Universal Health Care...

[hblask 1]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "pile of garbage." Currently there is no real health care bill, only a series of ideas, partially written laws, and several road maps for moving forward.

Obama care is two bills, the one that passed the house and the one that passed the Senate. You can pick either one, they are both piles of garbage, filled with things that will raise taxes dramatically, drive costs of care up dramatically, and force everyone into a very narrow choice of plans -- all, apparently, to solve a non-existent problem: people not being able to get treatment in the US.

[akoff 0]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "pile of garbage." Currently there is no real health care bill, only a series of ideas, partially written laws, and several road maps for moving forward.

so they spent 9 months working on a health care bill, in charge of the white house, both houses of the senate with a super majority and only came up with partially written laws, some bad ideas and a couple of road maps...which is a pile of garbage. We finally found somthing we all can agree on!!!

[Balloon guy 158]

Too bad that the Hooterville Newspaper has as their news source a fake e-mail that made the rounds in Decemeber.There is no such thing as U.N. International Health Organization and all of the above was made up.

Pretty sure that we have decided that fake email support does not in fact damage your position's viability on truth.At least that's the point in the global warming thread now.

[SlapStick 0]

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/opi...n_world1/52239/As recently published by Investor Business Daily, a survey by the U.N. International Health Organization has reported: Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent. Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent. Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent. Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent. Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18. Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent. The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.

details details details

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Barak, Nancy and Harry said it is important and future generations can go pound sand...and that is the way is going to be.

Too bad that the Hooterville Newspaper has as their news source a fake e-mail that made the rounds in Decemeber.There is no such thing as U.N. International Health Organization and all of the above was made up.

Don't think your party could do much worse trying to "sell" the pile of garbage...

This was very enjoyable.On another note: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/m...w&slideshow

[Jeepster80125 0]

This was very enjoyable.On another note: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/m...w&slideshow

I'm curious why you posted the last link about insurance company abuses. Do you have any sort of position on it?

[SlapStick 0]

I'm curious why you posted the last link about insurance company abuses. Do you have any sort of position on it?

Its interesting and relevant to the arguement that the American healthcare right now is great?I'm not so knowledgable of the health care debate, my American co-worker sent me the link and gave me a speach about health

[Jeepster80125 0]

Its interesting and relevant to the arguement that the American healthcare right now is great?I'm not so knowledgable of the health care debate, my American co-worker sent me the link and gave me a speach about health

In my opinion, there are bad apples in every industry, in every corner of our economy. I guess I don't understand why you think it's relevant, it just makes the insurance companies look like the bad guys in this, which is a terrible position to take. Is that your position?I'm not coming down on you or anything, I just don't feel that that story adds anything relevant to this discussion. It's unfair to use these specific examples to make blanket statements. My opinion, of course. Although, any discussion is better than none, so meh.

[SlapStick 0]

I don't have a position. I posted it to see the reactions as I enjoy the debate. I think universal health care would be good but I don't have a clue about it, the cons or pros, if it came down to it I couldln't give a toss what happens I just enjoy the entertainment, I enjoy American culture, fox news is the only channel I watch,purely for entertainment, although I dont have a tv anymore. I guess I posted it to see your comments on it as it seems like a big deal and I'm interested to hear what people here think about it as I can't really draw an educated conclusion from it.In short, I won't be getting into a debate because I can't back up my very thin opinions so feel free to ignore my odd comment or link.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I don't have a position. I posted it to see the reactions as I enjoy the debate. I think universal health care would be good but I don't have a clue about it, the cons or pros, if it came down to it I couldln't give a toss what happens I just enjoy the entertainment, I enjoy American culture, fox news is the only channel I watch,purely for entertainment, although I dont have a tv anymore. I guess I posted it to see your comments on it as it seems like a big deal and I'm interested to hear what people here think about it as I can't really draw an educated conclusion from it.In short, I won't be getting into a debate because I can't back up my very thin opinions so feel free to ignore my odd comment or link.

I just deal with these insurance companies all the time, and although there are instances of foul play and bad circumstances, I don't think it would be valid to use that as an argument against universal healthcare. I thought you were taking a position using that as evidence, which obviously I was incorrect about. Keep posting links and stuff though. There's nothing wrong with adding to a discussion if you aren't an expert either, imo.

