2009.10.24
Joyce: Health care reform must succeed
We can't afford to fail on health care reform
Tom Joyce
Joyce, of Hardy, is a retired information technology office director for the federal government.
We must reform health care and health insurance in America to increase the length of life and improve the quality of life in America and to prevent the collapse of our economy that will surely happen if we fail to act. The clock is ticking.
The current health care system in the United States for the uninsured is unworthy of this great nation. In the U.S., the world's richest country, many sick people who can't pay stay sick or die.
RSS feed 
How about real reform? Abolish Medicare and Medicaid now.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 24, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Olympia Snowe is a disgrace in going along with this 0bamacare disaster. Democrats wanted desperately to find a Republican to tag along so they could paint the vote as "bipartisan" when it fails. Even Susan Collins, Snowe's liberal siamese twin, couldn't swallow the public option. Snowe needs to leave the party and just admit what she is like Specter finally did.
Next election, ALL who voted for 0bamacare should be targeted for defeat. The slogan and battlecry should be "UNDO 0bamacare in '10." Bumperstickers carrying that message should be distributed in every district where a politician voted for it. We should make it clear to the health institutions Democrats want to dismantle to hold tight, that this vote will be undone and reversed. Help IS on the way.
Comment by Suzie — October 24, 2009 @ 10:01 am
My question is, what if six months after Obamacare takes effect we see that is truly is the disaster people are predicting? What then? More arguing and head scratching while they try to figure out what to do next?
No thanks.
Comment by Patrick — October 24, 2009 @ 10:17 am
What if it works? The longest journey begins with a single step. Regardless of our individual views, we will be taking this journey together.
Comment by SManley — October 24, 2009 @ 11:17 am
#4 - Absolutely. The longest journey does begin with a single step...not a mish-mash of slapped together "plans" that don't exist.
If you're gonna do it, do it right.
Comment by Patrick — October 24, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
A brave Congress passed Social Security and Medicare and they have worked to protect our senior citizens. Both programs are loved by the Senior Citizens. Why would you think a program to help the rest of us would be a disaster?
Do not give me the bankrupt song and dance. That problem is a general fund problem, not a "social security trust fund" problem. Ans as for medicare funding, as soon as the medical costs are under control, then medicare will be solvent as well. Its problem is not the gov't it is the outrageous costs the medical field is charging.
Comment by Richard — October 24, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I don't know where you guys have your health insurance now, but should reform not pass, you will not have it for long. Unless you are in a Union, youwill find your companies eliminating health insurance as fast as possible because the costs are killing them. As for senior citizens, without reform, medicare costs will also rise as there will be no stopping the cost of medical care.
This is the One chance to reform medical care. The insurance companies know it, the medical field knows it, the drug companies know it. If it is not passed now, they will run amok as politically it will not be brought forward again. All of you that are so against reform, I hope you have your pocketbooks ready, becasue without reform, your costs are going to skyrocket.
Comment by Richard — October 24, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
@7 -"I don't know where you guys have your health insurance now, but should reform not pass, you will not have it for long."
And people accuse conservatives of fear-mongering! Geez. How many issues is Obama going to try to ram down America's throat under the "if we don't act now it will be too late" schtick?
Comment by Another Chris — October 24, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Social Security is welfare, and going broke. So are Medicare and Medicaid. The last thing we need is another government program that drains the taxpayers' pocketbooks.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 24, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
@8 yes everything is an emergency with him except protecting our troops in Afghanistan. No trust in this so-called president at all
Comment by pammala — October 24, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
Personally, I hope we get the public option and that employer sponsored for-profit insurance goes down the tubes.
Comment by Scott M. — October 24, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Many major companies are FOR health Care reform. The rest of the world, whom we compete against, at least in developed countries, already have it.
Such being the case, because Toyota does not have to pay health care benefits in Japan, They can sell a car cheaper, and pay their workers a wage, adjusted for the missing health care benefit that exceeds the wages of Detroit.
They see subsidized health care in other countries as an unfair trade advantage, and realize that if it passes here, they won't have to pay health care for retirees, and employees, both of which are major expenditures that grow every year.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 24, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
JJoe #12
"Many major companies are FOR health Care reform. The rest of the world, whom we compete against, at least in developed countries, already have it.
Why do liberals persist in comparing the U.S. with inferior two-bit godless European countries? We are superior by every meansure, yet for some reason, we are supposed to strive to be like them.
Comment by Suzie — October 25, 2009 @ 9:07 am
#13 Susie wrote "Why do liberals persist in comparing the U.S. with inferior two-bit godless European countries? We are superior by every meansure, yet for some reason, we are supposed to strive to be like them."
In other words, you are happy to give those "inferior two-bit godless European countries" every trade advantage possible?
American Companies still have to compete against those "inferior two-bit godless European countries", and quite frankly, our industry is falling behind - BIG TIME, because we can't compete with countries that have advantages we lack.
Why do conservatives screech ""Why do liberals persist in comparing the U.S. with inferior two-bit godless European countries? We are superior by every meansure, yet for some reason, we are supposed to strive to be like them."" whenever someone points out a truth they cannot face? What compells these Conservatives to sceech first about how great America is, and condemn that which they obviously know little, if anything about?
Americans are buying foreign goods, vehicles, even military items because they are cheaper and of high quality.
Many government and military items are purchased from those "inferior two-bit godless European countries" because their health care advantage makes it easier for overseas companies to deliver low bids on USA government contracts, and have lower prices on goods sold in the USA.
Screech platitudes all you want, but reality will still bite your backside while ignoring those platitudes.
