no one wants to talk about smallpox?

Yea but you still can't rely on competition with health insurance. All other insurance companies would be fine, like auto and stuff, but we can't take a chance with health. Other countries have national healthcare and everyone is okay, although politicians are trying to put fear into us that national healthcare isn't the answer.

Health insurance is a very nasty business. Doctors are paid to deny people. Like I said, auto, home, etc. insurance is fine being privatized, but you shouldn't have people profiting on whether or not you are going to remain healthy. People are being denied and health insurance companies use every excuse in the book not to cover you. This will happen even if there is "perfect competition".

What's the difference that makes health insurance special over say, life insurance or disability insurance?

Okay, that's a valid point. I left those two out.

It's a problem in a lot of third-world countries and I hope wealthy individuals become responsible and spend their money wisely towards stuff like vaccinations for those who need it most. A lot of these treatments only cost pennies.

So are you saying that life insurance should be nationalised as well…or that that market can actually function and get its agents to behave (even though it suffers from the same sort of information asymmetry problems as health insurance: the "confusopoly" problem)?

Barack Hussein Obama is nothing but a Communist in disguise and all of you liberal idiots bought his lies hook, line, and sinker.

The socialization of a once free nation is almost complete – first the government take-over of the Auto industry via the UAW, the government take-over of the educational system via the NEA, the government take-over of the financial industry via the TARP bill and the so-called stimulus package . . . Now it is the government take-over of the health care industry via this phony reform bill.

If you idiots cannot see what is happening, then you do not deserve to be free!

If the moderator of this blog refuses to publish my comments here – because what I have written is factual truth – then he is part of the problem!

Let me know when or if it becomes a more pressing concern than even the sharks are.

At the moment it's not even that high on the list. Seeing as it's been eradicated outside of germ warfare laboratories and places like the CDC.

Actually smallpox is not a problem anywhere. Even in third world countries. If you were talking about malaria or cholera or spinal meningitis or even AIDs, then yes. Those are problems somewhere else.

He has said before he wants a universal system. I've read his book. He said it there. What, was he lying then? Or is he lying now?

Darn it Sun Tzu. If you keep agreeing with me, then how I can debate you?

Yes. It should be nationalized. The system now is too corrupt.

Good. A universal system would be better. You are going to see the darkside of privatized healthcare as you get older. My family has been experiencing it lately. If you look at other countries with universal healthcare, they are all fine, and the United States is low on the list.

Is it the fact that you can't think for yourself that makes you assume that no one else does?

No. I just think that those who think Congress will actually listen to the people and who think healthcare being nationalized is the end of the world should look into the matter further.

Every President is a "hook, line, and sinker". In fact, every politician is like that. Whatever. The healthcare system we have now is horrible. We can't have it privatized and profitable. It should all be a non-profit system which would eliminate a lot of problems. We all have had our bad experiences with the insurance companies to prove this. In other countries, they aren't dropped and treated like crap.

There is a reason why France has one of the best healthcare systems in the world everyone. They go to the hospital, no phone-calls needed and everything, and they are treated like humans. When we go to the hospital, we have to call and worry that they are going to drop us. It's just horrible.

Everyone is just afraid of change. We all are, and I understand that. However, we need to be treated like humans and make our society better by making it universal. It's just horrible, our system now.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Like I said, France is number one for a reason.

The French Healthcare system
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php

I agree with you Zack. It's a horrible system we have out there. The politicians have profited off keeping it privatized, that's why we are the only country who doesn't have some sort of universal healthcare system.

I don't know man. It can't be complete crap, if we are the only country to not have some sort of public healthcare. I wouldn't trust that article either.

Would you really prefer a system that profits off of our health over one that just does the job of insuring?

It wouldn't do the job of insuring or providing "coverage". You're using the language of insurance to describe something else.

Health care isn't being nationalized though. There isn't a huge change being made between what we have now to what a national health care system would look like. It's not even like a Canadian model.

