If they don't pass the new health care plan today.................

[rosarugosa]

I wouldn't categorize affordable or publicly funded healthcare as a right because there is after all a substantial cost & the labor of others involved in providing the care. I don't think I have a right to the fruit of Tammy's labor, for example. I think it's more appropriate to say that in this prosperous country I feel it's appropriate to publicly fund health care to make it available to all citizens and legal residents (and I know some would say for all residents, but resources are finite, so I myself would draw a line).
I've been fortunate to always have a decent medical plan as part of my employment compensation package, but that's been getting drastically more expensive for worse coverage, so I think the health care debate is relevant for all of us.

[MaryHu]

Exactly rosarugosa! Just like we fund public: police, fire, paramedic, school and library personnel. We recognize these as things that everyone needs and which everyone should have. If the rich want fancier versions they can buy them but at least everyone would have essential care. And things like utilities are heavily regulated because you don't usually have a choice in where to get your electricity or natural gas. (someone else already made this point better than I can) There's only one reason we don't have some kind of universal health care and sane drug pricing in this county and that's because lobyists (for the health insurance companies and big pharma) own our so called "representatives".

[Yppej]

I was pleased to hear Bernie Sanders today tell Dana Bash that the age for Medicare should be lowered to 55. Bill Richardson floated this idea years ago. One problem with the bill that just was pulled was the huge cost increases for Americans 55 to 64. If you take the oldest, sickest people out of the private insurance market I think that would do a lot to make premiums affordable for everyone under 55, and would also help open up jobs for younger people. Some folks who are only working for the insurance could retire, and others could start their own businesses adding jobs.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I was pleased to hear Bernie Sanders today tell Dana Bash that the age for Medicare should be lowered to 55. Bill Richardson floated this idea years ago. One problem with the bill that just was pulled was the huge cost increases for Americans 55 to 64. If you take the oldest, sickest people out of the private insurance market I think that would do a lot to make premiums affordable for everyone under 55, and would also help open up jobs for younger people. Some folks who are only working for the insurance could retire, and others could start their own businesses adding jobs.

This makes so much sense to me - so much sense. I just wish it could happen! Just think how much less stressful that stretch of life between 55 and qualifying for Medicare now would be! And with people over 55 being very vulnerable to job loss and then having such a hard time finding anything else in this economy of nightmarishly turbo charged capitalism - implementing this would make the sting of turbo charged capitalism less evil and less nasty. Good luck with it actually taking place in the United States, however! I'm just glad that it's even being mentioned. Rob

[iris lilies]

Iris lilies, this is a sincere question - how do you think that the lower income people who might be dropped from Medicaid under a reduction in federal funding should get health care?

should they use emergency rooms since emergency rooms can't turn anyone away?
should they go without?
should private charities provide their care?
do you see a path for them to buy their own health care? Do you understand what a large percentage of their income would go to what would basically be catastrophic care (and why? What's tens of thousands in medical debt when you have no hope of ever retiring or improving your standard of living anyway? - what is needed is preventative care.)

do you have some other suggestion?

is the answer "I don't know" and if so, do you think it's a question that needs an answer?

My dogs ate my IPAD yesterday so it took me a while to get communications back up and running.

There is no one monolithic answer for every health problem in the United States, be it covered by insurance or not. And, insurance isn't access. So, sure, going without (which plenty do now) and using emergency rooms (which plenty do now) and using charitable services (which plenty do) are some choices.

But it in the theoretical overview, I am not in favor of more debt by the federal government. If additional social programs are necessary, don't grow deficit spending.

there is no price of a human life. There IS a price on the health services received. Looking at any human service without looking at the cost seems short sighted. There will always be a cost/benefit to any health service, just look at the gigabites of analysis in publicly funded health care programs both here and abroad.

[iris lilies]

I agree that it was unfair for me to target Iris Lily. Iris, I apologize.

But my point and question in general are valid. Depending on what study you want to believe 21,000 additional dead people per year is a lowball number. And it really doesn't seem much of a stretch that 1 in 1,000 people who lose their insurance would die from treatable causes each year.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...-gun-homicides

No matter how one chooses to slice it and dice it the reality is that people who support a bill that causes people to lose their insurance so that a few rich people can get tax cuts are making an economic decision that 21,000 lives per year aren't worth as much as more money in the pockets of those few rich people.

A little snark now and then doesn't hurt me, it keeps me fit for err, umm, edgy discourse.

[ToomuchStuff]

bypass the lower social classes and what still remains of the hollowed out middle class.
Rob

I never understand why you think a lower economic class (the working poor), has any social status attached to it, and that the middle class does not. Correlation is not causation. You can be a lower economic class, and your "social" class would be much different.

