Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Pelosicare? or Obamacare?

with 18 comments

I imagine that, if the Senate can bring itself to pass a decent bill, the US will have made its first big step toward universal healthcare—something that advanced nations have had for decades. At that point, it will be an honor to any politician whose name is attached to the program. So far the names I’ve heard proposed are Obamacare and Pelosicare.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 November 2009 at 5:07 pm

Posted in Daily life, Healthcare

18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The U.S. already has ‘universal’ health care. It’s called Medicaid.

    I guess you can ‘imagine’ anything you want about this bill, however. You haven’t read it. Nobody has.

    Sonic Charmer

    8 November 2009 at 5:33 pm

  2. At thiis point it is undeniably Pelosi who has been heroic. Obama still seems like he is positioning himself for deniability. (I hope this is not true.) However, if Obama shows some courage and gets the bill through the Senate virtually intact then the honor and glory are his for the asking.

    Bob Slaughter

    8 November 2009 at 5:36 pm

  3. Medicaid isn’t universal healthcare—indeed, most Americans don’t qualify for it.

    LeisureGuy

    8 November 2009 at 5:58 pm

  4. Pioneers, o pioneers…

    Conservative09

    8 November 2009 at 7:38 pm

  5. If the bill passes, it’s more like a little baby step than a big first step.
    * rudimentary form of public care. Countries with REAL universal health care are already calling this “public” health plan almost pathetic.
    * Insurance companies will be doing cartwheels as they salvate at the prospect of millions of new paying customers
    * Where’s the cost containment?
    * Who really thinks the cost of the Bill will go into citizens hands instead of coroporations? No me, I’m not fooled for one second.

    Anonymous

    9 November 2009 at 6:18 am

  6. My wife has weighed in on the question posed here. Here’s a quote from POLITICO:

    “Somebody asked me if this was a victory for [President] Barack Obama.
    It’s not. This victory belongs to her,” said House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). “As far as I know she never sleeps nor eats.”

    Bob Slaughter

    9 November 2009 at 7:44 am

  7. You haven’t read it. Nobody has.

    Au contraire! Many Republican lawmakers and media personalities have read it in detail. They keep citing page numbers where it encourages suicide and other such shocking provisions.

    scott

    9 November 2009 at 7:53 am

  8. I agree that the current version has problems, but those can gradually be fixed. The key is to take the first step. And the bill has many good things: insurance companies can no longer drop customers because they became ill, for example, nor can they deny coverage based on “pre-existing conditions.”

    LeisureGuy

    9 November 2009 at 8:25 am

  9. I agree that this victory is Pelosi’s: Obama stayed on the sidelines way too long.

    LeisureGuy

    9 November 2009 at 8:25 am

  10. Medicaid isn’t universal healthcare—indeed, most Americans don’t qualify for it.

    Most Americans don’t need it and get their health care in other ways. Those who do need it, qualify. Therefore we have universal health care.

    Universal health care = everyone gets needed health care.

    It doesn’t have to mean that everyone gets health care from the government. What’s so special about getting health care from the government? Why would you even want everyone to get health care from the government, especially if they can get it somewhere else?

    Sonic Charmer

    10 November 2009 at 4:28 am

  11. scott,

    Au contraire! Many Republican lawmakers and media personalities have read it in detail. They keep citing page numbers where it encourages suicide and other such shocking provisions.

    So your ‘defense’ of the fact that neither you nor anyone else applauding this bill nor anyone who voted for the bill has read the bill, is the fact that you can point to this or that Republican who said something silly?

    Sad

    Sonic Charmer

    10 November 2009 at 4:30 am

  12. Most Americans don’t need it and get their health care in other ways. Those who do need it, qualify.

    It would be nice if this were true, but of the 46 million who don’t have health insurance only 4-5 million qualify for Medicaid or S-CHIP and haven’t signed up. The rest of the uninsured don’t qualify for any government insurance program. Want to expand eligibility so that they can all receive it? That would be a better reform proposal than what Republicans have offered so far.

