Jump to content

Universal Health Care...


Recommended Posts

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE FREE, THAT MEANS I DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING! FREE!
Doesn't Braveheart's cut and paste actually make the argument that the best healthcare system is one where the government runs the show BUT private health care is allowed to fill in the parts that get screwed up by gov't run healthcare (wait times and such) at a reasonable cost?just saying...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think it's the #1 problem, but it's a huge, huge problem.The question is, how do we go forward and build a better system?As is standard, you take the high-flying ideological position, whereby

Doesn't Braveheart's cut and paste actually make the argument that the best healthcare system is one where the government runs the show BUT private health care is allowed to fill in the parts that get screwed up by gov't run healthcare (wait times and such) at a reasonable cost?just saying...
so you get to pay for it twice? that doesn't sound like a good idea to me really.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so you get to pay for it twice? that doesn't sound like a good idea to me really.
I feel like there are plenty of people already paying for it twice here. Two more months and I can be on my firm's plan.....
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't Braveheart's cut and paste actually make the argument that the best healthcare system is one where the government runs the show BUT private health care is allowed to fill in the parts that get screwed up by gov't run healthcare (wait times and such) at a reasonable cost?just saying...
so you get to pay for it twice? that doesn't sound like a good idea to me really.
So Cane, did you seriously not even think about Sal's point before posting? I'm sincerely not trying to be condescending, but it's pretty obvious that that IS the major drawback, and I've always just assumed that liberals must not even consider costs involved, just ideals. You are reinforcing that belief.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So Cane, did you seriously not even think about Sal's point before posting? I'm sincerely not trying to be condescending, but it's pretty obvious that that IS the major drawback, and I've always just assumed that liberals must not even consider costs involved, just ideals. You are reinforcing that belief.
And you are just reinforcing my belief that conservatives cannot understand complexity. It all depends on the cost. Gov't run + private insurers filling gaps does not necessarily cost more than our current system even if you believe you are paying for something twice. Right now, my taxes subsidize gov't health programs and I have to have deductions out of my own paycheck for my own health insurance. I believe we are already being double-charged so to speak.And the Canadian way covers everyone not just most people. Which is worth some cost in my book.Plus, apparently about 50% of all Chapter 7 bankruptcies (individuals) stem from medical bills. The only people who get rich in a bankruptcy are lawyers. We are double paying now.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously can you guys say you're not paying for it now? Com'on! You're paying for it every time a hospital treats a patient in the emergency room for free because they can't pay the bill. You're paying for it every time someone can't pay because their insurance won't cover a pre-existing condition. Do you really think that the only time people that don't have insurance are going to get sick is when they're covered under the government plan? Get real people. We are paying for it. Probably we're paying for more for it actually in lost productivity due to people working sick instead of going to the doctor and passing it on to everyone around them. We're paying for it in the fact that by the time people without insurance end up in the emergency room, they're already going to cost us more for something that might have been solved for less at a doctor's office earlier. It's like a hidden tax on us all because the hospital and doctors have to make up that money somewhere. So guess where they make it up - on the people who are insured and do pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And you are just reinforcing my belief that conservatives cannot understand complexity. It all depends on the cost. Gov't run + private insurers filling gaps does not necessarily cost more than our current system even if you believe you are paying for something twice. Right now, my taxes subsidize gov't health programs and I have to have deductions out of my own paycheck for my own health insurance. I believe we are already being double-charged so to speak.And the Canadian way covers everyone not just most people. Which is worth some cost in my book.
Or we have a natural distrust for any politician to understand even simple things, let alone complex ones.
Plus, apparently about 50% of all Chapter 7 bankruptcies (individuals) stem from medical bills. The only people who get rich in a bankruptcy are lawyers. We are double paying now.
Now I see why you swing the way you do.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A government plan would be cheaper than a private plan, both in price and benefits.There are gap plans now, that cover out of pocket costs beyond the deductible.I doubt they'll go away. It's not double paying either. It's people who can afford it, decreasing their exposure by paying more now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The government can't offer economic incentives without taking something first. And then they force that decision on everyone. A business takes their "incentives" from profit or potential profit, and have to offer something better than you can get anywhere else. So yeah, I encourage businesses to offer me incentives, because if they come up with a really bad one, I am free to ignore it. I don't have that choice when the federal government does it.
Can you give me an example or explain this in different words? I'm not following. Mainly, I'm not following your use of "force." If the so-called "public option" is offered but not required, where are you seeing force come in? What do you mean by "taking something first"? And when the government offers you an incentive, how are you not free to ignore it? I think an example would help me see what you're getting at.
