Well...
The House has passed a Bill, but whether it's a good one (or even good enough) is not so clear. My hunch is that it's actually pretty awful; I'm going to try to find a couple of hours later to read the bill that was passed and confirm my worries.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 10:45, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

If Radio 4's sources are correct
then it's supposed to rule against insurance companies dropping or refusing customers who are sick or known to have a hereditary condition, which is at least a step in the right direction.
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 10:53, Reply)

But if they're forced to keep such people on
won't they just make their premiums so astronomically high they won't be able to afford them anyway?

(also, good morning, dear boy)
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 10:57, Reply)

Good morning, old chap
Possibly. It certainly sounds like the kind of thing they would do. However, all I got was a summarised snippet off the Today Programme whilst trying to muster the impetus to haul my arse out of bed, so I don't know the details. (Although if I heard correctly they got the bill through by a margin of about 7 votes, so it's going to continue to be an uphill struggle.)
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:01, Reply)

The idea is that if everyone pays (as everyone will now be required to have
health insurance) then the premiums will be kept down as there will be more healthy people paying into the pot than sick people pulling money out of the pot (although with an aging population I don't know how long this will work).
(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:32, Reply)

Well, this is one of the problems with the Bill.
Let's put on the table first that a comprehensive public health system is ideal, with noone excluded.

But, still: they've decided to keep a private-based system. On that basis, I think it should be fair in its structure. And that seems to me to demand that insurance companies be allowed to make decisions about policies based on all relavent information. They are, after all, there to make a profit, and that's only going to be possible if they're allowed to decide which risks to take.

The point is this: if a company is forced to give cover to someone whom they wouldn't normally want to touch, that seems unjust to them.

So my worry is that the Bill that was passed involves the worst of all worlds: it's bad for the population, and it's potentially unjust for the private insurers. That's my hunch.

And, if I'm right, the point will remain that any further reform of the system will now be impossible for at least a generation, because the Right will be able to say that it's already made the concessions. The only thing that'd allow for more reform would be some MAJOR public health calamity; and it's a bit uncomfortable for anyone to want that for the sake of allowing more healthcare reform.

/Jeremiad blog
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:14, Reply)

I guess they never had to worry about the Black Death, did they?
(I could be wrong; did they ever have a population-threatening plague like most European countries seem to have gone through at some point?)
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:24, Reply)

does stupidity count?

(bamboozled Can hear you getting fatter, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:29, Reply)

Hehe, it's a shame that natural selection often doesn't work fast enough

(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:32, Reply)

Don't forget most of our families origianlly came from European countries long after the black death had passed!

(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:30, Reply)

Yes, this is very true.
But most importantly, that was before the flag-waving patriotism, and the seemingly near-universal rallying behind the call to "unite against terrrrism." As BGB said earlier, most of them seem happy enough for the White House to decide when to send their soldiers out to be shot at.

I do wonder whether, say, if the bird-flu pandemic-turned-non-event had actually manifested itself as a serious threat then it might have caused the country to rally in support of measures to make sure every potential carrier* was offered treatment.

*_{Yes, even the geese!}
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:36, Reply)

I disagree.
American mass movements, in response to whatever stimulus, tend to be framed in terms of liberty. It's a very individualistic culture.

The rallying agains trrrsm is compatible with this individualism, inasmuch as teh trrrsts were seen as the worse of two evils; a national response was seen as warranted only inasmuch as it would keep the way open for less interference in the life of the godfearin' individual.

In fact, get hold of a copy of Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares from BBC2 in 2004 if you can: it's very good on the ideological similarities between radical Islam and the American Right.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:42, Reply)

I've got to see that. I wonder if I can find it on line because I am sure it is not readily availble in the US.

(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:48, Reply)

It is difficult to find outside of the UK, though I think that there is a version.
The problem is that Curtis uses HUGE amounts of archive material in his films from all kinds of sources, so getting copyright clearance outside of the UK is a huge task; the BBC tends not to bother trying.

(Though I would have thought that the full three hours is on the web somewhere, if you know where to look...)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:53, Reply)

I hadn't thought about it that way
But it does seem more consistent with the - often very selfish - reasons given for opposing the healthcare bill. As for the similarity between radical Islam and the radically right-wing, well, I suppose they're both driven by religious dogma. And they do both seem to have surprisingly similar (and very backward) views. I shall have to look for that documentary.
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:49, Reply)

I'm sure that there must be some really interesting social and intellectual history
on why it is that the US has the political culture it has.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:36, Reply)

It's not that simple.
After all, Canada has had no public health emergency either. It has more to do with a well-founded and vibrant left-wing culture. For some reason, such a culture has never really taken root in the US.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:35, Reply)

This is very true.
Ultimately, I'm just being facetious with my point about nationwide epidemics - not least of all because most of the people in Britain wouldn't appreciate its historical significance. Though as in my reply above, I've always been intrigued by the way they rally round the flag when they feel under threat. I just wonder whether it would give them a push in the right (well, the left) direction.
(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:40, Reply)

I doubt it as we are already faced with a national epidemic of obesity
and people are still feasting at McDonalds and spending all day in front of the TV or computer. Some doctors are saying that if things don't change, this might be the first generation in a long time that doesn't live as long as it's parents. So many people are so brainwashed by what TV and the media tell then that they don't even know they are slowly drowning in their own fat.
(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:46, Reply)

The US suffered just as europe did in the post WW1 flu pandemic

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:44, Reply)

Yes, it's incomplete and holds the potential
to do nothing but enforce status quo with a few cosmetic changes.

One thing about insurance companies that they don't like to mention is that they are a complete power unto them selves. On one hand they force hospitals to take lower pay for their services while on the other they complain that government programs don't pay enough.

A couple of years ago I had a pretty bad life threatening bicycle accident with some interesting brain injury (might explain my posting here now), broken bones, etc. Anyway, I was in intensive care etc and when I got the bills from the hospital, they were for well over $20,000. If I did not have insurance I would have had to pay the full amount. The hospital however accepted about $9000 from the insurance company as payment in full. What a scam.
(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:29, Reply)

Damn.
That's a joke.
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:33, Reply)

Look, Herman's Hermits were OK
but I fail to see why their singer should get special exemption.


/old joke
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:41, Reply)

Yeah, but the old ones are the best

(LongJohnBaldry, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:42, Reply)

I agree that it's pretty awful
in that it doesn't really change much. We needed real changes but too many politicians are owned by the insurance companies that I am not convinced that any real change will ever come. Things should be a little better for some people but in reality, health care is still a for profit business in teh us and people who cost too much money or interfere with profits will not be treated the way they should.

We need a single payer system like your NHS. Sure there may be problems with the NHS, but from what I have read, anyone can get preventative care, prenatal care, and no one is thrown out of the hospital for lack of funds. In the US hospitals have been shown to refuse patients, and in a couple of cases actually took patients who had received some emergency care and dropped them off in the middle of the slums in Los Angeles in their hospital gowns because they hospital didn’t want to treat someone without insurance.
insurance.
(MichaelS wasn't picked again, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:21, Reply)

...
too many politicians are owned by the insurance companies

Heh. Quite how Joe Beiden can sleep is beyond me. Oh, wait. He has a bed made of kickbacks. That'll be it.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 11:28, Reply)