    Let’s be honest here. You know perfectly well what’s in the bill and you don’t want it to pass. Your concern isn’t for what surprises might be in it. Your concern is that you don’t want it to pass, and delay is the most promising strategy toward that goal. This bill has been pored over by thousands of capitol hill staffers, countless lawmakers, policy experts and journalists. The idea that there’s some scary, hidden provisions in it is a disingenuous stalling tactic.

    scottfeldstein

    10 November 2009 at 6:36 am

  13. Scott beat me to the punch. Sonic, I do not believe that you are advancing serious arguments. You simply don’t want healthcare reform to pass.

    LeisureGuy

    10 November 2009 at 8:42 am

  14. It would be nice if this were true, but of the 46 million who don’t have health insurance only 4-5 million qualify for Medicaid or S-CHIP and haven’t signed up.

    Maybe they qualify for state programs. Maybe they don’t make use of health care that often. Who cares whether they “sign up”? And I don’t buy that oft-repeated 46 million number as having any meaningful content.

    The rest of the uninsured don’t qualify for any government insurance program.

    People who don’t qualify for Medicaid/state programs don’t qualify because they are not poor enough. If they are not poor enough, they don’t need to be on Medicaid or any other government aid. People who are not poor have something called “money” which they can use to buy their own routine health care, just as they use it to buy other stuff. They can make use of clinics and similar cheap options.

    I understand there can be situations where certain types of needed health costs would be too great for such people to incur. Those people will not be denied such needed health care. It’s the law.

    So the situation you are describing as a problem is not a problem. There may be some other problem(s) needing fixing, or some other goal(s) worth pursuing, but not the one you keep pointing to.

    The rest of the uninsured don’t qualify for any government insurance program. Want to expand eligibility so that they can all receive it?

    No. Why should everyone be on “government insurance”? Most people already have insurance privately. What would be so great about moving them all to government insurance?

    Let’s be honest here. You know perfectly well what’s in the bill and you don’t want it to pass.

    Actually, I’ve be even more perfectly honest: I barely have the faintest idea what’s in the bill, and i don’t want it to pass 🙂

    Your concern isn’t for what surprises might be in it.

    That is precisely my concern. Also, the cost, the unintended consequences, the expansion of government power, and the implicit tax increases.

    This bill has been pored over by thousands of capitol hill staffers, countless lawmakers, policy experts and journalists.

    Wow! “Staffers!” Now I feel better.

    The idea that there’s some scary, hidden provisions in it is a disingenuous stalling tactic.

    Oh, I doubt the scary provisions in it are all that hidden.

    LeisureGuy:

    You simply don’t want healthcare reform to pass.

    That is correct. I simply don’t want “healthcare reform” [sic] to pass, at least not if this monstrosity is what “healthcare reform” means.

    Why do you? You don’t really know, do you? Again, you have not read the bill you are applauding. So why then?

    Sonic Charmer

    10 November 2009 at 10:48 pm

  15. Who cares whether they “sign up”?

    I do. Because when everyone has insurance the risk is spread wider and it can lower costs for me–and you, provided you have insurance now. And I frankly do not care one little bit why they don’t have it. I don’t care that they’re not indigent. I don’t care if they have money or don’t. If they have money, they must purchase. if they don’t, we’ll help. But everyone has to have insurance. Private insurance, unless they a) qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or b) can’t purchase through their employer and choose the public option instead.

    I understand there can be situations where certain types of needed health costs would be too great for such people to incur. Those people will not be denied such needed health care. It’s the law.

    You’re deeply misinformed if you think that all “needed health costs” that are “too great” for people to afford are “not denied.”

    Most people already have insurance privately. What would be so great about moving them all to government insurance?

    Nobody’s proposing that. Certainly not the House bill. But since you bring it up, it would be better because it would cost less than private insurance. Just the same way it does in every other country on earth who has single-payer insurance.

