Health care
- Thread starter Koggit
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='camoor']One word retort - Enron[/QUOTE]
Another one word retort: Blackwater.
Another one word retort: Blackwater.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']Ireland has great health care and they pay less tax (as a percent of GDP) than we do without health care... and their GDP per capita is lower.
The naysayers have no grounds.
I still want dopa to re: post 18.[/QUOTE]
What's the population of Ireland? How is their illegal immigration problem? How many below the poverty line?
That's what I thought.
The naysayers have no grounds.
I still want dopa to re: post 18.[/QUOTE]
What's the population of Ireland? How is their illegal immigration problem? How many below the poverty line?
That's what I thought.
Three posts now and three entirely separate arguments...
It's impossible to refute such an amorphous argument. I won't waste my time.
Edit: Looking back, I don't see how this...
[quote name='thrustbucket']All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.[/QUOTE]
...isn't game, set, match. Ireland has lower GDP per capita, lower taxation and better health care.
It's impossible to refute such an amorphous argument. I won't waste my time.
Edit: Looking back, I don't see how this...
[quote name='thrustbucket']All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.[/QUOTE]
...isn't game, set, match. Ireland has lower GDP per capita, lower taxation and better health care.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
You seriously want to discuss the logistics in cost for universal health care for 4 million versus 300 million?
I mean really? You really honestly think that's comparable when you factor in all other costs of running a country our size?
GDP be damned, that's way way way way way oversimplification of the solution.
Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.
I mean really? You really honestly think that's comparable when you factor in all other costs of running a country our size?
GDP be damned, that's way way way way way oversimplification of the solution.
Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.
speedracer
Banned
I've always wondered why the world famous American ingenuity and creativity are recast as dull and stagnant when people discuss the administration of a social health care program. And why do people accept defense spending (with perhaps a whimper) but turn into a ferocious lion when social medicine is brought up?
It certainly wouldn't be a panacea, but if guns are ok, why isn't butter?
It certainly wouldn't be a panacea, but if guns are ok, why isn't butter?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.[/QUOTE]
The truly deplorable thing about this? You're right.
The truly TRULY deplorable thing about this? You're right, but when big capitalist businesses
up and need another half-trillion dollar boost, the government will be there with bells on.
The truly deplorable thing about this? You're right.
The truly TRULY deplorable thing about this? You're right, but when big capitalist businesses
up and need another half-trillion dollar boost, the government will be there with bells on.[quote name='thrustbucket']You seriously want to discuss the logistics in cost for universal health care for 4 million versus 300 million?
I mean really? You really honestly think that's comparable when you factor in all other costs of running a country our size?
GDP be damned, that's way way way way way oversimplification of the solution.
Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.[/QUOTE]
Oh come now we're too big of a country for it to work?
The larger the scale, the more efficient it should be.
I mean really? You really honestly think that's comparable when you factor in all other costs of running a country our size?
GDP be damned, that's way way way way way oversimplification of the solution.
Edit: Not to mention when you factor in the debt our country has just incurred in one month, and more to come, your fantasies of free health care for all are going to remain with Santa.[/QUOTE]
Oh come now we're too big of a country for it to work?
The larger the scale, the more efficient it should be.
[quote name='Koggit']*sigh*
Not to call you ignorant, but that is a very ignorant response. I could tell you why you're wrong, but I'm a firm believer of education through exploration.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: You're 14 years old. Insured under your parents' group health plan, Cigna, in Louisiana. You're diagnosed with Arnold-Chari Malformation. Your medical bills, before insurance, are now averaging $400,000 a year. Fast forward nine crappy years. You're now 23 and a disabled dependent of your parents. Your father is laid off and loses his employer-provided health insurance. Cigna does not offer personal plans in Louisiana (only group health), so you cannot continue to be insured by them. Due to your now preexisting condition of Chiari, no insurer will cover you. They know that your medical bills are nearly half a million a year, so no profit-driven company would ever consider agreeing to pay for that. You call every provider in the state and they all turn you down -- it's not just expensive, it is completely unattainable, you don't get a quote at all. Now, without the necessary treatment you are completely bedridden, and constantly feel like complete shit. You can barely speak, now, and have pretty much no short-term memory. These problems could be treated, but you cannot afford that treatment. Your fellow Americans would rather see you suffer than approve of any legislation that would help you. So, tell me, what the hell do you do? Honestly, take a moment, put yourself in this situation, what do you do? Or are you okay with the fact that you are suffering due to absolutely no fault of your own? Afterall, hundreds of thousands of Americans are in a similar situation. But the "average American" is doing just fine, so I guess life's not so bad, right? Is that okay, to have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans suffering in such a situation? So long as the "average American" is okay?
The above describes my sister's current situation to a T, and similar situations are affecting millions of your fellow Americans. I, as her brother, am one of those affected Americans. But please, go on, tell me all about what the "average American" spends on health care and use that to justify privatized health insurance. Live in your bubble. I'm sure it's great there, completely oblivious to America's serious issues...[/QUOTE]
First of all, my best wishes to your sister.
