• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Dem Plank- Health Care Availability for All

A

Anonymous

Guest
Aug 9, 4:06 PM EDT


Guaranteed health care key plank in Dems' platform

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Democrats shaped a set of principles Saturday that commits the party to guaranteed health care for all, heading off a potentially divisive debate and edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama's defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The party's platform committee moved smoothly through a range of issues for the fall campaign and approved a document that will go to the Democratic convention in Denver later this month for adoption.

There was little dissent - or room for it - in the day's meeting and a compromise on health policy took one flash-point off the table.

Obama, soon to be the Democratic nominee, has stopped short of proposing to mandate health coverage for all. He aims to achieve something close to universal coverage by making insurance more affordable and helping struggling families pay for it.

Advisers to Obama and Clinton both told the party's platform meeting they were happy with the compromise, adopted without opposition or without explanation as to how health care would be guaranteed.

In return for the guarantee, activists dropped a tougher platform amendment seeking a government-run, single-payer system and another amendment explicitly holding out Clinton's plan as the one to follow.

The party now declares itself "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATIC_PLATFORM?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What I'm seeing is a great reason not to vote for the Democrats. Health care costs have been more than doubling inflation. That is the real reason that people can't afford insurance. Instead of addressing the problem, they're going to take the easy road and commit the country to a program who's costs are going to go up exponentially every year.

What's it going to cost? What's it going to cost 5 years from now? 10? How are they going to pay for it? Shouldn't this be a major part of the discussion?

I see knee jerking and irresonsibility. We're supposed to vote for that?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
What I'm seeing is a great reason not to vote for the Democrats. Health care costs have been more than doubling inflation. That is the real reason that people can't afford insurance. Instead of addressing the problem, they're going to take the easy road and commit the country to a program who's costs are going to go up exponentially every year.

What's it going to cost? What's it going to cost 5 years from now? 10? How are they going to pay for it? Shouldn't this be a major part of the discussion?

I see knee jerking and irresonsibility. We're supposed to vote for that?
At what price is a humans life worth? The MOST important thing anyone can have is good health and the access to good heath providers.I'm at a loss how anybody can feel that fighting total access to everyone is worthy.Isn't a great country a country thats housed by healthy people. Isn't illness more costly then health??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'd rather spend the dollars seeing that every AMERICAN had access to health care- then sending it to Iraq like we are now to give health care to every mullah and swami that wants it ... :mad: :mad:

The conservative AMA says that if every American was provided access to health care that in 10 years of preventive treatment and early diagnosis of serious problems it could save the country and taxpayers Billions.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm not saying that it's not a worthy cause. I'm saying that first, they aren't addressing the real problem, which is the escalating costs of health care. If they did that, the problem likely would take care of itself without another huge inefficient government beauracracy.

Secondly, it being a given that the government get's it's funding from the citizens, how does it make sense that people can't afford health care directly, but will be able to after funneling their money through a beaurocracy? This is the same management company that completely screwed up Social Security, now we want to hire them for our health care?

I don't care how noble the idea is, it still has to be paid for. Free food and free clothing would be worthy, too. But the reality is that everything has a cost. Does it make sense to give everybody free health insurance if, in doing so, we can't fix our roads and bridges, fund our schools, pay for police or firemen, etc.... or if we have to run our debt so high that we can't even make the interest payments?
 

per

Well-known member
I can't speak for all Americans or Canadians on the health care subject. I would suggest however in comparing access and cost to my cousins in Oregon that at least on the surface theirs is a better deal. On similar procedures the waiting on the south side of the border was measured in days where ours was measured in years. Every time we compare access the system in Oregon (at least the one my relatives are tapped into) was exponentially faster. On the cost side we still pay it comes out of tax revenue. The largest single item in Alberta's balance sheet is Health Care. I agree that universal access is important but being on the same 5 month waiting list for a cancer specialist as someone else is not the universal that I would like. I'm pretty happy when someone on that list gets tired of waiting and goes south for treatment. Our system lends itself to que jumping for those that can afford it. It's just that the goods and services are provided in another economy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One of the major problems with health care costs involves lawsuits and the cost to the medical community of liability insurance, plus a whole lot of unnecessary tests that are run to cover liability...

