US Adverts on National Healthcare

The goal in the current bill is to have government controlling healthcare, and that's where there is a great divide.

Is Medicare an example of government controlling healthcare? Do you consider Medicare to have been a success or failure?

Is Medicare an example of government controlling healthcare? Do you consider Medicare to have been a success or failure?

It's well publicised that social security and medicare aren't sustainable programs:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

It's well publicised that social security and medicare aren't sustainable programs:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Yo udidn't answer whether medicare is an example of government controlling healthcare? And how about the medical care side of Medicare; has that been a success or a failure?

Yo udidn't answer whether medicare is an example of government controlling healthcare? And how about the medical care side of Medicare; has that been a success or a failure?

Quite frankly, I don't understand your question. Do you not know that medicare is a government health program for those 65 and older? It's not sustainable in it's current model and will have to be overhauled. Medical care is very good in the US overall, but medicare recipients need a supplemental insurance to offset what medicare doesn't cover.

Medical care is very good in the US overall, but medicare recipients need a supplemental insurance to offset what medicare doesn't cover.

What if they can't afford it?

It also possible to be happy with your current healthcare but realize the system of insurance-based access is completely broken. That 's the camp I fall into. I think the quality of healthcare I've received in the US has been absolutely excellent. But then I have the fortune to work in a profession where good insurance tends to be the norm. At my age, if I had a serious illness that prevented me from working, or if I lost my job (a distinct possibility at the moment) I would likely be completely screwed once my (expensive) COBRA coverage ran out after 18 months.

Depends on what you mean by screwed.  About 2 1/2 years ago, my son was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease (at the age of 22).  He was quite an ill young man, but he was working (in a factory) and covered by their insurance, so he had no problem getting excellent health care.  He's been in remission for around a year now and struggling to pay his medical bills, naturally, partially because he owed to SO many places - his regular doctor, a specialist, a clinic, a couple of different hospitals - he had a difficult time keeping up with the number of different bills and payments, and was almost happy when they were all turned over to a collection agent.  He only has one place to pay now!!

However,  he fell through the cracks a few months ago when he lost his job. He quit his factory job due to the stress which he felt was making him more ill.  He took on a different job in a different factory which was 'temporary', but he was covered by their insurance.  Due to the recession, that place and many more like it around the country have now closed.  No more insurance.  Luckily, he doesn't own a house and has an older pick-up truck, not much to lose.  He's never tried applying for unemployment because he quit his long term job and was working temporarily at the other job.  While he was fooling around trying to find more work, guess what, he fell ill again.  Actually, he had an abscess on his stomach (not his belly, his stomach) that may or may not be Crohn's related.  He held off going to see his doctor until the pain was so intense he couldn't stand it anymore.  The care he received (same doctors, same hospitals) was excellent, although he was lucky in that the abscess could be surgically removed through same-day surgery.  He had a difficult time finding the money for antibiotics and pain relievers though.    He's now recovered, waiting for further bills to come pouring in, finally seeing about getting some state benefits (the kid's been working and paying taxes since he was 16, he's gotta be entitled to something) and hoping to remain healthy.

He wasn't screwed, thankfully, in the medical care he received - his hair is probably slowly turning white, though, from waiting to see a doctor until he can't stand the pain anymore, and the worry about paying bills.  Do I think this young man is ever going to get ahead in life?  Probably not, although I have high hopes for him, but his illness has really screwed him over...his health care has been excellent, the cost of it is going to hang over his head for years to come. 

I didn't mean to get involved in this debate, and don't intend to say any more about it.  I just wanted to comment that, even though he's not insured and has absolutely no money at the moment, his health care has been excellent.  Do I think he should have had to wait until he had an abscess that was about to burst because of lack of money?  Absolutely not!  Nor do I think he should have thousands in unpaid doctor bills hanging over his head.

Absolutely. My medical care is absolutely fantastic--when I can eligible to receive it and it is affordable. Americans, again, according to the polls I read, don't dispute their quality of care, but the majority of those polled (8 out of 10), in every poll, thought medical costs were too high.

