Third Presidential Debate

I know you don't like the idea of having the government involved in medical care. And I know that it will inconvenience some people to have the government butt in. That said, the current American system is broken, massively so. Especially with regards to the insurance system. Millions of people are being denied proper medical care because the broken system is pricing it out of their ability to pay.

Now, this is not a very fair comparison, but you should notice that you're protesting for the rights of companies. The rights of those companies are being upheld via a system which has a massive cost to people. Really, though, the system is broken. American health care is much more expensive than it should require due to fair pricing mechanisms, and about 18% of that price is due to the adversarial and broken nature of the current insurance system.

Obama's plan is not perfect, the system has been arranged such that it can't be changed without disadvantaging someone (or something). But it's pretty damned good. McCain's is okay, not great, but okay. It loses some attraction once one wiki's "refundable tax credit" and asks where McCain is going to get $5000 per family.
 
Labtec600 said:
So then why wouldnt they drop it under Obamas plan?

It doesnt make much sense to say that because it'll be expensive under McCain, they will therefore drop it, yet on the other hand say with Obama forcing the company to pay into the government system they wont drop private insurance.

What is the difference?
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely clear on what the plans will end up being. However, the problem is that a company providing healthcare in the US is paying twice what a company providing healthcare in another nation would pay. And companies in the US that started paying healthcare a long time ago have much higher costs than companies that adopted having healthcare more recently. And it's certainly higher than not providing it. But the current options are to pay it, or have a lot of trouble retaining employees. That doesn't matter to many companies, which is why they don't bother and so many employed people have no health insurance.

Having a single payer system, assuming we could get anywhere near the efficiency of other nations, would be dramatically cheaper than what we currently have. So an employer given the choice between maintaining their own or moving their people to the single payer system would pretty much have to give up their own.

But as I understand McCain's plan, it would also result in more companies moving away from providing their own plan because it would make it less affordable to the worker.
2x25kf.gif
It looks like nothing but more corporate welfare for the health insurers.
 
El_Machinae said:
I know you don't like the idea of having the government involved in medical care. And I know that it will inconvenience some people to have the government butt in. That said, the current American system is broken, massively so. Especially with regards to the insurance system. Millions of people are being denied proper medical care because the broken system is pricing it out of their ability to pay.
Click to expand...

It is broken, but I do not believe for one second Obama will fix it. Not sure if it was this thread, but I also mentioned Obama and his promise to both lower insurance premiums and force insurance companies to write people with pre-existing condition. This is not possible in anyway. Part of the way an insurance company comes up with its premiums is the risk being written and the amount being paid out on claims.

If an insurance company has to write people that are going to cost it 100,000's of dollars within a year or two, there is no way they can keep their premiums low and stay afloat. It just wont work. You will see your own premium go up to offset that amount going out. There is no way he can lower your premiums by $2,500. (though notice it says he can lower it by UP TO $2,500. Maybe the people he is lowering it by $2,500 are the people with these pre-existing conditions, and everyone else is going to pay more.)

El_Machinae said:
Now, this is not a very fair comparison, but you should notice that you're protesting for the rights of companies. The rights of those companies are being upheld via a system which has a massive cost to people. Really, though, the system is broken. American health care is much more expensive than it should require due to fair pricing mechanisms, and about 18% of that price is due to the adversarial and broken nature of the current insurance system.
Click to expand...

It's not that I am sticking up for the companies, I just find it dumb that people are going to voluntarily work for a company that they know does not provide insurance, and then the government is going to step in and force them to pay for it. That makes no sense.
 
Cutlass said:
I'm not entirely clear on what the plans will end up being. However, the problem is that a company providing healthcare in the US is paying twice what a company providing healthcare in another nation would pay. And companies in the US that started paying healthcare a long time ago have much higher costs than companies that adopted having healthcare more recently.
Click to expand...


How about lawsuits? I know many goverments have immunity, so if they F-up they can't be sued. This doesnt extend to us "normal citizens". If a doctor screws up, he's slapped with a 10 million dollar law suit. Guess who pays for that? The Insurance Company. What do they do? THey up premiums (as do other insurance companies as you now have a new risk) on the hospital/doctor. What does he do? He passes it off to the patient.

I bet if curb some of these massive lawsuits you would see a premium drop.

Place with UC may not have to worry about this because you possibly cant sue the government.
 
Labtec600 said:
It is broken, but I do not believe for one second Obama will fix it. Not sure if it was this thread, but I also mentioned Obama and his promise to both lower insurance premiums and force insurance companies to write people with pre-existing condition. This is not possible in anyway. Part of the way an insurance company comes up with its premiums is the risk being written and the amount being paid out on claims.

<common sense paragraph deleted, since, well I agree with the common sense analysis>
Click to expand...
Many Americans fail to realise how broken the medical insurance system is. It's massively broken. It is so broken that it actually is possible to write more people and lower premiums.

I know that common sense says otherwise, and common sense would prevail if people's insurance costs reflected the fair price for that insurance (i.e., if you were paying for what you get). But you're not.

