Universal Healthcare Coming to US

[PabloZed]

In the midst of the near hysteria over swine flu, the US Senate yesterday approved measures that will allow a universal healthcare bill to be passed by a simple majority instead of the filibuster proof 60. That essentially assures that Pres. Obama will get a bill to sign sometime this Fall.

What is surprising is how easily the GOP fell into the trap. Thus far the GOP has only said "no" to everything Pres. Obama has pushed. They rejected his hand when he reached out to them. That will now give the democrats cover as they manuever around the republicans to achieve what a few years ago seemed impossible.

Its also a great time to do it. How can anyone stand in the way of healthcare reform in the middle of a crisis.

 

[PabloZed]

Well, we already have socialized healthcare to a certain extent with medicare. Pres. Obama's plan mixes public and private so those who have private plans do not have to switch, but they will see their premiums decrease as more people join the risk pool.

The insurance industry is onboard.

 

[Lord Booticus]

Interesting. He's not completely doing away with private health care, but is creating public health care. He's hopefully appeasing people on both sides of the issue... Masterful.

Its what we have in England, if you worried about waiting times and super bugs you can go across the road and pay to be treated ^_^. Litrally here. The private hospital IS across the road from the NHS hospital.

 

[PabloZed]

Its a mistake to try to compare Canada or UK to America. We have a history of employer-provided healthcare that Pres. Obama wants to preserve, mostly because its what many Americans are familiar with. But that system and the private insurance market has been unable to solve our unisured problem.

I would suggest that if you are Canadian and have a problem with your gov't, vote for a change.

 

[Horschallen]

There are so many of us in USA that are just days from being suddenly unemployed and UNINSURED, because COBRA, while it is a good law, is still too expensive for the suddenly unemployed to pay and maintain their insurance for the months after separation from employers. I spend lots of money in insurance co-pay monthly for my prescriptions and I cannot imagine ending up figuring where to get $1400 for one of the two insulins I use monthly plus more money for other insurance. IT will be good to know I can fall back on the system to help keep me as healthy as possible if I get caught in a situation like the above.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I'm sorry, I'm terribly uninformed about this...

Does this mean that the US is going to get socialised health care?

Could I also see a link to a news article?

I hope not. Universal health care can be a NIGHTMARE. I hate to admit it but the conservatives were right. You have to remember.. what makes the USA so high on the scale compared to many other countries.. its because it must be doing something differently. My mom has MS and Lupus. If she needed an MRI she can get it in a week. With socialized Medicine it would take her months.

 

[kevbo]

I hope not. Universal health care can be a NIGHTMARE. I hate to admit it but the conservatives were right. You have to remember.. what makes the USA so high on the scale compared to many other countries.. its because it must be doing something differently. My mom has MS and Lupus. If she needed an MRI she can get it in a week. With socialized Medicine it would take her months.

High on what scale?

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Well that's interesting. We don't have that here in Canada... If you want to see a doctor here, you're put on a wait list and that's the end of the story.

Yes, there are only 3 countries in the world where private health care is illegal -- Cuba, North Korea, and Canada...

 

[SonOfSlobone]

I hope not. Universal health care can be a NIGHTMARE. I hate to admit it but the conservatives were right. You have to remember.. what makes the USA so high on the scale compared to many other countries.. its because it must be doing something differently. My mom has MS and Lupus. If she needed an MRI she can get it in a week. With socialized Medicine it would take her months.

The US is high on the list all right -- we spend the most money per capita with the least to show for it.

But nobody's proposing a National Health Service like the ones in England and Canada. The same people would be providing the services. The only change is that the government would be paying the bills if you're not covered any other way.

I guess -- I haven't been able to find anything about this on the NY Times. PabloZed, could you post the original link where you found this?

 

[NickCole]

I just want proof or an article or something.


(Not saying I don't believe OP)

What the OP refers to is a "reconcilation" provision in the budget the Democratic-controlled Congress is about to pass, that'll allow healthcare legislation to pass the Senate with a 51 majority rather than the usual 60 needed for major legislation.

Personally, I'd file this under careful what you wish for.



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/27/1910627.aspx

 

[sixthson]

Ask anyone who needs regular healthcare and they will most likely tell you that they fear the quality of their care will suffer under a universal healthcare plan.

I agree that something has to be done about the high price of healthcare, but forcing a government run healthcare system on us is not it.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

^^^What that article doesn't say, but the NY Times did, is that reconciliation is a tactic that the Republicans themselves used numerous times when they were in power.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/budget-talks-and-bickering-resume/

Top lawmakers gathered Monday afternoon to conclude House-Senate budget negotiations and, not surprisingly, Republicans were up in arms about Democratic plans to use a Senate fast-track procedure to consider major health care legislation later this year.

With a mix of cutting terms and dire warnings, Republicans expressed outrage over the prospect of employing the procedural process known as reconciliation to pass such a major policy initiative.
[...]
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the budget, which the House and Senate are expected to approve this week, marked a turning point in American history – and not a good one. He said the inclusion of reconciliation in the budget was tantamount to forcing Republicans to negotiate on health care with a gun to their heads.