[SweetDee 0]

I don't have a position. I posted it to see the reactions as I enjoy the debate. I think universal health care would be good but I don't have a clue about it, the cons or pros, if it came down to it I couldln't give a toss what happens I just enjoy the entertainment, I enjoy American culture, fox news is the only channel I watch,purely for entertainment, although I dont have a tv anymore. I guess I posted it to see your comments on it as it seems like a big deal and I'm interested to hear what people here think about it as I can't really draw an educated conclusion from it.In short, I won't be getting into a debate because I can't back up my very thin opinions so feel free to ignore my odd comment or link.

Universal healthcare is good, it's why we have it. Find me one person who can't get care and I will show them how to get it.

[SweetDee 0]

And I would happily watch you lose a debate.

Part of me wants to fire back, but the better part of me knows that anyone who would automatically assume someone would lose a debate without knowing any real details about the party they believe would lose, isn't really coming from a place of objectivity as much as a place of blind conviction. Hey, look at that, I guess I didn't listen to the better part of me.

[CaneBrain 95]

Universal healthcare is good, it's why we have it. Find me one person who can't get care and I will show them how to get it.

And I will show you that person bankrupt later. The number of Americans with coverage, but awful crappy coverage that forces them into bankruptcy when something goes wrong, is the bigger problem.

[hblask 1]

And I will show you that person bankrupt later. The number of Americans with coverage, but awful crappy coverage that forces them into bankruptcy when something goes wrong, is the bigger problem.

I'd rather get care and go bankrupt (which, btw, is a horrendous exaggeration in 99.99% of the cases) than have "free" care that makes you suffer for 18 months before you can get it.An imperfect reality is better than a fictional nirvana.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'd rather get care and go bankrupt (which, btw, is a horrendous exaggeration in 99.99% of the cases) than have "free" care that makes you suffer for 18 months before you can get it.An imperfect reality is better than a fictional nirvana.

guess you wanted to show someone how to really exaggerate.I believe over half of all personal bankruptcies (Chapter 7s) in this country are related to medical expenses. That's pretty imperfect....

[SweetDee 0]

And I will show you that person bankrupt later. The number of Americans with coverage, but awful crappy coverage that forces them into bankruptcy when something goes wrong, is the bigger problem.

I never addressed cost. That's a different conversation, and one of the reasons why pretty much nothing currently proposed makes a lick of sense. Costs CAN be lowered, but that's not what the current administration really wants. It wants control and reliance, or rather control by way of reliance. I agree with what you are saying, but it doesn't address the reality of what I said. We have universal health care already in place, that's an undeniable fact. It's also undeniable that it can be expensive, so, show me the plan that deals with that with a real, market based solution and I would bet that that bill passes in a heartbeat, and everyone cheers together, except for those who had a different agenda in the first place.

[hblask 1]

guess you wanted to show someone how to really exaggerate.I believe over half of all personal bankruptcies (Chapter 7s) in this country are related to medical expenses. That's pretty imperfect....

No exaggeration, that's from the Canadian govt's own statistics, plus anecdotes from members of this site. (Calling EG, who was it with the knee issue?)Math problem: if there are a zillion medical procedures each year, and tens of thousands of bankruptcies, with half of those being due to medical procedures, what percentage of medical procedures lead to bankruptcy?1. Half2. Less than half3. A tiny percent.

[CaneBrain 95]

No exaggeration, that's from the Canadian govt's own statistics, plus anecdotes from members of this site. (Calling EG, who was it with the knee issue?)Math problem: if there are a zillion medical procedures each year, and tens of thousands of bankruptcies, with half of those being due to medical procedures, what percentage of medical procedures lead to bankruptcy?1. Half2. Less than half3. A tiny percent.

I think most of the time people who need treatment get it in a shade under a year and a half. Probably a greater percentage than the percentage in your multiple choice question.

[SweetDee 0]

guess you wanted to show someone how to really exaggerate.I believe over half of all personal bankruptcies (Chapter 7s) in this country are related to medical expenses. That's pretty imperfect....

