Irrational beliefs and health care reform
26 August 2009 by Stardust
Health Care Debate Based on Total Lack of Logic
Heated partisan debate over President Obama’s health care plan, erupting at town hall meetings and in the blogosphere, has more to do with our illogical thought processes than reality, sociologists are finding.
The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.
I sort of fell into that illogical thinking process myself when first considering Obama’s health care plan. I was working backwards considering the worst possible scenerios and then working my way back to the beginning to make some sort of sense out of my conclusion that I based on stories I have heard from random people, and my own negative personal experiences with military health care insurance. Both sides need to stop relying on “irrational beliefs” and consider the actual information and analyze it all rationally before coming to any conclusions.
The result: A survey out this week finds voters split strongly along party lines regarding their beliefs about key parts of the plan. Example: About 91 percent of Republicans think the proposal would increase wait times for surgeries and other health services, while only 37 percent of Democrats think so.
Irrational thinking
A totally rational person would lay out – and evaluate objectively – the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.
“People get deeply attached to their beliefs,” Hoffman said. “We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.”
And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs.
Most people who cling to irrational beliefs are less apt to consider opposing ideas and opinions, possibly because they aren’t really certain about how true their beliefs actually are and if they hold steadfast without listening to any other options, they can be right in their own minds no matter what side of the fence the “believer” sits on.
. . . past research by Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has shown in particular that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives. So these people avoid counter evidence all together. The same could apply to the health care debate, Albarracin said.
“Even if you have free press, freedom of speech, it doesn’t make people listen to all points of view,” she said.
We need to examine ALL the facts in order to make a clear and rational assessment of any issue, including the current health care reform bill. And we cannot be afraid to say that something that our side proposes is not good, and when the opposing side makes a good point about something.
Just about everybody is vulnerable to the phenomenon of holding onto our beliefs even in the face of iron-clad evidence to the contrary, Hoffman said. Why? Because it’s hard to do otherwise. “It’s an amazing challenge to constantly break out the Nietzschean hammer and destroy your world view and belief system and evaluate others,” Hoffman said.
Get the facts you need.
Hoffman’s idea is based on a study he and colleagues did of nearly 50 participants, who were all Republican and reported believing in the link between the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Saddam Hussein. Participants were given the mounting evidence that no link existed and then asked to justify their belief.
(The findings should apply to any political bent. “We’re not making the claim that Democratic or liberal partisans don’t do the same thing. They do,” Hoffman said.)
All but one held onto the belief, using a variety of so-called motivated reasoning strategies. “Motivated reasoning is essentially starting with a conclusion you hope to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion,” explained Hoffman’s colleague, sociologist Andrew Perrin of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
For instance, some participants used a backward chain of reasoning in which the individual supported the decision to go to war and so assumed any evidence necessary to support that decision, including the link between 9/11 and Hussein.
“For these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war,” Hoffman said. “People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war.”
Their research is published in the most recent issue of the journal Sociological Inquiry.
Then we can consider the hotly debated Health Care Reform bill that has many people in a tizzy with their jumping to conclusions and nightmare scenerios based on irrational, tightly-held beliefs from all sides of the political spectrum.
The proposed health care plan has all the right ingredients for such wonky reasoning, the researchers say.
The issue is both complex (no single correct answer), emotionally charged and potentially history-changing, while debates often occur with like-minded peers in town hall settings. The result is staunch supporters and just-as-staunch critics who are sticking to their guns.
“The health care debate would be vulnerable to motivated reasoning, because it is, and has become, so highly emotionally and symbolically charged,” Perrin said during a telephone interview, adding that images equating the plan with Nazi Germany illustrate the symbolic nature of the arguments.
In addition, the town hall settings make for even more rigid beliefs. That’s because changing one’s mind about a complex issue can rattle a person’s sense of identity and sense of belonging within a community. If everyone around you is a neighbor or friend, you’d be less likely to change your opinion, the researchers say.
“In these one-shot town hall meetings, where you have an emotionally laden complex issue like health care, it’s very likely you’re going to get these ramped up emotionally laden debates. They’re going to be hot debates,” Hoffman told LiveScience.
