this whole American healthcare thing

I know we have had tons of threads over health care reform/Obama policy

but after listening to countless arguments on both sides, I still feel that I am among a large majority of the US populous that has little to no idea what we are arguing for or against.

Watmm has a lot of educated or at least well-read people who are passionate about this topic, I am asking you guys to educate me. I have no doubt that most people here are for the healthcare bill currently under debate, but I still don't know the ins and outs or even the basic concepts involved.

SO I guess what I am asking is:

-For unbiased research or explanations of how our system works, what Obama is trying to change, potential effects, the history of health care, etc....books would be great but unfortunately I am really strapped on time so articles would be preferred.

-For biased research, I would like to know both sides of the argument without resorting to empty posturing and name calling, generalizations, etc.

From my own perspective, and I do not claim to know anything about this....the health care systems in other nations seem to be working pretty well (the nationalized health care systems).....im a social liberal but fiscal conservative, I'm trying to figure out just how much power the government stands to gain from this and whether it has potentially negative side effects that both sides aren't presently aware of.

I am, or at least was a big fan of Ron Paul because I agree with about 90% of what he advocates, but I am still not sold on leaving health care in private hands....that obviously led to the debacle we are experiencing now.

Anyone have links to information? Opinions are welcome, but I would like to try to keep this polite.

health care is communism. you don't wanna be a communist, do you?

i think the whole idea that single payer healthcare is too expensive for our country does not hold water. US military bases being in over 50 countries in the world and how those are just accepted as 'necessary'. The overwhelming majority of fiscal conservatives would rather see most of the government's budget go into endless military endeavors , they seem to have no problems or complaints about that money being spent. In this respect most republicans who claim to be fiscally conservative are pretty much just straight up liars/hypocrites

but the whole mainstream 'framed' debate between republicans and democrats right now is almost totally devoid of actual fact or logic.

republicans say the healthcare bill is a 'government giveaway' and 'socialism' unfortunately it's very far away from either of these

democrats say forcing americans to buy private health insurance is a 'step in the right direction' and don't seem to care that they spent a year not only taking away single payer as a possible outcome but also totally scrapping the public option.

it makes me really frustrated to see almost no truthful debate about this subject, almost all the democrats even their supporters have totally capitulated in cowardice to the idea that 'well its a step in the right direction, we spent a whole year we gotta pass something'.

my personal belief is that Obama knows in his heart that he fucked up bigtime, he WAS a supporter of single payer healthcare at one time.

but i think he knows that since he's wasted an entire year of his presidency working on this bill that he better pass SOMETHING or else he's going to have to fight tooth and nail in the 2012 elections for a 2nd term. So right now it's more about keeping him electable (as well as the democrats in power) than it is about passing anything meaningful or progressive

edit: democrats/liberals have completely lost their ability (did they ever have it?) to make strong demands and use THAT as a bargaining chip for getting what they want.

want single payer healthcare? The best strategy to get it is to demand it and not back down until the other side concedes in some part to your demands. If you back down immediately with no concessions you're going to be steam rolled over every time and makes you look impotent to everyone watching.

Yes it might be the right thing to do but on the whole I'd tell 'em not to bother. You'll only get people whinging about the state of it in a few years anyway. You give anyone something for nothing, next thing they say it was a basic human right and they were entitled to it anyway.

  On 3/19/2010 at 6:46 PM, chimera slot mom said:

health care is communism. you don't wanna be a communist, do you?

The bill is aiming to reform private health care and expand Medicare and Medicaid. There was a "public option" concept but that was dropped, and it was the only thing that was "government-run" in either plan. I personally I opposed the public option, not because it was too socialist or anything, but because I thought the concept was a waste of time or money.

Personally, I hope this thing passes, just to get more regulation in place. I believe in private care over single-payer, but it's worthless if even hard-working middle class people can't purchase it because of pre-existing conditions or have to move to other states because of gaping differences in coverage laws between states.

