Healthcare reform

[jb5580]

Yep, your right Kevin-we do pay for alot of things that we might not agree with from our taxes. On another note, we'll just see how this plays out in Nov.

[Poplady1]

For anyone interested the current issue of Time Magazine has an excellent piece on health care.  What to expect, when it will happen and how the country will respond to the large number of new insureds.

Bev

[jb5580]

We can also listen to our elected officials straight from their own mouths such as Senator Max Baucus-D. This is what he had to say in regards to what the HC reform could address:

  "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Isn't this redistribution of wealth or is it charity?

[alyssamma]

JB, go back and carefully read my post about  redist of wealth and why that is a bad term to use.

If you don't agree, then state why. But let's all try to stop using inflamatory words and have a debate on the issues.

Also pay attention to what I say about charity...I think you are missing my point there.

Lastly, if you are going to use economic terms - like Redistribution of Wealth - make sure that you fully understand what they mean. Otherwise they just cloud and confuse the issues.

Kevin

[jb5580]

Kevin, I've read your posts. I'm sticking with my choice to use the term redistribution of the wealth. I belive it's a proper term in this debate. I don't think it's inflammatory.

[alyssamma]

Fair enough...so give me your definition of it please so that everyone can be on the same page.

Also, why do you think it proper to use in this debate?

And, lastly, why don't you see charity as redist of wealth?

[alyssamma]

Oh, and just to be fair, I'll answer the above Q for me

1) Redist of wealth = moving $ from richer people to poorer people. Period. However, if you are an economist, it means a little more than that

2) I don't think it is proper because it has negative connotations. By definition, the phrase itself is not a bad thing. It all depends on how you redist it. However, this is yet another term that is thrown around to attack an idea, rather than using the merits (or lack thereof) of the idea itself to attack.

3) Charity is absolutely redist of wealth. And this ties into my 2nd point above. Most people would not call charity a bad thing, whereas they would call redist of wealth a bad thing. But charity is simply one way to achieve redist of wealth. Which goes to prove that redist of wealth, itself, is not bad.

Kevin

[jb5580]

Kevin, I agree with your definition of redistribution of wealth:

Redist of wealth = moving $ from richer people to poorer people. Period.

I'm only going to go here one more time though, because I feel we are beating a dead horse.

here's how I see it:

1, charity= voluntary ( good since you the person who made the money and owns the money choose were and what charity you want to help)

2. taxes= involuntary (bad since you the person who made the money and own the money are forced by the Government to give your money toward something you might not want to help)

agreed, both are redistribution of wealth, but quite different in how it is accumulated from people.

I think I can still have a healthy debate and use terms such as this.

I think the Senator's quote I posted earlier is the type of redistribution I feel is wrong, and in my opinion (and the Senator said it himself) is the true reason behind this HC bill, not HC itself.

Sincerely, Jim  

[alyssamma]

Jim, you are using a term that by your own definition is ambiguous. It can mean something good (charity) or something bad (taxes).

So, why use an ambiguous term in a debate? That is my point. Say exactly what you mean - you don't want higher taxes to pay for HC reform. That is clear and doesn't use terms that can be taken multiple ways.

It also uses terms that are very clear to *everyone* so that the debate can move forward on the facts.

When you say "this bill is redist of wealth and therefore bad" (paraphrasing) is says nothing about the merits of the bill itself. By that definition our tax system itself (since it is progressive) is bad. Furthermore, any bill that raises taxes is bad. This is (IMHO) a poor way to argue because it doesn't talk about the bill itself.

If you don't see that then it's cool. However, most people use terms like this on purpose because they have multiple meanings. They want to scare people (see my post above about the word socialist). It seems like you have some good things to say and I didn't want them getting bogged down in unnecessary language.

Kevin

[lurtsman]

I've read several portions of this thread, but frequently of late have been too busy to read more than a few posts. I intend to go back and read this entire thread because I appreciate the debate being put forth.