It would be like if I said "I can make your car have a higher top speed and greater fuel efficiency at each speed", you'd say that it's not possible at the newer top speed (fuel efficiency goes down at higher speeds, obviously). Normally, good common sense. In this case, the car has a piano tied to its bumber. The system is that broken.
It's not that I am sticking up for the companies, I just find it dumb that people are going to voluntarily work for a company that they know does not provide insurance, and then the government is going to step in and force them to pay for it. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's not perfect. There probably could be a better system, but it wouldn't be politically possible. There are likely methods used by other countries that are similar to Obama's, but better. I recommend researching them and writing your congressman. You won't be able to change the fact that Obama's plan is getting through (eventually) but you might be able to influence the flavour.

That said, McCain's system is the true 'single payer system' (the taxpayer), but it doesn't correct the broken nature of the of the current insurance system. It just costs more.
 
Labtec600 said:
How about lawsuits? I know many goverments have immunity, so if they F-up they can't be sued. This doesnt extend to us "normal citizens". If a doctor screws up, he's slapped with a 10 million dollar law suit. Guess who pays for that? The Insurance Company. What do they do? THey up premiums (as do other insurance companies as you know have a new risk) on the hospital/doctor. What does he do? He passes it off to the patient.

I bet if curb some of these massive lawsuits you would see a premium drop.

Place with UC may not have to worry about this because you possibly cant sue the government.
Click to expand...

A doctors liability insurance is a fundamentally separate issue from the patients health care insurance.

All medical professionals pay for malpractice insurance, and the price of it is high. Mush higher than is used to be. But what are the options? And why did it get that way? The doctors and the insurers built a system to protect doctors from the consequences of their actions. In part, that is the nature of liability insurance. But they went further than that. Doctors hurt patients for a variety of reasons. Some benign, some not. Sometimes it could be because the the doctor was impaired or incompetent. Sometimes a pure accident that no one could have foreseen or prepared for, and sometimes best practices just aren't good enough.

So what do you do? Tell the patient that they are just out of luck? "Sorry buddy, you have to suffer for the rest of your life to protect the doctor that hurt you." That's what tort reform amounts to. For decades conservatives told us that suing was better than regulation, and now the lawsuits are actually beginning to accomplish something, so they try to pass laws to take that remedy away. The doctors protect themselves with insurance and being a self regulating group. The insurers protect themselves by lobbying government to cover their butts. But that is fundamentally unfair to the victims of the malpractice.

Bad doctors are protected by the system, their victims are not. One of the reasons juries are willing to hand out punitive damages is that otherwise the people who caused the harm get off scott-free while the victims suffer.

You are not going to improve health care in the US by giving carelessness laws to hide behind.
 
Cutlass said:
So what do you do? Tell the patient that they are just out of luck? "Sorry buddy, you have to suffer for the rest of your life to protect the doctor that hurt you." That's what tort reform amounts to. For decades conservatives told us that suing was better than regulation, and now the lawsuits are actually beginning to accomplish something, so they try to pass laws to take that remedy away. The doctors protect themselves with insurance and being a self regulating group. The insurers protect themselves by lobbying government to cover their butts. But that is fundamentally unfair to the victims of the malpractice.
Click to expand...


Of course not. But the problem is juries look and say, ok this doctor has a 10 million dollar policy provided by an billion dollar company...so we're looking at some deep pockets that can afford to lose some pocket change. Only problem is, that billion dollar company is just going to pass that charge off to you.

As far as the liability and health not being related, there is an easy link. Doctor pays high libility premiums, so he ups the cost to the patient. The insurance in turn has up their healthcare premiums to pay for the already overinflated price the doctor gives.

Yes, I think a strictly government run healthcare will be cheaper. But what does that do to that same little guy? If a government doctor messes up, there are immunity laws to protect him. I think the little guy will get more screwed.

Alright, hockey is on. Enough for tonight.
 
The malpractice system is not the same system, though. Malpractice issurance, bloated as it is, is only a small portion of medical costs.
 
Labtec600 said:
Of course not. But the problem is juries look and say, ok this doctor has a 10 million dollar policy provided by an billion dollar company...so we're looking at some deep pockets that can afford to lose some pocket change. Only problem is, that billion dollar company is just going to pass that charge off to you.

As far as the liability and health not being related, there is an easy link. Doctor pays high libility premiums, so he ups the cost to the patient. The insurance in turn has up their healthcare premiums to pay for the already overinflated price the doctor gives.

Yes, I think a strictly government run healthcare will be cheaper. But what does that do to that same little guy? If a government doctor messes up, there are immunity laws to protect him. I think the little guy will get more screwed.

Alright, hockey is on. Enough for tonight.
Click to expand...

People sue the government all the time. And the proposals all call for the docs to be in private practice and a some proposals call for a single payer. Not a fully nationalized system.
 
Labtec600 said:
It is broken, but I do not believe for one second Obama will fix it. Not sure if it was this thread, but I also mentioned Obama and his promise to both lower insurance premiums and force insurance companies to write people with pre-existing condition. This is not possible in anyway. Part of the way an insurance company comes up with its premiums is the risk being written and the amount being paid out on claims.