21k not covered is not the same as 21k dead. Yes, people who are not covered generally die younger and more often from preventable causes, but it's not an absolute.

a woman I grew up with recently decided she couldn't handle her arthritis pain with over the counter and alternative treatment any longer (she had health care coverage,which doesn't apply to otc/alternative care) so she went to her (covered) Doctor - who told her the "arthritis" was end stage bone cancer. She was dead 4 days later. Without coverage (or with a busier schedule) she would have been just as dead without 4 days of warning.

But my point and question in general are valid. Depending on what study you want to believe 21,000 additional dead people per year is a lowball number. And it really doesn't seem much of a stretch that 1 in 1,000 people who lose their insurance would die from treatable causes each year.

Any stats on people who die every year, who have insurance, and are fighting the insurance companies for something (procedure, medicine, etc), while they delay, so they don't have to pay the bill?
How about another example of something I am curious about....
A friend of ours (anyone here study engineering?), survived the Hyatt collapse. The person had not worked for their company for long enough to have their medical/disability coverage yet. The person worked 3 more years, at 85% of being a quadriplegic, to get to that point, while the investigations/rehab/lawsuit and eventual trial happened. If the whole medicare thing would have happened then, what would have happened once the suits were settled? Who would get the money for their care, past as well as future and who would control it?

Perhaps this should be a new thread, but I've often wondered why the religious right doesn't take the walgreen's/cvs approach -

take all all that money they are throwing at candidates and build health clinics across the street from planned parenthood. Offer all the same services except never mention abortion (except to condemn it) plus maybe offer some of the social services for newborns - clothes, breastfeeding outreach, diapers.... they offer at their crisis pregnancy centers.

try to do the healthcare part better, and then at least they can say, look, we don't want to take away the only source of Pap smears or birth control these women have, we offer a clinic right across the street that does all these things, respectfully and cheaper too!

or maybe not cheaper. I confess that I now shop at cvs now and then and never comparison shop at walgreen's anymore because of the decision not to sell cigarettes.

keep expanding the clinics until pp us irrelevant except for abortion services. Then come back with you federal funding arguement. I'm sure liberal groups can band together to offer women emergency help with abortion the same way crisis pregnancy centers offer emergency help with unplanned, sometimes unwanted (adoption referrals), unaffordable babies.

Call me confused by this, but I thought the religious right had tried that very thing, only to end up in courts these last few years as lawsuits were filed to get the church funded organizations to pay for birth control/abortion, etc. etc. etc. Let alone those who are not a religion, but religious member and own a business they run based on their beliefs. Maybe if they did a Jim and Tammy Baker thing, broke off from their churches, made their business part of their "church", they could then get out of the costs/lawsuits, etc. while doing the whole Scientology thing. Can't say I know much about this linked site, as I mostly remember hearing these back and forths on NPR the last few years.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...birth-control/
"But it’s unlikely to apply to a range of other church-affiliated organizations such as hospitals, universities and charities."

[Chicken lady]

That was insurance. I'm talking about point of service clinics. You can't force a clinic to provide a certain service. Maybe to provide a service they offer to anybody, but not to add services. Although, they would have to provide birth control, or it wouldn't work. So I guess they would lose the Catholic Church as support. Not most of the Catholics I know however.

[LDAHL]

So what have we learned from the past few days?

That under the American system, you can't govern as a caucus of one no matter how many threats you issue?

That a sizable minority of the GOP values ideological purity over getting at least some of what they want?

That an entitlement once created, however flawed, is very difficult to eliminate?

That people who value equality over freedom are quick to infer unsavory motives and heartlessness to people who value freedom over equality?

That everyone has a favorite default villain?

That nobody's opinion on abortion is changeable at this point in history?

That executive orders and declining to enforce uncongenial laws (as with Obama and illegal immigration) may be more effective than a frontal assault?

[catherine]

So what have we learned from the past few days?

That under the American system, you can't govern as a caucus of one no matter how many threats you issue?

That a sizable minority of the GOP values ideological purity over getting at least some of what they want?

That an entitlement once created, however flawed, is very difficult to eliminate?

That people who value equality over freedom are quick to infer unsavory motives and heartlessness to people who value freedom over equality?

That everyone has a favorite default villain?

That nobody's opinion on abortion is changeable at this point in history?

That executive orders and declining to enforce uncongenial laws (as with Obama and illegal immigration) may be more effective than a frontal assault?

Nice executive summary!