[alyssamma]

LOL, it is a very long thread

[mission vending]

I've read several portions of this thread, but frequently of late have been too busy to read more than a few posts. I intend to go back and read this entire thread because I appreciate the debate being put forth.

I think reading War and Peace would be a faster read. LOL

[caserri]

LOL, it is a very long thread

Currently #7 on the "Top 10 Topics (by Replies)" list.

[jb5580]

Hey Lurts, I've been trying to get to some actual discussion and debate about  HC reform but seem to have gotten bogged down for 2 days now on explaining my position on the term "redistribution of he wealth". I am certainly not trying to scare, confuse, or sway the readers of this post into any direction on the topic and would like to get to discussing my opinions on the bill itself.

[alyssamma]

LOL, JB, discuss away...I'm not stopping you from doing that. I'm just pointing out that if you use unambiguous terms then your argument would be clearer. As you yourself stated, "redist of wealth" can be a good thing or a bad thing. So, since you are clearly against the HC bill, just say what you mean - you don't want taxes to go up because of it.

Unless of course you are using redist of wealth to be a good thing. And are saying that it is good that poorer people are getting some help now. I don't *think* that is what you mean, but, it isn't clear

Kevin

[davidsurvz]

So if you change the term from "re distribution of wealth" to "tax and spend" does that seem more appropriate? 

[coinvestor]

Well said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

[agrantha]

It appears that most people on this board do not approve of the current health care reform.  Nevertheless, some reform is needed.  I don’t believe there is a person on this board who can afford a major medical emergency, unless, of course, there are some millionaires on this board…or unless there are some congressman on this board.  Your current medical insurance will only go so far.  When I say major medical emergency I mean open heart surgery, kidney transplant, lung removal, etc.  When major surgeries occur, there is always follow up procedures, therapy and medication for the rest of your life.  Tell me who on this board can sustain this without being wiped out.  Tell me…Tell me who!  I am probably the only person on this board who can afford to sustain these types of emergencies because I will instruct my wife to just throw me off a bridge.  Yes, some of us don’t prefer to live a mangled life.

Everyone talks about the poor sucking up resources and laying around on their sorry duff.  Yes, this is true.  We can talk about this until we are blue in the face.  But, I urge you to focus on my first paragraph because the poor and lazy will always be among us.  And either the government or nonprofit organizations will take care of them….unless, of course, society decides to throw the weak, lazy and lame in incinerators.

So what are you all arguing about?............NOTHING!!!!!!!

[alyssamma]

So if you change the term from "re distribution of wealth" to "tax and spend" does that seem more appropriate? 

I'm not sure what that phrase means.

Do you mean what the goverment is supposed to do? The goverment collects taxes and then spends it? I believe both parties agree 100% on that philosophy. So, sure

Argue facts. Nothing more or less.

[davidsurvz]

The facts:

The national debt is pushing between 15 to 20 TRILLION DOLLARS

The Country cannot support the spending of the government at this rate.

If our bond rating decreases our interest rates go up

The health care bill ADDS to the already out of control deficits which are adding to our total debt.

This is heading for bankruptcy...................

Oh wait the government can just tax and spend their way out of this.

NO, I don't think THIS is what the government is "SUPPOSED' to do.

[davidsurvz]

OK, Lets call it "spreading the wealth around" instead of "redistribution of wealth" since that is the EXACT wording that Obama used when he was talking to "Joe the plumber." :

[jb5580]

Hey look on the bright side David, at least every household in America's insurance premiums are going to go down by $2500.00 a year. This quote is straight from Obama's lips about a dozen times during and after his election in regards to the HC reform.

[whaletail116]

Any links to that quote? 

David, this country has been heading towards bankruptcy well before Obama and this Healthcare bill, and he did mentioned that this bill will reduce our deficit by more than one trillion dollars over the next two decades..  Possible?  I don't know, but that's what he said...