If it was going to look like any nationalized health care system I urge people to look up Singapore.

Life insurance is too corrupt?

That world health care ranking is complete crap in case you wanted to know <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_13247035” target=”_blank”>http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_13247035

And fear of change? Thinking that people opposed to the plan don’t value human life? I am offended by the condescending and overly simplistic assertions that you’re making regarding my position.

Nah. Insurance is insurance, whether it's for a profit or non-profit.

In business, what you are describing is financing. Not insurance. Insurance is for calamities and risks that you are unprepared for and could never budget for (the destruction of property, the onset on of cancer, the death of a spouse, for examples). Financing is for budgeting things that you could pay for, but don't want to take the time to budget for.

It's the difference between an insurance payment and a regular payment plan.

I did not even mean that at all. Insurance companies can either be for profit or non-profit. If the government ran a non-profit insurance policy, then there would be no problems whatsoever, and no necessary calls and/or worries that they are going to drop you.

It's the same thing either way. They pool your premiums, and whoever needs the money, it's handed out. If it's for profit, then there are going to be more strings attached.

Or they take it right out as taxes.

The type of insurance you are describing, health "insurance", that is being reformed here, is not "insurance". That's my point.
The issue of profit has almost no bearing on whether a company behaves or not in a monopolistic environment such as we presently have for health insurers. Demonizing profit isn't an effect argument against having health insurance. It isn't even effective at arguing against some system of health financing and health savings, which I would agree we need. But in neither case does "profit" = bad, or at least bad enough that you need a government to do it instead. When we look at the sorts of things that government already does in health care, it already boggles the mind to consider how poorly it has set things up. It has created the system that currently doesn't work and provides these supposedly obscene profits to insurance magnates. Why then would we think that a subtle change (one which doesn't actually create your proposed vision of a government controlled/run national health care system), would alter this dynamic?

What you are arguing for, and what Obama is arguing for right now, are not the same things. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the sooner we will have a protracted debate about how to pay for our health care. Without using the terminology of insurance companies to do it.

That might be all it took for other countries. But to get from where we are, with a system of employer and government subsidized medical coverages, to where you're talking about, with a system of nationalized health care, is not going to be one bill here in America.

There is no bill that does that.

And the more common problem as i see it is not doctors denying medical issues to save money, but doctors ignoring cost saving issues to make money. It's much more common for everyone in the system to advise people to do something simply because "insurance covers it". And thereby, it becomes necessary to make sure that "insurance covers it". In any other type of insurance, we might call this sort of behavior fraud (at least until there are laws to make sure what you have or need is covered by insurance, such as say, an expensive wig as part of your cancer treatments). In health insurance, it is common place. Ergo, it isn't health insurance.

I don't know what business school you are at. But if they are teaching you profits are bad, and that this is the source of dark human nature they're not a very good one. A non-profit institution, such as a college, has just as many inefficiencies in its performance and quality of service as a for profit one does. A system is not suddenly ennobled because it has a not-for-profit sticker slapped on its label. Nor it is under any obligations to provide a better quality of outcome to its consumers at any greater value (which is in fact true of an actual competitive marketplace). All one has to do is observe the cost of obtaining college degrees going up with very minimal impact on the value (the outcome) of a college degree.

There are a ton of ways to squander money while raking it in if you don't have to compete. And I'd agree insurance companies for health care use some of them. But the reason is not because of "profit". It is because they don't have to compete.

Yes, all they do talk about is making profits, but you have to make profits the right way, not in any way that you can.

I forgot to add it in, but the doctors I was referring to are the medical board or whatever in the insurance companies and who actually go against what your physician(s) say, just to save the company money by denying payments. These insurance companies look for anything to drop you.

If Michael Moore, and virtually anything in his films, is emerging as a legitimate talking point in the debate, I'm afraid you are badly misinformed.

It was featured in one of Michael Moore's films, but he didn't film the footage himself.

