LibriumArcana.Games

Write your congresspeople and tell them to support HR 676

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00676:

Universal health care in the United States. Support it, and bring the US in to the present with the rest of the civilized world when it comes to taking care of its citizens.

Parts of the bill that stand out to me:

(a) In General- All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHI Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care.

SEC. 102. BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.
(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:
(1) Primary care and prevention.
(2) Inpatient care.
(3) Outpatient care.
(4) Emergency care.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Durable medical equipment.
(7) Long term care.
(8) Mental health services.
(9) The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
(10) Substance abuse treatment services.
(11) Chiropractic services.
(12) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
(13) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
(b) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
(c) No Cost-Sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.

(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

More info can be found on Dennis Kucinich's campaign site. I don't agree with him on many other issues, but on this one, he is right on target.

You can save thousands of American lives every year with this bill, and it will end up costing us less than our current system. Write your congressman and pass the word on to every American you know.

What if I prefer a private health insurer? I refuse to support a bill that makes the government my only choice.

Then the blood of 14,000 Americans every year is on your hands.

Let me expand, I'm not against having the government provide medical insurance for those who have nowhere else to turn to or don't desire a private insurer. I'm even willing to pay taxes for it no matter what my choice is in the matter.

I am not willing to have choices dictated to me and have the government (or anyone else) tell me who my insurer will be.

I have a mother, she's a good mother and takes her duty has a mother seriously, I do not require the fucking US government to try to take over for her.

Then the blood of 14,000 Americans every year is on your hands.

Nice dramatics there child. How about you try talking your age now?

In Canada, a system I actually know something about, supplemental insurance isn't illegal. So are private medical services. Everyone is covered by the public system, which is really a big "single payer" kind of system. So, hypothetically speaking as if this were Canada, frigid doesn't have the right to opt out of it, but he does have the right to get additional private coverage if he wants it.

Now the Walter Reed mess, as bad as it is, is still better than most private American health insurance, according to recent studies. That is, because as crappy as the care is in some of the horror stories, most private insurance companies would drop the person with the same problems like a hot rock and would be able to do it. Furthermore, the fact that it affects a small portion of the population, instead of being representative of the care the entire nation can expect and having that kind of political muscle behind it, its a small percentage of the nation's population that is easily ignored. Yes I know there are loud noises made about "supporting our troops" made in America, but shafting soldiers when no one is looking while publicly embracing them is an old tradition in every country.

Competition with private companies would drive prices back up across the board and quality back down for regular people, since the market would snatch up doctors with promises of more money.

Or worse yet, some doctors might decide to stop taking people who can't afford the private companies. Now the public health care folk are overworked, resulting in even more decline of quality. Hospitals that take both now must pay the overhead of being able to handle both systems, which results in even higher prices.

Fuck that.

Cynical Cat wrote:So, hypothetically speaking as if this were Canada, frigid doesn't have the right to opt out of it, but he does have the right to get additional private coverage if he wants it.

Does this private coverage compete directly with services covered by the government system?

Competition with private companies would drive prices back up across the board and quality back down for regular people, since the market would snatch up doctors with promises of more money.

It hasn't in any other field I'm aware of. Besides you're forgetting that the Government does not need to show a profit.

Or worse yet, some doctors might decide to stop taking people who can't afford the private companies. Now the public health care folk are overworked, resulting in even more decline of quality. Hospitals that take both now must pay the overhead of being able to handle both systems, which results in even higher prices.

As long as the Government pays the doctor on time, he won't really have any reason to. Also you forget the government can just make it illegal to refuse them.

There is no reason to outlaw private insurers. To be honest I figure either the private companies will lower their prices or many of them will go out of business and only the wealthy will use them.

Destructionator XV wrote:Competition with private companies would drive prices back up across the board and quality back down for regular people, since the market would snatch up doctors with promises of more money.

No it wouldn't. Private companies aren't as competitive (due to their layers of bureaucrats and administrators) as a single payer and try to pay doctors as little as possible as well. They also have to make a profit. Government medical care doesn't try to make a profit. You don't see doctors refusing to treat people on Medicaid, which is a US form of socialized medicine.

Or worse yet, some doctors might decide to stop taking people who can't afford the private companies. Now the public health care folk are overworked, resulting in even more decline of quality. Hospitals that take both now must pay the overhead of being able to handle both systems, which results in even higher prices.

Fuck that.

Again your assuming that private insurance and HMOs spend money like water. They don't. A doctor only gets paid if he has patients and if the majority of people are on a government system, that's who most of them will treat. The same theory would apply to Canadian trained doctors leaving for the states and that does happen, but with only with a small percentage of doctors.

Insurance companies make themselves rich. They don't do that by lavishing money on doctors. There will be few who make a living dealing only with the wealthy, but that already happens under the current system and they do that because the wealthy do have the money to spend not because private insurance will spend lavishly.

Cynical Cat wrote:You don't see doctors refusing to treat people on Medicaid, which is a US form of socialized medicine.

Yes, they do. Medicaid people in my area are restricted to only a handful of doctors and exactly one dentist.

Though, rethinking it, you guys might be right. I think I'd be willing to also support any legislation that allowed them to exist, but did not allow them to turn anyone away as a compromise. EDIT: by them in the second phrase, I mean health care providers /EDIT

Doesn't change my support of this bill, anyway.