If an insurance company has to write people that are going to cost it 100,000's of dollars within a year or two, there is no way they can keep their premiums low and stay afloat. It just wont work. You will see your own premium go up to offset that amount going out. There is no way he can lower your premiums by $2,500. (though notice it says he can lower it by UP TO $2,500. Maybe the people he is lowering it by $2,500 are the people with these pre-existing conditions, and everyone else is going to pay more.)
Click to expand...

Nothing a govt subsidy wont "fix", if we dont get hit on our premiums we'll get hit by taxes. Thats how it works now, the govt shifts their costs off onto the private sector in one way or another. Then somebody can run against Obama in 4 years and blast him for handing billions to insurance companies ;)

I want portability, so does McCain... But I can also understand why my state's Blue Cross doesn't want to pay for my health care if I move out of state or allow other companies to move in on their territory. Maybe they can deal with that by adjusting my premium to reflect any changes in cost of living (it'll go up).
 
Labtec600 said:
Of course not. But the problem is juries look and say, ok this doctor has a 10 million dollar policy provided by an billion dollar company...so we're looking at some deep pockets that can afford to lose some pocket change. Only problem is, that billion dollar company is just going to pass that charge off to you.
Click to expand...

Evidence of liability insurance coverage is almost universally inadmissible at trial, precisely for the reason you noted.

Cleo
 
El_Machinae said:
In some ways, McCain's plan makes healthcare a bit more fair for everyone. Right now, people getting their health insurance through their company have a huge advantage over those who don't. The company can buy insurance packages (which is totally fair) but also doesn't have to pay tax on the health care insurance it provides. This gives it a discount on the 'perks' it gives its employees.

A $12,000 policy will be taxed at X amount. Even at 40% federal tax, the worker would be paying $4,800 in federal taxes on his health insurance from his employer. With the $5000 tax credit, he's not actually paying anything. The only people paying more under his plan are people who have a policy larger than $12,000/yr or are taxed at higher than 40%, federally. "Gold-plated plan" was a good description, need for hairplugs notwithstanding.

And now the self-employed person can also (effectively) not be taxed when he buys his insurance. McCain's plan, in that way, improves the health insurance system in America.

That all said, Obama's plan is about 10x better, since the health insurance system in America is a huge reason why healthcare in America is so expensive. A huge reason. The only subsidy (actual subsidy) in his plan is the 50% credit for the small business owner.
Click to expand...

Phlegmak said:
What the hell is this? When did McCain actually do this? And for what reason?
Click to expand...

It was right as soon as the debate concluded, McCain got up to go shake Obama's hand and I think he was told by the moderator that he was standing in the way of the camera shot, and so he made a goofy face, joked about it, and went the other direction.

On that note Obama and McCain took a break from the Campaign today and shared some laughs at dinner together.

I find that refreshing. We need to see more clips of them getting along. Although I thought Obama's jokes fell way flat up until the end part. He seems to be a way too serious dude and take things personal. You can tell from the way he looked before the campaign started to the way he looks now with all his new addition stress wrinkles, bags, and grey hair that he is a worries too much. Seeing that metamorphosis makes me wonder how he'll survive the next 4 years without having a heart attack or stroke or something.

Here's a funny article and video on that topic among others. :lol:
 
Obama and McCain took a break from the Campaign today and shared some laughs at dinner together.
Click to expand...

I only caught the very end, Obama was really good then.

Middle-name = Steve

Rudy the cross-dresser

Hanging out with bad crowds... congress

That was three good ones in a row.
 
What made them so funny is that they are so bad at telling jokes. And that they find their own lame prescripted jokes kinda funny. It's totally deadpan.
 
El_Machinae said:
What made them so funny is that they are so bad at telling jokes. And that they find their own lame prescripted jokes kinda funny. It's totally deadpan.
Click to expand...

You didn't think it was funny? Everyone I talk to thought it was great and refreshing. Both candidates became more personable and a good time was had by all.

When Obama said his real middle name was "steve" I about fell over. Then he called Rudy the "cross-dressing mayor of NY".

I saw some of McCain's stuff in replay, he did well too. The (nefarious) huge build-up to Obama speaking (at the end of McCain's speech) was much fun!

They were both good-natured and paid each other respect. Both also got some good jabs in.

I don't know what your problem is with the event. Is it that Obama was nice to McCain? Does that make you angry?

What a great event. It gave me renewed hope that politicians can work together, find mutual goals and respect each other. If you don't like that, perhaps you have been around this forum too long. Seeing McCain laugh and applaud Obama gave me hope that Washington is not as depraved as this place is sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ordnael
Freedom of debate
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
3K
r16
r16
amadeus
What was the first big news story you remember?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
caketastydelish
caketastydelish
Gori the Grey
  • Locked
The 2024 US Presidential Election
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
57K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
W
Casual talk
Replies
2
Views
413
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Hygro
The reopening
Replies
5
Views
217
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Back
Top Bottom