But with a Congress full of attorneys- both Dems and Repubs- you will never get any limitations put on lawsuits or judgement amounts...Just ain't gonna happen.... :(

One thing that could lower health care provider and insurance costs a great deal is if there was one standard form that covered all government forms of insurance --Medicare, Medicaid, the military, veterans, all branches of city, county, state, and federal government, Bureau of Indian Affairs etc etc insurance- along with all the private ones- and one clearing house for all the government ones....One of the huge costs to the providers now is all the paperwork they have to do with the insurance companies.....

per- We are not talking about- and none of the candidates are talking about a government run health care system like Canada's- they are talking only about guaranteeing everyone access to health care insurance-- which would have no effect on the medical providers providing services--except they'd get paid for many services they are providing now - but that the folks with insurance are paying for with increased medical costs and increased insurance rates...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I'd rather spend the dollars seeing that every AMERICAN had access to health care- then sending it to Iraq like we are now to give health care to every mullah and swami that wants it ... :mad: :mad:

The conservative AMA says that if every American was provided access to health care that in 10 years of preventive treatment and early diagnosis of serious problems it could save the country and taxpayers Billions.....

Yeah, but in reality, who goes in for preventative treatment? I don't know about your insurance situation now, but when you were Sheriff, I'll bet you were covered under a plan then. I'll also bet that you never went in for a checkup just to prevent anything. Rather, I'll bet that you, like just about everybody in this country who isnt' a hypochondriac, didn't go to the doctor unless you had been sick for a while and your wife fianally threatened to club you over the head and drag you in herself unless you went.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
I'd rather spend the dollars seeing that every AMERICAN had access to health care- then sending it to Iraq like we are now to give health care to every mullah and swami that wants it ... :mad: :mad:

The conservative AMA says that if every American was provided access to health care that in 10 years of preventive treatment and early diagnosis of serious problems it could save the country and taxpayers Billions.....

Yeah, but in reality, who goes in for preventative treatment? I don't know about your insurance situation now, but when you were Sheriff, I'll bet you were covered under a plan then. I'll also bet that you never went in for a checkup just to prevent anything. Rather, I'll bet that you, like just about everybody in this country who isnt' a hypochondriac, didn't go to the doctor unless you had been sick for a while and your wife fianally threatened to club you over the head and drag you in herself unless you went.
I do have to admit that is an illness most men seem to suffer from,speaking from expierence I have to drag greg to Dr. kicking and screaming,by that time hes in pretty bad shape,requiring MORE healthcare then he would have had he gone in at the first sign....grrrr.So in reality all the healthcare problams stem from men..... :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
I'd rather spend the dollars seeing that every AMERICAN had access to health care- then sending it to Iraq like we are now to give health care to every mullah and swami that wants it ... :mad: :mad:

The conservative AMA says that if every American was provided access to health care that in 10 years of preventive treatment and early diagnosis of serious problems it could save the country and taxpayers Billions.....

Yeah, but in reality, who goes in for preventative treatment? I don't know about your insurance situation now, but when you were Sheriff, I'll bet you were covered under a plan then. I'll also bet that you never went in for a checkup just to prevent anything. Rather, I'll bet that you, like just about everybody in this country who isnt' a hypochondriac, didn't go to the doctor unless you had been sick for a while and your wife fianally threatened to club you over the head and drag you in herself unless you went.

You forget- my wife is a health care provider- Nuclear Med and Ultrasound...Yearly checkups- now twice yearly since I passed 50....And the county would pay for annual flu shots- and all pneumonia and hepatitis shots-- plus reguired blood tests regularly if anyone thought they may have been exposed to AIDS...

Many companies/agencies are now requiring their employees have yearly or regular checkups- just like they do for your pilots, CDL's ,railroad engineers, etc.etc....They're finding the prevention costs them less in costs and lost time from the job...
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I'm not saying that it's not a worthy cause. I'm saying that first, they aren't addressing the real problem, which is the escalating costs of health care. If they did that, the problem likely would take care of itself without another huge inefficient government beauracracy.

Secondly, it being a given that the government get's it's funding from the citizens, how does it make sense that people can't afford health care directly, but will be able to after funneling their money through a beaurocracy? This is the same management company that completely screwed up Social Security, now we want to hire them for our health care?

I don't care how noble the idea is, it still has to be paid for. Free food and free clothing would be worthy, too. But the reality is that everything has a cost. Does it make sense to give everybody free health insurance if, in doing so, we can't fix our roads and bridges, fund our schools, pay for police or firemen, etc.... or if we have to run our debt so high that we can't even make the interest payments?

Sandhusker why do you Keep calling it free health care...Why not call it affordable health care..You will still have to pay a premium based on your previous years earnings.....The fact that each person will need a card will control illegal's from being accepted and each family that does not use their plan the noney will go towards everyones cost ...not just to some insurance companys pocket...Doctors prices well be more easily regulated across the board..Small towns will get doctors because earning potential will be more equal in both cities and smaller towns...

Secondly, it being a given that the government get's it's funding from the citizens, how does it make sense that people can't afford health care directly, but will be able to after funneling their money through a beaurocracy?