We must bring all the facts to the table for discussion.
To bring the facts from both sides to the table, Hoffman suggests venues where a heterogeneous group of people can meet, those for and against the proposed health care system overhaul. And at least some of these gatherings should include just a handful of people. In groups of more than about six people, one or two members will tend to dominate the discussion, he said.
For either side, logical arguments might not be the key.
“I think strategically it’s important that the Obama administration and advocates of a health care plan really pay attention to how people feel and the symbolism they are seeing, and not just the nuts and bolts of the policy,” Perrin said. “People don’t reason with pure facts and logic alone.”
In other words, most people just aren’t that smart and rely mostly on feelings and emotions. In order to calm the masses, Obama and his administration better start addressing those irrational beliefs and fears.
26 August 2009, on 10:58 pm
In addition, the town hall settings make for even more rigid beliefs. That’s because changing one’s mind about a complex issue can rattle a person’s sense of identity and sense of belonging within a community. If everyone around you is a neighbor or friend, you’d be less likely to change your opinion, the researchers say.
Lynch mobs usually start in “town hall settings”. We all know how motivated by reason the mob can be. People are often trampled to death when mobs get some idea in their heads.
27 August 2009, on 8:39 am
While I am in complete agreement with the idea of universal healthcare (if you can afford to pay for an army to kill foreigners you can afford to pay for doctors to heal the sick) there are GOOD reasons, sane, rational, well thought out, ideological reasons for not having universal health care.
The ranting and posturing, not helped by the media, does not allow for a free and frank exchange of ideas and a dispassionate view of the other positions and reasons behing them.
It also doesn’t help that the Republicans have come out with some scare stories and the Democrats have to deny those storiesd rather than get their message out there. The Republicans will probably win this (whether they should or not is, no, should be, up for debate) but not on the merits of their case (which does have merits) because they never make their case. They talk about ‘death panels’, ‘free abortion’ and any number of other things to get the base (and I use that term very deliberately) up in arms (likewise).
What annoys me most though is the media not presenting the debate properly. Who cares what Joe from Nebraska thinks about Obama’s helth plan when all he knows is tht they’re gonna kill grandma? get some serious people on, talking serious issues and pull them up every time they say something untrue.
27 August 2009, on 12:08 pm
So I think I’ll state the most important factor here: READ THE BILL.
If you haven’t READ THE BILL, then why are you supporting it/not supporting it?
Seriously, READ THE BILL. You may be in favor of universal health care, but you may not be in favor of the way the government is going about it.
READ THE BILL. READ THE BILL. READ THE BILL.
Then make up your mind.
27 August 2009, on 1:24 pm
What annoys me most though is the media not presenting the debate properly. Who cares what Joe from Nebraska thinks about Obama’s helth plan when all he knows is tht they’re gonna kill grandma? get some serious people on, talking serious issues and pull them up every time they say something untrue.
This annoys me too. They have all these people giving examples. I was just at my folks house yesterday and all they talked about was the killing old people scare stories. What we need is to push aside all the circus stories that are going around that are trying to influence people via feelings and emotions and give us some facts to discuss and consider.
READ THE BILL. READ THE BILL. READ THE BILL.
Then make up your mind.
AUM…Exactly. I have been making my way through the thing and I found two things I like, the rest, IMO doesn’t seem to change anything or make things better for anyone.
27 August 2009, on 4:08 pm
Why are folks still referring to this as “health care reform”? It is health insurance reform. Not the same thing!
27 August 2009, on 4:58 pm
666, you have brought up an excellent point. It is insurance reform.
29 August 2009, on 10:20 am
Thans, I loved that.
I think even polititions could understand it.
29 August 2009, on 10:28 am
Yeah, you’re gonna have to share those. I can’t think of any good reason NOT to have universal health care.
29 August 2009, on 11:49 am
Yeah, you’re gonna have to share those. I can’t think of any good reason NOT to have universal health care.
And universal health care is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is insurance reform. And everyone is going to pay a premium and out of pocket expenses based on your income except for the poor who will still be able to get Medicaid if they qualify. I suspect many of those who cannot afford health coverage now, or who don’t want to afford it will still opt not to spend the money.
One of the reasons to not have universal health care is huge expense. We are going to pay for that one way or the other. In countries where there is universal health care they are taxed to death. And then it is still not going to solve the problem of the richer and famous people being put to the top of the waiting lists. Like Stephen Hawking gets top notch care and top of waiting lists because of who he is while regular folk who have ALS die while waiting. The rich will always be taken care of while the very poor still will be dying. How do we solve that? I don’t know.
29 August 2009, on 2:13 pm
KA, have you read the bill or have you just latched onto the phrase universal health care and that’s it?
If you haven’t read the bill, do so. Why? Because then you’ll know what it is that the United States wants to do. Otherwise you are just as bad as the people at the town hall meetings.
We ridicule Christians who don’t know a damn thing about the Bible aside from what their pastors tell them, yet we have tons of people, many of them atheists, who haven’t read the bill yet defend it. There is no difference in my eyes.
Read the bill. You have no excuse not to educate yourself. Then there can be a discussion.
29 August 2009, on 3:13 pm
Star,
I thought maybe you had changed your mind when I read above. I guess not.
People should indeed read the Bill but I doubt that will happen. The people have representatives to ‘represent’ them. They ought to examine legislation in detail; more detail than people have time for. Alas, that does not seem to be the case anymore.
I am really pessimistic that the US can reform it’s health care insurance. It just seems too complex. Already there have been comprimises and there will be more. It will most likely fail, and the right will say, we told you so.
Taxes!? You pay more for health care than Canada and other European systems (about 6000 per capita compared to 3000) according to The World Health Organization. What is the difference between paying premiums or paying taxes for the same service?
29 August 2009, on 3:13 pm
^ AUM?…But is the bill online, the actual, FINAL form of the bill that is going to be voted on?
I didn’t realize, I guess, there WAS such a “final” bill. Reading “that” posted online bill is only reading ONE…not the finally agreed upon bill…of the various proposed bills. IOW…no decision has been made on that point. It seems to me to be more a part of an intentional tactic by certain people posting it, who want to push their presupposed, even prejudiced, version on the public; to create the usual “doubt and fear” about pre-supposed changes. Look at the arguments “we’re” having here on GifS; just as an example. Personally, I wouldn’t waste my time reading anything but the FINAL version. That’s the only bill which will ultimately matter. And even with THAT bill…at THAT point of future events…I/we will really have NO control over its passage or non-passage; squawk as I/we might.(?)
[Now to the original comment I intended to make before reading AUM's comment]:
Personally, not to really enter (get dragged in again?) into the endless argument here RE “Health Care Reform”, I’d, first, just like to note that, IMO, Bill Maher had a marvelous interview last night (Friday, August 28th) with Bill Moyers, who had a WHOLE lot to say about the whole ‘evolution’ of Health Care in the US. So far, it’s not available online; but I think y’all would benefit by watching it.
[A bit, more on that, below.]
Just one added comment regarding what Stardust mentioned in regards to the poor, and Medicaid; my companion had cancer of the bladder back in 1984, and was covered under Illinois Medicaid ONLY because she was SINGLE, unemployed, had no assets…(i.e…absolutely no savings, no property, etc.)…and even I (we were living together, unmarried) had to sign the papers stating that I was providing her a place to live (i.e…supporting her)!
[IOW, If we had been married, she wouldn't have qualified; or I certainly would've ALSO been liable for all the costs; and certainly, as it turned out, totally unable to pay.]
What’s that…”It’s all Part, Chuck, of Gob’s wonderful (albeit, totally fucked up and incredibly lame…and viciously cruel) Plan for you”!…?
ROIT!…”All praise Lawd”…”Hell-’il-squeeze-ya!”
I digress (or is it depress?)…
The total bill, at that time (1984), was way over $20K; (bladder removal, hysterectomy, appendix removal, etc…to prevent future cancer) and then, as a result of the operation, because of her “having a pre-existent condition”, could never afford private insurance, thereafter.
Yeah…yada, yada.
Hey folks…”with all due (dis)respect”…most of you American guys wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid in ANY State of the ‘Union’; especially if you’re married, etc. And if you have any credit cards, would certainly, in the end, probably have to end up declaring Bankruptcy.
Anyone who’s ever gone to any American Hospital’s Emergency Room knows that without any Insurance, you WILL get billed…and sky-high…for any services; and if you can’t pay, get hounded by bill collectors; a WHOLE other pain in the ass to deal with.
Like I said in another thread; without a MEANINGFUL public option for something like expanded Medicare, and NOT some Coop Bullshit, the Insurance Industry (and, of course, the GOP) wins. The Coop proposal is really, IMHO, just another totally complex & convoluted, member based, and member funded, (even Magical?) Insurance Co. having to compete for survival amongst the all too greedy, already existing, private Insurance Industry fucktards. Bottom-line…the GOP is not at all interested in true, meaningful change. There are way too many hands holding on to way too many fucktard politician’s wallets…on both sides of the all-too-privileged and already wealthy “aisle sitters”.
Private, FOR PROFIT, Health Care, IMO, should NEVER…EVER…have been allowed to happen in the United States. Greed eventually took over, especially under zombie-brained Reagan, et.al. Private Health Insurance, if any, should only have been allowed as an extra option for all those wealthy and/or greedy “special privileged” amongst us…”grovelling peasants”.
What!…humor me, again?…
“Thank (fuck) you, Jeebus”…or is it…”Allah”…”Yahweh”…or maybe even…
“Ja Vol” (Mein Fuhrer)?
Anyway, seriously…the Moyers interview will probably show up eventually (Huffington Post?). When it does, I or perhaps someone else should provide a link to it. It’s one of the best informed statements by…”someone who was there”…through it all, about a lot of things; but especially the Health (Disease?) Care issue in the US. It’s, I’d say, one of Maher’s all-time best!
Finally…and tangentially…it seems to me that this whole issue should provide more than ample PROOF to all the enormous number of delusional fucktards that (as I’d put it)…
“Hey, all you (trolling) believer fucktards ‘out there’…
Prayer absolutely doesn’t work! It’s TOTAL Superstition!…if it DID work, and a so-called “TRULY Loving God” actually existed…we wouldn’t NEED any fucking Health Insurance!…zama, zama!”
Ummm…enough, already…”Over and out”?
29 August 2009, on 4:12 pm
The biggest and most important question is “where is the money going to come from to pay for this insurance reform?” And Chuck raises a good point “But is the bill online, the actual, FINAL form of the bill that is going to be voted on?” What is the “final” bill? So far it seems they are making it up as they go along anymore. Take this idea out, add this one here, take away there…new ideas anyone? That’s the whole problem with it. Obama didn’t have a plan in place to offer us. Hillary at least had a plan that included health care for all Americans…period. People would pay via increase in taxes. And people knew what was on the table. Obama’s proposal is so vague, the facts are not there for us to examine and people in all their confusion are making up their rumors and fear mongering on both sides to fill in the gaps of what we don’t know. What we are going to get is a few big insurance corporations being subsidized by the government.
Like the back of the napkin video above, we are going to pay one way or the other.
Under Obama’s new insurance reform plan, don’t you think that there will be criteria for the poor to be eligible for free care? Most people will have to pay some sort of premium and out of pocket expenses. To be deemed poor, a person will still have to abide by certain guidelines, and certain criteria will have to be met. This is still the government we are talking about.
Why can’t we just place some guidelines on current insurance companies, expand Medicare, do away with the pre-existing condition bullcrap, and just make better what we have in place already.
29 August 2009, on 8:36 pm
Unfortunately, IMO (again), both Political Parties sold out to Corporate interests a very long time ago. The GOP, though, as far back as FDR, NEVER really wanted any part of, ANY government run, “socialized” program or Universal Health Care plan. We’re actually ‘lucky’ that we even got Social Security and Medicare; thanks also, in no small part, to the likes of LBJ and the late Ted Kennedy. [Again, the Moyers interview includes quite a bit on all that.]
To quote Stardust:
“Why can’t we just place some guidelines on current insurance companies, expand Medicare, do away with the pre-existing condition bullcrap, and just make better what we have in place already.”
That’d be nice, Star, IF, there weren’t so many spineless wimps amongst the Dems. Forget the Repigs; they’re hoping for Obama’s failure, no matter what. And Obama has already wimped out, early on, by giving concessions to the Drug Companies regarding any drug imports from Canada, etc. AND, as far as I know, there are no real price negotiations in the works, even regarding drugs for Seniors on Medicare. I happen to benefit through the Medicare “Part D” plan that Bush-fuck passed; which, of course, wasn’t paid for AND, if I’m not mistaken, was written by and for the Drug Companies. [Shades of those Bank/Credit Card fiascos?]
Like: “Let’s FAKE a deal!”…?
Regarding Stardust’s idea…what really WAS and IS needed in that regard are, I think, obvious…
Government Price controls on both the Insurance AND Drug Companies. Would that, perhaps, just end up being sort of “Quasi-Kiss-Ass”, namby-pamby “shadow puppet” bullshit?
[cue the shadow puppet scene from the (1988) cult classic: "Killer Clowns from Outer Space"?]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pcOPT8Y64w
HOWEVER…Something like the expansion of Medicare is, I STILL think, a NECESSARY inclusion for any REAL, substantial, and effective change. Without it, the same old bullshit will continue; and those same people that don’t have coverage will still be “out in the cold”.
[Like..."Now sleeping on or near your local avenue air-vent" in the new movie:
"Night of the (Soon to be Dead) Runnaway Grandmas"?]
As to…
How do we pay for it?
It’s the old Economics 101 fundamental proposition:
“Guns and/or Butter”!
Get all the troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan; close various military bases around the world, and…
stop funding those corrupt and insane Dominionist fucktards in Blackwater, zama, zama.
Oh yeah…and don’t continue the Bush Tax cuts for the ultra-rich.
“Just sayin’”?
IOW…Think along the lines of: Compassionate, Secular Humanism. Rational Ethics. Stop the killing. Take care of your fellow, albeit Earthbound, Galactic travelers, etc.
Yeah, and actually strive to LOVE one another…perhaps even unconditionally.
Absolutely no fucking non-existent gods needed, either.
Here are a couple of video clip links…
[I'm still looking for that Moyers interview]:
1) Bill Maher’s rare interview of Sam Harris on Real Time (8/21/09):
http://dailymotion.virgilio.it/video/xa9dsh_sam-harris-on-real-time-with-bill-m_news?from=rss
2) Followed by a clip from last night (8/28/09) containing much of the interesting discussion regarding the Health Care Issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mauU5sLZnXM
Peace and Love, guys!
29 August 2009, on 9:10 pm
AUM:
No, & yes.
I wasn’t defending the bill – I was asking for keddaw’s take on universal health care. For that matter, I wanted to hear just exactly why he thought, & I quote, “there are GOOD reasons, sane, rational, well thought out, ideological reasons for not having universal health care.“. Neither of us mentioned the bill.
So your upbraid is duly noted & duly ignored.
29 August 2009, on 9:45 pm
And AGAIN, I wasn’t shooting me bleedin’ mouth off about it, because I haven’t read the damn thing, I was responding to keddaw’s incredibly broad generalization.
I’m struggling for a Napoleon Dynamite quip, & all I can come up w/…is Gosh!
31 August 2009, on 8:59 pm
As an old Liberal…sorry…Progressive?…THIS bill…HR676…IMO, is the one Americans should be supporting…not that brain twisting, convoluted, bullshit HR 3200 …
But FIRST…
Here’s the YouTube link to Part 1 of that Bill Moyers interview; one of Bill Maher’s BEST…EVER!
I recommend that everyone should ‘dig’ this one:
Bill Maher Interviews Bill Moyers: The conscience of a nation Pt 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSQ2DWkVE0
[as per usual; check the right panel for the other parts.]
Related to HR676:
Waxman to Weiner: Pelosi Will Allow Single-Payer Full House Vote!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0fA2DfwFn4
HR676 – The Single Payer Solution, Part 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAuwaKl3-nU&feature=related
See my following comment for more…?