Link to post
Share on other sites
SB, Insurance rules and regulations are handled by each state on an individual basis. Some states, such as Colorado and Arizona, have a majority of the same basic rules, but different state mandates.If your employer offers Anthem insurance, you can not switch to any other carrier you want to, unless you move out of the group insurance market and into the private (individual) market. COBRA benefits are only offered as long as the group plan is in existence. If your old employer shutters it's doors while you're on COBRA, your insurance goes away. But, you could move over to the individual market on your own and move away from the group plan.It should be noted that the rules that govern large group health insurance (over 50 employees) are different than small group insurance (2-49 employees), which are different than business groups of one or individual insurance.Group insurance plans are typically 'guarantee issue' which means everyone is accepted regardless of health. This drives up the rates. Group insurance also requires maternity coverage including dependent daughters here in Colorado There are also several state mandated benefits that are required to be covered, such as drug and alcohol abuse, extensive coverage for mental and nervous disorders, and Autism testing for children. When you move to the private market, most plans are medically underwritten, which means you have to show proof of good health prior to acceptance. The insurance company can decline coverage based on health conditions, medications, etc. To answer your question of pre-existing conditions, it depends on which market you're in. If you move to a new plan and you have a gap in coverage of less than 63 days, than your pre-ex conditions will be covered from day one. This is for group insurance. If you've had a gap in coverage of more than 63 days, your pre-ex will likely have limitations on coverage for the first 6-12 months, depending on the gap. With individual insurance, if you develop a covered condition while on the plan then the plan will cover you for the time you're enrolled. Insurance companies can't terminate coverage just because you develop health conditions or have claims. They will, however, raise your rates to levels which require you to move elsewhere. Typically, if you have a pre-ex and are seeking new coverage in the private sector, depending on the condition it will get a rider and not be covered.Another option in your example SB would be to seek coverage from your state. Each state has a high risk insurance program for people who can't get coverage elsewhere. Ours is called Cover Colorado. This program is a guaranteed issue product, so ANYONE in Colorado seeking insurance can get covered here, regardless of health. I'm not sure what your state's high risk insurance pool is called but I'm sure it's there.Addressing your question regarding competition, you can relate your medical insurance to your car insurance. If you've had accidents then you're going to pay more for being a high risk driver, and some companies won't cover you. It's the same with insurance. Unhealthy people are going to pay more for coverage. It's just how it is. There's actuarial data that shows higher utilization, etc, so of course they're going to pay more for coverage. You have to understand that when you seek insurance, the carrier is deciding whether or not to take you on as a risk. They're not going to just open the front doors to all comers.
I understand what you're saying (although, FWIW, Virginia is one of the states that does not offer a high-risk pool. If you can't afford insurance here, you're SOL). But the business practice of punishing the sick for being sick is what health care reform is intended to address. It may make bottom-line sense, but many Americans have a sense that it's morally unfair, and they are willing to say, in this instance, that maybe the bottom line is not the only thing that matters. Maybe doing right by each other when we're sick matters, too. Left on their own, businesses will not choose to be moral -- or at least, insurance companies won't, because they've proven that time and again. [Headline on CNN.com: "Insurance exec says company "purged" sick customers"]My point is that a lot of the criticism aimed at federal health care is that "our choices will be constrained." I'm saying mine are already constrained right now, through the market. It's an invalid criticism to argue that Obamacare restrains choice if you're not willing to recognize that the free market also constrains choice and also drives behavior with financial incentives.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't ever remember saying that I trusted any politicians. Republican or Democrat. They are all spinsters.
Most of them are married...
Also, you shouldn't assume that I listen to Fox, because I don't. I haven't had the fox news channel on in my house since before the election. I rarely go to their website. That doesn't mean that the information contained in the link is incorrect, because it's from Fox. You need to quit listening to NPR.
Why do you assume I listen to NPR? :club: I haven't had it on in the truck for quite a while, either.What I took issue with was the assertion that because Democrats control Congress then CBO/GAO numbers are not trustworthy. It is indeed incorrect to allege that they produce numbers in cahoots with either party.I'm asking, straight out, two questions: do you believe that these numbers are untrustworthy specifically because of partisanship on the part of the CBO? And did you believe that the CBO also massaged any figures put out during the Bush administration?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you're saying (although, FWIW, Virginia is one of the states that does not offer a high-risk pool. If you can't afford insurance here, you're SOL). But the business practice of punishing the sick for being sick is what health care reform is intended to address. It may make bottom-line sense, but many Americans have a sense that it's morally unfair, and they are willing to say, in this instance, that maybe the bottom line is not the only thing that matters. Maybe doing right by each other when we're sick matters, too. Left on their own, businesses will not choose to be moral -- or at least, insurance companies won't, because they've proven that time and again. [Headline on CNN.com: "Insurance exec says company "purged" sick customers"]My point is that a lot of the criticism aimed at federal health care is that "our choices will be constrained." I'm saying mine are already constrained right now, through the market. It's an invalid criticism to argue that Obamacare restrains choice if you're not willing to recognize that the free market also constrains choice and also drives behavior with financial incentives.
