Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just wanted to post my thoughts here, and see if anyone else feels the same way. My frustration has been growing ever so slowly with the simple fact that negotiation and compromise are quickly becoming things of a bygone era. Lets take for example the current debate swirling about Congress' efforts to reform the US health care system. The Republicans, and several Democrats, are decrying the inclusion of a public option, as they fear that it is too expensive, and that it could lead to a single payer system which can lead to an even worse system. They are also completely against the use of any Federal money to fund abortions, and against compulsory purchases of insurance by the Federal government. The Democrat leadership, and rank and file members, are generally taken with the opposite viewpoints. Since the two sides can't agree on what should go in the reform package, mainly because they won't agree on anything, the process will either stall, collapse or be ramrodded through both house of Congress. I don't care for that last solution personally, as I am a very big fan of balance in all things. Compromise can not only end this debacle, but it will also help to represent both sides and temper any recklessness. Here are some sample compromises:

Public Option: Instead of a public option, why not let the Federal government run an option for children. It helps to protect those who have literally no control over their own lives, keeps social conservatives happy, and placates some of the worry of abuse that is inherent in the fiscal conservatives. The liberals still maintain some elements of their plan, and most importantly it effectively helps those who need it most.

Federally Funded Abortions: Instead of the Federal government deciding on this issue, lets the states decide. If the people vote for it, BAM! its allowed, if it isn't BAM! it isn't. This allows more conservative states to protect their dearly held values and allows more progressive states to protect their own sincere beliefs.

Compulsory Purchase: Don't force people to buy insurance through threat of fines or jail time. Rather give tax incentives to people who do buy it, and the withholding of tax refunds for those who don't. If they are financially stable enough to not need the insurance, I doubt that refund will be missed, and many lower and middle class families could use the money from a tax incentive to purchase new or better insurance.

I realize that these are ideal solutions, and some might even be nonviable, but I see it as a start. I think compromise is invaluable and something is often overlooked in our increasingly polarized societies. Ugh, I can't believe I recommended some facets of direct democracy....I am gonna go get a drink now....

I'm already drunk.

Anyway. I agree with your plan that pertains to mandatory purchase. Addendums:

1) Public Option: extend Medicare to all. Revise those elements which will receive payment on the basis of need.

2) Abortions: Make a law which eliminates all post-1st-term procedures absent a grand justification. If the people complain, ignore their stupidity.

dogma wrote:I'm already drunk.

Nice. I wish I could do that tonight....

dogma wrote:1) Public Option: extend Medicare to all. Revise those elements which will receive payment on the basis of need.

I like it.

dogma wrote:2) Abortions: Make a law which eliminates all post-1st-term procedures absent a grand justification. If the people complain, ignore their stupidity.

I like ignoring the people's stupidity, and I could probably stomach your suggestion as a compromise, despite my moral objections to abortion.

Well... there is always one thing that most can agree on...

Compromise is for the weak.

I wish more people had the common sense and reasoning to compromise.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:2) Abortions: Make a law which eliminates all post-1st-term procedures absent a grand justification. If the people complain, ignore their stupidity.

I like ignoring the people's stupidity, and I could probably stomach your suggestion as a compromise, despite my moral objections to abortion.

I could go for this. I'm basically pro-life, even though I'm not even religious. I can deal with abortions up to the point where the fetus can feel pain. Then I really can't shake the idea that you're straight up killing a living being that feels what you're doing! Creepy.

Single Payer or Medicare-equivalent for everyone would probably be a good idea, though probably not achievable within our current political and corporate health insurance landscape. The Public Option plan has always been a Centrist compromise.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm already drunk.

Nice. I wish I could do that tonight....

dogma wrote:1) Public Option: extend Medicare to all. Revise those elements which will receive payment on the basis of need.

I like it.

dogma wrote:2) Abortions: Make a law which eliminates all post-1st-term procedures absent a grand justification. If the people complain, ignore their stupidity.

I like ignoring the people's stupidity, and I could probably stomach your suggestion as a compromise, despite my moral objections to abortion.

Sounds good, but if you extend Medicare for all you bankrupt said Medicare instantly. Thats the problem currently. Stats came out late last week that if you include 55+ vs. 65 currently you send the plan hurtling into the red.

Horst wrote:Compromise is for the weak.

Thanks so much for being part of the problem. The sort of discussion that is required to find common ground is absolutely necessary in a country of 300 million people who have come either in their own lifetime or through their ancestors from all over the Earth. Constant bickering solves nothing.

JEB wrote:Federally Funded Abortions: Instead of the Federal government deciding on this issue, lets the states decide. If the people vote for it, BAM! its allowed, if it isn't BAM! it isn't. This allows more conservative states to protect their dearly held values and allows more progressive states to protect their own sincere beliefs.