Problem is, this bill specifically makes it illegal for private insurance.

I will not support such a bill, and to be blunt, it will die painfully on the floor because private insurance companies are going to be screaming about this.

New question is why does it matter if it makes it illegal for private insurance? The wealthy can still have their double standard - it doesn't prohibit them from paying out of pocket.

Everyone is going to be paying for the national coverage through taxes anyway. So why would anyone want to pay more for the same service - or less, since it is true that insurance companies make money by taking yours then not actually spending it on you? The coverage under the bill would cover practically anything your doctor felt was needed.

The same reason people send their kids to private schools. Just because the government is handling it doesn't mean they are handling it well in all areas.

I just wonder.....

Why many people seem to object to government-subsidized National Health Plan, if it's actually cheaper and more affordable than private health insurance?

Of course, that would be much different case if the National Health Plan is actually more expensive while competition is illegalized. But then again, it is something that sounds more like RIAA instead of National Health Plan.

Note that it is not like big businesses actually write Bills to illegalize competition, but attempts to eliminate competition (barrier to entry, consumer lock-in, etc) with the goal of strangling the consumers with exorbitant prices sounds more like M.O. of big corporations instead of government-subsidized services.

Furthermore, if it does not illegalize private health insurance (unfortunately it does), then I think it is an elegant solution --people who can't afford private health insurance can still get social safety net of some sort, while people who are richer can still get supplemental (more luxurious?) health service from private health insurance.

Hotfoot wrote:Problem is, this bill specifically makes it illegal for private insurance.

That's what I was wondering. In that case, fuck that.

Destructionator XV wrote:Competition with private companies would drive prices back up across the board and quality back down for regular people, since the market would snatch up doctors with promises of more money.

Are you paying attention to what you're saying at all? "We have competition, so we'll improve our business by underperforming said competition while charging more for our services than the competition does." What? Are you on crack?

I don't like paying involuntary taxes for services I do not use. Period.

And this is why I dislike democracy.

Or why I dislike American democracy, if I may be more specific. Universal healthcare will never become a reality in this country because people either dislike it for the reasons stated above, or (the prevailing reason I've noticed) the Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms all scream "ZOMFG SOCIALIZM!!!" when they hear "Universal Healthcare". Then they bring up the whole "Socialism leads to Communism" Cold War vintage slippery slope.

I have two main concerns with the idea of a government ran healthcare system.

Currently I am IN a government ran healthcare system and to be quite honest it is the lowest, cheaptest, crappiest type of medical I've ever seen to date.

The bumbling interns from Scrubs are more adept at medicine then some of the docs and nurses I have to deal with.

But then again, they're military doctors, but that's a different story. But I just have nightmares that it'll just be more of the same. I mean if it's not, that's great, but after dealing with government ran military medicine, I'd rather take my chances with voodoo and home remedies most of the time for anything that won't kill me.


My second issue leans towards the first as issue in a way. I've got a friend right now up near Vancouver, B.C. who's been having to have operations on her legs since she was a little girl. Every couple of months she's back in surgery for them.

She had a consult from an American doc about 4 or 5 months ago, a cousin of a friend of the family or some such. Otherwise they probably couldn't have afforded it. But the end result was that she was told that the problem was correctable and in far less procedures then she had already gotten.

So that tells me, in a roundabout way, that a government medical system may indeed be good for the average person for the average problem. Here's some cold meds and tylenol, drink your fluids and get rest. Or here's some Flexeril and Naproxen for your knee, keep off of it, use some crutches for the next 3 weeks. But for major issues that require a lot of work and dedication to fixing a person it seems to fail.

Now Cynical, please prove me wrong on this one, but I've known this girl for over a decade. I've known the problems she's had with her legs and how they seem to keep getting worse instead of better. And when you've got the Canadian docs chopping up her legs every other month, and another doc sitting here and telling her that it's correctable with far less then what she's already gotten, it quite frankly worries me a bit in regard to what sort of medical treatment we'll recieve.

Okay, it seems many people view that governmed-subsidized National Health Plan should be bad in terms of treatment the patients get. How about other nations which already has such National Health Plan? Let say, Canada? If they actually have more than adequate treatment, then why not copying their model?

This isn't replacing the doctors. Same private doctors, just now the government pays the bill instead of you. Canadians can still come down here to get a second opinion from our doctors if they want to, assuming they can afford to pay the bill (since the coverage proposed wouldn't cover visitors to the US, only residents)

If it's the same docs then this is going to go one of two ways:

1) The doctors leave because of the payment plans the government options them with. Which means the doctor no longer makes what he feels he should for his work.

2) The doctors instead figure out that the government is a fat stupid entity that grossly overpays contracted personel but not its own so it'll end up paying $20 a pill for Motrin(a drug that normally costs about $.02 a pill) and the government will be more then happy to pass this savings onto the tax payer.

Or 3. The doctors get the same or more as they are now and drug prices are fairly negotiated so everyone wins.

Pardon me to be Captain Obvious, but I believe National Health Plan is not necessarily a bad thing --it all depends on how you want to make it to be. Instead of vehemently oppossing it, why don't we try to formulate what a good National Health Plan should be?

Just an idea though.