So you are saying no person who makes their profit in the insurence business is honest, and put forth a CNN headline as evidence, but you are willing to basically turn over the whole thing to a bunch of politicians. I could list hundreds of CNN headlines which would show politicians in a similarly disgusting light.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have noticed reading through this thread is that it seems that people seem to think that the system can go on like it is. And I have been (maybe incorrectly) lead to believe that our system can not continue "as is." An incredible amount of our GDP that is going to healthcare is staggering. It is also having wide range impacts on things such as small business's whom are being crushed under the weight of healthcare spending. A friend of mine is the accountant for a scrap yard in rural PA and they have 52 employees and are going to pay $600,000 for healthcare this year. That is a staggering sum and probably equates to about 10% to 20% of a persons wage in healthcare( I am talking about the amount an employer pays for a person to work there, not the amount a person takes home). Combine that with the amount of money they spend on other healthcare related items co-pays, various preventative uncovered costs and it amounts to unbelieveable% of money a persons wealth.As a country in 2006 we spent 16% of our countries GDP on healthcare and that number is expected to climb to almost 20% by 2017. I unfortunately am not a smart person and I have no idea what the right answer is with healthcare but I do know as a semi trained economist a country can not spend that amount of money on healthcare and be a viable economy (especially when you throw in the amount of GDP that goes to pay interest charges on our debt).Anyone have any ideas on how to decrease spending instead of just bashing the current ideas out there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone have any ideas on how to decrease spending instead of just bashing the current ideas out there?
malpractice reform.JCAHO is a big source of additional expenses. I've heard that their accreditation standards don't always correlate with the overall goal of making hospitals safer. It's a plausible thought... standards organizations have to keep changing the rules to stay relevant. see: the MLA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Commissionbreak the link between healthcare and employment by killing the tax incentive. people seem to think I'm the antichrist when I mention it... I guess they don't realize that it's just money being spent on their behalf out of their paycheck anyway. it would also decrease unemployment as a nice side effect.I'm about to start a job with an insurer, so I'm sure I'll have more to say on this in a few months.
Link to post
Share on other sites
malpractice reform.JCAHO is a big source of additional expenses. I've heard that their accreditation standards don't always correlate with the overall goal of making hospitals safer. It's a plausible thought... standards organizations have to keep changing the rules to stay relevant. see: the MLA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Commissionbreak the link between healthcare and employment by killing the tax incentive. people seem to think I'm the antichrist when I mention it... I guess they don't realize that it's just money being spent on their behalf out of their paycheck anyway. it would also decrease unemployment as a nice side effect.I'm about to start a job with an insurer, so I'm sure I'll have more to say on this in a few months.
GL and I agree with you on both those points. I worked for a major pharma company at one point and I think the cost of drugs would go down some what if there was an overhaul of FDA regulations. Many of the rules are reactions to threats that no longer exist.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Joint Commission is therefore virtually a monopoly, enjoying unique statutory protection in the USA and collecting $113 million in annual revenue, mainly from the fees it charges US hospitals for evaluating their compliance with federal regulations. From the Wiki article, I mean thats not really that much money (too much granted) but that isn't going to solve the problem when we are talking trillions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give me an example or explain this in different words? I'm not following. Mainly, I'm not following your use of "force." If the so-called "public option" is offered but not required, where are you seeing force come in? What do you mean by "taking something first"? And when the government offers you an incentive, how are you not free to ignore it? I think an example would help me see what you're getting at.
The so-called government option will not be optional for us to pay for. I know they are starting to pretend that it is optional because honesty is ridiculously unpopular, but no, we WILL have to pay for at least part of it whether we use it or not, and we WILL have OUR rules changed so that we cannot compete with the subsidized government plan. If we try to NOT pay for it, which would mean refusing to pay for that portion of our taxes, yes, there would definitely be consequences. So our choice is to pay for our private plan plus part of the public one, or pay for part of the public one plus the rest of the public one. All this after our private plan has been eviscerated so that is it not "unfair".This is not competition, it's force.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Joint Commission is therefore virtually a monopoly, enjoying unique statutory protection in the USA and collecting $113 million in annual revenue, mainly from the fees it charges US hospitals for evaluating their compliance with federal regulations. From the Wiki article, I mean thats not really that much money (too much granted) but that isn't going to solve the problem when we are talking trillions.