“This is the moment when Americans switch their kind of government, their size of government, switch their relationship between the government and the individual,” he said.

Democrats countered that Republicans had used reconciliation on multiple occasions themselves, including to pass the Bush-era tax cuts. Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who chairs the Budget Committee, said he would have preferred not using the short-cut but he found the Republican complaints to be wanting.

 

[NickCole]

^^^What that article doesn't say, but the NY Times did, is that reconciliation is a tactic that the Republicans themselves used numerous times when they were in power.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/budget-talks-and-bickering-resume/

The point is not whether or not Republicans have used reconciliation -- of course they have. The point is the legislation for which reconciliation is used.

The reason filibusters don't apply to reconciliation bills is because they're supposedly adjustments to laws rather than new laws.

I'm not defending Republicans using it to push through Bush's tax cuts, but removing the option of filibuster when the issue is a tax cut with an expiration date is very different from a massive change in the way we deal with healthcare in this country.

If Democrats come up with stellar healthcare legislation, three cheers! But if they don't get this right and they've taken away the opposition's opportunity to put on the brakes and force debate, the costs in unintended consequences may be enormous. If you have great faith in Pelosi et al, I understand why this would be good news; me, I don't trust Nancy Pelosi, and when it comes to politicians I'm always wary of one side holding all the power.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I don't think the alleged "nightmare" of universal health care can even begin to compare to the actual nightmare of being uninsured, having no coverage and having a major illness.

yeah but that sucks the cost of the US funds. I know it sucks if some don't have insurance or if I am not insured.. but that isn't everyone Else's fault and they shouldn't have to feel the effects. That isn't fair to others. The world can't take care of everybody.. sad but true. If we paid for every struggling person we would eventually collapse.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Ask anyone who needs regular healthcare and they will most likely tell you that they fear the quality of their care will suffer under a universal healthcare plan.

I agree that something has to be done about the high price of healthcare, but forcing a government run healthcare system on us is not it.

EXACTLY I agree with everything you just said. But people who are brainwashed will think that EVERYONE should be taken care of by the government regardless of the cost.

 

[treanir]

Funny, universal and qualitatively sound health care works in Holland. We have our share of problems, but overall it works.

 

[Ram]

I'm glad we don't have universal health care. We have to pay our own medical bills, but coupled with heavy government subsidies, our health care system isn't abused and it runs efficiently.

 

[belamy]

yeah but that sucks the cost of the US funds. I know it sucks if some don't have insurance or if I am not insured.. but that isn't everyone Else's fault and they shouldn't have to feel the effects. That isn't fair to others. The world can't take care of everybody.. sad but true. If we paid for every struggling person we would eventually collapse.

So let's let a few million of citizens collapse so that the rest can lead a good wholesome life. That's your idea of America. That's not different from how things are done in the rest of the world, maybe only the proportion of miserable people is lower in America...
If people should always be left to take care of themselves even when they are destitute what the fuck are then governments for, parades, rallies and speeches? If you have a rifle to protect yourself then who needs the police and an army?.. if you say your earn and manage your own money what are banks and the federal reserve for?... if you can live without being dependant on anyone what are you doing living in cities, towns and villages and surfing the net?

I can't think of a single developed country whose healthcare system is not said to be close to perfect and a nightmare at the same time.

 

[NickCole]

EXACTLY I agree with everything you just said. But people who are brainwashed will think that EVERYONE should be taken care of by the government regardless of the cost.

Which citizens shouldn't have equal access to healthcare?

Should members of Congress, whose healthcare coverage is paid for by us, have access to better healthcare than some of the citizens they represent?

You say your mother has MS and Lupus. If she had no other way to access the healthcare she needs, do you think she's one of the people who should not be taken care of by the government because the cost is too high? At what amount, or for which conditions, do we tell someone you're not getting any more?

See, we've created a horrific problem for our society. Science has found ways, and continues to find more, to keep us alive longer. But it's expensive. So now we either have to figure out how to provide those benefits for everyone or be a people who play God over who gets to live and who has to die of the same medical problem.

 

[belamy]

Which citizens shouldn't have equal access to healthcare?

Should members of Congress, whose healthcare coverage is paid for by us, have access to better healthcare than some of the citizens they represent?

You say your mother has MS and Lupus. If she had no other way to access the healthcare she needs, do you think she's one of the people who should not be taken care of by the government because the cost is too high? At what amount, or for which conditions, do we tell someone you're not getting any more?

See, we've created a horrific problem for our society. Science has found ways, and continues to find more, to keep us alive longer. But it's expensive. So now we either have to figure out how to provide those benefits for everyone or be a people who play God over who gets to live and who has to die of the same medical problem.

That's right: there's a whole world of a difference between "opportunity/justice/whatever for all" and "opportunity/justice/whatever for ANYONE".