31 August 2009, on 9:01 pm
Continuing, right along…
Pardon me, if I post some excellent related comments from a guy named “Dale Larson”; which I collected (without his official permission) on Huffington Post. There are a number of related links in his comments which are also very germaine to the above comment.
My sincere apology to Dale Larson?
Here’s the whole caboodle…
From Huffington Post 8/29/09:
At:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/29/bill-moyers-on-health-car_n_271851.html
RE the article:
Bill Moyers On Health Care Reform: “We’re All In The Same Boat”
First Posted: 08-29-09 12:00 AM | Updated: 08-29-09 10:34 AM bullshit
Bill Moyers appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night for a long conversation, much of which focused on health care. When asked by Maher what would be a metaphor that could change the current thinking on health care, Moyers answered “we’re all in the same boat.” He went on to talk about the moral message that health care reform would send, which is that “we are in this together.”
“I don’t want to live in a country where I am on a hospital floor getting an operation that costs $25,000, and two floors above me someone is being denied that same surgery because he or she has no money. What kind of a civilization is that?” Moyers said.
—————————————————————-
SOME PARTICULARLY INTERESTING COMMENTS; with some informative LINKS:
by Dale Larson
[Some of his comment Posts]:
10:58AM
It’s time to end our “risky experiment” of “For-profit health insurance”. It’s a proven failure.
HR676 (http://hr676.org) Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:
* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn’t compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry “uninsured motorist coverage” on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists…) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
————————————————————–
11:08AM
It’s not hard to get discouraged with the noise coming out of Washington. Remember that it’s the goal of the anti-reform side to make us react so we throw up our hands and roll over. Each time it happens the wrong side gets his/her Satan horns and adds a notch to the coffin.
I refuse to give them that satisfaction. They are on the wrong side of history on this one.
Single Payer must be pounded on to get an effective public option. The current negotiating position much is too weak.
They sure won’t get to ignore it because HR676 WILL get a floor debate and vote thanks to Pelosi, Waxman and Weiner!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0fA2DfwFn4
I believe this will, as a minimum, skew the debate to a robust public option that could lead into Single Payer.
Fight for HR676 as there is a chance it will pick up steam as people learn about it. If it doesn’t pass we’ll know where everyone stands on the approach. All reps with NO votes should get targeted.
People should check this site out for more information and contribute if it makes sense to them:
http://hr676.org
————————————————————–
03:39PM
“where has it been proven that a single payer system is a much better alternative?”
Look North of the border.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8800.php
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/category/section/the_list
The entrepreneurial observations are mine based on working over 30 years as an engineer and a manager in the technology industry. I’ve worked in start ups and in very large companies. The current system stifles entrepreneurial ventures and by association small businesses (the backbone of the economy).
Read here for actual health care benefits in BC, Canada and what they charge their citizens:
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/benefits.html
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html
This is essentially the same coverage I have with my corporate plan but a whole lot less expensive with no co-pays and deductibles (which are designed to discourage people from using health care anyway.) For health care to work people must have unfettered access to it.
Pardon me for a rather large comment
…”
8 October 2009, on 12:09 pm
I am a healthcare provider and bill for services to health insurance companies, self-payers, medicaid, and medicare. I have also worked in Federal, State and Private Hospitals. When I look at my collections I quickly realize that private insurance is paying my bills. I would be out of business if private insurance payors were to disappear which is what would occur if we create a government(public) option. Private insurance subsidizes the self-payers, medicaid and medicare reimbursement. American tax payers are paying taxes and higher health insurance premiums to subsidize medicaid, medicare and self-payers. The solution to lowering health insurance premiums is to require individuals to buy health insurance like 85% of Americans do now. Tort-reform will also reduce provider costs. Allowing national competition of health insurance availabilty will also increase competition and result in lower health insurance premiums. Creating a government option would cause many Doctors to retire and unable to pay overhead and malpractice insurance costs. Which would obviously drastically reduce healthcare accessibility. The solutions are very logical yet this Congress is clueless on how to solve a problem for such a small percentage of people. MORE people are unemployed than uninsured. If this healthcare reform bill is so great how come it will not be implemented until 2013. Is this a healthcare crisis??? Then why wait until 2013…this is all bogus and just a power grab by the US Government.