Obama Care Could Be Deadly [Mobile/Archive] - Page 2

MSI Magus

06-22-2009, 10:01 PM

I know this'll go over well, but perhaps the reform we need is for a hospital to reserve the right to refuse service. If hospitals could do this, my small town would still have a hospital - instead of it closing due to lack of funds and no one interested in reopening it.

I know, I know, I'm an evil bastard - but you two just gave examples of some of the exact reasons I don't care for this plan. My tax money shouldn't go for some idiot's ring tones or some drunken whore's beer. Providing them with dirt cheap health care at the expense of others isn't going to suddenly make them change their ways.

Well what about people like my fianceees grandparents then? Her grandpa lost his job and they lost most of their retirement savings. Her grandma cant work because of a number of health reasons. Insurers dont want to cover them and at the same time they cant get government care yet.

Then you just have young people that cant afford health insurance or have reasons they are not covered. Once again using family as an example ill use my actual fiancee vs a family member of hers ;) A few years ago she went through a depression and actually tried to kill herself. It was a pretty dark period but with medication and going to therapy it worked itself out. Problem was she lost her job because of taking time off during that depression which means she lost her insurance. It took her awhile to find another job which provided insurance and before that we were stuck with some major medical bills because no one would freaking insure her all because of one stupid point in her life where she went through a depression.

I can understand the conservative/libretarian point of view. But saying we should deny service because of idiots is just flat out wrong and eviils since it will also deny service to many that actually deserve/need it.

ninju D

06-22-2009, 10:25 PM

I know this'll go over well, but perhaps the reform we need is for a hospital to reserve the right to refuse service.

If you are really suggesting something like this, I officially declare your status as FAIL!

This country is based on the idea of compassion towards others. I'll admit that it doesn't always work that way all the time, but that's no reason to give up the fight.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 12:34 AM

The question is, who's spending the money and who's getting the results?

Really that is the question? I wouldn't call it much of a question at all.

Short answer is for the most part everyone who can pays and everyone gets the results both in care and reduced costs and a wide range of other benefits.

And I assume the smart guy with money is also banned from appointing/hiring people with those credentials as well?

The "guy" with "some" money?

Nope - but I worry less about what every other country is doing and more about what's right for America.

Worry is a poor (albeit probably intentionally so) word to use. What is right for America is to have a system that doesn't bankrupt its own citizens.

I know this'll go over well, but perhaps the reform we need is for a hospital to reserve the right to refuse service.

You can say that because you are young and relatively healthy, no doubt the second you ran into the tiniest bit of hardship (or a relative gets thrown to the wolves for failing to report a minor illness) you would change your tune.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 01:08 AM

If you are really suggesting something like this, I officially declare your status as FAIL!

This country is based on the idea of compassion towards others. I'll admit that it doesn't always work that way all the time, but that's no reason to give up the fight.

Where's the compassion when the only hospital within an hour's drive of my small town is forced to go out of business because of all the dead beats that can't/won't pay their medical bills?

Besides, I never said a hospital or medical personnel would be forced to withhold service. It should be the choice of the private business establishment to do what they think is right. Is it really "right" to serve a bunch of dead beats to the point where you can no longer operate and now *everyone* risks their lives because there's no local emergency service?

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 01:10 AM

Worry is a poor (albeit probably intentionally so) word to use. What is right for America is to have a system that doesn't bankrupt its own citizens.

Perhaps it's time for you to use some Google. We're already bankrupt - we're just too damn stupid to realize it. Hundreds of Billions of dollars in debt. But it's all good. We can just print more money. The dollar will never fail.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 01:19 AM

Where's the compassion when the only hospital within an hour's drive of my small town is forced to go out of business because of all the dead beats that can't/won't pay their medical bills?

It isn't just traditional deadbeats that cannot pay their medical bills. How many times does this have to be brought up?

We're already bankrupt

Another canard?

The national debt is not the same thing as millions of American citizen going bankrupt due to medical debt.

That was pretty sad even for you.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 01:48 AM

It isn't just traditional deadbeats that cannot pay their medical bills. How many times does this have to be brought up?

You can bring it up as many times as you feel it's relevant.

It doesn't change the fact that my community no longer has a hospital or emergency medical service because our local hospital could no longer afford to stay open due to the deadbeats (traditional or otherwise) that did not pay their bills.

Are you okay with communities that have no hospital or emergency medical services? How many people get to die now? But yey! The deadbeat meth heads got their treatment a few years ago, so it's all good.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 01:55 AM

You can bring it up as many times as you feel it's relevant.

Relevant facts do tend to be relevant.

Are you okay with communities that have no hospital or emergency medical services?

No, but that would be a problem resulting from the system you are ostensibly defending.

The deadbeat meth heads got their treatment a few years ago, so it's all good.

See the first part of my post.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 02:04 AM

No, but that would be a problem resulting from the system you are ostensibly defending.

Really?
Because the system I'm defending should be allowed the right to refuse service. I don't think the establishments in the current system are allowed that right - and that's what caused the hospital to close.

Just like, in some states, Health Insurance companies cannot write policies to women that don't cover pregnancy - driving up the costs of those policies.

Just like in some states, these companies cannot write policies that don't cover rehabilitation treatments for illegal drugs. Bet that drives up the costs of policies as well.

But, in your world, individuals won't have to pay the same fair costs for their coverage, so I guess it doesn't matter what restrictions are put on health care coverage.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 02:25 AM

Because the system I'm defending should be allowed the right to refuse service.

Like I pointed out before... you say that now but there is no doubt you would change your tune the moment something went pear shaped.

But, in your world, individuals won't have to pay the same fair costs for their coverage, so I guess it doesn't matter what restrictions are put on health care coverage.

In "my world"? I live in the real world not some Hobbesian fantasy construct like you.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 02:31 AM

In "my world"? I live in the real world not some Hobbesian fantasy construct like you.

Really? How's that Universal Health Coverage working out for you? :)

Msut77

06-23-2009, 02:33 AM

Really? How's that Universal Health Coverage working out for you? :)

In places where they have it i.e. the real world? Fine.

Did you ever happen to get around to finding a single country that wants to make the switch to the an American style healthcare system? Prove everyone wrong and show you are capable of something.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 02:48 AM

Koggit

06-23-2009, 03:14 AM

how about you find me a country in which everyone agrees poop isn't a good thing to eat

many countries have universal health care and higher public approval ratings of that care than of our system (that is, if you consider americans' favoring reform to be disapproving of the current system, which i'd say is a fair translation)... but no, that's not enough for you, you pretend to prove a system is "working out" requires 100% approval...

if you don't have an argument, why post? i don't get it. you're not fooling anyone -- everyone sees and acknowledges that you're simply trying to 'win' some sort of debate rather than arguing for any consistent belief. just drop it man.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 03:21 AM

If I don't have an argument, why are you continuing to attempt to defend your point of view? If you don't want to continue this conversation with me, then I welcome you to not hit the reply button. Or, even Click Here (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=1988). Personal attacks hurt the conversation a lot more than you claim my posts do.

Msut is the one who seems to think I need to find a "country" that favors an American-type health care system. I can find articles and studies from individuals in countries with government-sponsored health care that would support an American-style system, but I'm sure that'd be considered anecdotal and fringe and wouldn't count.

Everyone isn't going to be happy with one system.

Koggit

06-23-2009, 03:25 AM

a majority is sufficient

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 03:26 AM

Majority rules, who cares about the minority?

That's a scary idea.

Koggit

06-23-2009, 03:37 AM

yeah, democracy, terrifying

RAMSTORIA

06-23-2009, 04:34 AM

so you're fine with prop 8 then ;)

Koggit

06-23-2009, 04:49 AM

do you really wanna go down that road?

i guess we can, nothing substantial's been said about health care for 100+ posts.

the short answer is no, i don't have a problem with prop 8 -- i have a problem with marriage's split personality.

marriage must either be A, a religious union, or B, or legal union. it cannot be both, as it currently is, that causes far too many problems (like prop 8). if it's A, there should be no law governing it, it's unconstitutional to pass legislation to control religion. if it's B, all classes should have equal access to it, it's unconstitutional to discriminate.

in my utopia, no book of law has the word marriage in it, each religion can determine whether or not they marry gays, and every american couple is entitled to register for a civil union and the benefits involved.

fullmetalfan720

06-23-2009, 11:07 AM

yeah, democracy, terrifying

Yeah democracy is terrifying. Tyranny of the majority is not a good prospect. If 51% of people think we should send all Muslims to concentration camps, should we do it? No, we should tell those 51% to fuck off, because this is America and we don't do that.

depascal22

06-23-2009, 11:12 AM

Yeah democracy is terrifying. Tyranny of the majority is not a good prospect. If 51% of people think we should send all Muslims to concentration camps, should we do it? No, we should tell those 51% to fuck off, because this is America and we don't do that.

That's what the Supreme Court is for. It's kind of a Constitutional check to any sort of "majority tyranny" that might happen. And please stop equating Muslim concentration camps with gay marriage or health care reform in an attempt to scare people to your side of an argument. Oh no, democracy can't be the best. It'll alllow the gov't to round people up. It's the same bullshit you pulled with your Obama Nazi Youth statement. Your politics are the worse kind of spineless bullshit that conservatives are flocking to now. We're not Republicans but we'll spew out every one of their talking points and use every one their scare tactics.

Besides, this is America. We don't vote to send people to concentration camps. We just do it. You might want to check out what happened during WWII.

mykevermin

06-23-2009, 11:16 AM

"51%" and "concentration camps"? That's your response?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/Healthcare-Americans-Trust-Physicians-Politicians.aspx
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ntlptpg5t0uwnc5rw10m6q.gif

In other, related news: http://www.rollcall.com/news/35940-1.html
House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn’t know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 11:24 AM

I tell you what - I'll make you a deal. When you can find an entire single country that has some form of "Universal Health Care" that any health care system at all that the country is completely, 100% happy with and wouldn't trade it for the world, then I'll admit you're right, bow out and never return to this forum.

You don't have to leave, I would just settle for you to actually try and make a cogent argument.

But it must be the entire country that is completely content with their current health care system.

Your deals are as bad as your positions which run the gamut from ad hoc to post hoc.

Otherwise, we'll just have to agree that

No.

If I don't have an argument, why are you continuing to attempt to defend your point of view?

You don't have an argument which is why you resort to silly questions. You actually appear mortally offended when someone asks you a question, that is when you don't just ignore it outright.

Personal attacks hurt the conversation a lot more than you claim my posts do.

It is not a personal attack to point the gaping logical holes in what you post.

MSI Magus

06-23-2009, 11:32 AM

I try not to be rude but anyone that insists on the right to refuse service doesnt belong in this debate because they dont understand what it is that's being debated.

depascal22

06-23-2009, 11:38 AM

Yeah, hospitals can NOT deny service. Why should HMOs be allowed to? Aren't they both private organizations?

Health care is just not an issue that be resolved in the private sector because it's not just a private sector issue. This is a public health issue that needs to be solved with honest discussion about the issues that arise when 50 million people aren't covered and cause everyone to pay more anyway.

If everyone is covered, then maybe 50 million people don't go to the ER for a flu like symptoms. People that have real emergencies can get fast and prompt treatment but it seems like everyone loves waiting six hours in a waiting room in the name of Free Market Capitalism.

fullmetalfan720

06-23-2009, 11:41 AM

That's what the Supreme Court is for. It's kind of a Constitutional check to any sort of "majority tyranny" that might happen. And please stop equating Muslim concentration camps with gay marriage or health care reform in an attempt to scare people to your side of an argument. Oh no, democracy can't be the best. It'll alllow the gov't to round people up. It's the same bullshit you pulled with your Obama Nazi Youth statement. Your politics are the worse kind of spineless bullshit that conservatives are flocking to now. We're not Republicans but we'll spew out every one of their talking points and use every one their scare tactics.

Besides, this is America. We don't vote to send people to concentration camps. We just do it. You might want to check out what happened during WWII.

Democracy is the one of the worst forms of government. The founding fathers knew that, and that is why America is a constitutional republic. If this was a democracy and 51% of people voted for something, it became law. I'm not equating concentration camps to gay marriage or health care. Notice how I said TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. I don't think many people would actually consider government run health care tyranny, or gay marriage tyranny. The whole system of checks and balances in America doesn't work very well anymore, especially with the Patriot Act, and some of Bush's executive orders still standing. The fact is, if you would read DoD Directive 1404.10, you would see why I am concerned about Obama's National Security Force turning into some type of Nazi Youth program. (I mean a force that would not only be deployed overseas, but also domestically, to "keep the peace.")

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 11:45 AM

MSI Magus

06-23-2009, 11:53 AM

So, again, are you okay with a situation where the only hospital within a community is forced to close because some people don't pay their bills, leaving the entire community without emergency care?

Propose an alternative situation where I and my family don't suffer because some meth head junkie needs medical care.

Sigh we have proposed it your just ignoring it because its not your solution. Its not your solution so it must not work, or tread on your personal liberties or blah blah blah. We know for a fact your solution doesnt work....because well everyone isnt covered and expert after expert has said it will either lead to inhumane situations or higher costs. Meanwhile you just refuse to even look at the alternative plans.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 12:04 PM

Sigh we have proposed it your just ignoring it because its not your solution. Its not your solution so it must not work, or tread on your personal liberties or blah blah blah. We know for a fact your solution doesnt work....because well everyone isnt covered and expert after expert has said it will either lead to inhumane situations or higher costs. Meanwhile you just refuse to even look at the alternative plans.

No, you haven't. A government option will require tax money. Tax money taken out of my paycheck is less money I and my family get to make use of.

MSI Magus

06-23-2009, 12:12 PM

No, you haven't. A government option will require tax money. Tax money taken out of my paycheck is less money I and my family get to make use of.