It's no secret that if you want to have something taken care of in a timely matter you come here. As far as half the personal BK's being for medical expenses, maybe. That could very well be the reason listed- could you take a shot at quantifying how many of those people live paycheck to paycheck keeping up with the joneses? I can't, but I would postulate that since a good majority of americans do that, the problem isn't medical expenses but rather a lack of priorities in the first place. If I have 2 car payments, a house I can't afford, and 60000.00 in credit card debt because of bullshit I never should have bought, is my medical expenses REALLY the problem?

[CaneBrain 95]

It's no secret that if you want to have something taken care of in a timely matter you come here. As far as half the personal BK's being for medical expenses, maybe. That could very well be the reason listed- could you take a shot at quantifying how many of those people live paycheck to paycheck keeping up with the joneses? I can't, but I would postulate that since a good majority of americans do that, the problem isn't medical expenses but rather a lack of priorities in the first place. If I have 2 car payments, a house I can't afford, and 60000.00 in credit card debt because of bullshit I never should have bought, is my medical expenses REALLY the problem?

I think we all can agree that there are plenty of Americans that lack the ability to prioritize or control their spending (and we can all probably agree that many of these medical problems could be avoided if fatty put down the donuts and hopped on a treadmill).But when such a crazy percentage of people going bankrupt in this country is due to medical expenses, an alarm bell should be going off.fwiw, I like a plan where the government provides universal catastrophic care, and all medical procedures under, say, 10k are handled solely between doctor and patient. This forces doctors and patients to have a true free market relationship (not the bastardized one with the insurance company as a third party leech) and pay attention to costs for real. It also would ensure that no American goes without treatment or bankrupt from said treatment (a goal I believe in).As an added bonus, it would streamline the paperwork in ICUs (leading to fewer clerical errors which are responsible for a surprising amount of deaths).I realize this plan would kill the insurance companies, but that is necessary (not because they are evil which is silly but because we dont need them......if it worked out perfectly most of the people who worked for insurance companies would end up working for gov-care instead). A great article posted here a while back opened my eyes to the fact that health insurance operates differently than any other kind of insurance and that is the biggest problem. They are involved in every transaction....but my car insurance doesnt get involved when I change my oil or replace a broken window. It's just there for emergencies which is how insurance is supposed to work. (And, of course, private companies can fill whatever voids in the market arise.....like I could foresee prescription drug coverage being something that private insurance companies could need to handle under this plan.)I have been drinking scotch tonight so if any of this is hard to follow that is why, sorry.

[hblask 1]

I think we all can agree that there are plenty of Americans that lack the ability to prioritize or control their spending (and we can all probably agree that many of these medical problems could be avoided if fatty put down the donuts and hopped on a treadmill).

I'm not sure why the percentage of bankruptcies due to health care costs is relevant to a discussion of health care. The relevant statistic is percentage of health care transactions that lead to bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a rare event that affects few people, and usually because of one of two causes. (It's not like there are a lot of bankruptcies due to "buying bubble gum".) Health care is extremely common and rarely leads to bankruptcy. Even in cases where an uninsured person incurs sudden large expenses, it rarely leads to bankruptcy. What tends to happen is the patient works out a deal with the hospital for what they can afford and the hospital writes the rest off. Yes, the patient then has a huge debt forever, but I guess that decision to buy a 3000 sq. ft. McMansion instead of a 2000 sq foot mansion and health insurance looks kind of bad in retrospect. Live and learn.

But when such a crazy percentage of people going bankrupt in this country is due to medical expenses, an alarm bell should be going off.

That bell is the "statistics being used inappropriately" bell.

fwiw, I like a plan where the government provides universal catastrophic care, and all medical procedures under, say, 10k are handled solely between doctor and patient.

If we had to have socialized medicine in this country, this would be the least harmful way to do it. I think there would be an issue that expensive medical procedures -- heart surgery, organ transplants, etc -- would continue to get more and more expensive, while routine stuff would get cheap. That's better than what we have now, and who knows, probably similar to what would happen with HSAs.I can actually make a good theoretical argument for why such a plan would be morally valid under a principled view of government, but I'd rather not, because the slippery slope is too scary to start justifying big government.