Secondly, I would argue that medical savings accounts would help in your family's case. A point was made that most people don't have health insurance so how would this help them? The whole point of medical savings accounts is that rather the government taking your money and putting into the sinkhole of social security, it could be put to more pragmatic use as health dollars that can be spent in anyway possible either to purchase health care or supplement existing health care insurance.
So instead of going into SS, the annual 7.65% deduction is put into your individual medical savings account that's invested into treasuries. In addition, your employer also puts in 7.65% of his paycheck a year into the same fund (as they would have done with SS). So, basically your father gets over 15% of his paycheck deducted into an MSA off the bat. On top of that, your father has the option to deduct an additional amount tax free from his paycheck and deposit it into his MSA for anticipated expenses. Unlike the flex spending we have now, there is no expiration any contribution to the MSA. Without knowing details, I can't crunch the exact numbers but imagine 15% of his salary for every year he's worked in plus his additional yearly contributions which all grow at the Treasury rate being available for expenses beyond those covered by his employer insurance. So if his salary were $50,000, after 20 years, that's over $300,000 in his MSA, not including extra contributions. In the unfortunate case when he gets laid off, he would have the option to purchase COBRA through his MSA funds until he is able to secure employment that provides health coverage. In the case he can't, he qualifies for Medicaid, but maintains his MSA. I just think it's in the best interests of everyone to give as much financial independence to the individual to care for him/herself and his dependents rather than relying on a pencil pusher with no emotional stake in it to make the decisions.
What makes you think that the government would do any better? The government would only care about giving the minimum level of service, not excellence in care. The government would put your sister in a nursing home, not provide cutting edge rehab treatment. After all, that's what they do with Medicare stroke patients. Also look at the VA system, not exactly the bastion of high quality health care.
Not to call you ignorant, but that is a very ignorant response. I could tell you why you're wrong, but I'm a firm believer of education through exploration.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: You're 14 years old. Insured under your parents' group health plan, Cigna, in Louisiana. You're diagnosed with Arnold-Chari Malformation. Your medical bills, before insurance, are now averaging $400,000 a year. Fast forward nine crappy years. You're now 23 and a disabled dependent of your parents. Your father is laid off and loses his employer-provided health insurance. Cigna does not offer personal plans in Louisiana (only group health), so you cannot continue to be insured by them. Due to your now preexisting condition of Chiari, no insurer will cover you. They know that your medical bills are nearly half a million a year, so no profit-driven company would ever consider agreeing to pay for that. You call every provider in the state and they all turn you down -- it's not just expensive, it is completely unattainable, you don't get a quote at all. Now, without the necessary treatment you are completely bedridden, and constantly feel like complete shit. You can barely speak, now, and have pretty much no short-term memory. These problems could be treated, but you cannot afford that treatment. Your fellow Americans would rather see you suffer than approve of any legislation that would help you. So, tell me, what the hell do you do? Honestly, take a moment, put yourself in this situation, what do you do? Or are you okay with the fact that you are suffering due to absolutely no fault of your own? Afterall, hundreds of thousands of Americans are in a similar situation. But the "average American" is doing just fine, so I guess life's not so bad, right? Is that okay, to have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans suffering in such a situation? So long as the "average American" is okay?
The above describes my sister's current situation to a T, and similar situations are affecting millions of your fellow Americans. I, as her brother, am one of those affected Americans. But please, go on, tell me all about what the "average American" spends on health care and use that to justify privatized health insurance. Live in your bubble. I'm sure it's great there, completely oblivious to America's serious issues...[/QUOTE]
First of all, my best wishes to your sister.
Secondly, I would argue that medical savings accounts would help in your family's case. A point was made that most people don't have health insurance so how would this help them? The whole point of medical savings accounts is that rather the government taking your money and putting into the sinkhole of social security, it could be put to more pragmatic use as health dollars that can be spent in anyway possible either to purchase health care or supplement existing health care insurance.
So instead of going into SS, the annual 7.65% deduction is put into your individual medical savings account that's invested into treasuries. In addition, your employer also puts in 7.65% of his paycheck a year into the same fund (as they would have done with SS). So, basically your father gets over 15% of his paycheck deducted into an MSA off the bat. On top of that, your father has the option to deduct an additional amount tax free from his paycheck and deposit it into his MSA for anticipated expenses. Unlike the flex spending we have now, there is no expiration any contribution to the MSA. Without knowing details, I can't crunch the exact numbers but imagine 15% of his salary for every year he's worked in plus his additional yearly contributions which all grow at the Treasury rate being available for expenses beyond those covered by his employer insurance. So if his salary were $50,000, after 20 years, that's over $300,000 in his MSA, not including extra contributions. In the unfortunate case when he gets laid off, he would have the option to purchase COBRA through his MSA funds until he is able to secure employment that provides health coverage. In the case he can't, he qualifies for Medicaid, but maintains his MSA. I just think it's in the best interests of everyone to give as much financial independence to the individual to care for him/herself and his dependents rather than relying on a pencil pusher with no emotional stake in it to make the decisions.