[alyssamma]

David, I agree 100% that this is not what gov is supposed to do. So I am guessing you were a very vocal opponent when Bush spent us into debt?

You also spoke out against the TARP stuff too, right (again Bush).

And what is wrong with spreading wealth around? Speak clearly and say *exactly* what your problems are. I think everyone in this country deserves a chance to be wealthy. Don't you?

Kevin

[jb5580]

Any links to that quote? 

Here's one. read down to paragraph 12.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release

May 11, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON REFORMING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

TO REDUCE COSTS

State Dining Room

12:35 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everyone. All right. Well, I just concluded a extraordinarily productive meeting with organizations and associations that are going to be essential to the work of health care reform in this country -- groups that represent everyone from union members to insurance companies, from doctors and hospitals to pharmaceutical companies. It was a meeting that focused largely on one of the central challenges that we must confront as we seek to achieve comprehensive reform and lay a new foundation for our economy -- and that is, the spiraling cost of health care in this country.

They're here because they recognize one clear, indisputable fact: When it comes to health care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses and government itself.

This is not news to the American people, who, over the last decade, have seen their out-of-pocket expenses soar, health care costs rise, and premiums double at a rate four times faster than their wages.

Today, half of all personal bankruptcies stem from medical expenses. And too many Americans are skipping that check-up they know they should get, or going without that prescription that would make them feel better, or finding some other way to scrimp and save on their health care expenses.

What is a growing crisis for the American people is also becoming an untenable burden for America's businesses. Rising health care costs are commanding more and more of the money that our companies could be using to innovate and to grow, making it harder for them to compete around the world. These costs are leading the small businesses that are responsible for half of all private sector jobs to drop coverage for their workers at an alarming rate.

And, finally, the explosion in health care costs has put our federal budget on a disastrous path. This is largely due to what we're spending on Medicare and Medicaid -- entitlement programs whose costs are expected to continue climbing in the years ahead as baby boomers grow older and come to rely more and more on our health care system. That's why I've said repeatedly that getting health care costs under control is essential to reducing budget deficits, restoring fiscal discipline, and putting our economy on a path towards sustainable growth and shared prosperity.

We, as a nation, are now spending a far larger share of our national wealth on health care than we were a generation ago. At the rate we're going, we are expected to spend one fifth of our economy on health care within a decade. And yet we're getting less for our money. In fact, we're spending more on health care than any other nation on Earth, even though millions of Americans don't have the affordable, quality care they deserve, and nearly 46 million Americans don't have any health insurance at all.

This problem didn't just appear overnight. For decades, Washington has debated what to do about this. For decades, we've talked about reducing costs, improving care, and providing coverage to uninsured Americans. But all too often, efforts at reform have fallen victim to special interest lobbying aimed at keeping things the way they are; to political point-scoring that sees health care not as a moral issue or an economic issue, but as a wedge issue; and to a failure on all sides to come together on behalf of the American people.

And that's what makes today's meeting so remarkable -- because it's a meeting that might not have been held just a few years ago. The groups who are here today represent different constituencies with different sets of interests. They've not always seen eye to eye with each other or with our government on what needs to be done to reform health care in this country. In fact, some of these groups were among the strongest critics of past plans for comprehensive reform.

But what's brought us all together today is a recognition that we can't continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years; that costs are out of control; and that reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait. It's a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health care reform in the '90s, desperately need health care reform in 2009. And so does America.

And that's why these groups are voluntarily coming together to make an unprecedented commitment. Over the next 10 years -- from 2010 to 2019 -- they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year -- an amount that's equal to over $2 trillion. Two trillion dollars.

Their efforts will help us take the next and most important step -- comprehensive health care reform -- so that we can do what I pledged to do as a candidate and save a typical family an average of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years. Let me repeat that point. What they're doing is complementary to and is going to be completely compatible with a strong, aggressive effort to move health care reform through here in Washington with an ultimate result of saving health care costs for families, businesses and the government. That's how we can finally make health care affordable, while putting more money into the pockets of hardworking families each month. These savings can be achieved by standardizing quality care, incentivizing efficiency, investing in proven ways not only to treat illness but to prevent them.