All the money will all go into the medical service.....no longer the pockets of insurance companies....so those families that do not use the service very often in one year, their payments still go directly into the medical service coffers not to an insurance companies share holders...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I don't call it a affordable health care because I don't know that it is. So far, all that Obama and the other libs have talked about is an idea with no numbers backing it up. How can one determine affordability if there has been no price tag presented yet?

I don't like the socialist idea of basing premiums on my salary. Premiums should be based on the risk of filing a claim, just like auto insurance is. A 40 year old guy who is in good shape and takes care of himself should pay less than a 40 year old fat bastard who drinks himself to sleep every night and lives on Marlboros and donuts regardless of salary.

I don't have a problem with an insurance company making a profit because profit is motivation to perform. I firmly believe that we can have insurance companies taking a cut off the top and we'll still have a better deal. What shape do you think our social security system would be in now if we had paid insurance companies run it instead of the government?
Think about that for a while.

And yet, none of you libs has an answer to my arguement that socialized medicine still doesn't address the real problem! The problem is not who is paying for it, the problem is the amount that has to be paid! For example, how is socialized medicine going to address the amount doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance? (So lawyers can build 28,000 sq. ft homes, run for president, and screw their staffers)
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I don't call it a affordable health care because I don't know that it is. So far, all that Obama and the other libs have talked about is an idea with no numbers backing it up. How can one determine affordability if there has been no price tag presented yet?

I don't like the socialist idea of basing premiums on my salary. Premiums should be based on the risk of filing a claim, just like auto insurance is. A 40 year old guy who is in good shape and takes care of himself should pay less than a 40 year old fat bastard who drinks himself to sleep every night and lives on Marlboros and donuts regardless of salary.

Your car insurance is based also on the year of your vehicle not just your driving record..You cannot base health insurance on lifestyle because of genitics.How can a 7 year old kid be held responsible for getting any kind of disease...How can a women be blamed for getting breast cancer..Is it your fault that a Mosquito bites you giving you west nile virus or another.You can be a clean living saint like yourself and still get sick for reasons outside your control at the fault of no one.


I don't have a problem with an insurance company making a profit because profit is motivation to perform. I firmly believe that we can have insurance companies taking a cut off the top and we'll still have a better deal. What shape do you think our social security system would be in now if we had paid insurance companies run it instead of the government?
Think about that for a while.

I feel more people would be without there social security,similar to those that got nothing from poorly managed Union pensions...Anytime anyone takes a cut off the top they pay themselves first..Maybe a cut off the bottom,but that will never happen...You are playing with childrens health and denying claims to save money is just not acceptable to me..If someone is sick help them...Hell,you pay for criminals to be kept healthy... Why not kids and upstanding citizens?


And yet, none of you libs has an answer to my arguement that socialized medicine still doesn't address the real problem! The problem is not who is paying for it, the problem is the amount that has to be paid! For example, how is socialized medicine going to address the amount doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance? (So lawyers can build 28,000 sq. ft homes, run for president, and screw their staffers)

I did address your question to some degree....I think Doctors pay should be leveled to a closer overall scale of pay..Or at least each appointment times cost...I think user fees after a certain number of visits is ok....A 25 dollar abulance fee is not out of the question....I also think there could be a cost per day on hospital stay.The cost to be added on to your next years premiumThe a cost for hospilal stays could decrease over time..Maybe 12 dollars a day for the first two weeks.then drop it to 8 for the next two weeks and so on....It may not pay alot but it will at least cover cost of food and some power usage...As far as lawyers go,maybe doctors should be allowed to put money into a leagal fund in wich the goverment matches each doctors own dollar spent, up to a certian doller per year.That way all doctors would have legal representation under one legal entity....or at least have a fund to take from in which to hire their own perticular legal advisors...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Nono, "Your car insurance is based also on the year of your vehicle not just your driving record..You cannot base health insurance on lifestyle because of genitics.How can a 7 year old kid be held responsible for getting any kind of disease...How can a women be blamed for getting breast cancer..Is it your fault that a Mosquito bites you giving you west nile virus or another.You can be a clean living saint like yourself and still get sick for reasons outside your control at the fault of no one. "

True, anybody can get cancer or what not, but you play the odds. Using the rule of large numbers, insurance companies can predict very accurately how many people in a certain demographic will get a certain disease, wreck their car, etc..... By the lifestyle choices that you make, you can put yourself in a demographic that has less of a chance of getting sick. You should be rewarded for that. Somebody who, by choice, puts themselves in a demographic that has a greater chance of getting sick should pay for that.

Tell me, nono, do you think your auto insurance should be the same as your 20 year old neighbor who squeals his tires every time he takes off, drives like an ambulance driver everywhere he goes, and drinks like a fish?



I feel more people would be without there social security,similar to those that got nothing from poorly managed Union pensions...Anytime anyone takes a cut off the top they pay themselves first..Maybe a cut off the bottom,but that will never happen.