    And by the way, I don’t think I’ve ever read any House bill. That doesn’t preclude me from knowing about them and having an informed opinion of them. Ditch the theatrics and debate the issue.

    Since we’re on the subject, though, how do you know it’s a “monstrosity” if you haven’t read it? Why are you expressing an opinion–and a strong one at that–if you haven’t read it? Perhaps you should go read it and come back.

    scottfeldstein

    10 November 2009 at 11:49 pm

  16. I do. Because when everyone has insurance the risk is spread wider

    As I addressed elsewhere, this is a misuse of “risk”. What you mean is that costs are spread wider. This, I guess, is your actual goal. It is not mine. And it doesn’t “lower the costs for everyone”. It lowers the costs for some people at the expense of others. I am likely to be in the latter group.

    And I frankly do not care one little bit why they don’t have it. I don’t care that they’re not indigent. I don’t care if they have money or don’t. If they have money, they must purchase.

    I get that you want to force everyone to buy insurance. I don’t get how this follows from your stated goals. Why is ‘everyone having insurance’ an end in itself for you? In any event, it is not for me.

    In fact, I want people to be free not to buy insurance if they don’t want to.

    You’re deeply misinformed if you think that all “needed health costs” that are “too great” for people to afford are “not denied.”

    The law is called EMTALA. Unless of course you’re begging the question of what “needed” means (as often happens in these debates).

    Just the same way it does in every other country on earth who has single-payer insurance.

    I can’t tell if you genuinely believe that Other Countries pay lower health care costs due to the single variable of them having Single-Payer Insurance, or it’s just convenient for this part of the argument for you to pretend to believe it, but either way it would be a strange thing to believe. I’m sure that, say, Gambia pays lower health care costs per capita than the United States of America. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Gambia had some sort of government/’single-payer’ health care system (if not, substitute some other country..). But the idea that the former is necessarily caused by the latter would be truly odd.

    And by the way, I don’t think I’ve ever read any House bill. That doesn’t preclude me from knowing about them and having an informed opinion of them.

    Maybe it should..? At least it might give you a little humility when speaking authoritatively about some giant bill as if you know exactly what’s in it, and applauding its passage wholeheartedly as if you know exactly what its implications will be….

    Since we’re on the subject, though, how do you know it’s a “monstrosity” if you haven’t read it? Why are you expressing an opinion–and a strong one at that–if you haven’t read it? Perhaps you should go read it and come back.

    I know enough about it to know it’s a monstrosity – I know that its cost is measured in the hundreds of billions at least, and I know that it incorporates a legal penalty for people who do not buy insurance (which is something I consider evil). Do you deny either one? if so, let me know. Otherwise, that’s enough for me.

    And the onus is on those who propose and support bills to put forth arguments for them and defend them. The onus is not on others to prove that every given proposed bill shouldn’t be passed.

    Sonic Charmer

    11 November 2009 at 6:43 am

  17. Thanks for commenting.

    LeisureGuy

    11 November 2009 at 7:43 am

  18. I want people to be free not to buy insurance if they don’t want to.

    I definitely don’t. That is a dubious freedom I do not want you–or any American–to have. There, I said it. I do not want you to have the freedom to drive without auto insurance, either. Your “freedom” to forgo insurance costs me and everyone else money.

    The law is called EMTALA.

    What it’s called is bullshit. Emergency care is not all the care one needs but cannot afford. The idea is ludicrous. And, because I believe you know better, it’s also hardhearted, cruel and mean-spirited.

    I can’t tell if you genuinely believe that Other Countries pay lower health care costs due to the single variable of them having Single-Payer Insurance

    No, I don’t think it’s necessary to have single-payer health insurance to cover everyone and pay a much lower tab. The Swiss, for example, don’t have single-payer.

    it might give you a little humility when speaking authoritatively about some giant bill as if you know exactly what’s in it […] I know enough about it to know it’s a monstrosity

    Double standard much?

    scottfeldstein

    11 November 2009 at 8:30 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.