[SheWantsTheD]

Searched for a thread like this, but didn't find one that had such a discussion going. Found a few others on Obamacare, but none that had the for/against theme going. If so, my apologies.




So, tell us, do you or don't you support the law and why?

[redbeard]

My biggest qualm about universal healthcare is that you have to draw the line as to where the care will end.

When everyone has the same care, the government decides if your 100-year-old grandma, who is likely to croak soon, will get her pricey new pacemaker. That's ridiculous. There is no reason that Mark Cuban should be getting the same healthcare as the crackhead on the street. If Mark Cuban wants to spend millions of dollars trying to be the first 150-year-old man, so be it! If he wants to spend zero dollars, never get surgery, and die young, so be it!

The individual should determine how much care you pay for. It's natural selection. People will die eventually, depending on how much care they get, and it's not up to the government to decide how much care people should be getting.

My other big issue is that some government officials won't be required to be on Obamacare. If this program is so good, why aren't its biggest proponents on it?

Stefan Molyneaux gives a great breakdown.

Remember, if you don't like the laws...you can leave at any time...

[soup]

Mark Cuban is trying to do that?

C'mon y'all, don't be haters. Let people get healthcare. To me that's as basic as having police and sanitation.

[speakeasy]

Yes. It's not perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Ideally I'd prefer we had single-payer healthcare like every other industrial nation in the world. It makes the most sense to me. There's a reason that the healthcare lobby is single most powerful lobby in Washington(right up there with Big Oil). It's immensely profitable. Canadians and Europeans pay way less for the exact same drugs that we have here. The Pharmaceutical lobby here is powerful and fight any price controls on drug costs. They can stop Americans from importing drugs for cheap from Canada so that you will be forced to buy the expensive drugs here. People usually argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, but I don't think our private healthcare system is efficient compared to other industrial countries. We pay more and the end results are actually less. It's also overly complicated as I found out when I needed a surgery last year.

I have no idea Americans are so unique in their opposition to universal coverage. This mystifies my friends overseas. Everywhere else it's seen as the right thing to do, like giving an education to a kid. But here, it's seen as Communism. Maybe if we never had the Cold War, attitudes would be different. I think being in an arms race with the USSR for half a century made Americans paranoid about anything that smacks of socialism in practice or rhetoric and that Cold War mindset has become imprinted in the cultural DNA. Obama's a communist! Obamacare is communist! Raising taxes on the rich is communist!!! Lifting the embargo in Cuba is communist!!!

[Baldwin81]

Supporting or not supporting Obamacare is based on a false premise.

In general:

You have a person with an illness on one side and a doctor who can (hopefully) heal on the other side. To have a for-profit corporation between the two that dictates the terms and conditions between the above two parties is ridiculous.

I tend to lean right on a lot of issues, but I swear to God I would've rounded-up donors and campaigned like hell for Obama if he'd given the finger to the insurance companies and tried to nationalize health insurance.

Instead, whereas Republicans will keep things status-quo re: health care. Democrats put in some work and secured millions of new customers for the insurance lobby.

To preempt a rebuttal, I understand that nationalized health insurance in the US would be the most corrupt, bloated federal program ever and that's saying a lot. Nationalizing health insurance is probably a solution more complicated than the problem and the problems with health care run deep. Start with "health": we don't take care of ourselves as a nation.

At the same time I would urge you to step back from the political theater and ask, "Why the hell do we need, really need, to have 'private' health insurance in the first place?"

In theory:

Nationalized health insurance covers everyone.

If you can afford it, the best doctors will work outside of the national health insurance scheme and take cash.

In reality:

We have a mess of a program that only politicians would dare claim is working.