See this is why I cant be a libertarian. When I first heard about it both me and my fiancee thought wow thats what we are. A belief in persona liberty! A belief in the rights of each and every American! Keeping government out of our business and our pocket! However then I realized just how impossible it is to be both a kind person and a libertarian in this day and age.

Its childish that you argue that we can smoke and do things that harm others, but yet its perfectly acceptable to deny health care service to those that need it just because of the assholes that are let in with the good people. I will admit there are probably more assholes then there are good people, but as long as those good people like my fiancee and her grandparents are there it makes it impossible to deny care. And as long as its impossible to deny care that means we have to come up with an alternative.

There in lies the problem. Your "alternative" has been shown to be impossible(like most libertarian plans) because even if we are a society of cold hearted dicks we want to believe we are good people. And as long as thats the case it means we will never allow a plan like yours...which no offense is for cold hearted dicks that care more about having a few extra bucks in their pocket then getting the job done. So again we are offering a perfectly reasonable alternative but you just cant accept it, where as your alternative is not just not acceptable to the masses, its not acceptable period because.....well its a cold hearted dick thing to do.

So ya, your not even in this debate man. Your worse then even the Republicans who pretend to be in the debate.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 12:21 PM

MSI Magus

06-23-2009, 12:33 PM

Link Dump: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

MSI: See, that's the typical folly I see all the time. Simply because I don't want to see my tax dollars being wasted on meth heads, it doesn't mean I want to leave, say, the elderly out. Since you know absolutely nothing about my private life, you don't know what kind of charitable work I do or don't do and you don't know what kind of private donations I make or don't make. You *assume* that because I think individuals and businesses should have a right to choose where and how they spend their money that I'm a cold, heartless bastard that would kick an old lady off my front porch in the wintertime, then go back to my warm couch and eat my stuffed turkey. I assure you, I'm not. And I don't believe the majority of Americans would be either.

*rolls his eyes*

It doesnt matter if you would turn around and give money to charity do you honestly think most people would? Charity is the cry of conservatism yet at the same time they cry that people are too stupid to buy health care and buy ring tones. So lets get this straight, people are selfish and stupid....yet will turn around and give to charity? RIIIIIGHT

Even T Boone one of the richest most conservative guys around has come out and said that charity doesn't work anymore nor does leaving it to corporations because America isnt the same country it was before. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan made damn sure of that. We are now a country all about wealth. Making certain that everyone has a job and everyone is feed/taken care of is not even secondary let alone peoples first priority.

I think a good example of this is again my fiancees family. They are all big Christians and all push the same beliefs as you, keep government out of our business and leave things up to charity. Yet we are pariahs come Christmas time simply because we say don't buy us gifts and we arnt buying you gifts, instead anything you would spend on us give to charity.

So again I say you are burying your head in the sand. You are holding on to ideals that belong and would have worked great in the 20s and 30s but are dead/defunct in modern society.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 12:41 PM

It's interesting - I'm the cold-blooded jerk, but you're the one with the negative outlook on humanity as a whole.

All well, it's a good thing we have the government to force us to give to government ran charity at gun point. Otherwise, we'd all be dead... or something...

Msut77

06-23-2009, 12:54 PM

No, you haven't.

Yes we have.

A government option will require tax money. Tax money taken out of my paycheck is less money I and my family get to make use of.

Tax money is spent now, it is just spent in about the least optimal a way as possible.

If "more" in tax money is spent but you still end up paying less overall it would still be a net benefit to you.

It's interesting - I'm the cold-blooded jerk

That is how you come off. Like I said before though the second something bad happened to you or someone you care about you would change your tune.

p.s. Your focus on some apocryphal methheads ruining it for everyone else is getting to the point where you can be labeled shamelessly dishonest.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 01:03 PM

p.s. Your focus on some apocryphal methheads ruining it for everyone else is getting to the point where you can be labeled shamelessly dishonest.

http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2009/04/19/local/28890509.txt

Although police made fewer arrests, the amount of the various forms of meth seized was about 10 times greater in 2008 than in 2007.

The increase, officials say, is likely because they are now catching more manufacturers in the selling process, rather than in the earlier production phases.

"They're seizing more finished meth now than they were in the past," said Eric Hall, statewide methamphetamine coordinator for the Illinois State Police.

Perhaps you should spend some time in my local community before you call the meth heads imaginary.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 01:14 PM

Perhaps you should spend some time in my local community before you call the meth heads imaginary.

I do not doubt your local community has a severe meth problem, it would explain a lot actually.

What I am saying is that it is not the case that meth addicts or you know "deadbeats" are the ones ruining the system for everyone because it is regular, everyday people including those who are solidly middle class who can't afford healthcare.

This has been explained to you multiple times and it is more than fair to say you are being dishonest.

UncleBob

06-23-2009, 08:30 PM

MSI Magus

06-23-2009, 08:43 PM

One of the many reasons heath care costs are so high is due to "spreading the wealth" (or lack of it) from those who don't pay to those who do. When five dead beats go to the hospital for a band-aid, then you walk into get one, you're going to be charged for six band-aids.

If we stopped trying to make the health care industry eat the costs of those who don't pay, perhaps the costs of doing business would be lower and your middle class families could afford health care.

You realize you are just going in circles right. People further to the left like Msut have already countered this argument like 15 million times and you just keep countering it with the same thing. You all just continue to argue in circles day after day.

I will say though that again at least with the left if they are right everyone's covered and costs go down. Your best argument is hey few people are covered but fuck them anyways my costs are down. Again good ole conservatism, its better to have $1,000 extra dollars in every well off/middle class persons pocket then have everyone covered and lots of other benefits like a cleaner environment.

Anyways im out before I spend even more time arguing in circles like the rest of you....one day was enough.

Msut77

06-23-2009, 10:46 PM

One of the many reasons heath care costs are so high is due to "spreading the wealth" (or lack of it) from those who don't pay to those who do.

Is this supposed to be a response to my post?

Anyhoo...

It would be one of the relatively minor reasons.

There are other reasons which are much more important.

And again for the nth time, we are paying more or less twice what others pay (not to cover everyone) with a system that is inferior in many ways to other countries where they pay less.

In contrast you know to your proposal whereas there is no doubt you would change your mind the second you so much as skin your knee.

UncleBob

06-24-2009, 02:30 AM

That'd be funny if you actually knew anything about me and my family's medical history.

Msut77

06-24-2009, 03:04 AM

If you are now going to claim that you or any of your family members have faced the problems that millions of Americans have faced (the ones you call deadbeats and burdens and compare to methheads and wrecked cars) then yes, yes it would be hilarious.

I am certain your family is proud of you of for being able to take a stand against people who get thrown to the wolves because they didn't list a case of acne on a form or those who went bankrupt due to medical bills even though they had insurance.

UncleBob

06-24-2009, 03:14 AM

I have no interest in sharing the personal lives of myself or my family on a public forum. If you want the "hilarious" details, then I'm sorry to say, you're out of luck.

I'll rest easy knowing that I support a country where the people are proud, ready, willing and able to stand up for themselves, be responsible for themselves and take care of themselves.

You can go back to sucking at the teat of your government.

When I'm no longer around to take care of me, it won't matter.
What will you do when your government isn't around to take care of you?

Msut77

06-24-2009, 03:29 AM

I have no interest in sharing the personal lives of myself or my family on a public forum.

You are the one who brought it up, spare me.

I'll rest easy knowing that I support a country where the people are proud, ready, willing and able to stand up for themselves, be responsible for themselves and take care of themselves.

Recently a Republican Congressman (who btw makes a comfortable salary and receives the best medical coverage around) told a 62 year old woman with diabetes "good luck" in finding health insurance until she could receive medicare.

Maybe you and him should hang.

UncleBob

06-24-2009, 02:16 PM

You are the one who brought it up, spare me.

No, you did with your ill-informed comments.

In contrast you know to your proposal whereas there is no doubt you would change your mind the second you so much as skin your knee.

depascal22

06-24-2009, 02:22 PM

Dr. Stephen J. Jay of IU claims that 60% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were related to medical bills.

It's kind of a misleading number though. I have no doubt that many people spend so much on crap like McMansions, SUVs, 50" plasmas, etc. that when a huge medical bill comes by there is little choice but to file Chapter 13.

That being said, less money after taxes means less money to blow on crap that all of us love. It should also mean at least a little improvement on that 60% figure.

Msut77

06-24-2009, 02:42 PM

No, you did with your ill-informed comments.

You brought up their medical history as being relevant (until it wasn't).

Whatever.

Just keep building that reputation for dishonesty.

UncleBob

06-24-2009, 02:51 PM

You brought up their medical history as being relevant (until it wasn't).

Whatever.

Just keep building that reputation for dishonesty.

"Whatever", indeed...

You can say that because you are young and relatively healthy, no doubt the second you ran into the tiniest bit of hardship (or a relative gets thrown to the wolves for failing to report a minor illness) you would change your tune.

Like I pointed out before... you say that now but there is no doubt you would change your tune the moment something went pear shaped.

That is how you come off. Like I said before though the second something bad happened to you or someone you care about you would change your tune.

In contrast you know to your proposal whereas there is no doubt you would change your mind the second you so much as skin your knee.

Msut77

06-24-2009, 02:53 PM

Bob doesn't know what relevant means.

Cool.

UncleBob

06-24-2009, 03:02 PM

Msut77

06-24-2009, 03:07 PM

You've been making snippy comments about the medical status of myself and my family for two days. When I finally reply in regards to that, you tell me to spare you the details, that they're irrelevant.

That is not what I said, not even close.

There is a chance (a very small one) you honestly misunderstood what I meant, namely to spare me the butthurt.

I agree, they are irrelevant

They could be relevant if it ended up having to do with the problems I brought up or they were like any of the people you call deadbeats and refer to as meth addicts and burdens.

If that was the case and you happen to feel the same way about your own flesh and blood then that is just taking it to a whole new level.

Msut77

06-24-2009, 03:18 PM

It's kind of a misleading number though. I have no doubt that many people spend so much on crap like McMansions, SUVs, 50" plasmas, etc. that when a huge medical bill comes by there is little choice but to file Chapter 13.

I cannot be the only who thinks that is an unreasonable assumption to make, can I?

Also if we read the same report it points out the majority of those people had insurance before the bankruptcy.

depascal22

06-24-2009, 03:35 PM

I cannot be the only who thinks that is an unreasonable assumption to make, can I?

Also if we read the same report it points out the majority of those people had insurance before the bankruptcy.

I didn't get the whole report. I was reading an article on health care reform and he brings up the stats without giving the name of the study. Here are the stats from the article:

1 in 3 American under the age of 65 were uninsured for all or part of 2007-08.

More than 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medical in origin.

Over the last 40 years, health care costs have gone from 5% of our GDP to 18%.

Anyway you look at it, the free market failed when it came to health care.

UncleBob

06-24-2009, 03:40 PM

Yet we already established that there is no free market for health care.

If the free market doesn't exist, then it cannot be blamed for the failure.

Msut77

06-24-2009, 03:40 PM

I didn't get the whole report. I was reading an article on health care reform and he brings up the stats without giving the name of the study. Here are the stats from the article:

1 in 3 American under the age of 65 were uninsured for all or part of 2007-08.

More than 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medical in origin.

Over the last 40 years, health care costs have gone from 5% of our GDP to 18%.

Anyway you look at it, the free market failed when it came to health care.

I think we read the same article but I saw that somewhere around 75% of those (the 50% bankrupt due to medical costs) were insured before the illness.

The probably lost insurance because its hard to keep a job or they were targeted and kicked off.

UncleBob

06-29-2009, 10:41 AM

depascal22

06-29-2009, 11:37 AM

Government - your answer to everything:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html

The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.

That's actually the government working. Instead of just saying wait or die, they're saying take this money and get your care at the place of your choice. Sounds like a win-win for cancer patients.

Don't get me wrong. You'll probably find a couple horror stories that confirm your opinion that this is all bad but horror stories can be found for everything that anyone does on this planet.

HowStern

06-29-2009, 12:02 PM

Yeah that article actually supports the NHS.
They are saying "we don't have the resources to support you right now so go ahead and find your own doctor of your choosing. We will pay for it."

Sounds good to me.

UncleBob

06-29-2009, 10:24 PM

If the system saying "Yeah, we can't take care of you, here's some money go find someone who can" is the system working... wow.

I mean, it's nice and all - but I do wonder how long before the government would start pulling HMO like stuff and say "This procedure should only cost $X - anything more and you get to pay for it out of your pocket."

HowStern

06-29-2009, 10:37 PM

Well, I consider it as working because you are still getting the treatment and they are paying for it(with your tax $, of course).

Koggit

06-30-2009, 01:17 AM

Government - your answer to everything:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html

The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.

aside from what others have already said (i.e. the taxpayers are receiving the care they need, and that's the bottom line), it's very important to consider that the U.K. spends $2,500 per person on healthcare annually. the U.S. spends nearly three times that much. let that sink in for a moment. the average briton, to remain healthier than the average american, needs only to be funded $2,500. $2,500 taxpayer dollars is keeping a briton healthier than $6,000+ is keeping an american. doesn't that say something?

tivo

06-30-2009, 11:57 AM

So we can't pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. but we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. and govt. bureaucracy to administer it.

depascal22

06-30-2009, 12:14 PM

So we can't pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. but we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. and govt. bureaucracy to administer it.

Doesn't matter how many people are getting paid if it's cheaper in the long run. Did you not just read what Koggit posted? Would you rather pay $6,000 for the current system or $2,500 for a socialist style system?

Now we might not ever get down to $2,500 a person because we'll have more beauracrats to pay for since we have a large population but I think we can still get it cheaper even with more people to pay.

It'll also mean more jobs. I guess if the gov't provides them, conservatives are against them.