it's not their annual revenue, it's the cost to all hospitals to meet their standards which are apparently frivolous. I agree with you though, it's just a drop in the bucket.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The so-called government option will not be optional for us to pay for. I know they are starting to pretend that it is optional because honesty is ridiculously unpopular, but no, we WILL have to pay for at least part of it whether we use it or not, and we WILL have OUR rules changed so that we cannot compete with the subsidized government plan. If we try to NOT pay for it, which would mean refusing to pay for that portion of our taxes, yes, there would definitely be consequences. So our choice is to pay for our private plan plus part of the public one, or pay for part of the public one plus the rest of the public one. All this after our private plan has been eviscerated so that is it not "unfair".This is not competition, it's force.
And this is different from the current system how? You're already paying for Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured people using ERs as basic health care, the amount of costs from lawsuits that your private plan passes on to you in the form of higher premiums, the cost of drug research passed on to you in the form of drug prices.....
Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is different from the current system how? You're already paying for Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured people using ERs as basic health care, the amount of costs from lawsuits that your private plan passes on to you in the form of higher premiums, the cost of drug research passed on to you in the form of drug prices.....
Exactly. I'm not sure why Obama thinks that doubling the current terrible system is a fix, but that seems to be his Big Idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://reason.com/news/show/134553.htmlPresident Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there's no free lunch.In England, health care is "free"—as long as you don't mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over. Obama insists he is not "trying to bring about government-run healthcare.""But government management does the same thing," says Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute. "To reduce costs they'll have to ration—deny—care.""People line up for care, some of them die. That's what happens," says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure. He liked Canada's government health care until he started treating patients."The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months." Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can't get heart-attack victims into the ICU.In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours."We can't send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are." More than a million and a half Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, 20/20 videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective." "The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.It's true that America's partly profit-driven, partly bureaucratic system is expensive, and sometimes wasteful, but the pursuit of profit reduces waste and costs and gives the world the improvements in medicine that ease pain and save lives. "[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," Dr. Gratzer says. "Literally we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement." Canada and England don't pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we'd get 2009-level care—forever. Government monopolies don't innovate. Profit seekers do.We saw this in Canada, where we did find one area of medicine that offers easy access to cutting-edge technology—CT scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, etc. It was open 24/7. Patients didn't have to wait. But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Animal care is the one area of medicine that hasn't been taken over by the government. Dogs can get a CT scan in one day. For people, the waiting list is a month.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so Hblask what would you like president Obama or our government to do?
EG is close, but there are a lot of things the government can do about healthcare. They mostly involve removing the bureaucratic obstacles to competition at both the state and federal level. I'm sure I've discussed them in this thread already, but the short list is get rid of the AMA's monopoly on service, reform or privatize the FDA, and reform state insurance laws.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be interesting to see how it works out.Seattle Doctors Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary careSAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A Seattle clinic for people fed up with insurance, started by doctors fed up with insurance, has gotten $4 million in private venture capital money to expand, it announced on Monday.Qliance says it has a profit-making solution to the problems of long waits, rushed doctors and cursory care that bother patients, at the same time that it eliminates the paperwork and pressure that plague primary care doctors."If you spent five minutes in my office you would notice there is nobody waiting. We don't have to stack them up like jets over Newark," said Garrison Bliss, a doctor and co-founder of the primary care clinic.The new venture funding comes from Second Avenue Partners with participation by New Atlantic Ventures and Clear Fir Partners, bringing total capital raised to about $7.5 million.Co-founder Norm Wu said per-patient revenue is triple that of insurance-based clinics. He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn to profit as business grows.More than 50 noninsurance clinics operate in 18 U.S. states, based on different business models, Wu noted.The backers believe Qliance can grow very profitable, and the clinic uses stock options to attract new doctors. The next step is to open a suburban office.Qliance says it is a private alternative to the failures of insurance, which have made health care President Obama's top legislative priority in Congress, with a price tag of $1 trillion or more.Qliance customers pay $99 to join, then a flat monthly rate of $39 to $119, depending on age and level of service. Patients can quit without notice and no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions.Patients must go to outside brokers and qualify medically to buy catastrophic care. One broker said a 30-year-old could expect to pay $133 per month for such care, and a 60-year-old nearly $400, plus substantial deductibles.Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments."Why would a doctor not want to see sick people? That doesn't make sense, unless you're an insurance company," Bliss said.He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."Bliss said dumping rigid, convoluted insurance requirements and paperwork saves large amounts of money.UnitedHealth, which processes 60 billion health care transactions a year, argued in June that better use of technology would save $332 billion annually, with some going to physicians.Other big health insurers include WellPoint, Humana, Cigna and Aetna.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...