Furthermore, despite being a moderate who leans libertarian, I am absolutely disgusted with the majority of the GOP and right-wing bastards who have lied about the issue and said our system is the best in the world. Ignorance is fueling every major argument and all the anger against the bill.

seriously, is there any reason for health insurance companies to exist? all i see them doing is making a profit from sick people.

Insurance companies basically get 30 million new customers due to the mandatory insurance clause forcing all americans to purchase and carry health coverage by penalty of fine/taxation or jail (for repeat offenders). Furthering burdening individuals, freelancers, small business, and sole proprietors... There is a new amendment to allow states to opt-out of the mandatory clause (which is cool), but the way that works is, the fed says "if you opt-out of the mandatory insurance clause we're cutting your funding for ______.", so the states give in to get their cash and opt-in forcing every american to carry insurance on their own dime (or their employers).

  On 3/19/2010 at 6:52 PM, Awepittance said:

 

want single payer healthcare? The best strategy to get it is to demand it and not back down until the other side concedes in some part to your demands. If you back down immediately with no concessions you're going to be steam rolled over every time and makes you look impotent to everyone watching.

thanks for the post. I absolutely agree with this point...not even knowing or becoming opinionated on the actual substance of the healthcare policy, Obama really fucked up....the dems should have said "No reaching across the aisle, you had your 8 years to fuck everything up, we are passing this." But instead the new admin focused on solving the economic crisis, which i hesitate to say they even helped "solve".

I say it to friends and I will say it again, if Obama had originally shoved this through right after his inauguration, and the plan was met with initial success, he would almost automatically gain a second term in office.

This was kind of a helpful start:

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:16 PM, joshuatxuk said:

The bill is aiming to reform private health care and expand Medicare and Medicaid. There was a "public option" concept but that was dropped, and it was the only thing that was "government-run" in either plan. I personally I opposed the public option, not because it was too socialist or anything, but because I thought the concept was a waste of time or money.

 

Personally, I hope this thing passes, just to get more regulation in place. I believe in private care over single-payer, but it's worthless if even hard-working middle class people can't purchase it because of pre-existing conditions or have to move to other states because of gaping differences in coverage laws between states.

 

Furthermore, despite being a moderate who leans libertarian, I am absolutely disgusted with the majority of the GOP and right-wing bastards who have lied about the issue and said our system is the best in the world. Ignorance is fueling every major argument and all the anger against the bill.

Ahhh, this stuff is what I am ignorant about, the first part. What does "public option" mean?

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:17 PM, azatoth said:

seriously, is there any reason for health insurance companies to exist?

Surely it's better than insisting on a cash payment up front when they land into the hospital?

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:18 PM, EDGEY said:

Insurance companies basically get 30 million new customers due to the mandatory insurance clause forcing all americans to purchase and carry health coverage by penalty of fine/taxation or jail (for repeat offenders). Furthering burdening individuals, freelancers, small business, and sole proprietors... There is a new amendment to allow states to opt-out of the mandatory clause (which is cool), but the way that works is, the fed says "if you opt-out of the mandatory insurance clause we're cutting your funding for ______.", so the states give in to get their cash and opt-in forcing every american to carry insurance on their own dime (or their employers).

Also, quick note - this is the first time any legislation would FORCE americans to purchase a PRIVATE product/service by threat of fine/taxation just for being alive...

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I say it to friends and I will say it again, if Obama had originally shoved this through right after his inauguration, and the plan was met with initial success, he would almost automatically gain a second term in office.

yeah fucking right.

While we're at it, if obama had fixed all of our problems as soon as he got into office we'd all be sitting on our thumbs singing kumbaya doing away with scarcity on our way to a utopian reource based economy.

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:25 PM, Conor74 said:

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:17 PM, azatoth said:

seriously, is there any reason for health insurance companies to exist?

 

Surely it's better than insisting on a cash payment up front when they land into the hospital?

that's where government sponsored healthcare comes in.

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:31 PM, 42Orange said:

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I say it to friends and I will say it again, if Obama had originally shoved this through right after his inauguration, and the plan was met with initial success, he would almost automatically gain a second term in office.