UncleBob

06-30-2009, 01:29 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8119116.stm
"Managers have warned the health service is facing a funding shortfall of up to £10bn for the three years after 2011. "

$16.5 billion. Now, the UK's population (according to Wiki) is estimated at 61,612,300. The US population is at 306,790,000 - or just under five times as much. So, based off the UK system, we'd be looking at a funding shortfall of over $80 Billion. Now, granted, we don't have to emulate their plan exactly. In fact, we'd probably screw it up and do a worse job. ;)

HowStern

06-30-2009, 01:41 PM

The UK isn't the ideal model system. It's the most well-known besides Canada. But the one to look at is France.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

They spend half of what we do per person. 99% of their population is covered. And they were rated the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

depascal22

06-30-2009, 02:20 PM

Or we can continue to look at ways for it not to work and bitch and moan in a couple years when you get your coverage yanked away because you didn't tell the HMO about an infected hangnail.

Koggit

06-30-2009, 03:05 PM

So we can't pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. but we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. and govt. bureaucracy to administer it.
i guess, yes, that's one way to say it. but this would be more accurate:

it's a huge burden to pay for the nearly-unregulated profit-driven American health care industry, it's about one-third that burden to pay for a heavily regulated health-driven U.K. health care system

you don't think private HMOs have ridiculous bureaucracies? they do... they also have grim reapers getting paid $1mil+ a year (after bonuses) to deny coverage to their policy-holders.

docvinh

06-30-2009, 04:22 PM

you don't think private HMOs have ridiculous bureaucracies? they do... they also have grim reapers getting paid $1mil+ a year (after bonuses) to deny coverage to their policy-holders.

This is a huge problem. Whether you believe in free market health care or not, there's no reason that this should be happening. It's a little bit sickening actually.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 02:12 AM

Or we can continue to look at ways for it not to work and bitch and moan in a couple years when you get your coverage yanked away because you didn't tell the HMO about an infected hangnail.

I'd rather look at ways that "fixing" it won't work before we just start trying every plan under the sun and hope one of them doesn't screw things up worse.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 10:54 AM

depascal22

07-01-2009, 11:26 AM

You can't ever use Quebec as an example for anything. They speak a completely different language and have tried to secede from Canada several times. It's like using the Confederate South during the Civil War as another example of our economy in the tank. (I'm only half joking with this one)

Bob,

How do you propose to fix a system that is set up for the HMOs to just rake in huge profits? How do you propose to get them to stop denying care because of small technicalities that have no correlation with the illness at hand?

You've constantly railed against state-run health care. Well, why don't you and your buddies come up with a fix for the system? Stop telling us that it won't work and give us something that will work.

ninju D

07-01-2009, 11:35 AM

You've constantly railed against state-run health care. Well, why don't you and your buddies come up with a fix for the system? Stop telling us that it won't work and give us something that will work.

Cause that would require actual knowledge of how insurance works which I'm not sure Bob possesses. Anyway, its easier to just hate on others.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 11:54 AM

HowStern

07-01-2009, 12:01 PM

I was asked before to produce one county where citizens wanted a more American-like plan.

Canada, perhaps?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews

Now, I know the source is Fox News. Don't care for them much myself. But, there's a a fact in here...
"Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."

It seems to me, if such a case made it to the Supreme Court, there's a few Canadians who are interested in private care over the government option.

This is exactly why FoxNews is a joke. They are trying to bash the whole Canadian health care system but meanwhile they admit themselves that
"Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters."

What Quebec wants to do is what Obama was proposing and what the UK and France(the number one rated healthcare system in the world) do already. Mix private and public.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 12:05 PM

This is exactly why FoxNews is a joke. They are trying to bash the whole Canadian health care system [...]

Like I said - not a FoxNews fan - but the article was linked to me and the fact that someone went to the Supreme Court to demand an option for private health care (and the fact that they had to do it!) stuck out to me. Since the Supreme Court case is fact, that's the only part of the article I pulled out to discuss.

depascal22

07-01-2009, 01:51 PM

ninju's partially correct - it would require knowledge beyond what I (or, most likely, any of us) have.

Personally, I think there needs to be a lot of deregulation in the industry. I know, I know, "deregulation" is a dirty word around here - but when a woman has to pay a higher premium because her carrier cannot legally provide her coverage that doesn't include pregnancy coverage, then there's a problem. Now, I'm not calling to open the flood gates and completely kill all regulations - but the fact is, in any industry where there is high government regulation, there tends to be little competition and a high price to enter if you want to compete. We need to create more competition - something a government "option" would absolutely not do.

All of the problems we're facing now are because there is very little regulation in place. Do you think HMOs will cover more illnesses when they have less regulation, Bob? Do you think they will continue to terminate coverage for unrelated technicalities or will they have a miraculous change of heart just because the government isn't there?

We're talking about an industry that makes more money the more they deny health care. Shouldn't the mission of healthcare be to actually provide healthcare for all that can pay it? Why do you continue to defend them and say that they should have even less supervision?

EDIT -- It's funny that you admit that you have little knowledge on the subject but you're adamant that de-regulation is the key. It's like you just spit out the Republican talking point for the issue at hand and just stick with it regardless of any evidence or common sense that might follow. You claim to be more Libertarian but you act like a Republican in sheep's clothing.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 02:25 PM

I believe that deregulation will provide for more competition in the marketplace. More competition means better service.

>"It's funny that you admit that you have little knowledge on the subject but you're adamant that de-regulation is the key."

Do you claim to be an expert on the subject? Because you seem adamant that nationalizing the system (in some form or another) is the key...

depascal22

07-01-2009, 02:48 PM

12 years in health care in multiple states should count as a little more experience than whatever you're bringing to the table. From where I'm sitting, more regulation is the only way that everyone will be treated fairly.

Here's what I've seen. People with no health insurance wait until the last minute to get care. Most of the time, their problems have worsened to the point where they're in serious trouble. Their cancer has spread, appendix ruptured, etc.

When someone with no insurance comes in with a ruptured appendix, it affects everyone. The hospital pays the nurses and techs call pay to come in and help the poor guy. Also, a ruptured appendix means longer hospital stay than just a routine appendectomy for appendicitis. Since he doesn't repay, it gets passed on to everyone else in the form of higher costs.

The surgeon and anesthesiologist don't get paid either since most hospitals don't pay their doctors a salary. Now the surgery group and anesthesiology group pass those costs on to everyone else in the form of higher cost.

People that do have insurance now have HMOs that try to terminate services because the HMOs are looking to cut costs. Even when they negotiate prices, they're still looking for ways to increase profit which inevitably leads to denied claims. It's why you see the initial bill is usually never paid. HMOs usually negotiate to somewhere around 60% of the first bill. This leads to hospitals charging $10 for a single aspirin in the hopes that someone will pay it.

Don't forget when doctors and HMOs don't agree on fees. This leads to a doctor not accepting certain kinds of insurance or going cash only. This actually leads to less choice if you have a certain kind of insurance or not enough money.

And don't get me started on tort reform. Everyone that has a bad result feels almost obligated to sue these days. This includes the guy that had a ruptured appendix and developed sepsis a few days later. He blames the surgeon instead of himself for not going into the doctor a week earlier. The shame is that juries almost always side with the patient because he had such a horrible experience. It can't possibly be his fault can it? The average joe thinks that any doctor should be able to cure everyone regardless of the events leading up to a doctor's first exam. And it's really hard to blame someone that has no insurance for trying to suck it up and wait it out instead of rushing to the ER with a "tummy ache".

Deregulation would make all these problems worse.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 03:04 PM

I agree with you 100% on the subject of tort reform.

I do acknowledge your superior expertise on the subject, running under the assumption your claim is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise).

Question - what's the difference between nine people not paying and the 10th getting stuck with the bill in the current "free market" system and nine non-tax payers not paying and the 10th tax payer getting stuck with the bill in a "government-controlled" system?

>"Don't forget when doctors and HMOs don't agree on fees. "
How long do you think it would take before a government option would start dictating fees that they're willing to pay and how much they're willing to pay? Why would this method be better than the current HMO method?

Msut77

07-01-2009, 03:08 PM

Do you claim to be an expert on the subject?

Depends on what you consider an expert. Do you mean someone who happens to be very knowledgeable or someone who gets paid to talk on fox?

Because you seem adamant that nationalizing the system (in some form or another) is the key...

Depends on what you mean by "the" system, the healthcare system or the insurance system. Nationalizing either isn't technically necessary or even on the table.

depascal22

07-01-2009, 03:11 PM

Msut77

07-01-2009, 03:12 PM

If you wanted to go along with whatever hypothetical bob thinks he has constructed point out the majority would be paying for the much cheaper preventative care instead of the ER visit.

depascal22

07-01-2009, 03:16 PM

Deregulation means that ER visits are cheaper than going to the doctor once a year, didn't you know that?

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 03:16 PM

The government already does that with Medicare.

Where are you getting your figures from? The question just isn't valid because you'll never have a situation where there are nine non-tax paying individuals for every one that does. What's the point of even answering that question?

You're basically saying that 90% of America don't pay taxes. You've been listening to bmull too much if you believe that crap.

I didn't mean those numbers to be taken literally - the point of the question is, with the current system, we're spreading the costs from those who don't pay to those who do pay. With the "new" system, we'd be doing the same thing. What's the difference?

And Medicare (http://seniorhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa010301a.htm) is hardly a worthy example of a good system.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 03:18 PM

Deregulation means that ER visits are cheaper than going to the doctor once a year, didn't you know that?

Do you honestly feel that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficiary to both quality and costs?

Koggit

07-01-2009, 03:24 PM

Depends on what you mean by "the" system, the healthcare system or the insurance system. Nationalizing either isn't technically necessary or even on the table.

FNC has been horrible about this -- they've spent weeks attacking universal healthcare and saying that's what Obama/Dems want, implying (sometimes directly stating) that that's what the dem healthcare reform is... shit like that should be illegal.

They're going for ratings, which means being controversial, I understand that, but a lot of people do watch, and their opinions are being shaped by what a news channel perpetuates as truth, it should be illegal to outright lie about what something is like that. I don't expect them to call a spade a spade but they should at least call it some sort of gardening tool, they shouldn't be allowed to claim it's a sexual device used to rape babies. Should I be allowed to start a news channel and, amongst credible news, make falsified reports about Rupert Murdoch? Maybe I should... follow credible stories about Iran and the economy with a story about how Murdoch's a gay atheistic communist trying to destroy America because his middle eastern mistress asked him to... or would that be slander? It's okay to lie to voters about congress is doing, but not okay to lie to them about what a person is doing?

depascal22

07-01-2009, 03:32 PM

Do you honestly feel that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficiary to both quality and costs?

Did you not read what I just wrote earlier? Prices will not go down but up with less regulation.

Less people will be covered because more insurance companies will deny claims and terminate coverage for people that will cost too much to care for.

That brain tumor still has to come out, right? Ooops. You didn't say that you had an infected toenail three years ago. Coverage terminated. Now, no one will touch that person with a ten foot pole because of a "pre-existing condition".

If the tumor is operable, a surgeon has to provide care and the hospital can't deny care either. Guess who pays for all that when the person just declares bankruptcy instead of paying the $50,000 bill? Guess who that gets passed on to.

This is what happens with the current system. Now with deregulation, HMOs can use even flimsier reasons for denying claims and terminating coverage.

Profits go up as well as cost. Everyone else in the healthcare system uses profits to invest back in the system to provide more efficient care. Hospitals use profits to buy advanced equipment that will attract more surgeons and thus more business. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies use profits to fund medical advances that will benefit mankind. HMOs? Profits go to the bean counters that analyze new ways to deny claims based on bogus numbers.

EDIT -- I've given you concrete examples of how health care will get worse with deregulation but you haven't given us one example of how health care will get better. Please stop arguing about this until you get something concrete to back yourself up with.

EDIT #2 -- What do you mean by more choice? You get sick or in an accident, does the driver ask you which hospital is your choice? Do you actually do in depth research before choosing a doctor or do you just pick a random one on the list of docs that are provided by your HMO?

Another thing, most people that have insurance get it provided by their employer. Do employees get a choice or do they just take it because it's provided as a benefit? But then, some doctors don't take your insurance. Would you go to the best doctor on the planet and just pay cash because he couldn't negotiate a contract with your HMO?

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 03:37 PM

Msut77

07-01-2009, 03:45 PM

Medicare is hardly a worthy example of a good system.

For what it is, why yes. Yes it is.

Do you honestly feel that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficiary to both quality and costs?

I feel it would be putting a band aid on a torn limb.

Paul Krugman recently wrote about how almost 50 years ago Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care" basically disproved the free market answer to healthcare.

Are you interested in answering the question

He shouldn't care about answering your "questions".

Koggit

07-01-2009, 03:52 PM

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 03:54 PM

i cannot believe you're still on this

oh yes, the magical deregulation fairy will delivery new competitors and the free market will give them the gift of compassion and we'll all revel in the wonderful american capitalist patient-driven (contradiction, i know) healthcare that no other country was smart enough to think of...

...

Deregulation aside for the moment.

depascal22

07-01-2009, 04:02 PM

Are you interested in answering the question - do you honestly believe that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficial to both the quality and the costs? Deregulation aside for the moment. If you could create a situation that would put more choices into the market - both for insurance and care - do you think that would increase or decrease costs?

I'm saying your question isn't valid. You're putting a hypothetical out there that has zero chance of ever becoming truth. How do you get more choices?

More doctors? Doctors are leaving practice in higher numbers because of sky high malpractice costs and super low reimbursement from HMOs.

New hospitals? New hospitals are being built but by existing health care networks. It means you know have a St. Francis Beech Grove to go with your St. Francis Indianapolis. They're both the same hospital but now they have more bed space, ORs, etc. Still the same price.

