|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:44 am Post subject: Health Care Reform |
 |
|
We've been so caught up in the profound implications for the national soul of the Gates episode that we've forgotten that other thing happening back home, the effort to pass legislation to reform the healthcare system, and the (dare I say it) VERY REAL impact it will have on millions.
| Quote: |
| In the House, a handful of conservative Blue Dog Democrats have teamed up with Republicans to keep the Energy and Commerce Committee from voting on the legislation; negotiations to get them back on board are focused on how a proposed government-run public health insurance plan would set the rates it pays doctors. In the Senate, a bipartisan klatsch of centrist Finance Committee members led by Democratic chairman Max Baucus of Montana and meeting in secret talks seems ready to dump the public option altogether, replacing it with some sort of co-op scheme, the details of which are still being hashed out. If the compromises wind up devouring the legislation's initial principles, healthcare reform could turn out to be a drug whose side effects are as bad as the disease. |
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/29/healthcare/
| Quote: |
Still up in the air is what a national co-op would look like. Would it be truly nationwide or would each state have its own? How much startup funding would it get from Congress? Will the government have a hand in running it, or will it be entirely patient-controlled? Would it have the power to negotiate the best rates, to make it competitive with private plans?
Depending on the answers to these questions, the cooperative proposal could be the Democrats' greatest defeat or biggest victory. It could be as unambitious as adding another private plan to the mix. Or it could be nearly synonymous with public-option itself. |
http://www.slate.com/id/2222744/
So it appears this is where a bi-partisan compromise would be headed, to the growing frustration of progressives who seem unwilling to consider anything that leaves out a public option. It will be interesting to see whether Obama chooses the bi-partisan route, or the riskier route which would satisfy his liberal base.
It's of course much more complicated than this. I invite you to aid me in my understanding of this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Efforts to pass a comprehensive health care bill took a big step forward on Wednesday as House Democratic leaders reached an agreement with fiscally conservative members of the party, which would cut the cost of the bill and exempt many small businesses from having to provide health benefits to workers. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/us/politics/30health.html?_r=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good thread. I'm afraid I don't understand the issues very well, but I'm skeptical a nation-wide system can be efficient. I do believe Americans should pay for their health care through a VAT on unhealthful foods, rather than just shunt it off to the rich and pack it into the progressive tax scheme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:17 am Post subject: Bad news for health care reform |
|
|
People think health care reform will hurt them . . .
. . . even if they're convinced that it will improve costs and care nationally.
| Quote: |
In speeches and town-hall events, the president has argued that health care is a pressing need for you, that you could lose your health insurance or go broke if we don't pass a reform bill--that it's not about the millions of people without health insurance, per se, but rather about skyocketing costs that make the current system untenable. His reforms are supposed to preserve quality, improve access, and drive costs down.
According to Gallup, the public doesn't believe him--at least on how reforms would affect them personally. |
It's funny, the public will buy his swill on the economy, but won't trust him on the issues he has the best chance of addressing well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: Bad news for health care reform |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
His reforms are supposed to preserve quality, improve access, and drive costs down.
According to Gallup, the public doesn't believe him--at least on how reforms would affect them personally. |
It's funny, the public will buy his swill on the economy, but won't trust him on the issues he has the best chance of addressing well. |
From what I understand this is the big worry right now. Congress will be in recess until after labour day, and this will give opponents of the legislation time to build on this public distrust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I do believe Americans should pay for their health care through a VAT on unhealthful foods, rather than just shunt it off to the rich and pack it into the progressive tax scheme. |
No reason it can't (or shouldn't) be some of both. Increasing taxes on unhealthy foods, alcohol, cigarettes (yes, they're heavily taxed all ready, but as long as people keep buying them, there's no reason not to continually up the taxes on these little boxes of lung disease), and gasoline are all good potential targets for funds, but discluding the progressive income tax scheme entirely as a source of funds for this would be in error I think. Consumption taxes will hit the poor harder than the rich. There needs to be some balance on that account, and progressive income tax is what provides it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I do believe Americans should pay for their health care through a VAT on unhealthful foods, rather than just shunt it off to the rich and pack it into the progressive tax scheme. |
No reason it can't (or shouldn't) be some of both. Increasing taxes on unhealthy foods, alcohol, cigarettes (yes, they're heavily taxed all ready, but as long as people keep buying them, there's no reason not to continually up the taxes on these little boxes of lung disease), and gasoline are all good potential targets for funds, but discluding the progressive income tax scheme entirely as a source of funds for this would be in error I think. Consumption taxes will hit the poor harder than the rich. There needs to be some balance on that account, and progressive income tax is what provides it. |
The VAT I'm talking about wouldn't be restricted to just unhealthy foods and alcohol. Note I'm not proposing taxing groceries generally, raw ingredients for sustenance should be free from taxes. But instafoods and snack foods are fair game. Also, we should consider a national VAT on consumption period, although like gasoline taxes I doubt it will happen: American consumption makes up about 70% of all GDP don't you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, first of all, I don't like the word "deal," because this isn't about a deal. It's about an agreement as to how we will go forward and a recognition of some of the needs that some of our members have to meet the needs of their constituents in rural areas.