 

yeah fucking right.

While we're at it, if obama had fixed all of our problems as soon as he got into office we'd all be sitting on our thumbs singing kumbaya doing away with scarcity on our way to a utopian reource based economy.

well it obviously didn't happen...im no utopian, but part of the reason Bush was re-elected was because the "appearance" of effective anti-terror policies created by the Patriot Act and the invasion of Afghanistan...no doubt. So I would be willing to say the same if a health care plan was passed that the majority almost immediately saw benefit in.

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:36 PM, azatoth said:

that's where government sponsored healthcare comes in.

Which can result in terrible treatment for all. I mean, of course if one could guarantee state backed healthcare of a certain quality, go for it. But I think in a lot of countries, like my own, when one does the cost benefit analysis and sees how much it costs us to provide a standard of care that is a national joke, you wonder...

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

well it obviously didn't happen...im no utopian, but part of the reason Bush was re-elected was because the "appearance" of effective anti-terror policies created by the Patriot Act and the invasion of Afghanistan...no doubt. So I would be willing to say the same if a health care plan was passed that the majority almost immediately saw benefit in.

bust see, the majority of the people who liked bush's go-getm terrorists attitude are the same people that HATE this health bill. If he passed something immediately after gaining power it wouldve a. not been revised/amended and probably and probably been a shitty bill B: not been reviewed/approved by anyone in the senate/HoR. C: been percieved as an extremely audacious, dictatorial move (nazi healthcare bill x10) . I cant imagine anyone approving of such a move in politics except maybe blindly supportive democrats. not to mention pretty much every single shortcoming of the bill would be pretty much entirely on him.

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:52 PM, Conor74 said:

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:36 PM, azatoth said:

that's where government sponsored healthcare comes in.

 

Which can result in terrible treatment for all. I mean, of course if one could guarantee state backed healthcare of a certain quality, go for it. But I think in a lot of countries, like my own, when one does the cost benefit analysis and sees how much it costs us to provide a standard of care that is a national joke, you wonder...

the quality of treatment is how it's managed. the quality i get here is great. and i'd rather trade for a slightly lower quality of care than the risk of financial bankruptcy if i get sick.

why so yanks say it will supposedly be prohibitively expensive to run? it evidently works very well and cost-effectively in much of Europe, why not just do it like they do?

the UK's NHS is not an ideal system but still well worth having, and it's still by no means unaffordable

still don't get the hate. well, obviously a lot of it's from cretins who watch fox news. but a lot of non-retarded people are against it too.

i really have no idea. i have no healthcare right now.

well, as a person that has suffered from panic attacks while uninsured, it definitely hurts the pocketbook....like 600 or so bucks just to take my pulse, make me wait around for an hour or so, and then release me with three xanax.

im lucky enough to have good insurance now provided by my school, but a year before that I wasn't looking so pretty.

what's the deal with public healthcare in Canada? is it up to mainland Europe standards or is it just a better-than-nothing NHS-style job?

i have no idea and i apparently live there...

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:31 PM, 42Orange said:

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I say it to friends and I will say it again, if Obama had originally shoved this through right after his inauguration, and the plan was met with initial success, he would almost automatically gain a second term in office.

 

yeah fucking right.

While we're at it, if obama had fixed all of our problems as soon as he got into office we'd all be sitting on our thumbs singing kumbaya doing away with scarcity on our way to a utopian reource based economy.

classic straw man fallacy

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:52 PM, Conor74 said:

  On 3/19/2010 at 7:36 PM, azatoth said:

that's where government sponsored healthcare comes in.

 

Which can result in terrible treatment for all. I mean, of course if one could guarantee state backed healthcare of a certain quality, go for it. But I think in a lot of countries, like my own, when one does the cost benefit analysis and sees how much it costs us to provide a standard of care that is a national joke, you wonder...

you know, as a person without insurance, i wouldn't mind taking a dip in the quality of care for the ability to actually go to doctors when i am sick instead of suffering through it.