You'll never find an independent company that will put the money up for a new hospital. It's the worst investment you could ever make unless you're already in the business and know how to manage a health care network.

More insurance companies? A new insurance company will never improve on the admittedly low standard of care already given by the current HMOs. It would take decades for a new HMO to get up to the level of a current HMO and that's with some of the luckiest breaks you'll ever get. Not only do you have to negotiate deals with doctors of all kinds but you have to go with the hospitals. You think health care networks get into negotiations with small insurance companies? No. Because it's not worth their time and effort. Not enough patients will come through the door because of it.

And that's if you have customers. How many employers will sign on with you when you tell them you have zero contracts in place with existing providers or hospitals?

Now, here's an example of your world with more choice. I go online and shop for health insurance rates. I find one with super cheap rates and sign up for six months to try it out. When I get the information, I find out that there's only one doctor with 50 miles that accepts my insurance and he's got a seven month waiting list because he's swamped with other patients from my HMO. Oh, and he just finished his residency last year but didn't get accepted for a fellowship. Good luck.

EDIT -- Creating more choice would be a government initiative and therefore involve more regulation. The government could create government run HMOs that provide care and force doctors and hospitals to accept it. The government could build more hospitals and fill them with government trained docs that will be forced to work for the government for x amount of years. All of this amounts to more choice but ,gasp, way more regulation and way more beauracracy than you're willing to accept.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 04:13 PM

So.. more choice isn't good. Interesting - because that's not what Obama says. Obama says "his" plan will offer a choice to people and they'll get better care and cheaper prices.

As for regulation - let's look at what our government is doing to see how they feel about following their own rules. How well does the Federal Reserve follow the government's rules for banking and finical institutions? How well will the Federal option for health care follow the rules?

depascal22

07-01-2009, 04:20 PM

No. Your vision of more choice isn't good. I had to kind of fudge the details since you won't provide any for your plan.

Why don't you stop being a hater and pick a plan that will work. I'm done with this thread until someone comes up with a plan that works better than our current system or France's current system. I'd personally love something close to the French system but I've heard nothing but why it won't work. Come up with concrete examples or statistics for why your system of more choice and less regulation will work better. And please no more cooked up Fox News' crap.

No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 04:22 PM

depascal22

07-01-2009, 04:23 PM

The only thing I used the Fox News story for is a reference to the Canadian Supreme Court decision that allowed citizens the right to choose private care. Since that is a fact - not opinion - I don't think you can honestly consider it "crap". Well, I guess you can consider facts "crap"...

I consider Fox News crap because they only present the facts that bolster their position. They're a news service not a conservative think tank. Why the hell does FNC even have a position anyway?

Msut77

07-01-2009, 04:28 PM

Obama says "his" plan will offer a choice to people and they'll get better care and cheaper prices.

For a lot of people a public option would be an improvement.

No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.

Bob isn't capable of anything else. Well that and the ability to phrase his opinions as questions.

P.s. Bob, Despite what you think Obama's name isn't a magic tailisman.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 04:29 PM

You said no more cooked up Fox News crap. The only part of the Fox News story I used was a fact. Regardless of your feelings toward Fox News - it doesn't change the fact - there are those in countries where there is government provided health care who want a more Americanized service option.

No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.

Look - I'm here to discuss the situation. I'm not here to find a "cure" for our current health care system. If that's what you want to do, I would stop wasting your time here on CAG and, I don't know, maybe go out and do something worth while to help change the industry. Because sitting here pounding at your keyboard isn't going to accomplish anything.

Msut77

07-01-2009, 04:32 PM

Look - I'm here to discuss the situation.

Could have fooled me.

HowStern

07-01-2009, 06:03 PM

Bobby, you've talked yourself full circle.

You tried to slam the Canadian health service by pointing out how the people wish they had a choice and don't have one.

Now you are trying to slam Obama by saying his idea to give us a choice is not going to work.

UncleBob

07-01-2009, 06:12 PM

I'm not saying the idea of giving us choices won't work. That is depascal's argument.

HowStern

07-01-2009, 07:47 PM

You said you are for deregulation. Historically, it has been demonstrated that deregulation only promotes competition in the early stages. In the latter stages, it actually eliminates competition as rivals are driven out of business.

The current financial situation further proves this.

ninju D

07-01-2009, 09:59 PM

As someone who as worked at a health insurance co for multiple years and has at least a decent knowledge of plan building, trust me when I say that dereg is the last thing that you want. The only reason that the insurance cos do most of what they do is only because of the laws in place! If it wasn't for these laws, they wouldn't offer much for coverage for anything and still charge exorbitant rates. The problem is that the politicians are already in the pocket of most of these co's via their lobby. You say Obama wants a socialist-esque plan? BS! His plan (which didn't go far enough!!) probably won't even get past his own party, because the Dems have moved so far into the middle it makes me sick!

docvinh

07-01-2009, 10:34 PM

Deregulation is a tricky bitch, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't see this as one of those times it would work well.

You said you are for deregulation. Historically, it has been demonstrated that deregulation only promotes competition in the early stages. In the latter stages, it actually eliminates competition as rivals are driven out of business.

The current financial situation further proves this.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-01-2009, 11:07 PM

Has anybody advanced the position that we should just abolish health insurance altogether?

vherub

07-01-2009, 11:29 PM

it seems to me it would be much cheaper and simpler to attack the root of the problem- why so many more people are getting sick in the first place
especially when so many of today's health problems are man caused
rewrite the next Farm Bill so citizen health is more important than short term business profit
get food industry lobbyists out of the usda/fda, and vicecersa
salmonella, cancer, mercury from fish, diabetes, obesity, childhood personality disorders and learning disabilities, birth defects- all these problems are caused/worsened and continue to be caused by inefficient or downright criminal government regulation concerning industry, especially the food supply
It is staggering the degree of carcinogens, chemicals and other pollutants that are in nearly all foods americans consume- without even entering a debate on what happens as we mess with genetically modified foods.

really, it is like america is crazyland, and throwing x trillion dollars so everyone can purchase healthcare is the perfect assbackwards approach

depascal22

07-02-2009, 12:23 PM

You can't blame the FDA for all those problems. Farmers pollute the waterways with fertilizers. Businesses pollute the air, land, and water with their by-products. The food companies pump antibiotics into their animals because people buy plump chickens and not skinny ones.

You can't just put all that on government regulation. Get to the actual root of the problem and it's usually business and not government that is the root cause.

To fully clarify my position, I'm saying that there's no way to give more choice without the government stepping in increasing regulation. Bob was trying to say that you can have deregulation and more choice.

UncleBob

07-02-2009, 12:42 PM

To fully clarify my position, I'm saying that there's no way to give more choice without the government stepping in increasing regulation. Bob was trying to say that you can have deregulation and more choice.

Take a moment and look at the industries that are highly regulated by the government. Broadcast media. Airlines. Health Care. What do they all have in common?

HowStern

07-02-2009, 07:01 PM

I would actually go as far as to say Health care isn't regulated enough. Insurers are getting away with murder, almost literally.

Look at a few industries that have little to no regulation from the government. Like the Auto industry and financial institutions. How are they doing?

Koggit

07-02-2009, 07:21 PM

i think i agree with you for the most part howstern, but not about the auto industry... the last thing the auto industry needs is more regulation. i think raising CAFE standards is about the dumbest thing (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649332091983175.html) coming from washington lately.

HowStern

07-02-2009, 07:35 PM

The only reason I don't feel bad for the auto industry with that new standard is because they've known that oil is a limited resource since oil was known about. But instead of developing "greener" cars, or working on fuel efficiency, they were pumping out Hummers, ya know?

Except I know someone did have an electric car, I forget who, GM maybe?. But Cheney and the oil companies stepped in and basically had it vanish from production. There's a whole movie about it. Who killed the electric car or something. I haven't seen it, though. So I don't know the exact details.

JolietJake

07-02-2009, 08:31 PM

The first Volt i believe. They never actually sold them i think, just leased them. Some people managed to hang onto theirs i believe

Koggit

07-02-2009, 08:54 PM

It was the EV-1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 - and I don't think there was any such conspiracy behind it, but that doesn't really matter. the point is domestic car companies are struggling to turn a profit even when they're allowed to make whatever decision is most profitable -- having the government mandate what they can/can't sell isn't going to make them more profitable.

Msut77

07-03-2009, 02:26 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/02/insurance.purging/index.html

Koggit

07-03-2009, 03:10 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/02/insurance.purging/index.html

great article, but i really wish cnn took the liberty to come out and bluntly say it: for-profit HMOs do not work.

tivo

07-03-2009, 03:36 PM

Except I know someone did have an electric car, I forget who, GM maybe?. But Cheney and the oil companies stepped in and basically had it vanish from production. There's a whole movie about it. Who killed the electric car or something. I haven't seen it, though. So I don't know the exact details.

you can't blame Cheney for the lack of electric cars. Look at Japan, Germany, etc. Why haven't they developed electric cars? Most countries in Europe and Japan are probably ideal for an inexpensive electric vehicle used mostly in the city limits (trains taking up longer trips). Did the all-powerful Cheney prevent them too?

HowStern

07-03-2009, 05:11 PM

you can't blame Cheney for the lack of electric cars. Look at Japan, Germany, etc. Why haven't they developed electric cars? Most countries in Europe and Japan are probably ideal for an inexpensive electric vehicle used mostly in the city limits (trains taking up longer trips). Did the all-powerful Cheney prevent them too?

Yes, lets look at cars in other countries. Why haven't they developed an electric car?
Let's see. Maybe because the best selling car in japan was the Toyota VITZ until recently.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/100610246/Used_Toyota_Vitz_2005.jpg Hardly a Hummer...But what's the best selling type of car in Japan now?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/toyota-prius-2010-hybrid-car-sales-japan-honda-insight.php

Hybrids...

Meanwhile the best selling car in the U.S.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/best-car-sales-forbeslife-cx_jm_1203cars_slide_11.html?thisSpeed=15000

Ford f-150...16mpg..

Also, you can see in this article
http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

The EV-1 was put to rest by a number of lawsuits brought on by automobile manufacturers, the oil industry and the George W. Bush administration. Funny because Cheney was part of the Bush administration and a board member of both oil and automobile companies.

Koggit

07-03-2009, 05:17 PM

The EV-1 was put to rest by a number of lawsuits brought on by automobile manufacturers, the oil industry and the George W. Bush administration. Funny because Cheney was part of the Bush administration and a board member of both oil and automobile companies.
OR, like GM says, it was unprofitable... even 10 yrs later, now, the chevy volt is projected to sell at a loss... i don't think it's unreasonable to believe a similar vehicle 10 yrs ago (when gas was cheaper, battery tech sucked more, and fewer cared about MPG / emissions) would've been unprofitable.

Yes, lets look at cars in other countries. Why haven't they developed an electric car?
Let's see. Maybe because the best selling car in japan was the Toyota VITZ until recently.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/100610246/Used_Toyota_Vitz_2005.jpg Hardly a Hummer...But what's the best selling type of car in Japan now?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/toyota-prius-2010-hybrid-car-sales-japan-honda-insight.php

Hybrids...

Meanwhile the best selling car in the U.S.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/best-car-sales-forbeslife-cx_jm_1203cars_slide_11.html?thisSpeed=15000

Ford f-150...16mpg..

Also, you can see in this article
http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

different areas... i bet the best selling car in urban cities is a compact car. america has much more open space. same deal with europe, they're way denser, more urban, so smaller cars make sense. it's very very rare that i see a big truck like that in seattle, but they're all over the place in louisiana. all the more reason for the government not to mandate strict CAFE standards, it's bullshit, especially when the companies are in the red, let them make profitable decisions instead of what's perceived to be environmental decisions (when, in fact, it'll hardly reduce transportation emissions at all) -- raising CAFE standards does absolutely nothing except handicap domestic automakers against foreign makers. hell, i wouldn't be surprised at all if foreign automakers lobbied for it...

depascal22

07-03-2009, 05:19 PM

OR, like GM says, it was unprofitable... even 10 yrs later, now, the chevy volt is projected to sell at a loss... i don't think it's unreasonable to believe a similar vehicle 10 yrs ago (when gas was cheaper, battery tech sucked more, and fewer cared about MPG / emissions) would've been unprofitable.

But they would've been set up to make a killing right now. Set up your short term losses for long term monster gains. Isn't that Free Capitalism 101?

HowStern

07-03-2009, 06:34 PM

It definitely wasn't unprofitable. They had thousands sold before making even 1500 of them.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/541959067

However, it may have become unprofitable due to the ammount of lawsuits brought against them by the oil companies and Bush administration.

According to this article

http://www.newsweek.com/id/36484/Page/3

Gm says they wish they never gave up on the idea.

Koggit

07-03-2009, 07:10 PM

this is GM's stance: http://gmfactsandfiction.com/gm-killed-the-successful-ev-1-electric-car-program/ -- if cheney & oil companies were cockblocking, why'd they keep doing electric cars?

and i really have no idea how you can be so sure it was profitable when the manufacturer claims otherwise and the EV-1's decedent (Volt), over 10 years later, is still unprofitable...

HowStern

07-03-2009, 07:33 PM

That's just Gm trying to save their ass. There was quite a backlash when they took the ev-1 off the road.

http://www.envirolink.org/resource.html?itemid=20020824193105553380&catid=3

They lied about market response saying how poorly it sold. When in actuality they plain out refused to let people renew their leases on the vehicle. They say in the link you posted that it was because the warranties were too expensive to honor. But according to most of the comments from people who owned them they were willing to sign a waiver giving up their warranty.

And there is no doubt the Bush administration had ties with the oil company the 2002 tax credit for electric vehicles was $2,000 whereas the 2003 tax credit for large SUVs was $100,000.