All it took for other countries, is one law passed, to make things okay for their system. With the system we have now, health insurance companies give bonuses out to doctors who have given out the most denials. Doctors would actually deny medical conditions of patients just to save the company a few thousand dollars. Many insurance agents and higher-ups of the top insurance companies have come out saying something has to be done.

Profit does equal bad, because when you start putting profits into the equation, we start seeing the dark side of human nature, and this is something that shouldn’t even touch the protection of our financial assets when it comes to our health.

I remember watching that movie SiCKO by Michael Moore, and there was a scene where a doctor was asked to look at an MRI or whatever, and he said that the woman had a tumor. Then, they showed him her denial letter, with his signature stating that he denied the fact that she had a tumor, therefore, denying her payments and almost killing her.

I didn’t know how to word that.

Zack, I am serious about this – come back to the real world and get off the Kool-Aide!

Have you looked into the cost of a medical education? I do not think that you have!

Churches are "Non-Profit" but it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to get a degree in theology – and ministers work for donations from their congregations. Doctors cannot do that, nurses cannot do that, hospitals cannot do that. Where is your reality?

I have a neice that is a Doctor – she studied for 12 years before she got a residency, then she worked for peanuts for the next four years until she got her own "Shingle". Meanwhile she had to pay on her student loans and then she had to take out another loan just to start her own office. That was ten years ago and she is still paying on those loans and will be for the next twenty years – that is if this health care scam doesn't get shoved up our collective you-know-whats, if that happens she will lose EVERYTHING she has worked all her life for because she will have to file for bankruptcy. How many really good doctors do you think will stay in practice if this bill gets to be law? Hospitals? Nurses? How many?

You need a serious reality check, my friend. This is Communism in sheeps clothing!

It is not up to the will of the people. The US Constitution does not allow for the Federal government to meddle into an individual's health care or the health care market. If anyone thinks different please provide the part of the Constitution that allows this. We are not a democracy where government force can be used at the whim of the majority.

The following statement does not come from someone with their head on straight:
"All pre-existing conditions will be covered, all claims will be accepted (nothing denied), everyone will be covered, and we will save money."
This is quite illogical.

What list, pray tell, are you referring to. If you asked me we have the BEST health care system in the world. Many that travel here to utilize it agree.

Do you consider forcing your neighbor to pay for a stranger's medical bills to be treating your neighbor like a human? How does this type of force make our civil society "better"? Have you ever seen government force being applied with its full weight? Just google Waco or Ruby Ridge. This is the force that will be applied to our neighbors if we get government run health insurance.

Nah, that's definitely not true. We have the best doctors and hospitals in the world, but when it comes to insurance, we aren't even close.

That depends on what you use to measure insurance companies' jobs. My insurance company does very well. I am very pleased. What about you?

That's what I said a few months ago my friend. Any company that is out for money is going to try to screw you over, and it doesn't matter how nice you are to them.

You are pleased with them because they get the small little jobs done with you. All the little appointments and little visits, but lets just say you get hurt bad and you are in the hospital, you are going to see how they are going to try to screw you over. They come out of nowhere and start throwing claims at you, refusing to give up the money, since the numbers have gotten larger.

Why would a company that gets its money from its customer want to screw them over. Such a company would not last very long. That is bad business sense.

You don't know me so I will inform you. I have been through a serious health issue with one of my daughters (viral meningitis). My insurance company covered it beautifully. Do you think there is ever a good reason to deny a claim?

It is bad business sense, but these companies stay around. They don't care about human life when it comes to money. That's the problem with society. Money comes before the lives of people you don't know.

If government-run health insurance passes our medical Atlas will indeed shrug. Who is Dr. John Galt anyway? Thanks.