The funniest thing about Obamacare is that it's labeled "Socialist." The government compelling citizens to purchase a private product / service sounds much more fascist than anything. It's just another team-up by government and corporations to fuck people out of money that they don't have.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 03:30 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yes. It's not perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Ideally I'd prefer we had single-payer healthcare like every other industrial nation in the world. It makes the most sense to me. There's a reason that the healthcare lobby is single most powerful lobby in Washington(right up there with Big Oil). It's immensely profitable. Canadians and Europeans pay way less for the exact same drugs that we have here. The Pharmaceutical lobby here is powerful and fight any price controls on drug costs. They can stop Americans from importing drugs for cheap from Canada so that you will be forced to buy the expensive drugs here. People usually argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, but I don't think our private healthcare system is efficient compared to other industrial countries. We pay more and the end results are actually less. It's also overly complicated as I found out when I needed a surgery last year.

I have no idea Americans are so unique in their opposition to universal coverage. This mystifies my friends overseas. Everywhere else it's seen as the right thing to do, like giving an education to a kid. But here, it's seen as Communism. Maybe if we never had the Cold War, attitudes would be different. I think being in an arms race with the USSR for half a century made Americans paranoid about anything that smacks of socialism in practice or rhetoric and that Cold War mindset has become imprinted in the cultural DNA. Obama's a communist! Obamacare is communist! Raising taxes on the rich is communist!!! Lifting the embargo in Cuba is communist!!!

Do you actually trust this government to manage your healthcare? If you do, you are surely not seeing this government for what it truly is.


Also, where were a lot of those drugs that are cheap in Canada and Europe developed? Would we have as many drugs today without the incentive for monetary rewards that America offers? I somehow doubt it. Canada and Europe's socialized medicine benefit from Americas free-market.

[Panteleimon]

Against. Another government solution for a government caused problem. Best article with real fixes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/20...insurance/

[Cr33pin]

Fuck Obama Care

This country needs something done about the money making racket they call health care, but Obama Care aint it. The number one money making business in America is the healthcare system. They don't give a fuck about curing whatevers wrong with you they just wanna sell you some pills to mask your symptoms. Americans are sick, fat and fucked up an its only getting worse.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 03:35 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:30 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yes. It's not perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Ideally I'd prefer we had single-payer healthcare like every other industrial nation in the world. It makes the most sense to me. There's a reason that the healthcare lobby is single most powerful lobby in Washington(right up there with Big Oil). It's immensely profitable. Canadians and Europeans pay way less for the exact same drugs that we have here. The Pharmaceutical lobby here is powerful and fight any price controls on drug costs. They can stop Americans from importing drugs for cheap from Canada so that you will be forced to buy the expensive drugs here. People usually argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, but I don't think our private healthcare system is efficient compared to other industrial countries. We pay more and the end results are actually less. It's also overly complicated as I found out when I needed a surgery last year.

I have no idea Americans are so unique in their opposition to universal coverage. This mystifies my friends overseas. Everywhere else it's seen as the right thing to do, like giving an education to a kid. But here, it's seen as Communism. Maybe if we never had the Cold War, attitudes would be different. I think being in an arms race with the USSR for half a century made Americans paranoid about anything that smacks of socialism in practice or rhetoric and that Cold War mindset has become imprinted in the cultural DNA. Obama's a communist! Obamacare is communist! Raising taxes on the rich is communist!!! Lifting the embargo in Cuba is communist!!!

Do you actually trust this government to manage your healthcare? If you do, you are surely not seeing this government for what it truly is.


Also, where were a lot of those drugs that are cheap in Canada and Europe developed? Would we have as many drugs today without the incentive for monetary rewards?

Drugs are developed outside the US as well. Germany and Switzerland are prolific in drug patents as well.

[SheWantsTheD]

(05-23-2014 03:52 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:35 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:30 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yes. It's not perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Ideally I'd prefer we had single-payer healthcare like every other industrial nation in the world. It makes the most sense to me. There's a reason that the healthcare lobby is single most powerful lobby in Washington(right up there with Big Oil). It's immensely profitable. Canadians and Europeans pay way less for the exact same drugs that we have here. The Pharmaceutical lobby here is powerful and fight any price controls on drug costs. They can stop Americans from importing drugs for cheap from Canada so that you will be forced to buy the expensive drugs here. People usually argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, but I don't think our private healthcare system is efficient compared to other industrial countries. We pay more and the end results are actually less. It's also overly complicated as I found out when I needed a surgery last year.