Yes, some of it is scaremongering, but there are legitimate concerns about this bill. The goal in the current bill is to have the government controlling healthcare, and that's where there is a great divide. There are other alternatives, but there is no agreement even within the democratic party, and the idea of government in charge of healthcare isn't popular with most Americans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/22/obamas_health_care_whopper_is_bigger_97989.html

Right.  So you have an opinion piece by a guy who concedes the points about all the misinformation out there except the one that he continues to perpetuate.  But I am not going to sit here and refute articles by some guy not even involved in this discussion.  I guess I could go and find my own opinion pieces and post them in response.  Then you could find another, then I can find another, and so on.  It's one thing to use links to support what you're saying.  It's another to fail to articulate your points and hope that a link will do it better.  Or a series of links.

Quite frankly, I don't understand your question. Do you not know that medicare is a government health program for those 65 and older? It's not sustainable in it's current model and will have to be overhauled. Medical care is very good in the US overall, but medicare recipients need a supplemental insurance to offset what medicare doesn't cover.

Slight correction here, it's not just for elderly, but disabled who have enough work history to qualify for SSD and their dependants once they complete a qualifying period on SSD.

Medicare was in dire need of reform before it was "fixed" during the last administration, and now it's in need of even more reform.

...there are legitimate concerns about this bill. {edit}  ...the idea of government in charge of healthcare isn't popular with most Americans. {edit} I am referring to the current administration trying to rush the current bill through Congress.

The great thing about your particular position is you can argue it for the next 100 years and because of the way politics is, nothing will ever change.  Based on your posts in this thread, as I understand your issues, they are:

1. The process is currently being rushed, leaving no time for informed consent of the governed.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the longer the process is drawn out, the closer we get to the next election, so if nothing is done the opponents of the administration can point to the lack of results as failure, leading to loss in the next election or abandonment of the health care reform initiative.

This process could conceivably repeat itself every time a new adminstration attempts reform, continuing forever.

2.  You don't trust the government to run the program well.

Anyone can point to any government agency and find examples of ineptitude or waste.  You can also point to the same government agency and find examples of competency and efficiency.  

That's the same with any large bureaucratic organization, public or private, so this argument is valid for eternity.

3.  You don't trust the Obama Administration/Democrats.

Presumably, you'd be more trusting of a Republican initiative to reform the health care system, especially if the Republicans could find a new leader that inspires you as much as Ronald Reagan did.  Even if they did, Republicans aren't going to try to reform health care, because they're for big business and small government, and drug companies and insurance companies are big business and a government health care program wouldn't be small.  

So you can make the "I don't trust Democrats" argument forever, safe in the knowledge that if the Republicans get back into power, they're not going to change anything.

So you've maneuvered yourself into a position where you can comfortably sit for the rest of your life.  You don't want to rush, you don't trust the government, you don't trust Democrats, and you've got good health care so you're not particularly bothered if the situation stays exactly like it is, because 40 or 50 million Americans without health care doesn't affect you.

(Well, it affects you in higher costs to your employer to pay for your health care benefits meaning a lower salary for you, and in higher taxes to reimburse hospitals for patients who can't pay, and in indirect ways like that, but it doesn't affect your day to day life.)

Good points, Camascato. But, if I'm hearing my news correctly, even the big business guys (insurance, pharmacy, etc) are agreeing that the model we have now is also unsustainable[/i]. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but the CEO of my insurance company ( Kaiser Permanente) if for health care overhaul. I wonder where the other big companies stand?

Right.  So you have an opinion piece by a guy who concedes the points about all the misinformation out there except the one that he continues to perpetuate.

So, what misinformation is continuing to perpetuate with his opinion piece?

It's one thing to use links to support what you're saying.  It's another to fail to articulate your points and hope that a link will do it better.  Or a series of links.

So you've maneuvered yourself into a position where you can comfortably sit for the rest of your life.  You don't want to rush, you don't trust the government, you don't trust Democrats, and you've got good health care so you're not particularly bothered if the situation stays exactly like it is, because 40 or 50 million Americans without health care doesn't affect you.