Touchman, there is never a reason to deny someone, but it happens all the time. Me and you were lucky that our family members were covered through their time of need, although I had to fight a little bit more for it. However, there are people out there who get denied all the time, and it's a problem. The problem isn't with the hospitals and the doctors, but it's with the bulk of the insurance companies. If you had national insurance, you wouldn't have a problem at all, and no phone calls and descriptions would be necessary. Obama's policy is that we won't have to give up our insurance policies, but we will have more protection.

It is not credible to make such a sweeping indictment of "society". The society I see does not put money before people's lives. Of course, you are always going to have a bad element in any group, but to say the whole group is bad because of it is assinine. Obviously, you have some personal animosity toward society. Please deal with your own personal issues internally. I believe this will be more constructive for you than tearing down all of society to whet your own personal grudges.

So, what are you doing to help? Or, do you think only those that are wealthy can help? I am sure you can afford pennies.

I've talked to some cancer patients on this one. Very often the insurance company had no trouble paying for the expensive, practically miracle drugs that can run 30-60k for treatments, but haggled back and forth over little stuff instead (the aforementioned wigs for example).

I do not consider myself lucky for having made a choice to purchase health insurance that convers medical expenses. If someone considers it luck, I say I created my own luck (we all do, as a matter of fact).

Denials are mostly because of errors that when corrected do not get denied. Also, another top reason for denials is that the claim was forwarded to the wrong insurance provider. Do you think your benevolent national insurance would deny someone coverage if they claimed it under a different person's name? Also, if you make 2 claims for the same service do you not expect any insurance company (national or not) to deny the 2nd since it is already claimed?

I do not want Obama or anyone in the Federal government forcing my insurance company to do anything as long as they are not harming me directly through fraud, etc. Should my concerns be considered in the health care debate?

You obviously don't understand insurance then if there is "never a reason to deny someone". How exactly would you insure for most any pre-existing condition? This would be like having your house burn down and going to the insurance company and maybe giving them a couple grand and saying "I'd like my house re-built". Without having first had a policy insuring your home.

That's why it's more like health care financing, a system which we obviously need, but a system that is nothing like insurance.

So nationalizing dipsoses of corruption? Corruption is from the hearts of people. Which corruption can cause more damage: corporate corruption or government corruption? Corruption will never be completely disposed of as long as mere humans are involved. So, what we want is a system that minimizes the damage this corruption can cause. Government just would not be this system.

Can you think of ANY reason to deny someone a claim on insurace? Do you expect government-run insurance to accept all claims and deny none?

The only problem is that this kind of government control over the healthcare industry is arguably unconstitutional. Of course, that may not faze you because of your disregard for that document, but it is an issue.

That's why we have the Constitution. That's not human and it's not corruptible, and as many have pointed out for me here, it's very difficult to amend.

That's not true. We're the only country that profits off of people's health. We have the best doctors and hospitals because we live in a free country, not because doctors get paid big bucks. The best doctors care about the money, but work so much that they don't have the time to even think about it.

Well, when it comes to private insurance companies, they in fact, do put money before people's lives. They drop people all the time because of the money, denying people their treatment, and harming their health, and in some cases, causing them to die.

It's probably going to be a hybrid. National + controlled private healthcare.

You should all check out this video with Senator Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rcnAWaC64

I don't think Obama even cares about Congress getting elected. He wants what is best for the people. He isn't your typical politician. The man banned lobbying in his first days. The guy is going to be a miracle-worker.

I doubt it. Every Republican will vote against it. Plus, has Obama not noticed that we are 23525443245743059424324 dollars in debt!!!!!! If we made national healthcare a government run system, you can kiss the dollar and our country away.

You my friend are an absolute douchebag.
There is quite clearly a line between the world in which everybody drives a Skoda and works for the same amount of pay that is Communism, and a world in which people can actually recieve the medical treatment they deserve whatever their income. It appears that Obama is the only one with a conscience and that can see that 40 million people need this healthcare bill.
Let's hope he punches through and catches a few stupid conservatives on the way…

You need to post on this site often DNew.