Couldn't this concept be expanded to address the healthcare issue as a whole? Forgive me if this sounds naive, but it would mean that each particular state could come up with a healthcare solution that would meet its budget and the will of its residents. Would this even be possible - and is it it too 'devolutionist'? I like the idea of universal healthcare for minors, too.

Albatross wrote:Couldn't this concept be expanded to address the healthcare issue as a whole? Forgive me if this sounds naive, but it would mean that each particular state could come up with a healthcare solution that would meet its budget and the will of its residents. Would this even be possible - and is it it too 'devolutionist'?

While I like this idea, this would not work. Mainly because it would be a major coup for the Republicans and it has already been tried. The unfortunate thing is that most states that have tried this are either getting rid of their programs, ie Tennessee, or are losing buckets of money, ie Massachusetts. Devolution is a brilliant part of Federalism, but it is not part of the Democratic Party's platform.

Albatross wrote:I like the idea of universal healthcare for minors, too.

Thought you would. But then again, who can't approve of something like that?

TRICARE, the American insurance company for its military, already pays for abortions but ONLY in cases where the mother's life is at risk. Just mentioning that on that quote from JEB about Federally Funded Abortions.

Compromise is not easy to do when the opponents of the health care plan seem to only contribute saying "no" especially if thats what their party, voters, and/or lobbyists want. So far this thread has been a much better example than real politicians. Wished I had more to add but it should be a fun read!

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Albatross wrote:Couldn't this concept be expanded to address the healthcare issue as a whole? Forgive me if this sounds naive, but it would mean that each particular state could come up with a healthcare solution that would meet its budget and the will of its residents. Would this even be possible - and is it it too 'devolutionist'?

While I like this idea, this would not work. Mainly because it would be a major coup for the Republicans and it has already been tried. The unfortunate thing is that most states that have tried this are either getting rid of their programs, ie Tennessee, or are losing buckets of money, ie Massachusetts. Devolution is a brilliant part of Federalism, but it is not part of the Democratic Party's platform.

I suppose there IS the potential for widespread migration of low-income families to states which opt for a universal, free at the point-of-use (for the sake of argument) health service... yeah, that could cause problems.

JEB wrote:

Albatross wrote:I like the idea of universal healthcare for minors, too.

Thought you would. But then again, who can't approve of something like that?

It's kind of a 'slam-dunk', isn't it?

Frazzled wrote:
Sounds good, but if you extend Medicare for all you bankrupt said Medicare instantly. Thats the problem currently. Stats came out late last week that if you include 55+ vs. 65 currently you send the plan hurtling into the red.

That's why you double the FICA ceiling, and increase the tax by 50%. You also shift 33% of the welfare outlay into Medicare, and alter the payout metric in order to function as a supplemental system, rather than a replacement for insurance (so it covers things like immunization, broken bones, but not triple bypass surgery).

As a married man, I can tell you that compromise is not a forgotten or lost art on my end.



Didn't think compromise was part of the US Govt. mindset.
You're either with us or ag'in' us.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Sounds good, but if you extend Medicare for all you bankrupt said Medicare instantly. Thats the problem currently. Stats came out late last week that if you include 55+ vs. 65 currently you send the plan hurtling into the red.

That's why you double the FICA ceiling, and increase the tax by 50%. You also shift 33% of the welfare outlay into Medicare, and alter the payout metric in order to function as a supplemental system, rather than a replacement for insurance (so it covers things like immunization, broken bones, but not triple bypass surgery).

You're still blasting the same amount of money. Increase taxes and the economy suffers. Shift from other welfare programs and those programs are cut. Never happen in a Democratic administration. I don't think it would happen in a Republican administration at this point.

@Chromedog - Do you find yourself doing all the compromising? I do, and I'm not even married yet!

Not at all.

We BOTH compromise on things. I just don't bother fighting something when I can't win.

Frazzled wrote:
You're still blasting the same amount of money. Increase taxes and the economy suffers. Shift from other welfare programs and those programs are cut. Never happen in a Democratic administration. I don't think it would happen in a Republican administration at this point.

Yes, the economy would suffer. Who cares? The economy is not a measure for the quality of life. Does it matter if people can't buy a new plasma TV if they have healthcare, food, and shelter? No.

That doesn't even get us into discussing the debt and the tax increases, and budget cuts, which that implies.

Plus cheaper healthcare=more money in your pocket, surely? My uncle had to pay nearly $7,000 to get his leg pinned - that buys a fair amount of plasma! The same thing would have been free here - NO JUDGEMENT! JUST SAYING!

...phew, that was close.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You're still blasting the same amount of money. Increase taxes and the economy suffers. Shift from other welfare programs and those programs are cut. Never happen in a Democratic administration. I don't think it would happen in a Republican administration at this point.

Yes, the economy would suffer. Who cares? The economy is not a measure for the quality of life. Does it matter if people can't buy a new plasma TV if they have healthcare, food, and shelter? No.

That doesn't even get us into discussing the debt and the tax increases, and budget cuts, which that implies.