This is a historic day, a watershed event in the long and elusive quest for health care reform. And as these groups take the steps they are outlining, and as we work with Congress on health care reform legislation, my administration will continue working to reduce health care costs to achieve similar savings. By curbing waste, fraud, and abuse and preventing avoidable hospital re-admissions and taking a whole host of other cost-saving steps, we can save billions of dollars, while delivering better care to the American people.

Now, none of these steps can be taken by our federal government or our health care community acting alone. They'll require all of us coming together, as we are today, around a common purpose -- workers, executives, hospitals, nurses, doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, members of Congress. It's the kind of broad coalition, everybody with a seat at the table that I talked about during the campaign, that is required to achieve meaningful health care reform and that is the kind of coalition which -- to which I am committed.

So the steps that are being announced today are significant. But the only way these steps will have an enduring impact is if they are taken not in isolation, but as part of a broader effort to reform our entire health care system. We've already begun making a down payment on that kind of comprehensive reform. We're extending quality health care to millions of children of working families who lack coverage, which means we're going to be preventing long-term problems that are even more expensive to treat down the road. We're providing a COBRA subsidy to make health care affordable for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs. And because much of every health care dollar is spent on billing, overhead, and administration, we are computerizing medical records in a way that will protect our privacy, and that's a step that will not only eliminate waste and reduce medical errors that cost lives, but also let doctors spend less time doing administrative work and more time caring for patients.

But there's so much more to do. In the coming weeks and months, Congress will be engaged in the difficult issue of how best to reform health care in America. I'm committed to building a transparent process where all views are welcome. But I'm also committed to ensuring that whatever plan we design upholds three basic principles: First, the rising cost of health care must be brought down; second, Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have, or to choose a new doctor or health care plan if they want it; and third, all Americans must have quality, affordable health care.

These are principles that I expect to see upheld in any comprehensive health care reform bill that's sent to my desk -- I mentioned it to the groups that were here today. It's reform that is an imperative for America's economic future, and reform that is a pillar of the new foundation we seek to build for our economy; reform that we can, must, and will achieve by the end of this year.

Ultimately, the debate about reducing costs -- and the larger debate about health care reform itself -- is not just about numbers; it's not just about forms or systems; it's about our own lives and the lives of our loved ones. And I understand that. As I've mentioned before during the course of the campaign, my mother passed away from ovarian cancer a little over a decade ago. And in the last weeks of her life, when she was coming to grips with her own mortality and showing extraordinary courage just to get through each day, she was spending too much time worrying about whether her health insurance would cover her bills. So I know what it's like to see a loved one who is suffering, but also having to deal with a broken health care system. I know that pain is shared by millions of Americans all across this country.

And that's why I was committed to health care reform as a presidential candidate; that's why health care reform is a key priority to this presidency; that's why I will not rest until the dream of health care reform is finally achieved in the United States of America. And that's why I'm thrilled to have such a broad, diverse group of individuals from all across the health care spectrum representing every constituency and every political predisposition who feel that same sense of urgency and are committing themselves to work diligently to bring down costs so we can achieve the reforms that we seek.

So thank you very much to all of you for being here. Thank you very much everybody.

END

12:46 P.M. EDT

Watch the Video

May 11, 2009

President Obama on Coming Together to Bring Down Health Care Costs

Blog posts on this issue

April 01, 2010 10:47 AM EDT

Big Benefits for Small Businesses in Health Reform

March 30, 2010 8:42 PM EDT

Selective Health Reform Studies Misleading Young Adults

March 30, 2010 5:56 PM EDT

Taking Your Questions About Health Reform

view all related blog posts

Stay ConnectedFacebook Twitter Flickr MySpaceYouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn