# Health Care Reform & Lieberman **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232 "2009-12-14T17:06:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/201 "2009-12-16T22:32:40Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I imagine that one could point out that in other countries where there is UHC, there is still no UCP (Universal Car Payment) program. But are there higher tax rates? More “nanny state” regulations? > [@](#): > > In fact, one could if one were so inclined, ask **Bricker** what dreadful slippery slopish consequences that have occured in other countries with UHC would happen here. So, okay, let’s do that, rather than reject the idea of a slippery slope out of hand. > [@](#): > > And as far as losing our cutting edge medicine, I suppose I needn’t point out the at least twice yearly reports of people having to fly to other countries to recieve our cutting edge medical treatments because they cannot afford to have them performed here. I certainly won’t have to remind anyone of the whole Canadian drug hullaballoo which was again related to the costs of such cutting edge medicines. That would make one wonder whether the cost is actually worth the cutting edge-itude. That’s just un-American. How much of that would go away if we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines? That’s a big part of the panacea the Republicans have been offering as an alternative to UHC… ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/202 "2009-12-16T22:47:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But are there higher tax rates? More “nanny state” regulations? Ah but now we’re getting into the realm of the ethical. Are higher tax rates an automatic negative? What if it were an across the board tax increase as opposed to a punish the worker (or the rich. I can’t tell which one Bricker thinks were punishing)to support the nonworker. And as for nanny state regulations, we’d need to identify which are the scary ridiculous ones and which are good. Michigan, my home state, is banning cigarettes in places where oxygen is being breathed and that’s without UHC. What nanny state regulations would follow as a near direct result of adopting UHC. > [@](#): > > So, okay, let’s do that, rather than reject the idea of a slippery slope out of hand. I thought it was a nifty idea, but then I like slippery slopes. I live in ski country. > [@](#): > > How much of that would go away if we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines? That’s a big part of the panacea the Republicans have been offering as an alternative to UHC… That I don’t know. Here’s a quick article from [Paul Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/demint-offers-a-teachable-moment/) regarding the idea. Make of it what you will. And [here’s a cite regarding americans travelling abroad for health care](http://news.health.com/2009/04/08/traveling-treatment/). Wonder if the foreigners coming here for medical care balances out. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/203 "2009-12-16T23:14:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because there are unlikely to be great advances in the firefighting or road building arenas, but there remain many great advances in the medical arena yet undiscovered, and I am convinced that this scheme will ultimately cripple our progress in this area. People from these wonderfully advanced European nations come here for cutting edge treatment. Rich or otherwise fortunately placed Europeans do that. You can’t convince me that the average EU citizen has the resources to fly over here for medical treatment, although the wretched dollar exchange rate undoubtedly gives them a slight advantage over what their American counterparts would have, if things worked the other way. That being the case, you would have to admit that people in the EU have to content themselves with a health care system that is, in regard to cutting edge treatments, inferior to our system as a whole. But most uninsured Americans would be grateful to have such a “lesser” system. The cost of the most advanced, expensive treatments is driving the price of the entire insurance product beyond the means of millions. I don’t know how viable such a thing would be, but I would rather have a basic policy that covers only the eighty or ninety percent of possible treatments, than have no insurance at all. Of course, with that I would want to see reforms of the system, including the elimination of billing companies, which add an extra layer of expense to the system. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/204 "2009-12-16T23:35:18Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Ah but now we’re getting into the realm of the ethical. Are higher tax rates an automatic negative? What if it were an across the board tax increase as opposed to a punish the worker (or the rich. I can’t tell which one Bricker thinks were punishing)to support the nonworker. And as for nanny state regulations, we’d need to identify which are the scary ridiculous ones and which are good. Michigan, my home state, is banning cigarettes in places where oxygen is being breathed and that’s without UHC. What nanny state regulations would follow as a near direct result of adopting UHC. See? There’s a whole bunch of questions up for debate. Much better than preemptively tabling the idea because it’s a Slippery Slope and therefore a fallacy; maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, there’s a lot of issues to deal with. As for whether higher tax rates are an automatic negative? All else being equal, yeah, I figure they are. As for whether they hit across-the-board or merely fall on workers and the rich? I don’t readily see a ton of difference between “across the board” and “workers and the rich”, since the folks who don’t pay income tax presumably sidestep it in either scenario. As for which nanny-state regulations are “scary ridiculous” and which aren’t, I think the cigarettes-in-public-places example is more harm-to-others than harm-to-self, which seems to miss the point of the “nanny state” tag. But that’s all up for debate. And, yeah, we’re getting into the realm of the ethical; I’m okay with that; let’s have that dialogue. > [@](#): > > Here’s a quick article from [Paul Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/demint-offers-a-teachable-moment/) regarding the idea. Make of it what you will. Not much, really; even Republicans have gotten on board with the insanely popular “no turning folks down for pre-existing conditions” talking point, which is why it doesn’t get the angry tea-party types the way half-a-dozen other aspects of the legislation have. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/205 "2009-12-16T23:38:09Z")
> [@](#): > > How much of that would go away if we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines? That’s a big part of the panacea the Republicans have been offering as an alternative to UHC… None at all. Health insurance companies can already compete across state lines; they just have to be chartered in each state in which they wish to offer insurance. The big ones (Aetna, and so forth) are already chartered in all or most states. Keep in mind that each state regulates its own insurance industry because each state has different insurance laws. The difficulty insurers face in competing across state lines is not a lack of opportunity; it’s the cost of compliance with up to 50\* different sets of standards for insurers. The only way around that is to regulate health insurers on the federal level. I’m fairly certain the Republicans aren’t clamoring for that, so the “allowing insurers to compete across state lines” thing is effectively the emptiest of talking points. \*plus DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and so on. ETA: I see Krugmann came at the question from a totally different angle. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/206 "2009-12-16T23:38:58Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How much of that would go away if we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines? That’s a big part of the panacea the Republicans have been offering as an alternative to UHC… It would have the same effect as it has in the credit card industry. The insurance companies would all flock to whatever state offered the regulatory terms most favorable to them - and, essentially by definition, least favorable to their customers. The competition would not be between insurance companies to offer the most attractive terms, but between states to offer the fewest protections to the public. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/207 "2009-12-16T23:52:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It would have the same effect as it has in the credit card industry. That sounds awesome! > [@](#): > > The competition would not be between insurance companies to offer the most attractive terms, but between states to offer the fewest protections to the public. No, I’ve seen how things go with credit cards, and it’s not bad. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/208 "2009-12-16T23:59:06Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As for whether higher tax rates are an automatic negative? All else being equal, yeah, I figure they are. As for whether they hit across-the-board or merely fall on workers and the rich? I don’t readily see a ton of difference between “across the board” and “workers and the rich”, since the folks who don’t pay income tax presumably sidestep it in either scenario. But an across the board tax increase would likely result in at least less money coming back (via tax return which was how my broke with child ass made the non taxed group) for those who aren’t paying taxes (and for the sake of the argument let’s simply stick this to income taxes and not wade into the whole other forms of taxation which poor people do pay), so that’s at least money still in the government pocket that wouldn’t have been there before which could be used to fund health care. Could you provide reasons why increased taxes would be a negative in this case? > [@](#): > > As for which nanny-state regulations are “scary ridiculous” and which aren’t, I think the cigarettes-in-public-places example is more harm-to-others than harm-to-self, which seems to miss the point of the “nanny state” tag. Fair enough. Helmet/seatbelt laws then. Popped up without any regard for UHC. A better definition of nanny state laws would serve the discussion well and a list of those implemented that again directly or near directly resulted from implementation of UHC would help determine if slippery slope is vaild. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/209 "2009-12-17T00:05:35Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > Respectfully, **Bricker** , how do we not already have a version of UHC? If I get fucked up in a car wreck, the ambulace has to come when called, and they have to take me to a hospital. They can’t show up and say, “Well TD, you don’t have insurance and I am not about to pay for you to get patched up. Peace out, worthless bastard.” I get taken anyway. I get a huge bill that I have no hope in hell of paying, and the cost gets pushed back to you the next time you pop into the ER. Yes, and as this point was raised explicitly above, my response will be the same one I made. What you describe is an unintended secondary consequence of our system, not a planned feature. When we enshrine it as an accepted feature, we grant it a legitimacy it does not deserve and should not carry. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/210 "2009-12-17T00:06:41Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/211 "2009-12-17T00:07:15Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, I’ve seen how things go with credit cards, and it’s not bad. Who are you, Mr. Chase Manhattan himself? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/212 "2009-12-17T00:08:05Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That sounds awesome! > > No, I’ve seen how things go with credit cards, and it’s not bad. Is that a joke? What’s in your wallet? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/213 "2009-12-17T00:08:16Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > What does that have to do with my post? > > Buying a car is an all-or-nothing process. There can be offers, and counter-offers, but nothing happens until both sides are satisfied. Either party can walk away. And after the papers are signed, you don’t keep haggling. > > Health care reform, and the slippery-slope argument about it, is different. We can pass one law now. It may be imperfect, but it would take effect and we could live with it. In the future, we may decide to change it. More than two years into the future and that debate won’t even be conducted by the same people who are deciding now. > > That is nothing like buying a car. On the contrary, the key similarity is the point at which we begin – the status quo. Will the next set of debaters be able to say, “Well, of course we should pay for X as a public expense; we already pay for health care!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/214 "2009-12-17T00:11:35Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The trouble is Bricker’s an asshole because he’s flailing around for a reason when he’s seen that all his rational arguments aren’t rational at all. So now he’s forced to degenerate to, “'cause I wanna!” as an argument. > > He is literally no better than Magellan on the subject of SSM. Bricker just stamps his feet because he refuses to let logic determine his opinions, he will keep them no matter how objectively stupid they are. Except that I have demonstrated in the past my willingness to change basic beliefs based on logical argument. Here on this very board, in fact. I don’t recall your doing anything similar. So it’s odd that you accuse me of being unwilling to change in the face of reasoned argument when I’ve done so… and you haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/215 "2009-12-17T00:21:03Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Is that a joke? > > What’s in your wallet? I’ve got a Discover card that grants cash back but isn’t accepted in rather a lot of places. I’ve also got a Visa card that, uh, doesn’t but is. I get offers in the mail from AmEx and MasterCard, offering this or that APR along with assorted other benefits and drawbacks; I treat the whole thing no differently than buying one brand of soda or another from the grocery store, or fueling my car at this gas station instead of that one, or whatever. As a consumer, I’ve seen no real difference between my credit cards or my television sets or my running shoes. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/216 "2009-12-17T00:21:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that I have demonstrated in the past my willingness to change basic beliefs based on logical argument. Here on this very board, in fact. > > I don’t recall your doing anything similar. So it’s odd that you accuse me of being unwilling to change in the face of reasoned argument when I’ve done so… and you haven’t. Yes, well done there, **Bricker** ; I’m sure you’ll be dining out on that commendable acomplishment for the foreseeable future. I honestly don’t begrudge you that, but after this many years, using it as a credential to bludgeon others who may not have a documented similar experience strikes me as a bit shopworn. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/217 "2009-12-17T00:21:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On the contrary, the key similarity is the point at which we begin – the status quo. Will the next set of debaters be able to say, “Well, of course we should pay for X as a public expense; we already pay for health care!” Suggest a logical example, then. What new public good might we slide further down the slippery slope towards? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/218 "2009-12-17T00:23:43Z")
Next thing you know people will be demanding food and education. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/219 "2009-12-17T00:25:25Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Yes, well done there, **Bricker** ; I’m sure you’ll be dining out on that commendable acomplishment for the foreseeable future. > > I honestly don’t begrudge you that, but after this many years, using it as a credential to bludgeon others who may not have a documented similar experience strikes me as a bit shopworn. Except that I didn’t bring it up out of the blue; I brought it up to rebut his inference that I was refusing to change my mind, no matter the facts. And it’s not just once. I reversed myself on the “War on Christmas,” to pick another example off the top of my head, after getting schooled on the facts. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232/220 "2009-12-17T00:27:07Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > But an across the board tax increase would likely result in at least less money coming back (via tax return which was how my broke with child ass made the non taxed group) for those who aren’t paying taxes (and for the sake of the argument let’s simply stick this to income taxes and not wade into the whole other forms of taxation which poor people do pay), so that’s at least money still in the government pocket that wouldn’t have been there before which could be used to fund health care. Could you provide reasons why increased taxes would be a negative in this case? I’m not sure I follow you. Leave aside the part about who’ll pay more; is anyone paying less in the proposed scenario? > [@](#): > > Fair enough. Helmet/seatbelt laws then. Popped up without any regard for UHC. A better definition of nanny state laws would serve the discussion well and a list of those implemented that again directly or near directly resulted from implementation of UHC would help determine if slippery slope is vaild. I agree. But it’s Bricker’s ball; I’m merely refusing to rule out slippery-slope reasoning, since he may well be able to provide such ideas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-reform-lieberman/521232.md?page=12)