I have no idea Americans are so unique in their opposition to universal coverage. This mystifies my friends overseas. Everywhere else it's seen as the right thing to do, like giving an education to a kid. But here, it's seen as Communism. Maybe if we never had the Cold War, attitudes would be different. I think being in an arms race with the USSR for half a century made Americans paranoid about anything that smacks of socialism in practice or rhetoric and that Cold War mindset has become imprinted in the cultural DNA. Obama's a communist! Obamacare is communist! Raising taxes on the rich is communist!!! Lifting the embargo in Cuba is communist!!!

Do you actually trust this government to manage your healthcare? If you do, you are surely not seeing this government for what it truly is.


Also, where were a lot of those drugs that are cheap in Canada and Europe developed? Would we have as many drugs today without the incentive for monetary rewards?

Drugs are developed outside the US as well. Germany and Switzerland are prolific in drug patents as well.

Sure they are, but don't dismiss the amount of free-market benefits America makes to the rest of the world through innovation. Healthcare especially.

[vinman]

The government can't keep potholes filled. I should trust them with health care? And if it's so great why did they give themselves, and certain unions exemptions?

[It_is_my_time]

(05-23-2014 03:52 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:35 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 03:30 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yes. It's not perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction. Ideally I'd prefer we had single-payer healthcare like every other industrial nation in the world. It makes the most sense to me. There's a reason that the healthcare lobby is single most powerful lobby in Washington(right up there with Big Oil). It's immensely profitable. Canadians and Europeans pay way less for the exact same drugs that we have here. The Pharmaceutical lobby here is powerful and fight any price controls on drug costs. They can stop Americans from importing drugs for cheap from Canada so that you will be forced to buy the expensive drugs here. People usually argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, but I don't think our private healthcare system is efficient compared to other industrial countries. We pay more and the end results are actually less. It's also overly complicated as I found out when I needed a surgery last year.

I have no idea Americans are so unique in their opposition to universal coverage. This mystifies my friends overseas. Everywhere else it's seen as the right thing to do, like giving an education to a kid. But here, it's seen as Communism. Maybe if we never had the Cold War, attitudes would be different. I think being in an arms race with the USSR for half a century made Americans paranoid about anything that smacks of socialism in practice or rhetoric and that Cold War mindset has become imprinted in the cultural DNA. Obama's a communist! Obamacare is communist! Raising taxes on the rich is communist!!! Lifting the embargo in Cuba is communist!!!

Do you actually trust this government to manage your healthcare? If you do, you are surely not seeing this government for what it truly is.


Also, where were a lot of those drugs that are cheap in Canada and Europe developed? Would we have as many drugs today without the incentive for monetary rewards?

Drugs are developed outside the US as well. Germany and Switzerland are prolific in drug patents as well.

If I remember correctly, 95% of all medical advances are made in the USA over the last 20 years.

When the USA eventually gets a socialist healthcare system, there is no other country with the resources and the system in place to continue this trend. So it will be ugly around the world.

Regardless, Obamacare is a disaster and will lead to socialist healthcare. So that means if you want to work hard and have better healthcare, you will have to pay A LOT for it. Other wise you will get healthcare that will probably be about as good as the VA healthcare is today, and we are now seeing how good that system works with secret lists to let people die.

Just now they are bailing out the Insurance companies because they are trying to pay them off to keep premiums low so the Democrats don't lose too much voters.

Between the disaster roll out, that was beyond laughable, and now tax money going to insurance companies to bribe them into not raising rates before the elections, it is telling what a disaster this will be.

It is just more of the same, steal from the middle class and give to the elites.