Then you don't know how the government has handled the money and you're not looking at the facts. First of all, they've spent it in the general fund, and secondly, if you take what we put in and what we get out, you will find an annual rate return of less than 2%. An insurance company could of just put the money into bank CDs, taken 1/3 of the profits, and still performed better!


..You are playing with childrens health and denying claims to save money is just not acceptable to me..If someone is sick help them...Hell,you pay for criminals to be kept healthy... Why not kids and upstanding citizens?

No, I'm not! I want the system FIXED! If it was fixed, and not just the costs shifted from our right pocket to our left, people could afford health care.

As far as lawyers go,maybe doctors should be allowed to put money into a leagal fund in wich the goverment matches each doctors own dollar spent, up to a certian doller per year.

You're STILL NOT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM, you're just shifting the burden of costs. That's what this whole liberal plan does, it just shifts costs. This whole deal is like you and your husband having an old house that takes a bundle of cash to heat. Instead of replacing the windows, adding insulation, etc..... you're just having your husband write the check instead of you.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
True, anybody can get cancer or what not, but you play the odds. Using the rule of large numbers, insurance companies can predict very accurately how many people in a certain demographic will get a certain disease, wreck their car, etc..... By the lifestyle choices that you make, you can put yourself in a demographic that has less of a chance of getting sick. You should be rewarded for that. Somebody who, by choice, puts themselves in a demographic that has a greater chance of getting sick should pay for that.

Tell me, nono, do you think your auto insurance should be the same as your 20 year old neighbor who squeals his tires every time he takes off, drives like an ambulance driver everywhere he goes, and drinks like a fish?


As I said before ,how can you rate people like drivers...kids cant drive ,but they do get sick..Your mother (soon to be your wife,or did you decide to marry your sister instead),may no longer drive because of her age,but she too may get unwell....To compare peoples health to cars and drivers is absolutly ridiculous.....You seem ok with insurance companies invading your privicy with questions about how you live your life,but stopping fast food chains from building in a certain area and people get all bent here.....


Then you don't know how the government has handled the money and you're not looking at the facts. First of all, they've spent it in the general fund, and secondly, if you take what we put in and what we get out, you will find an annual rate return of less than 2%. An insurance company could of just put the money into bank CDs, taken 1/3 of the profits, and still performed better!

Then why are not all non goverment pension funds fully funded...?I would agree that goverment spending needs to be controled on or at all levels.....Maybe with all the money spent On the invasion of Iraq was used to fund social security ,it would not be in the finiacial shape its in now.....Maybe the ones whho lost the most living in America during this time, are those in need of social security..The money has simply just been thrown at something,some would argue cost the tax payers to much.......

You're STILL NOT ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM, you're just shifting the burden of costs. That's what this whole liberal plan does, it just shifts costs. This whole deal is like you and your husband having an old house that takes a bundle of cash to heat. Instead of replacing the windows, adding insulation, etc..... you're just having your husband write the check instead of you..


If you only have so much comming in,no matter what your industry,sometimes to make it work you have to shift the burden of cost.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You didn't answer the question;
Tell me, nono, do you think your auto insurance should be the same as your 20 year old neighbor who squeals his tires every time he takes off, drives like an ambulance driver everywhere he goes, and drinks like a fish?
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
You didn't answer the question;
Tell me, nono, do you think your auto insurance should be the same as your 20 year old neighbor who squeals his tires every time he takes off, drives like an ambulance driver everywhere he goes, and drinks like a fish?

first off anyone who drinks like a fish and drives,no longer has valid insurance .So that point is already answered for you.Second of all Ambulance drivers are trained drivers,so if he has training then I guess he should get some reward for that........Is squealing tires a sign of a bad driver?...I think in the case of car insance it should be placed solely on your driving record.....if your 20,30 or 40 years old,you should pay by how you drive......I am not sure why your so concerened with car insurance,it is impossible to equate it to health inusrance.......In case you did not know,you must be a certain age before you can drive a car....babies can not drive cars but they sure do need health care......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You know what I mean, nono. But, if you want to play that game..... Do you think it would be right if you paid the exact same auto insurance rate as a 20 year old male with a (still insurable) bad driving record and a hot rod?
 

Mike

Well-known member
babies can not drive cars but they sure do need health care......

The parents are the ones responsible for carting underage kids around, just as they are resonsible for a child's healthcare. NOT the guvment.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Mike said:
babies can not drive cars but they sure do need health care......

The parents are the ones responsible for carting underage kids around, just as they are resonsible for a child's healthcare. NOT the guvment.

So if the gouverment is not responsible,then why do they regulate the industry and police it as well?I do believe there is alot of goverment invovlement in the rules and regulation prohibiting drivers from what they can and can not do....
 
Top