So, these personal attacks on me are 'honest debate' about the issues and points about the current bill on offer?   

So, these personal attacks on me are 'honest debate' about the issues and points about the current bill on offer?   

Slightly off-topic here (as I'm not jumping into this discussion), but those aren't really 'personal attacks' (in the sense of, say, an ad hominem). They are critiquing your rhetorical/argumentive ability. Legs is saying that providing an op-ed piece isn't really the best evidence unless it cites applicable resources and statistics. In other words, she is saying that such an argument doesn't have a solid grounding, which you'll need to defend and/or support with better resources/argument/rhetoric/whatever. Likewise, camoscato is saying (in a nutshell) that your rhetoric is unfalsifiable and that's not a good grounding for an argument. If his criticism is correct, your argument isn't really an argument against this particular attempt at healthcare reform but is for waiting until Republicans can fix it. If that is the jist of this part of your argument, I do agree that you need better evidence, especially in light of Hilary Clinton's attempt at healthcare reform a decade ago (is 10 years long enough?) and the failure of Republicans to even breach the subject in those years between.
In all honesty, this bill does have room for improvement; but if one thinks it does, one should be able to point out where and how (i.e. you can't know something can be better unless you have an idea of what that 'better' something is!).

So, these personal attacks on me are 'honest debate' about the issues and points about the current bill on offer?   

What issues and points have you brought up?  Maybe I missed it someplace, but the main points I've gotten from your posts is 1) don't rush, 2) the government is not to be trusted and 3) Democrats are not to be trusted.  After that it was all "it's my right to question elected officials" and links to op-ed pieces.

As I said before, the thrust of your argument precludes anyone ever finding a solution.  If the Republicans had found a way to make sure everyone had some sort of basic health care, I'd be perfectly happy to support them. 

As for the government, although I think there's always room for improvement, I think there are areas in which the government excels.  The Postal Service, for all its failings, will hand deliver a letter across the country in a few days for 44 cents.  The Defense Department can move 200,000 people around the world and destroy almost any country on Earth in a matter of weeks.  The Centers for Disease Control can determine the source of an outbreak of disease in a matter of days.  So an effective government-run health care plan is not outside the realm of possibility.

And with regard to "don't rush," I'm in favor of a well thought-out plan made after careful deliberation, but don't come to me in a year and say "Obama promised to sort out health care by December 2009, and we still don't have it, so that proves I was right: he's a liar and not to be  trusted."

In all honesty, this bill does have room for improvement; but if one thinks it does, one should be able to point out where and how (i.e. you can't know something can be better unless you have an idea of what that 'better' something is!).

Right!  I'm happy to debate the relative merits of various plans, and I'm hopeful that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth doesn't keep Congress and the President from coming to a solution that everyone can be satisfied with.  My concern is the wailing and gnashing of teeth will cause Congress and the President to back away from finding an answer to the problem for fear of political consequences.

So, what misinformation is continuing to perpetuate with his opinion piece?

Since impleri pretty much explained what I meant (which isn't about you as a person, but what you're saying), I will explain a bit of what I find wrong with the OpEd piece (some of which I've addressed elsewhere in this thread in direct response to your posts).  I would like to add, just posting even articles that aren't editorials or biased with very little other meat to your posts would be just as difficult to deal with.

If involving the government at any level means government run healthcare, we already have it.  While some people would support an NHS-like system (and although I like the NHS, I wouldn't support it for the US) or even outlawing all or most insurance that isn't from the government, this bill does neither. 

He seems a bit alarmed at change, any change.  Any meaningful reform is going to change things, and the insurance companies will either adapt or fall.  If they fall, new ones will take their place.  Is there precedence of the private insurance industry going under in countries that supply their citizens with public health insurance (Scandinavia?)  How has insurance thrived in the UK with a very large, very much government run health care system?

I think that all he's doing is trying to give shades of the NHS again in this debate for a country who already automatically associate the NHS (wrongly) with a failed system. 

Personally, I'm not saying that what's being proposed is the answer either.  But I hope people start talking about answers soon and cut the propaganda.