[cool]

Look no further than the VA to see how the US government manages healthcare. It has been dysfunctional for decades with no will in Congress to fix it.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 04:15 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

If I remember correctly, 95% of all medical advances are made in the USA over the last 20 years.

When the USA eventually gets a socialist healthcare system, there is no other country with the resources and the system in place to continue this trend. So it will be ugly around the world.

And what exactly would universal healthcare have to do with medical innovations? Why is having universal coverage going to halt medical technology? I don't see what one has to do with the other. So because everyone is covered, Pfizer is going to stop making drugs?

[SheWantsTheD]

Yes. If the government dictates they will only pay x amount, why would anyone spend millions of dollars and decades making a drug when they won't get rich from doing it?

[It_is_my_time]

(05-23-2014 04:29 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:15 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

If I remember correctly, 95% of all medical advances are made in the USA over the last 20 years.

When the USA eventually gets a socialist healthcare system, there is no other country with the resources and the system in place to continue this trend. So it will be ugly around the world.

And what exactly would universal healthcare have to do with medical innovations? Why is having universal coverage going to halt medical technology? I don't see what one has to do with the other. So because everyone is covered, Pfizer is going to stop making drugs?

Because the financial incentive to take the risk to test, develop and get new technology approve will diminish.

It will not disappear, but it will certainly slow down. As with most anything once the govt. gets involved.

[Walderschmidt]

I do not believe that the government should be responsible for my healthcare.

I can do it fine by myself thank you.

If the government screws up - who's to blame? Well - apparently, we're a democracy now. So everyone is to blame. If everyone is to blame, who's ass do I have to kick to fix it if something goes wrong?

Hmmmm....

Wald

[Samseau]

Very simple:

Universal healthcare for children only, not healthy adults who can work and pay for their own shit. If you're at 60 and you haven't saved enough to pay for your terminal disease, then that's your fault for pissing away 40 years of good health and not saving anything up.

Children are also cheap to provide care for, and have a large return on investment (40-60 years of good health once they make it to adulthood). What is the point to giving universal healthcare to someone with less than 10-15 years?

[Andy_B]

I'm against it because it doesn't go far enough.

It seems like pretty much a settled debate at this point: single-payer is the best way to ensure that everybody gets access to basic medical services. It guarantees that even the poorest people get healthcare, and it doesn't penalize anyone for not taking the time to sign up for health insurance.

In the old U.S. system, being financially irresponsible or chronically unemployed meant you couldn't get healthcare. It basically puts healthcare on the same level as a luxury item. Johnny's parents never taught him how to manage money and his employer doesn't offer health insurance, so now apparently that cancer's just going to have to have its way with him. WTF?

The new system is a little better but I still find it annoying how it's based on private insurance. I don't know the details of Obamacare (I'm not American) but as far as I know, if you can't afford insurance (i.e. you're flat broke), under Obamacare the government has no responsibility to provide it for you. So it's just this awkward situation where the government is forcing you to buy a commercial product. I do think this will result in more people getting healthcare, but it still sort of treats healthcare like "just another product," albeit a highly regulated one.

[SheWantsTheD]

The poorest people already get healthcare. It's called Medicaid. It's been around for decades. That is the weakest argument in the entire conversation.

[Ensam]

The problem really was that we already had universal health care. Most county's have some kind of free clinic system and you can get care there without insurance if you need it. It's a pain in the ass and takes all day but you'll get care. Hospitals won't turn you away if you don't have insurance and need immediate care. Real change would have been expanding those systems and providing better services. Instead what we got was a massive gift to the insurance industry.

What we really need to do is separate the idea of health care and health insurance. Regular check ups and problems that everybody will face should not be covered under health insurance. Your car insurance doesn't pay for your oil changes or other expected wear and tear on your car. It pays for unforeseen and rare events. That's all health insurance should cover.