JolietJake

07-03-2009, 07:39 PM

Don't forget the Bush family's personal ties to the Saudis.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-06-2009, 02:44 PM

you can't blame Cheney for the lack of electric cars. Look at Japan, Germany, etc. Why haven't they developed electric cars? Most countries in Europe and Japan are probably ideal for an inexpensive electric vehicle used mostly in the city limits (trains taking up longer trips). Did the all-powerful Cheney prevent them too?

Do the math and you'll get your answer.

Let's assume any electric car is going to cost $5-10K in initial startup costs over its gas equivalent.

Let's assume the gas equivalent costs gets 40MPG.

At $4 per gallon, that's 10 cents per mile. The car will have to be driven 50,000-100,000 miles to break even if electricity was free. Assuming 10kWh is requires to push an electric car 60 miles, that's 1.67 cents per mile. That's only 67 cents per "gallon", but that increases the required mileage to 60,000-120,000.

At an average miles driven per year of 12,000, the break even point is 5-10 years from now.

Let's assume the cheese-eating surrender rats only drive 6k per year, the break even point is 10-20 years from now.

One last nail for the coffin: If nobody is trained to repair electric cars, how are they a viable consumer choice?

depascal22

07-07-2009, 02:08 AM

One last nail for the coffin: If nobody is trained to repair electric cars, how are they a viable consumer choice?

You could've said the same thing about the locomotive, automobile, or the airplane. People will learn to fix them and, initially, they will be paid very well for their services. Unless you think a jet engine is less complicated than an electric car.

MSI Magus

07-07-2009, 09:08 AM

On the whole why dont other nations drive/develop other cars side my cousin just got back from Germany and he said those new smart cars are everywhere. We were at a graduation party for his son and we mentioned we were looking at them and my dad and a few other relatives went off on how they are horrid cars and listing all sorts of reasons not to drive them, thats when my cousin interjected showing how the Germans prove them wrong.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-07-2009, 10:07 AM

You could've said the same thing about the locomotive, automobile, or the airplane. People will learn to fix them and, initially, they will be paid very well for their services. Unless you think a jet engine is less complicated than an electric car.

Yes, but we're lazy now. Very few people extol the virtues of electric cars. Many companies with deep pockets are more than happy to keep the electric car off the scene with lawsuits.

It is just too hard to get off the ground with somebody standing on your throat.

UncleBob

07-16-2009, 10:32 AM

mykevermin

07-16-2009, 10:53 AM

Fuck the insurance companies.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 11:00 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25010.html

"Do what we say, or we'll force the money out of you!"

Does anyone seriously think a "Government option" for health insurance will be "fair" competition in the market?

I completely agree with you except ...

36 or 37 countries provide better health care to their people than the US does.

I real gungho about the free market, but I'd prefer to be the best.

bigdaddy

07-16-2009, 11:35 AM

I love the fact that the whole thing is based on Massachusetts' health care plan, the plan is a failure! It doesn't work and will bankrupt the nation!!!

HowStern

07-16-2009, 12:06 PM

nah, it's not based on ours. We are forced to have health care. Obama just wants everyone to have the option. Like France. They have public and private options and about 99% of the country has insurance but isn't required to.

Our system is a mess. Like what's happening with Boston Medical Center. If the public option was treated the same as the private that wouldn't be happening. The private insurers are able to really F people over.

I can't wait until Deval Patrick is outta there.

Snake2715

07-16-2009, 12:14 PM

have we talked about the cost shift associated with the other two government run heatlhcare plans in force?

Does no one think that having a third larger government run health option will not cause more cost shift to the privately insured?

I think the cost shift from Medicare is ~1500 and the Medicaid is what 1000 annually... I know my premiums are $8500 yearly so what ~30%...

Here are some fun facts I was just handed at a meeting last week:

In 2008 National health Expenditures rose 6.9% (2x the rate of inflation)
Total spending in 2007... 2.7 Trillion
Expected to hit 4.3 Trillion by 2016
Currently health care spending is 4.3 times National defense spending

Since 2000 employer based health insurance premiums have increased ~119%\
Employee contributions increased 117%
Inflation has increased 44%
Wages have increased 29%

~1,500,000 million people lose their homes due to unfordable medical costs

Researchers at Harvard university found of those that filed for bankruptcy have out of pocket medical debt of ~$12,000
68% had health insurance
50% were partly due to medical expenses
~ every 30 seconds someone filing for bankruptcy following aftermath of a serious health problem (this is not saying debt only, maybe time off work, etc)

FACTORS contributing to rising health care costs:
Cost shifting from uninsured to insured
Cost shifting from Medicare & Medicaid to insured
Technology advances
Prescription drugs/advertisements
Aging Baby Boomer population

KingBroly

07-16-2009, 12:33 PM

Snake2715

07-16-2009, 12:57 PM

Option? If there's a public option, the number of options will decrease to 1 rather quick. Businesses control most health care plans, not the individual. If they say they're not going to be a part of let's say...Blue Cross Blue Shield and a part of a Government plan, you're going to be forced to have that Government plan.

Believe me I know that... not 2 hours ago I was in talking to the president (of our agency) on our own HRA account and why he is reimbursing to once again add to the buffer account... now a good thing to see a check request for another $20,000 in this economy. I was the one that set up our HRA account in 2007..

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 01:27 PM

Option? If there's a public option, the number of options will decrease to 1 rather quick. Businesses control most health care plans, not the individual. If they say they're not going to be a part of let's say...Blue Cross Blue Shield and a part of a Government plan, you're going to be forced to have that Government plan.

Correct. Once government takes over, it takes over.

Will things get worse, better or stay the same?

If our healthcare is ranked 40th or 50th in 20 years compared to other countries, we need to go back to private insurance.

If our healthcare is ranked 20th or 30th in 20 years compared to other countries, going to socialized medicine will have proven to be a good thing.

If our healthcare ranking doesn't change, the personal opinion of healthcare performance will based on that person's old cost under private healthcare versus the current cost under public healthcare.

dopa345

07-16-2009, 02:02 PM

perdition(troy

07-16-2009, 02:11 PM

Koggit

07-16-2009, 03:38 PM

glenn beck gets retarded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGeZQrpZbjI

or.. erm.. retardeder

mykevermin

07-16-2009, 04:23 PM

I think what's telling is that in the current health care proposal, members of Congress will be exempt from the very health care plan they are devising for the rest of us. Take that for what you will.

Like the current plan they're exempt from?

Hardly a compelling argument for maintaining what we have now.

dopa345

07-16-2009, 05:18 PM

Like the current plan they're exempt from?

Hardly a compelling argument for maintaining what we have now.

I don't see where in my statement that ever said I endorse the current health care system. It is extremely broken and needs some radical changes to fix it, most fundamentally a complete change in philosophy in where our priorities lie in how we allocate health care dollars. Simply imposing a government run health care system where reimbursements to providers will be further squeezed, taxes further increased and where a bureaucrat and not your physician ultimately makes your health care decisions is not the answer and is simply a recipe for disaster.

I hope I'm wrong but based on my experience in dealing with Medicare and Medicaid, I'm sure I'm not. And deep down so do the politicians.

mykevermin

07-16-2009, 05:23 PM

What would you advocate, then, given your position as a physician?

fatherofcaitlyn

07-16-2009, 05:50 PM

...where a bureaucrat and not your physician ultimately makes your health care decisions is not the answer and is simply a recipe for disaster.

If you modify <implied>government</implied> bureaucrat with a HMO bureaucrat, how is that different than the current system?

Snake2715

07-16-2009, 06:06 PM

myke,

This is a serious question. Are you just playing devils advocate, or do you have a stance on this with one or another health proposal.

mykevermin

07-16-2009, 07:24 PM

I don't believe health care should be a for-profit industry.

But I don't believe any aspect of our military or prison systems should be either. So I guess that makes me an god-and-apple-pie hating communist.

There are compelling philosophies[/s] as to why the government should not become involved with health care, but there is no [i]evidence whatsoever that the current free-market/insurance system works at all. In fact, the accusations levied at a federal system (increased cost, bloated bureaucracy, inefficient care, poor quality care) describe precisely what the current state of health care in the United States is.

I don't care if the federal option puts private insurance out of business. Take the pharmaceutical industry with you while you're at it. Good riddance, and to hell with both of you. Neither of them deserve to exist or compete in the market.

JolietJake

07-16-2009, 08:33 PM

I was going to say, health insurance companies already make many decisions in what your doctor can do, how is that any different than the government doing it?

That's assuming they (government) did.

UncleBob

07-16-2009, 08:37 PM

The one thing I am sick of hearing about is it's not "forced universal healthcare". You're right, it's not forced. However, if you don't have health insurance, you get fined. If you're a business that doesn't provide health insurance for your employees, you get fined (different amounts depending on the size of your payroll). No ones being forced to do anything all.

Would you also say one isn't "forced" to pay taxes?

If you modify <implied>government</implied> bureaucrat with a HMO bureaucrat, how is that different than the current system?

The HMO Bureaucrat doesn't show up at my home with guns if I don't give him money.

RAMSTORIA

07-16-2009, 08:55 PM

Would you also say one isn't "forced" to pay taxes?

The HMO Bureaucrat doesn't show up at my home with guns if I don't give him money.

i was pretty upset when the armed FBI agents raided my house after i didnt pay taxes last year.

KingBroly

07-16-2009, 09:05 PM

Correct. Once government takes over, it takes over.

Will things get worse, better or stay the same?

If our healthcare is ranked 40th or 50th in 20 years compared to other countries, we need to go back to private insurance.

If our healthcare is ranked 20th or 30th in 20 years compared to other countries, going to socialized medicine will have proven to be a good thing.

If our healthcare ranking doesn't change, the personal opinion of healthcare performance will based on that person's old cost under private healthcare versus the current cost under public healthcare.

But that's the problem though, Government does not let go of control so easily. If this happens, it'll probably stay that way for a very long time, and it'll be a bad thing.

Also, doctors will probably leave for greener pastures if the Government tells them their salary is being cut by 50-60% a year with this new plan. So needless to say, quality will suffer.

dopa345

07-16-2009, 09:06 PM

If you modify <implied>government</implied> bureaucrat with a HMO bureaucrat, how is that different than the current system?

The difference is that HMO's can be held liable for their decisions and have a vested interested in providing quality care. The government's only concern is the proide a minimal standard of care and put more of the risk burden on providers who are increasingly asked to do more with far less. Also for what it's worth, while HMO's can be a pain to deal with, they are far less invasive in affecting physician decision making processes than government payers. I rarely have to justify my medical decisions with most private insurers but with Medicare and Medicaid they will fight you tooth and nail on the most basic stuff and I have to fill out appeals paperwork almost on a daily basis. Just last week, I was denied payment for admitting a woman with a stroke rather than send her home because her symptoms were "stable" and "could have been managed as an outpatient", which of course it want every published stroke guideline says NOT to do. So in the future, I'm either supposed to do the right thing and not get paid, or do the wrong thing for the patient and open myself up to a malpractice suit.

XxFuRy2Xx

07-16-2009, 10:08 PM

Looks like the health care bills currently out there will actually raise costs: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Pretty lame.

Msut77

07-16-2009, 10:18 PM

The difference is that HMO's can be held liable for their decisions and have a vested interested in providing quality care.

They haven't really been held accountable yet and their vested interest is in making money by not providing care.

tivo

07-20-2009, 01:20 PM

They haven't really been held accountable yet and their vested interest is in making money by not providing care.

HMOs are (suppose to be) regulated at both the state and federal levels and can only become licensed by the states. So basically the govt. is doing a half ass job and you want to give them more responsibilities. The government needs to do their job right and cut down on price gouging.

Ruined

07-21-2009, 11:02 AM

Looks like the health care bills currently out there will actually raise costs: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Pretty lame.

That's pretty much common sense, don't need a panel analysis to tell me that. Universal Healthcare will raise costs of healthcare while simulataneously lowering quality of healthcare. Its a lose/lose proposition for everybody except illegal immigrants who will receive coverage under the current bill, the one group that should NOT receive coverage moving forward. Medicare/Medicaid takes care of the legal citizen poor in this country, saddling citizens with the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants while also forcing them to pay for a lower-standard public plan is ridiculous... And that is why the bill is at a dead halt in the senate currently; politicians don't want to lose their job next year over this.

Ruined

07-21-2009, 02:57 PM

Mayo Clinic: Obama Healthcare plan is a bust!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/21/mayo-clinic-calls-house-plan-bad-medicine/

docvinh

07-21-2009, 03:27 PM

http://pedobear.org/resources/pedobear+org.jpg

Pedobear supports this health plan. Everyone needs to fall in line.

homeland

07-21-2009, 04:16 PM

The difference is that HMO's can be held liable for their decisions and have a vested interested in providing quality care. .

Wendell Potter would disagree (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html)

Very informative Bill Moyer interview of a Health Care Whistleblower. Though, is it really surprising they are out for profit not for the actual care of their customers.

tivo

07-22-2009, 03:20 AM

For anyone against the future government-run health care plans, sign this petition:

http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/

perdition(troy

07-22-2009, 01:25 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,1752248.story

I love the new transparency at the white house.

speedracer

07-22-2009, 02:06 PM

HMOs are (suppose to be) regulated at both the state and federal levels and can only become licensed by the states. So basically the govt. is doing a half ass job and you want to give them more responsibilities. The government needs to do their job right and cut down on price gouging.
It's a bit disingenuous to blame the government for too little oversight and regulation when Bush essentially ran on that platform.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-22-2009, 02:31 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,1752248.story

I love the new transparency at the white house.

Nice find. Reminds me of Hillary's Health Care Task Force before the Republican takeover in 1994.

UncleBob

07-23-2009, 10:44 AM

About that regulation...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Regulation_-not-size_-is-health-care_s-biggest-problem-8003652-51328842.html
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000.

The stark difference has nothing to do with each state's health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state's insurance pools are regulated.