The public option is a must-have provision for me, a strong public option, and a public option is in this agreement. The language of it is exactly the language that Senator Kennedy has in the Help bill in the Senate. And so it is something that is acceptable language. I'd like to improve upon it. And we like our original language that is in the Ways and Means Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.
But this is the legislative process, the give-and-take of that, and there's plenty in this legislation for everyone in America to rejoice about who cares -- as everyone, I think, in the Congress does -- about making our country healthier.
But the important thing is, is we will have a bill. And when it comes to the floor, we will have the votes. And it will be something that will have general acceptance and something that we will all take great pride in. |
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/north_america/july-dec09/pelosi_07-30.html
It seems like what she and a lot of other Dems are saying is that it doesn't so much matter what these committees pass, as long as something gets passed so that they can bring it to conference.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate Finance Committee isn't making things that simple.
| Quote: |
| A day after some unexpectedly positive signs for health care reform in Congress, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday that his committee would be unable to complete work on a bill before the August recess. |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25648.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I do believe Americans should pay for their health care through a VAT on unhealthful foods, rather than just shunt it off to the rich and pack it into the progressive tax scheme. |
No reason it can't (or shouldn't) be some of both. Increasing taxes on unhealthy foods, alcohol, cigarettes (yes, they're heavily taxed all ready, but as long as people keep buying them, there's no reason not to continually up the taxes on these little boxes of lung disease), and gasoline are all good potential targets for funds, but discluding the progressive income tax scheme entirely as a source of funds for this would be in error I think. Consumption taxes will hit the poor harder than the rich. There needs to be some balance on that account, and progressive income tax is what provides it. |
The VAT I'm talking about wouldn't be restricted to just unhealthy foods and alcohol. Note I'm not proposing taxing groceries generally, raw ingredients for sustenance should be free from taxes. But instafoods and snack foods are fair game. Also, we should consider a national VAT on consumption period, although like gasoline taxes I doubt it will happen: American consumption makes up about 70% of all GDP don't you know. |
I don't necessarily disagree with this, I just think progressive income tax is also a valid source of funding for this program, which I felt like you were disagreeing with in the post I originally responded to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I favor some kind of universal health care system but I don't disapprove of what the Blue Dogs are doing to the extent they are forcing the progressives to figure out ways to pay for their proposals. This is a good thing--and decades too late.
There is merit in Kuros' VAT proposal. An increase in income tax is probably unavoidable. I'm anxious to see more about Congress' efforts to address the many problems that cause the present high cost, including medicine and malpractice insurance, etc. No plan will fly, nor does it deserve to, if aggressive measures aren't taken at both ends to pay for it.
My personal focus is on getting an alternative to private insurance linked to employment. That has been a crazy inefficient scheme all along and needs to be scrapped. A 'public option' as it's being called is a necessity as far as I'm concerned. I would almost certainly oppose any Congressional plan that does not include some kind of public option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
A 'public option' as it's being called is a necessity as far as I'm concerned. I would almost certainly oppose any Congressional plan that does not include some kind of public option.
|
You are not alone in expressing a near certain opposition to a plan without a public option. I'm very curious to see how this apparent 'battle of wills' will end.
| Quote: |
If the co-op makes it through the Finance Committee, it would likely set up a colossal lobbying war when Reid merges the bill with one approved by the Senate health committee, which approved a public plan similar to one in the House bill.
At some point, one side is going to have to give in � or walk, forcing Democratic congressional leaders to use a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation. It would allow Democrats to pass a bill in the Senate with a simple majority, rather than with the 60-vote, filibuster-proof threshold.
�If it is a choice between getting a good health care bill and doing it in reconciliation, I will take that in a shot,� Rockefeller said. �What I don�t like is no result. And if it takes more time to get a result � even if has to be done through reconciliation as a last resort � don�t think I am going to lose sleep over that.� |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25711.html
Will the Obama administration and congress embrace the less ideologically popular but perhaps more politically practical bi-partisan route, that being the co-op plan? Or will they ram through legislation containing a public option using reconciliation (it seems unlikely to make it through the senate otherwise)? I await the answer, rapt with expectation, if not impatience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dragon777
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why are Americans so afraid of health reform?
I would of thought that this is a major economic/or social reform is essential for the USA to keep functioning as a nation state. When nearly all other western nations have developed their own state health systems!!!!
Why is there so much protest; When little or no opposition is against the military industrial complex? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dragon777 wrote: |
Why are Americans so afraid of health reform?
I would of thought that this is a major economic/or social reform is essential for the USA to keep functioning as a nation state. When nearly all other western nations have developed their own state health systems!!!!
Why is there so much protest; When little or no opposition is against the military industrial complex? |
Depends on what the "reform" is, no? Have you read the 1100page proposal (actually, that's just one of a few circulating)? What if the reform is crap? How would anybody know less sitting down to a 1100 page weekend of legalese. All that exists now in the media discussions is partisan platitudes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dragon777
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am not going to read through those pieces of legislation. Even though I
should.
If you guys(women included; USA) are going to survive. You must adopt a
universal health system to protect all Americans(rich or poor). Especially in accidents, trauma or other diverse causes.
Most Americans I have talked too... are Christians. If so...this must be a moral decicsion for you as well as ethical. For most Americans love god...do they not. Then they must love and help their fellow man...yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