Health care on the other hand is your routine interaction with the medical system. Regular check ups, minor infections, etc. - things 99% of the population has to deal with - should all be paid out of pocket, by your employer as a perk, or subsidized by the government for those who can't afford it. That's what we do for other critical goods and services like food and housing.

[speakeasy]

(05-23-2014 04:33 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Yes. If the government dictates they will only pay x amount, why would anyone spend millions of dollars and decades making a drug when they won't get rich from doing it?

Well here's the fucked up thing. All other OECD nations impose price controls on drugs. We're the only exception. So the result is, Americans are essentially subsidizing the rest of the world that gets them at a discount. The profit they are losing on the rest of the world is made up by charging Americans more for them. It's completely unfair to us. What other industry works like this? That would be like Saudi Arabia having the most expensive gas prices in the world while everyone else gets their oil for cheap. You would think it should be the opposite, Americans get the cheapest drug prices since America produces the most and their citizens would see the most immediate benefit.

http://www.alternet.org/11-major-drug-co...eir-pricey

Quote:

Last year, 11 of the 12 new-to-market drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration were priced above $100,000 per-patient per-year.

And, Americans pay nearly 50% more for comparable prescriptions in the United States than they would in the UK, France, Germany, Spain and a host of other developed nations.

For instance, look at Nexium, a drug commonly prescribed to treat acid reflux.

In Spain, a prescription for Nexium costs, on average, $18. In France and the United Kingdom, Nexium costs, on average, $30 and $32 respectively.

But here in the United States, a prescription for Nexium costs, on average, a whopping $187, six times as much as it costs in France and the UK.

Lipitor is another commonly prescribed medication in the United States, used to treat high cholesterol. In New Zealand, a prescription for Lipitor costs, on average, just six dollars. And in South Africa and Spain, it costs $11 and $13 respectively. But here in the United States, a prescription of Lipitor costs, on average, $100.

These are just two of the commonly used drugs that are bankrupting Americans.

Quote:

If you ask executives at America’s top pharmaceutical drugs about the high costs of prescription drugs, they’ll tell you that high and increasing drug prices are needed to sustain research and development efforts. But numerous studies have debunked those claims.

One study, by the group Families USA, found that America’s major drug companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising and administration than they do on research and development.

The report also found, not surprisingly, that the total profits of America’s top pharmaceutical companies far exceed their research and development costs.

The pharmaceutical industry isn't hurting. It's the 3rd most profitable industry as well as the most powerful Washington lobby.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/f...s/profits/

[It_is_my_time]

(05-23-2014 04:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 04:33 PM)SheWantsTheD Wrote:  

Yes. If the government dictates they will only pay x amount, why would anyone spend millions of dollars and decades making a drug when they won't get rich from doing it?

Well here's the fucked up thing. All other OECD nations impose price controls on drugs. We're the only exception. So the result is, Americans are essentially subsidizing the rest of the world that gets them at a discount. The profit they are losing on the rest of the world is made up for by charging Americans more for them. It's completely unfair to us. What other industry works like this? That would be like Saudi Arabia having the most expensive gas prices in the world even though they produce the most crude, while everyone else gets their oil for cheap.

True, but that doesn't address the original issue...

If companies will not make a profit off of new development, and this will happen in many more instances if the USA get socialist healthcare, then they will simply cease to develop the new technology.

Companies exist to make a profit.

It is f'ed up that we basically subsidize the rest of the world's healthcare expenses, but it seems better than the alternative which would be restricted development as diseases advance or modify themselves.

[Ensam]

Not buying the argument on drugs. Drugs companies don't really spend much on R&D - they're massive marketing machines. Pfizer spends twice the amount generating sales than it does developing new drugs. Most new drugs are developed in academia using federal dollars.

[SheWantsTheD]

Exactly, the entire world benefits from our innovation.



Now when America and their masses of millennial leeches decide it's time to become France, what happens to the innovation, life saving drugs, and new medical devices? They don't exist because the smart kid who could have invented that, went in another direction in college because he wants to be rich.