In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin's insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.

As someone in the comments points out, cost of living also plays a part - but damn...
Let individuals shop around for their insurance - including crossing state lines. That'd open up some competition.

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 10:56 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gratzer

I'm rolling my eyes and making a wanking gesture at that op-ed.

Because I trust the author.

It would be one thing if he did more than flick his wrist and disregard these plans as "cadillac plans," but the writer has a history of having this ideology that spans decades.

Instead of focusing on health care outcomes, % of the population covered, or the %/rate of getting preventative care as opposed to i'm-not-sick-oh-shit-it's-gangrenous treatment, he uses some absurd "we have 4 times as many mri machines as they do" measure, as if that's indicative of a fucking thing. There aren't lines to use mri machines, so what's the relevance of that?

USA WINS! WE GOT MORE SHIT!

Msut77

07-23-2009, 02:29 PM

About that regulation...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Regulation_-not-size_-is-health-care_s-biggest-problem-8003652-51328842.html

As someone in the comments points out, cost of living also plays a part - but damn...
Let individuals shop around for their insurance - including crossing state lines. That'd open up some competition.

There is no market solution to our healthcare problems.

I am pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Also your source is either incredibly sloppy or lying as Gratzer is a Psychiatrist not a Physician.

fullmetalfan720

07-23-2009, 05:24 PM

About that regulation...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Regulation_-not-size_-is-health-care_s-biggest-problem-8003652-51328842.html

As someone in the comments points out, cost of living also plays a part - but damn...
Let individuals shop around for their insurance - including crossing state lines. That'd open up some competition.
Dammit, UncleBob, stop being such a conspiracy theorist. The state of Wisconsin does not exist. Neither does their $3,000 dollar a year health care. That guy who wrote that article is a nut! $3,000 dollar a year health care! What's that guy been smoking?! Also, if we had a system like England and other countries we could treat everyone, and never run out of money! Just look at this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jeremy-laurance-the-nhs-should-think-twice-before-rationing-care-447922.html
Everything will be fine!
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/06/health.politics
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4S6EzG53ys
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQiOQs-WZNM
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQiOQs)

mykevermin

07-23-2009, 05:33 PM

op-eds and 30 second video clips: damning evidence in the postmodern image era.

fuck the facts.

fullmetalfan720

07-23-2009, 06:09 PM

op-eds and 30 second video clips: damning evidence in the postmodern image era.

fuck the facts.
Yes! Fuck the facts!
In a report to be published this morning, the BMA will launch its plan for the future of the NHS in England. It will say that despite the billions of pounds poured into the health service over the past six years, there is still not enough cash to pay for everything. We must, therefore, kiss goodbye to the idea of a universal service available, free to all on the basis of need, and accept that some of what the NHS does it must cease doing.
That is thoughtcrime! Down with the thought criminals!

Snake2715

07-23-2009, 06:24 PM

Seems the obama admin is losing ground.. this will be a year long issue and then i am not sure where its going to go... dropped and forgot or pushed through with the all too common fix it as we encounter issues approach strkingly similar to downloadable bug fixes for this genertion of gaming systems and early game launches.

Msut77

07-24-2009, 12:08 AM

Seems the obama admin is losing ground.. this will be a year long issue and then i am not sure where its going to go... dropped and forgot or pushed through with the all too common fix it as we encounter issues approach strikingly similar to downloadable bug fixes for this generation of gaming systems and early game launches.

Compared to your solution of what? Taking the cartridge out, blowing on it and putting it back in?

UncleBob

07-24-2009, 12:44 AM

You're on a sinking ship with two other people.
One wants to wait and see if the ship will stop sinking on it's own or if help will come, in spite of the fact nothing appears to be changing.
The other has the idea of drilling holes in the bottom of the ship to let the water out.

I guess we should all listen to the second guy because - at least - he's wanting to do *something*?

Ruined

07-26-2009, 11:23 AM

If Obama wants to make healthcare better, not worse, do the following:

1. Abandon all intentions of a public plan. Yes, that means the democrats won't be a shoe-in for illegal immigrant votes once they become citizens sometime in the future. Sorry.

2. Mandate that all ER visits require a $30 out-of-pocket payment regardless of insurance (not required at time of visit). If you are going to the ER so often that this becomes unaffordable, either it is not an emergency or your primary care doctor is incompetent. This will greatly reduce the way some people abuse the emergency room.

3. If you are not a citizen of the USA and do not have a Visa, mandate that treatment by hospitals is optional and if the patient is treated, it is the hospitals option to charge up to $500 prior to offering treatment.

4. Stop giving Medicaid to illegal immigrants.

5. Use money from #2, #3, #4 to improve quality of and visibility of current Medicaid & Medicare plans, and use some of it to buffer COBRA costs as well.

Improved healthcare without the destruction a public healthcare plan will cause, while saving money. If you aren't covered by private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, or COBRA, that means you are likely either an illegal immigrant or are voluntarily electing to not receive healthcare insurance - neither of which is a compelling argument for a public plan.

HowStern

07-26-2009, 12:47 PM

^Worst idea I've ever seen. It is going to hike up insurers costs if anything.

I'm going to take a wild guess you have never been out of the country. Have you?
If you have, have you fell ill while traveling? Or had a child fall ill while abroad?

The healthcare systems in Europe are amazing. 24 hour on-call pharmacists. No insurance needed. It doesn't matter to them if you are a citizen or not.

The U.S. has an issue with getting it's priorities straight.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-26-2009, 02:57 PM

If we allow the government to control health care, should there be a forced physical every year for every citizen?

Instead of going to work that day, you go to the doctor and have a series of tests ran on you to determine your overall health.

The idea is to focus on preventative measures to reduce major ailments in the future.

Thoughts?

mykevermin

07-26-2009, 03:10 PM

What a preposterous list of items, Ruined. I say "list of items" because it certainly isn't a "plan."

tivo

07-26-2009, 05:25 PM

I, like many other Americans, only really need auto and home insurance to cover against catastrophies (floods, fires, car wrecks, etc). Similarly, as a healthy, young man, I only really need health insurance in case I get hit by a car. But government mandates force health insurance companies to cover so much other crap that its ridiculously expensive. The only available plans require me to pay for tons of other crap like some old bastard's Viagra or mental health pills that its clear why some people choose to be uninsured. They would, of course, be willing to pay for a private insurance that meets their demands if one existed. Solution: decrease health insurance mandates. Private insurers would see this low coverage market and jump, making competitive plans. I'm smart enough to pick the now simplified insurance plan (because they would only insure a few things) and can now afford it. Maybe i'll have to pay $200 out of pocket every year for a yearly check-up but I spend 4x's that amount on video games. When I get older I'll change coverages. Its that simple to prevent health insurance from turning into the DMV- decrease government intervention.

KingBroly

07-26-2009, 05:44 PM

But what if there was only one health care provider?

elprincipe

07-26-2009, 06:20 PM

I haven't commented yet in this thread, but I would only offer the thought that the only way we'll see a real change in the current system would be to decouple health insurance from employment. Since most people have insurance that way and those who have it that way like it, I don't see that happening politically, but it's the approach most likely to work.

tivo

07-26-2009, 06:26 PM

But what if there was only one health care provider?

you tell me what you think would happen and why.

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 10:27 AM

UncleBob

07-27-2009, 10:40 AM

Snake2715

07-27-2009, 11:05 AM

I think that solution would actually increase the number of "low-risk, healthy people" who would buy insurance.

The fact is, so many people don't buy insurance because coverage is so expensive. One of the main reasons it's so expensive is because of mandates for providers to cover so many things.

For example, I will never, ever, ever need drug rehab. So why should I have to pay for a policy that covers that?

Let's say you're a young girl (early 20's). Let's say you are not sexually active - at all. You're saving yourself for marriage (yes, they do exist). Now, go try to find a policy in virtually any state that doesn't require you to have coverage for pregnancy. I'd bet that adds a pretty penny to the policy.

Unclebob you are assuming..

Why don't I flip this and say go try to find an individual policy that includes pregnancy.

Let me give you a few options.

First most all commercial carriers offer the option to remove pregnancy on the group policies, they do not offer (in a lot of states) to remove mental or nervous coverage.

Individual policies normally come without pregnancy, and the ones that offer it as a buy up are basically precharging for the pregnancy.

For example I just quoted someone health insurance and she is 24. She wanted to see what it would cost for her and her husband to have pregnancy..

its about $250 a month more for that coverage. $3000 a year, and it must be in force 3 months prior to becoming pregnant. Another carrier only wanted about $220 a month and they required you were not pregnant for 9 months after getting the rider... so basically its 9 months to get pregnant, and then another 9 months until birth so 18 months at $220 a month premium ~ 4000.. now that was with a $1500 deductible on the birth... so whats that $4000 in prepaid expenses, and then $1500 out of pocket at birth minimum, if you conceive exactly 9 months after getting the rider. Sounds to me like its the close to what you would have paid out of pocket anyway.

Also on Ruin's idea.. medical insurance is very complicated.

Deductibles, both embedded and aggregate for family members, coinsurance at various percentages, ER copays that don't count toward your out of pocket maximums, etc.

Some people say well I have an 80/20 plan... that tells me squat. So basically after your deductible (lets say its $1000), you pay 20% and they (insurance carrier) pays 80%.... but when do you stop paying the 20%?

Each carrier differs, and normally they offer different 80% plans. Some say you split (co-insure) 80/20 to $5000, so the carrier pays $4000 and the insured pays $1000 of the first $5000 in expenses, after the deductible.

Others say its 80/20 of 10,000, or even 12,500, or 20,000 etc... so it sounds the same on the surface but it gets more complicated as you dig deeper.

I have plan offered by Assurant that is a 50% plan. You have a $500 or $1000 deductible then Assurant covers 50% (coinsurance) of the next $2500 in expenses. Then the plan goes to 100%. So if you have the $500 deductible then on the next $2500 you pay $1250, before meeting the out of pocket max (stop loss) then you are only paying $1750 on the first $3000 in expenses. 8 times out of 10 people would rather take a $500 deductible 80/20 of $10,000 then this plan... it makes no sense as you are liable for much more with the 80% plan, but it just sounds better. I hear "80% is more than 50% so I want the 80% plan". I explain it and some people get it, others don't, or just don't care.

My point is, if you lower mandates you are going to complicate things as some people will get limited benefit plans (they exist no actually, Assurant, Aim, etc all have them). They will think they are buying more than they are getting, and it will be too late when the bills come after the fact.

These limited Benefit plans cover some RX, some hospital, and a few office calls a year. They don't cover much more than that. They are guaranteed, and the pricing is fixed.

I am just rambling at this point, but these solutions I hear all have downsides. This is not an easy problem.

As I said before they need to federally mandate all private carriers be level across state lines, no varying state mandates per state. Decide what is to be covered as a bare minimum for Mental/nervous and thats it. Decide what is going to be covered as a min for outpatient rehab, or drug/alcohol, and thats it.

This would allow carriers to streamline and save some money on training, and selling their plans across all state borders.

Koggit

07-27-2009, 04:46 PM

Let's say you're a young girl (early 20's). Let's say you are not sexually active - at all. You're saving yourself for marriage (yes, they do exist). Now, go try to find a policy in virtually any state that doesn't require you to have coverage for pregnancy. I'd bet that adds a pretty penny to the policy.
extremely oversimplified, but fine, I'll play: that increase in her premium goes to pay for other people's pregnancies, as it should. exactly the same way you might be not have electricity and hate anything warm, but you're still gonna have to pay taxes that fund the fire department to save (probably other) people. just like you might never stop by your library or need a cop to track down your rapist but you've still gotta pay for other people to have those services. it's in the best interest of society. it is to further a goal of the state. it is why it must be heavily regulated and, ideally, out of profit-driven hands.

Cheese

07-27-2009, 06:34 PM

I like Ruined's plan. It'll fill the streets with the corpses of poor immigrants; c'mon, who wouldn't want more dead Mexicans?

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 06:47 PM

^ Brujeria?

UncleBob

07-27-2009, 08:35 PM

extremely oversimplified, but fine, I'll play: that increase in her premium goes to pay for other people's pregnancies, as it should. exactly the same way you might be not have electricity and hate anything warm, but you're still gonna have to pay taxes that fund the fire department to save (probably other) people. just like you might never stop by your library or need a cop to track down your rapist but you've still gotta pay for other people to have those services. it's in the best interest of society. it is to further a goal of the state. it is why it must be heavily regulated and, ideally, out of profit-driven hands.

So, let's make everyone work as hard as they can, pool all their resources, and redistribute them equally to everyone. Should work out great!

fullmetalfan720

07-27-2009, 08:53 PM

So, let's make everyone work as hard as they can, pool all their resources, and redistribute them equally to everyone. Should work out great!

I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR

Koggit

07-27-2009, 09:03 PM

So, let's make everyone work as hard as they can, pool all their resources, and redistribute them equally to everyone. Should work out great!
or we can have it your way, where everything is private, you pay for what you get, and when a person can't afford costs associated with their pregnancy they file bankruptcy, damaging the nation's economy, threatening your job security & increasing the price of everything you buy. people in poverty can't afford to pay for school or a library or anything so once in poverty you're stuck there, people whose houses get struck by lightning and burn to the ground are then homeless because they couldn't afford a private firefighter, they then rob your house because they can't afford to feed themselves... can you afford the private law enforcement officers to catch the criminal, or will he get away and rob me next?

our government is center-right and has been since the nation was founded, it's worked well and will continue to work well. capitalism cannot always save the day. some things just don't work profit-driven, and it's occasionally in society's best interest to act a little socialist. get over it.

mykevermin

07-27-2009, 09:06 PM

fuck no. let's get rid of this socialist program and switch to a system where we pay for services.

My risk is far lower now than it was 5 years ago. I don't see why I should have to pay the same amount for services I simply won't need and don't directly benefit from.