It took a court case to void this one:
Boeing loses huge military contract
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7272129.stm
"After the market close, the US military announced that it was giving its new tanker refueling contract to Airbus "
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 25, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Joe,
Who says companies have to pay health care in the first place? I don't accept the premise. It's because of the unions that American companies do this. .
Comment by Suzie — October 25, 2009 @ 10:13 am
There might be another reason for that support from the big companies you cite. If there is a mandatory requirement to purchase coverage and a public option available, many companies will stop offering coverage, instead requiring workers to buy into the public option. Even after paying a small fine, they will be cutting overhead and thus increasing profits. Employees, on the other hand, will now have to pay the insurance premiums once paid by the company.
While everyone is focused on how this will help the 10 to 40 million who currently are not insured, no one seems to be considering the economic harm that may be caused to a large portion of the remaining 250 million people. I thought it was self explanatory, but perhaps it isn't. Maybe I just don't understand. Perhaps you can explain it to me. If my employer currently pays the entire premium for my insurance coverage, which is a good plan through a private insurer, how will suddenly being required to pay a premium, any premium no matter how 'reasonable' the government deems it to be, for what is admittedly going to be a very 'basic' plan, going to make me better off financially. I'll be paying more for less coverage. If that's the Democrats idea of fiscal improvement, no wonder we find ourselves in the current economic mess.
Comment by Another Chris — October 25, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Suzie wrote "Who says companies have to pay health care in the first place? I don't accept the premise. It's because of the unions that American companies do this."
-----------------------------
They don't - Unless it's in the contract, unless they want a workforce - see, Health Care/ Insurance is something a lot of people look for when applying for a job, especially when the labor force is tight. Right now, only skilled and professional workers are in demand, due to the recession. But during non-recessionary times, when workers are in demand, those offering health Insurance have a much better shot at getting a stable, skilled workforce, especially if one's competitors are offering health care.
Of course you spit out employer subsidized (most companies only provider paid worker, not family coverage as a benefit) healthcare as if it were a curse word.
Without that provided benefit almost no one in the USA would have health insurance.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 25, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
#16 Another Chris wrote "If my employer currently pays the entire premium for my insurance coverage, which is a good plan through a private insurer, how will suddenly being required to pay a premium, any premium no matter how 'reasonable' the government deems it to be, for what is admittedly going to be a very 'basic' plan, going to make me better off financially. I'll be paying more for less coverage. If that's the Democrats idea of fiscal improvement, no wonder we find ourselves in the current economic mess."
If your employer is paying for everything, count yourself VERY lucky. Most do not. Many employers offer nothing, or offer very basic plans, the premiums of which they only pay partial.
Your question is moot, though. As a free market conservative, shouldn't you already be paying for your own coverage, instead of using the socialist "employer subsidized" insurance? You know, supporting yourself? Buying on the open market so as to fully support capitalism?
What is inevitable, is that some employers will still offer a private plan that is "better" than the Government option, (the government option, according to all the information coming out of the committees will not be mandatory)to continue to attract a better quality worker.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 25, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
When you think about it, it's utterly ridiculous there is an employer - health care link. Would you ask an employer to provide auto or homeowner's insurance?
Comment by Suzie — October 25, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
That's right Suzie, it would be better rif everyone had their pln and employers opted out. however the insurance companies did not like that as that meant they had to meet and deal with every person who probably would change plans every time a new cheaper plan came along and that would be hard to deal with. So they went to the employer where they could meet with lots of people at one place. And they could manipulate the price and squeeze the company to keep providing benefits.
The ins companies saw this as a great idea and lobbied for more.
Lets just keep on giving it to them.
Comment by Richard — October 25, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Richard #20
The part you left out is, why would employers go along with any group insurance plan? I'm thinking it started with union coercion.
Comment by Suzie — October 25, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
Nice try joe, but a private employer choosing to provide health coverage to its employees as a benefit is not socialism. It is capitalism at its best. A free market business makes a voluntary choice to provide this benefit. It allows them a competitive advantage that enables them to recruit and hire better workers. It's only socialism when the government owns the industry and uses taxpayer funds to make sure everyone has the same slice of the pie regardless of contribution.
Yours is the moot question. I do already support myself. I did so by educating myself, preparing myself and working hard so as to earn one of those jobs where the employer does provide an excellent benefit package. Furthermore, it is quickly growing apparent that the whole "nobody will be forced to choose the public plan" was yet another lie perpetrated by the left to try to shove the reform bill through. In fact, as more details become known, it becomes more and more apparent that the administration's details of how the reform plan will work was at best, misleading.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33470039/ns/politics-health_care_reform
Comment by Another Chris — October 25, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Another Chris, You failed to read the link you provided. it doesn't say what you think it says.
If your employer is paying for everything, count yourself VERY lucky. Most do not. Many employers offer nothing, or offer very basic plans, the premiums of which they only pay partial. And they are not mandated by law to do so. They do so for the reasons I provided earlier. If they chose not to do so after the passage of a reformed health care bill, that will be capitalism at it's best, People choosing to do something, or not as it benefits their bottom line.
Which is why they do provide it now -BUT.
And its a big one - not being mandated to do so, and many finding they can no longer afford to do so are simply dropping it.
So, when the majority of employers finally do drop their healthcare provisions, what makes you think yours would continue? As in any socialist structure, as those who contribute drop out, the burden on those who remain becomes greater, and you can split hairs all you want, any system predicated on the idea that the more that contribute the less the burden IS socialist.
Simply because private business is using this model to provide a service doesn't alter that one whit.
That's the entire premises behind schools, behind roads, behind the military, behind police protection. If everyone pays, if everyone contributes, the burden which is too great for the individual, when shared by society, becomes affordable.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 25, 2009 @ 11:18 pm