[El Guapo 8]

No exaggeration, that's from the Canadian govt's own statistics, plus anecdotes from members of this site. (Calling EG, who was it with the knee issue?)Math problem: if there are a zillion medical procedures each year, and tens of thousands of bankruptcies, with half of those being due to medical procedures, what percentage of medical procedures lead to bankruptcy?1. Half2. Less than half3. A tiny percent.

It was Jeff_53683i398493488ZI think it took over 5 months to get treatment, and he considered coming to the US to get an MRI because he could do it in less than 2 weeks.Also I know Rose came to this country for numerous treatments.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Part of me wants to fire back, but the better part of me knows that anyone who would automatically assume someone would lose a debate without knowing any real details about the party they believe would lose, isn't really coming from a place of objectivity as much as a place of blind conviction. Hey, look at that, I guess I didn't listen to the better part of me.

Part of me wants to explain how delusional you must be if you think you can win an economics debate against, say, Larry Summers. This is not an insult. Unless you happen to be the chair of the economics department of Princeton or Columbia or something like that, I really don't like your odds.

[SweetDee 0]

Part of me wants to explain how delusional you must be if you think you can win an economics debate against, say, Larry Summers. This is not an insult. Unless you happen to be the chair of the economics department of Princeton or Columbia or something like that, I really don't like your odds.

I guess it would depend on which Larry Summers showed up- the one who wrote and believes that Welfare increases poverty or the one who now works with/for Obama? The one who helped roll back regulation on derivatives or the one who lamented that no one was regulating when the shit hit the fan? I agree with some of his written positions, what I know of anyways. I don't think I would "win", but that depends on how you define win. Is winning a trophy of some sort declaring a winner, or is winning presenting a differing point of view in front of millions of people, clearly and concisely, and letting them be the judge? I will say this,if Larry Summers took the stance that 100% socialized medicine is the way to go (and it's no secret this is what Obama wants) then give me a few weeks to prepare, study up on what he may say and present and find the correct angle to attack it, and I don't believe I could lose, and even if I "lost" it wouldn't be a loss. When McCain lost debates, did he lose, or were the right questions not asked? Did he lose, or did he not attack like he should because Obama was black and he didn't want to look like Massuh putting the smack down? I will say this, I would do it with this format: A hardcore liberal and a hardcore conservative present questions/topics and then we go at it. I say this because each moderator will do the best they can to frame questions in such a way that it has a good chance of making each side look good, but by contrast conservatism wins every time, so if I miss something or he outsmarts me on something (which I am sure he would at some point) it would not matter, because I will have had the chance to talk in defense of a conservative viewpoint, and make no mistake that is something I do very well. I'm not so much delusional as much as interested in a challenge, and convinced that conservative lines and "values" is the only thing that will get us out of our current mess.

[Jeepster80125 0]

[hblask 1]

So Obama released his "compromise" health care plan. Here's what CNN says:

If enacted, the president's sweeping compromise plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago.

On what planet is that a compromise?Some of the details:

• The secretary of health and human services would work with a seven-member board of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review premium hikes. This Health Insurance Rate Authority would provide an annual report to recommend to states whether certain rate increases should be approved, although the secretary could overrule state insurance regulators.

Price controls? Really? I'm pretty sure Obama is old enough to remember the results of Nixon's attempts at price controls. Is he stupid, disingenuous, or just a blind ideologue?

• New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Compared with the Senate bill, Obama's proposal lowers premiums for families making between $44,000 and $66,000, according to the White House. Compared with the House legislation, it lowers premiums for families making between $55,000 and $88,000.

I don't make $88K and still easily afford expensive health care for a family of 5. The notion that people who make over $50K should need a subsidy for *anything* is insulting and really just a travesty of big government.

• A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $27,000 for families. The tax would kick in starting in 2018 for all plans. In contrast, the Senate bill would apply the tax to plans valued at more than $23,000 for families. The House bill does not include the tax, which labor unions vehemently oppose.

Because Obama knows exactly how much health care each family needs. Curiously, he supports federal policies that guarantee that lots of people will have really expensive health care.

• Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

Seems harmless enough, but the devil is in the details. I'd need to see what this really is. Why not just allow interstate competition and eliminate must-carry laws? That would be much more efficient and has a history of working.

• Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.

So has he given up on lowering the cost of health care? Because no sane person could think this would do anything but drive up costs dramatically.