And, should I need service, why not just bill me after the fact? That should put money back in people's pockets immediately.

I'm talking about the police, of course. I don't get a fuckin' thing from paying for them.

UncleBob

07-27-2009, 09:11 PM

Funny - that's not "my way" at all. My way has a lot of community involvement through private organizations and includes provisions for the government to provide general welfare, as required by the Constitution.

Msut77

07-27-2009, 09:51 PM

So, let's make everyone work as hard as they can, pool all their resources, and redistribute them equally to everyone. Should work out great!

For healthcare?

It has worked better than our system for every country that has done so.

Again Economists have basically known for quite a while that there isn't a "market" cure for healthcare problems, information asymmetry being one reason among others.

That doesn't make you a commie, basic economic classes cover market failure and only loons deny its existence.

fatherofcaitlyn

07-27-2009, 10:06 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-28-2009, 12:17 AM

For healthcare?

It has worked better than our system for every country that has done so.

Again Economists have basically known for quite a while that there isn't a "market" cure for healthcure, information asymmetry being one reason among others.

That doesn't make you a commie, basic economic classes cover market failure and only loons deny its existence.
Here are some cases of people going to the US to get care, because they couldn't get care in Canada.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=TopStories
An MP traveled to the US for Breast Cancer surgery.
http://www.komonews.com/news/10216201.html
Carri Ash of Chilliwack, B.C. was sent to the U.S. to have her baby after her water broke on Sunday, ten weeks ahead of schedule.

"And they came in and said 'you're going to Seattle,'" she said.

Ash's hospital couldn't handle the high-risk pregnancy. Doctors searched for another hospital bed, but even hospitals in Vancouver, B.C. didn't have a neo-natal bed.

"So two provinces didn't have enough room, so I have to go to another country," said Ash. .......................
.............And a woman from Calgary, one of the wealthiest cities in Canada, had to travel to Montana to give birth to her identical quadruplets.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132785,00.html
That’s exactly what former champion figure skater Audrey Williams did. After waiting two years for a hip replacement in Vancouver, B.C., she traveled to Washington State and paid $25,000 to stop the pain.
“I couldn’t wait any longer,” the 71-year-old Williams told the National Post. She could barely walk, wasn’t getting enough sleep, and pain pills had upset her stomach. “I wanted a life.”.......................
...................."At the moment," writes CMA president Dr. Albert Schumacher, "millions of Canadians would love to find just one family physician, let alone choose from among several."
Nearly half of doctors and nurses polled in July reported that their patient’s conditions had worsened while waiting for care.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article661794.ece
More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here.
Also, big government is not working in Sweden, as evidenced by this article:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0803/international-invest-guide-obama-sweden-public-downsizing_print.html
Also, see this chart:http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/mmoynihan/tele.jpg
http://reason.com/blog/show/122091.html
I think you should check out the comments that people in the UK have about their national health system, and the wait times to get care here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7965785.stm
So, no I wouldn't say that these country's systems work better than ours. However, I also wouldn't say that our system is without problems, and shouldn't be fixed. The problem with this health care debate is that you are given two false choices, neither of which are any good. One is to keep the current system, and two is universal health care. There are more options than those two, although it seems no one wants to acknowledge that.

Msut77

07-28-2009, 12:52 AM

Here are some cases of people going to the US to get care, because they couldn't get care in Canada.

Unless you are going to say there isn't a single person in the US who cannot get care (or has to cross borders to do so) you don't have a point.

An MP traveled to the US for Breast Cancer surgery.

She came here to see a specialist which is not the same thing as "not being able to get care".

Nevermind, instead of anecdotal lets go to your attempts at statistical analysis.

Also, big government is not working in Sweden, as evidenced by this article:Also, see this chart:

Canada and Sweden both have a higher overall life expectancy than us and a greater probability of reaching 60. They also suffer from less Digestive, Heart and Circulatory disease deaths along with Child maltreatment deaths (and they have a lower infant mortality rate).

There is a reason the US comes in 37th place in healthcare system rankings and we spend more for the privilege.

So, no I wouldn't say that these country's systems work better than ours.

You probably wouldn't say that. But that is what an objective look at facts tells us.

The problem with this health care debate is that you are given two false choices, neither of which are any good. One is to keep the current system, and two is universal health care. There are more options than those two, although it seems no one wants to acknowledge that.

There is the magic fairy farts option. I really don't see that one taking off anytime soon.

UncleBob

07-28-2009, 01:24 AM

There is a reason the US comes in 37th place in healthcare system rankings and we spend more for the privilege.

Use your awesome Google searching powers to look up where we rank in the education system and how much more we pay there.

I'll gladly give you socialized medicine if you give up socialized education.

UncleBob

07-28-2009, 01:46 AM

A friend of mine, who is quite the Obama supporter and a fan of the Democratic Health Overhaul-Plan-Takeover-Thing and anti "for profit" health care said "Jesus healed for free."

Has anyone else heard this train of thought?

If so, kindly point out to these individuals what I replied with. "All He asked for in return was your eternal soul. Remember that when a politician in a suit offers you free health care."

Ruined

07-28-2009, 08:46 AM

Canada and Sweden both have a higher overall life expectancy than us and a greater probability of reaching 60. They also suffer from less Digestive, Heart and Circulatory disease deaths along with Child maltreatment deaths (and they have a lower infant mortality rate).

There is a reason the US comes in 37th place in healthcare system rankings and we spend more for the privilege.

Yeah, those privleges are the ability to move around freely more in a car/truck of our choice, the right to bear arms, & the freedom to have a super-unhealthy big mac if I want - and they are not ones I and many others want to give up.

Not to mention the study you got your "37th" figure from did not incorporate quality of healthcare AT ALL, instead only counting "how evenly healthcare is distributed."

It looks like you fell for the "37th in healthcare" ploy without doing your research on it, or are simply trying to sell a stale bag of goods without giving people the whole story:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem. …

When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn’t score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it’s crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how “fairly” health care of any quality is “distributed.” The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but “unequal distribution” would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Next time don't believe an organization dominated by countries with socialistic medicine when they try to market you on socialistic medicine without giving a hard look at the study. This WHO study - which you used in your argument - is obviously worthless and blatently skewed towards countries that don't have as much driving & "distribute healthcare evenly," even if that healthcare is garbage.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 09:36 AM

There's theoretical support for the idea of unequal distribution being a useful metric in terms of demonstrating the quality of care for a country.

If you have ample resources, but they are blocked off to all but a few of the elites, well, then you can't exactly exalt the high standard as the national standard, can you? It's misleading.

Let me demonstrate it this way: GNI is a per-capita measure of economic productivity. We use it despite its flaws. Although there are multiple flaws, the most pressing one for this discussion is that it flattens out productivity into a single per-capita number. One number for the US, one for China, one for Mexico, one for every nation. Meaning that, in nations where few people are involved in the formal economy (i.e., a largely agricultural nation), the GNI is dragged down by the size of the agricultural population and not those who *should* be counted. In nations where you have an extreme divide between the wealthy and the poor (e.g., China, United States), the GNI becomes a number representative of no real kind of "average" productivity - all numbers are inflated due to the concentration and averaging of wealth.

Back to health inequality, it's a theoretical conundrum. While I support the argument that it's not an ideal measure that you [s]thought of all by yourself[/b] read on some blog, let me posit the following:

1) omitting inequality is a worse metric, as it would mask care that people don't receive, can't afford, or otherwise don't have access to
2) the idea that low quality care nations would "rank higher" is offset by controls in the form of other measurements of health outcomes. Countries that offer poorer care on the whole *might* rank higher here (and perhaps should), but these researchers are not analyzing a single variable, but a confluence of variables with multiple permutations, accessing various points, and making a composite view of health care considering the aggregate data. Cherry picking a single variable on its own and criticizing it is fine, but that doesn't mean each criticism is valid. I believe this is one of those occasions.

Ruined

07-28-2009, 10:11 AM

Since when did the vast majority of Americans become "a few of the elites"'??

Most people without healthcare today (and that number is miniscule compared to those with it) are:
A) Illegal immigrants
B) Transitioning between jobs and temporarily electing not to pay for COBRA
C) Young, healthy, working only part time and choosing not to pay for health insurance
D) Going to college and choosing not to pay for school health insurance

Those who are poor/elderly get Medicaid/Medicare under the existing system.

Therefore there is not a compelling argument for substandard government healtcare, which is what we've seen for those who get it for "free" from the gov't. While healthcare is expensive, quality does cost money. The best quality healthcare is logically not going to be the cheapest. Quality > Quantity, especially when your health is at risk.

Death or suffering is not worth saving a few bucks, and the fact that the WHO study completely omits quality of care served it makes it useless - oh you are bleeding to death, have a band aid... your health care has been served! :p

Regardless of your belief on that, though, how is failing to account for things like lower lifespan due to higher rate of fatal car accidents NOT make the study 100% worthless?

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 10:36 AM

Ruined

07-28-2009, 11:05 AM

Looks like you've read John Stossel's report (why do you post two different links to the same substantive content, BTW? Your first link is a summary of Stossel's critique, but the second link is Stossel's critique itself - numbers alone don't bolster your claim when they are the same content.)

Very simple: some people don't like to read a lot, and the summary makes easy what is in the other link. Hell our own congressmen don't even read the bills they sign half the time, just going by a summary. Re: WHO report, don't assume what I do or do not read.

Moreover, life expectancies are disaggregated from many potential causes of death. smoking, car accidents, high BMI, live in a houseful of firearms.

Unless you can provide a compelling argument that life expectancy, as a measure, should be changed if we don't account for automobile deaths, I'm going to assume a relatively random distribution of ages amidst automobile deaths.

The compelling argument is that in the USA we have the freedom to drive a variety of vehicles both for work & pleasure, but as a result of this freedom more drive bigger & faster cars + more drive in general and thus more have fatal car accidents. Don't know for a fact but I'd surmise there are probably more younger people involved in fatal car accidents as evidenced by the higher insurance rate younger people (under 25) pay due to higher likelihood of accident - not to mention involvement of sport cars, reckless driving, and drunk driving all likely more prevalent with younger people. But regardless of age involved a greater quantity of fatal car crashes will comparatively bring down average life expectancy vs. nations with less crashes, as the people who died in those accidents would have likely otherwise lived significantly longer.

That aside, if you link things like automoblie accidents, BMI, smoking to healthcare and then give government control of that healthcare - well, then you are giving gov't the ability to control:
* if/what you can drive (i.e. mustang/camaro/etc cause too many deaths due to fast speed, thus are banned; artificial raising of gas prices to discourage driving in general to lower accident rate. less driving = less accidents = less potential fatal accdients)
* what you can eat (i.e. gov't outright banning big mac, whopper, etc, due to heart/health risk)
* what you can smoke (i.e. gov't outright banning cigarettes/cigars, etc, due to cancer)
* what you can drink (i.e. gov't banning alcohol due to drunk driving deaths, liver problems, etc)

Thus the government would have the ability to control a shitload of personal things that in many cases will NOT have ANY impact on your own personal health. You can drive a mustang/camaro safely, you can drive and not die, you can eat a big mac now and then and not get heart problems, you can have a cigar every once in a while to celebrate and not get lung cancer, you can drink alcohol to celebrate and not kill someone drunk driving. They can control these things under the guise of "preventable death," but with all the ways to die that banner can reach far into your personal life.

So long as those things get lumped in with the healthcare, and then you give the power of healthcare to the gov't, you give the gov't an excuse to take away your personal freedoms which may have no impact on your own health whatsoever if used responsibly. Meanwhile, in terms of how well first responders, hospitals, perform healthcare once you become sick, these factors have little impact and thus should not be lumped in.

paddlefoot

07-28-2009, 11:28 AM

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 12:36 AM

Unless you are going to say there isn't a single person in the US who cannot get care (or has to cross borders to do so) you don't have a point.
I'm sure that there are very few people in the US that have to go to another country to get care, after waiting 2 years for it.

She came here to see a specialist which is not the same thing as "not being able to get care".
Why didn't she go to a specialist in Canada then?
Nevermind, instead of anecdotal lets go to your attempts at statistical analysis.

Canada and Sweden both have a higher overall life expectancy than us and a greater probability of reaching 60.
That's largely because of car accidents, and the like, as someone pointed out.

There is the magic fairy farts option. I really don't see that one taking off anytime soon.
Again with the false choices. You say the only choice is universal health care, or doom and gloom. There are more options than that, and you fail to realize them.

Msut77

07-31-2009, 12:42 AM

I'm sure that there are very few people in the US that have to go to another country to get care, after waiting 2 years for it.

There is enough. I recall busloads going to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs especially.

Why didn't she go to a specialist in Canada then?

Write her an email.

That's largely because of car accidents, and the like, as someone pointed out.

Someone said it, doesn't mean he "pointed out" anything factual.

You say the only choice is universal health care

Universal healthcare can mean any number of things, thing is any system that can be called "Universal" works better than what we have now because of a few economic principles.

There are more options than that, and you fail to realize them.

Horse Manure.

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 01:01 AM

There is enough. I recall busloads going to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs especially.
Were they on a waiting list for 2 years to get the drugs?

Write her an email.
I find it hard to believe that someone would go to the US for care if Canada has such good fast health care.

Horse Manure.
Wow, you're close minded. You think there are no options other than government mandated universal care. You must think there was no such thing as health insurance before the past 40 years. Health insurance could be much cheaper if it was only for catastrophic events, as it was in the past. If we cut out HMOs and the management, we could also bring down the price.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 01:13 AM

You think there are no options other than government mandated universal care.

You'd think you would argue about policies that were being proposed on this mortal plane instead of whatever bizarro world you live in where the Dems and Obama are promoting a mandated single-payer system.