What makes you think that the government would do any better? The government would only care about giving the minimum level of service, not excellence in care. The government would put your sister in a nursing home, not provide cutting edge rehab treatment. After all, that's what they do with Medicare stroke patients. Also look at the VA system, not exactly the bastion of high quality health care.
[quote name='speedracer']I'm curious what, if any, experience you have with tort litigation. Also, if you could detail what exactly you have a problem with now and what you'd want it changed to, I'd certainly be willing to listen.[/QUOTE]
Statistically, two-thirds of all doctors will get sued at least once for medical malpractice (even more in high risk specialities like OB/GYN and anesthesia). Only one third of all cases that go to trial go in favor of the plaintiff meaning there are lots of frivolous lawsuits. The number one reason why patients sue their doctor is that "they didn't like him/her." Because of these lawsuits, costs of malpractice insurance goes up (in cases of OB/GYN is up to a third of their salary) which drives up cost of care. The simple way to curb this is just have a "loser pays" system. No more frivolous lawsuits = cheaper malpractice rates = lower cost of care.
Statistically, two-thirds of all doctors will get sued at least once for medical malpractice (even more in high risk specialities like OB/GYN and anesthesia). Only one third of all cases that go to trial go in favor of the plaintiff meaning there are lots of frivolous lawsuits. The number one reason why patients sue their doctor is that "they didn't like him/her." Because of these lawsuits, costs of malpractice insurance goes up (in cases of OB/GYN is up to a third of their salary) which drives up cost of care. The simple way to curb this is just have a "loser pays" system. No more frivolous lawsuits = cheaper malpractice rates = lower cost of care.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Hmm. Something is fishy with your map, I'm pretty sure my wife's country (Estonia) has Universal health care. They must be using some odd criteria.
All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']The truly deplorable thing about this? You're right.
The truly TRULY deplorable thing about this? You're right, but when big capitalist businesses up and need another half-trillion dollar boost, the government will be there with bells on.[/QUOTE]
Well we can agree on this then.
I'm all for a universal health care system, if it works, doesn't have long wait times like england and canada - and most importantly doesn't raise taxes into the stratosphere. But because of recent events, that's impossible.
And just to reiterate, those bailouts disgust me as much as anyone. If the choice would have been to let those banks fail and spend all that money on Universal health care system, I would have been for it.
All I know is universal health care is fantastic and works beautifully in countries that have small enough populations and large enough GDP to do it right.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']The truly deplorable thing about this? You're right.
The truly TRULY deplorable thing about this? You're right, but when big capitalist businesses
up and need another half-trillion dollar boost, the government will be there with bells on.[/QUOTE]Well we can agree on this then.
I'm all for a universal health care system, if it works, doesn't have long wait times like england and canada - and most importantly doesn't raise taxes into the stratosphere. But because of recent events, that's impossible.
And just to reiterate, those bailouts disgust me as much as anyone. If the choice would have been to let those banks fail and spend all that money on Universal health care system, I would have been for it.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dopa345']Statistically, two-thirds of all doctors will get sued at least once for medical malpractice (even more in high risk specialities like OB/GYN and anesthesia). Only one third of all cases that go to trial go in favor of the plaintiff meaning there are lots of frivolous lawsuits. The number one reason why patients sue their doctor is that "they didn't like him/her." Because of these lawsuits, costs of malpractice insurance goes up (in cases of OB/GYN is up to a third of their salary) which drives up cost of care. The simple way to curb this is just have a "loser pays" system. No more frivolous lawsuits = cheaper malpractice rates = lower cost of care.[/quote]
I'm not a big fan of loser pays - we already know hospitals shuffle around bad docs even with knowing what they do about lawsuit dangers.
Maybe give judges the ability to charge hefty (and I mean hefty!) fines against the plaintiff for frivolous lawsuits. At least then you'd have a person whose judgement we (hopefully) trust making the decision.
IANAL, obviously.
I'm not a big fan of loser pays - we already know hospitals shuffle around bad docs even with knowing what they do about lawsuit dangers.
Maybe give judges the ability to charge hefty (and I mean hefty!) fines against the plaintiff for frivolous lawsuits. At least then you'd have a person whose judgement we (hopefully) trust making the decision.
IANAL, obviously.
Frogurt.man
CAGiversary!
John McCain: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
Can someone explain to me why that makes any sense?
Why encourage an environment where to stay profitable against the competition you are forced to make cut backs on the quality and breadth of services you offer.
Anyone care to explain to me why this might be good?
Can someone explain to me why that makes any sense?
Why encourage an environment where to stay profitable against the competition you are forced to make cut backs on the quality and breadth of services you offer.
Anyone care to explain to me why this might be good?
bread's done