Well the post actually ate half my reply before sending, but this is a whole different issue.

Who cares about the economy? If you had a good economy much of the healthcare difficulty would be self corrected. Then you would only need minor tweeks- 1. portability of insurance; 2. no dropping for pre-existing or stopping because of; 3. making the plans nationwide and not limited by state. But always take advantage of a crisis no?

More importantly what the floated plan, which is now effectively dead, was to do was drop people into medicare, diluting the money for care for elderly, which was what the plan was intended for.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Plus cheaper healthcare=more money in your pocket, surely? My uncle had to pay nearly $7,000 to get his leg pinned - that buys a fair amount of plasma! The same thing would have been free here - NO JUDGEMENT! JUST SAYING!

...phew, that was close.

No it wouldn't have been free. only people who don't have a working knowledge of math (ie politicans) would think its free. Someone still pays for it.

It would have been free at the point of use for me. Which equals more money in my pocket.

Albatross wrote:It would have been free at the point of use for me. Which equals more money in my pocket.

but it would have cost others, which equals less money from their pockets. That is what is often forgotten.

Not necessarily.

Existing laws mean that people have to be served at the Emergency Room in most locales regardless of ability to pay. And that A) is the most expensive kind of care and B) comes out of the taxpayer's pocket eventually too.

Mannahnin wrote:Not necessarily.

Existing laws mean that people have to be served at the Emergency Room in most locales regardless of ability to pay. And that A) is the most expensive kind of care and B) comes out of the taxpayer's pocket eventually too.

Agreed on both. The point of what I am trying to say is that there is no easy fix here at all, and ignoring the real cost is suicide. Its also why people don't compromise.
Frankly a compromise bill could have worked. But history has shown that when one party tries to force down a major social item, it has to have bipartisan support, or it will fail. This one doesn't because it wasn't written to do that.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:It would have been free at the point of use for me. Which equals more money in my pocket.

but it would have cost others, which equals less money from their pockets. That is what is often forgotten.

Clearly thats why Americans spend more per capita on health care than any other population on earth and receive standards of healthcare far below nations spending half as much. Clearly its such a good system we have now, and a bandaid to that system is going to fix it right up. No need for massive reform in the bloated, dysfunctional and self destructive system we have, just throw in a few laws about moving insurance around.

Public Option: Instead of a public option, why not let the Federal government run an option for children. It helps to protect those who have literally no control over their own lives, keeps social conservatives happy, and placates some of the worry of abuse that is inherent in the fiscal conservatives. The liberals still maintain some elements of their plan, and most importantly it effectively helps those who need it most.

I think the issue with that plan is that it doesn't actually do anything. The point of the public option was to enforce competition in a sector that is used to price fixing and absorbing escalating amounts of money. Without it insurance stays as expensive and ineffectual as it already is and nothing gets fixed. I suppose the conservatives are more worried about citizens exploiting the system for a minor amount of profit as opposed to the current vastly corrupt system of insurance dealers getting rich off of the death of american healthcare.

Frazzled wrote:
Who cares about the economy? If you had a good economy much of the healthcare difficulty would be self corrected.

No it wouldn't. The Industrial Revolution provides an excellent reference in that regard. Self-correction is a myth. The economy isn't an independent thing which flies around the room on its own. Its a group of people acting in what they believe to be their best interests. Inevitably someone must do something in order to ensure the presence of adequate healthcare.

Frazzled wrote:
Then you would only need minor tweeks- 1. portability of insurance; 2. no dropping for pre-existing or stopping because of; 3. making the plans nationwide and not limited by state. But always take advantage of a crisis no?

Yes, crisis is opportunity. That's one of the fundamental tenets of a free market economy. Creative destruction anyone? That's also a myth though, and not something I'm proposing.

Incidentally, to make plans nation-wide you would have to overrule the ability of states to make divergent laws. Not something I have a problem with, but it doesn't seem like something you would support.

Frazzled wrote:
More importantly what the floated plan, which is now effectively dead, was to do was drop people into medicare, diluting the money for care for elderly, which was what the plan was intended for.

Intention is irrelevant. All that matters is effect. If we can improve the standard of living by making large alterations to Medicare, then that's what should be done. That said, the main purpose of any cost structuring would be to maximize coverage for the elderly, and the young, while ensuring that people can receive aid for incidental (broken bones, flue shots, etc.) needs at any age.


Edit: Weird, someone else's post was appended to mine.

deleted for being poorly worded.

Exactly. "free" healthcare is the most expensive kind. So now we'll give to everyone! And it'll get cheaper! Come on.

WE ALREADY PAY MORE PER CAPITA THAN ANY OTHER NATION ON THE PLANET AND HAVE A STANDARD OF CARE IN THE HIGH 20'S BY COMPARISON.

To say that the social healthcare model is more expensive and less effective.. Christ, how can you even begin to say that without involuntarily punching yourself in the face.

:edit: I see you deleted it before I hit submit. Curses.