Msut77

07-31-2009, 01:20 AM

Were they on a waiting list for 2 years to get the drugs?

The Canadian Government ensures that drug prices are cheaper for their citizens whereas we have spent years subsidizing drug and insurance companies profits.

I find it hard to believe that someone would go to the US for care if Canada has such good fast health care.

It is not terribly uncommon for Canadians through their system to get care in the US for certain things. No one is saying our doctors are a bunch of bumpkins with their arses hanging out their trousers it is that our system is unequivocally fubar and beyond costly.

Wow, you're close minded

I take that as a compliment from you.

You must think there was no such thing as health insurance before the past 40 years

Health insurance as it is now (i.e. whatever you guys seem to think of as market forces) hasn't been doing a very good job. Germany's system meanwhile is basically a system of subsidized insurance and it is still Universal.

Health insurance could be much cheaper if it was only for catastrophic events

Lots of things would be cheaper if it wasn't for catastrophic events.

Singapore which has a Universal system utilizing the much vaunted Healthcare savings accounts still covers catastrophic events.

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 01:21 AM

You'd think you would argue about policies that were being proposed on this mortal plane instead of whatever bizarro world you live in where the Dems and Obama are promoting a mandated single-payer system.
Uh, their proposal is mandatory. You have to buy health insurance, if you don't have it. Its single-payer also.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 01:54 AM

show me. there's no proposal on the table right now.

spmahn

07-31-2009, 02:08 AM

Perhaps he's referring to HR 3200?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 02:18 AM

Where does that language refer to mandatory subscription or a single-payer system?

spmahn

07-31-2009, 02:21 AM

Not sure, I haven't read the whole thing yet, I just wanted to point out that there are preliminary plans on someones table somewhere.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 08:13 AM

fair enough.

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 10:29 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/30/759479/-The-Dems-lost-this-debate-once-Single-Payer-became-Public-Option
That's where I see the talk of single-payer. In that whiny article.
No one knows what's in that crap they are generating on the hill and folks are hesitant about it and rightfully so...they should have stuck with single-payer and told the GOP to suck an egg...The Democrats are no better they stood on the sidelines and watched a corrupt colleague with the backing of the GOP single handily try to destroy the very thing that got Obama in office....hope for a better tomorrowlies...without so much as a peep...
but I watched Obama for two years... every debate, every townhall meeting, every interview....I donated money...made phone calls...I just can’t throw in the towel on him yet...so I still support him 100%....but it’s crunch time and it’s time for him to call for the ball...because his supporting cast is crud
What an idiot in denial.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 10:35 AM

http://www.artfulgift.com/reaching.jpg

thrustbucket

07-31-2009, 12:21 PM

I've opted out of this thread for now because, as has been pointed out, there really is no plan on the table that I know of to debate about.

UncleBob

07-31-2009, 12:39 PM

For those in the "We spend more for less" boat, I ask you to read this article:
http://thebluesite.com/ustopseducationspend.htm

It's a bit older, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 01:00 PM

I'm looking for the parallels - unfortunately, the OECD report combines the spending of public and private on education in the US, so it's quite hard to get at estimates. And a historical comparison is not possible since we never had education solely in the private sector (i.e., we can't compare the per-person spending -> outcome trend after a mixed public/private program become the norm).

UncleBob

07-31-2009, 01:09 PM

Perhaps there's a study somewhere that shows private vs. public/spending vs. results in the US (and maybe comparing it with other countries as well)?

The point being, we spend far more for far less on Education in America (private or public) - and the only solutions anyone cares to give to this situation is "SPEND MORE MONEY!".

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 01:10 PM

Don't get me started on woefully inept and inaccurate political suggestions to improve education in the US.

;)

perdition(troy

07-31-2009, 01:17 PM

Hiring more teachers and less temps would help dramatically :roll:

elprincipe

08-01-2009, 12:26 AM

I've opted out of this thread for now because, as has been pointed out, there really is no plan on the table that I know of to debate about.

Well, yes and no. There definitely are plans; three committees in the House have their own bills and two in the Senate. All three House committees have actually passed bills out of committee (Energy & Commerce passed theirs out just today after coming to an agreement with Blue Dog members), and the Senate HELP Committee also passed theirs out. The only committee that hasn't marked up a bill and voted is Senate Finance, and that also happens to be the only attempt at a bipartisan bill (Baucus/Grassley) of the five.

Of course, all of these have to be smooshed together to form a final bill, or at least one will have to be chosen over the others. So it's very confusing because not only are there so many proposals (not even counting the Republican proposal, which obviously is not going to go anywhere in this Congress), but they are sure to change dramatically as negotiations and amendments are made.

In any case, you might as well start debating some of the provisions that have come out of committee since once they get the bill put together the practice has been for Pelosi to allow as little debate as possible before ramming through a bill nobody has been able to read or understand, with the result of massive corruption and stupidity being enabled.

thrustbucket

08-01-2009, 01:48 AM

In any case, you might as well start debating some of the provisions that have come out of committee since once they get the bill put together the practice has been for Pelosi to allow as little debate as possible before ramming through a bill nobody has been able to read or understand, with the result of massive corruption and stupidity being enabled.

Well after the stimulus debacle I'm fully expecting a repeat.

It's amazing there are people that really believe ramming it through asap is a good idea because to them action is better than no action, regardless of the action.

UncleBob

08-01-2009, 02:10 AM

It's amazing there are people that really believe ramming it through asap is a good idea because to them action is better than no action, regardless of the action.

You're on a sinking ship with two other people.
One wants to wait and see if the ship will stop sinking on it's own or if help will come, in spite of the fact nothing appears to be changing.
The other has the idea of drilling holes in the bottom of the ship to let the water out.

I guess we should all listen to the second guy because - at least - he's wanting to do *something*?

Drill, baby, drill.

docvinh

08-01-2009, 03:34 PM

Drill, baby, drill.

Well we've been waiting a while for help it's pretty clear none is coming.

elprincipe

08-02-2009, 01:42 PM

Well after the stimulus debacle I'm fully expecting a repeat.

It's amazing there are people that really believe ramming it through asap is a good idea because to them action is better than no action, regardless of the action.

Obviously the reason I wrote that is I'm worried about a repeat too. And this is even more complicated than the stimulus bill, with provisions that will affect every American to a far greater degree. It's scary to think that the House could pass such a significant bill with minimal debate on the floor, after back-room negotiations among only certain Democrats to craft the bill in the first place. I would daresay it goes against the spirit of our democracy.

The only silver lining is the Senate, for all its flaws, will always inevitably put the brakes on crazy House actions, just as it has with the insane cap-and-trade bill. That's what the Senate was designed for by our wise founders, and for all its flaws, at least usually it is more deliberate and thoughtful than the often dim-witted House -- which is why I have much more respect for the Senate.

Msut77

08-02-2009, 10:06 PM

Well we've been waiting a while for help it's pretty clear none is coming.

Universal Healthcare has been seriously considered in this country since 1948 and was within a hair of being enacted in the 90's. Furthermore it was a big campaign issue nearly two years running just recently.

Things are pretty dire right now and nothing has been done to improve our situation since reform was last killed. Bob and crew are just spewing dishonest talking points and pretending as if this is some new idea.

Dishonesty is all they have although it does help that some have less knowledge of how healthcare works in other countries than your average North Korean.

Next thing you know we are going to hear how there are plans to euthanize the elderly.

KingBroly

08-03-2009, 12:08 AM

Obviously the reason I wrote that is I'm worried about a repeat too. And this is even more complicated than the stimulus bill, with provisions that will affect every American to a far greater degree. It's scary to think that the House could pass such a significant bill with minimal debate on the floor, after back-room negotiations among only certain Democrats to craft the bill in the first place. I would daresay it goes against the spirit of our democracy.

The only silver lining is the Senate, for all its flaws, will always inevitably put the brakes on crazy House actions, just as it has with the insane cap-and-trade bill. That's what the Senate was designed for by our wise founders, and for all its flaws, at least usually it is more deliberate and thoughtful than the often dim-witted House -- which is why I have much more respect for the Senate.

60-40, maybe 61-39.

detectiveconan16

08-03-2009, 09:17 AM

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html

Profits before patients! Since we're the land of profit, I doubt we'll see any public health plan in the future. The bill will be so full of pork, a double bypass to keep it alive will no doubt be rescinded.

perdition(troy

08-03-2009, 10:07 AM

Companies that make profits are EVIL

mykevermin

08-03-2009, 10:17 AM

Companies that make profits by denying people the services they promise (because said services might harm the quarterly financial statements), leading to the poor health and death of those people are EVIL

You'll pardon me if I turn your strawman into a true statement.

JolietJake

08-03-2009, 11:03 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090803/pl_politico/25709

It’s not like the industry has been inert. But the insurers have played the inside game, spending about $40 million on an army of lobbyists and lavishing campaign contributions on Democrats and Republicans to kill the public option. In all, the health industry spent $133 million in the second quarter alone, more than a million bucks a day.

I think that is what pisses me off the most. That as usual, this all comes down to who has the bigger pockets.:roll:

I really don't know what is worse, that the insurance companies are paying them off or that they're taking the money.:bomb:

UncleBob

08-03-2009, 11:12 AM

And these people who are taking the money are the one's that everyone expects to save them when the boat's sinking.

Msut77

08-03-2009, 11:28 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090803/pl_politico/25709

I think that is what pisses me off the most. That as usual, this all comes down to who has the bigger pockets.:roll:

I really don't know what is worse, that the insurance companies are paying them off or that they're taking the money.:bomb:

Trying to delay reform is just a tactic to try and kill it. Special interests are hoping the wait will allow them to dump gobs of money to have enough of congress in their pocket and peel off enough elderly voters (keep gubberment away from my medicare!) who are already covered by lying to them.

fatherofcaitlyn

08-03-2009, 01:40 PM

Trying to ... peel off enough elderly voters (keep gubberment away from my medicare!) who are already covered by lying to them.

I'd say you are lying, but I'm sure some of the elderly think universal government coverage will somehow reduce their government coverage.

elprincipe

08-03-2009, 11:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ&feature=player_embedded

Msut77

08-03-2009, 11:40 PM

First off its Stossel, 'Nuff said.

First 20 seconds is nothing but prattle saying government stops innovation, ignoring the fact that the VA is a leader in that field.

Quick cut to Sally "Crack" Pipes head of a conservative think tank and then a cut to Gratzler.

I keep on seeing references to him as a Physician but he appears to be a practicing Psychiatrist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs&feature=channel_page

Cannot say I am very impressed.

tivo

08-04-2009, 04:11 AM

^ the VA is "a" leader in innovation? really?

tivo

08-04-2009, 04:35 AM

I think you all are missing the most important point at this time: Its not whether the government should take over healthcare, its whether the government could even do it. The 2nd has to be true before the 1st should be considered, And the 2nd is definitely not true-- The government is messing up the smallest little programs including the recent cash for clunkers program (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bede213a-8065-11de-bf04-00144feabdc0.html) with gross underestimations.

KingBroly

08-04-2009, 05:45 AM

I've known for a long time the Government can't do it, but it's not going to stop them from messing up the entire system more than it already is.

Msut77

08-04-2009, 09:16 AM

I've known for a long time the Government can't do it, but it's not going to stop them from messing up the entire system more than it already is.

You don't actually "know" that.

It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.

UncleBob

08-04-2009, 10:17 AM

I don't *KNOW* that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can make a pretty good guess based on the historical trend.

fullmetalfan720

08-04-2009, 10:29 AM

You don't actually "know" that.

It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.
You don't actually "know" this government plan won't fuck everything up.
It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.

fatherofcaitlyn

08-04-2009, 10:37 AM

You don't actually "know" that.

It is something you fervently believe because you were told to.

If I could summon forth some anxiety...

If the government does a worse job than the free market is doing right now for our collective health care(37th place), will the government relinquish control of it?

UncleBob

08-04-2009, 10:43 AM

If I could summon forth some anxiety...

If the government does a worse job than the free market is doing right now for our collective health care(37th place), will the government relinquish control of it?

hahaha... no. The government doesn't give up power once they've got it.

thrustbucket

08-04-2009, 11:36 AM

hahaha... no. The government doesn't give up power once they've got it.

And that's really the main reason there has been no reform after decades of realizing it needs it.

When it comes to government, there is no "try before you buy". Once you've given them an inch, they will take an ocean, and never give it back.

So we have one chance to "get it right", if that's possible.

Msut77

08-04-2009, 02:03 PM

If I could summon forth some anxiety...

I don't have any. I was never a believer in American exceptionalism but neither do I believe we are such a collection of dolts that we cannot (with some measure of success) do what basically every other wealthy country has done.

You don't see all that many people attempting to make an actual argument against reform.

Probably because there isn't one. Anyone else hear about the paid stooges going around to townhall meetings with the express purpose of NOT having an intelligent debate?

If the government does a worse job than the free market is doing right now for our collective health care(37th place), will the government relinquish control of it?

Define "worse" (many are positively schizo on this point), is it if we start covering everyone and then slip to 38th place?

Ruined

08-04-2009, 10:03 PM

fatherofcaitlyn

08-04-2009, 10:30 PM

still spreading the 37th place socialist progaganda study I see :) You know, the statistic from the study which counts giving someone dying from a gunshot wound a bandaid as "received healthcare."

When dealing with your health. Quality is more important Quantity. Other places may have more quantity, but USA has the exclusive on quality. There is no reason to not have healthcare in the USA now - the elderly/disabled/low income get Medicare/Medicaid already and workers get private insurance, or the opportunity to buy it if working parttime or at a discounted rate in school.

Where does the US rank in terms of bankruptcy due to medical bills?

Is quality more important than quantity there, too?

Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?

Are you arguing private insurance is affordable in an environment with 20% unemployment?

Are you arguing the shitty insurance for parttime workers or students is worth a damn?