Obamacare, whatever that may be, is unpopular, not cost effective [ per the CBO], and offensive to the people it is to care for and from whom paid taxes into this.

It is time to move on and look at alternatives to Obamacare and the CURRENT healthcare system we have in place. The ultimate goal being to provide as much high quality care, for as many people as possible, that though may be expensive, is a good value for the taxpayors dollar.


If I may say so ET has weighed in here :

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/why-not-medicare-everyone-386822-2.html#post1923967

John Mackey of Whole foods has opined here.

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html)

Rand Paul M.D. [ Ron Paul's son ] weighs in here after 5 minute mark

YouTube - Doctors Ron Paul & Rand Paul On Health Care Reform (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtoIkn0k28)

here is Safeway's

How Safeway Is Cutting Health-Care Costs - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We don't have to accept the status quo and we don't have to forced into Obamacare, there are other SUCCESSFUL alternative models out there.


What are your thoughts

Obamacare, whatever that may be, is unpopular
Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Willis? A bill hasn't even been written yet, much less passed and signed. There is nothing in existence yet to be unpopular.

HUH!!
The anointed one demanded that this "non" bill be passed by congress before the recess. So what is it that Nobama was demanding be passed. Another piece of garbage to waste another trillion dollars on?
If there is not bill how can congress vote for or against it? Oh I forget the Pelosi/Reid run congress is just suppose to sign and approve no matter what in your book.
What is funny is the ear ful that these dolts are hearing from their town hall meetings. And don't go off and claim the repubs are packing the house. There are pictures of Acorn and SEIU doing just that yesterday in PA. So who is doing what to who?

HUH!!!
The anointed one demanded that this "non" bill be passed by congress before the recess. So what is it that Nobama was demanding be passed. Another piece of garbage to waste another trillion dollars on?
Read my lips. There is no final bill yet. Right now it's a proposal. President Obama had hoped the Congress would get it all together before the recess, but that didn't happen. Framing a final bill is what all the discussion is about.

What I don't understand is why not just extend the current Medicaid program to those who have no other alternative? Extend the eligibility for coverage beyond what it is now. Also provide incentives for employers to provide their employees with health insurance. Provide tax breaks to companies who provide health insurance to their employees, in proportion to the amount of insurance provided. Also require any companies bidding for government contracts to prove that they're providing health insurance to they're employees. These measures are all more effective than trying to institute a universal, government-run health care program.

What I don't understand is why not just extend the current Medicaid program to those who have no other alternative? These measures are all more effective than trying to institute a universal, government-run health care program.
Medicaid IS a universal health care program. If someone who has no health insurance walks in to a hospital via the ER, he is supposed to be able to receive medical care. Medicare is also a govt-run health care program that generally kicks in once someone reaches the age of 65. The current proposal would be super Medicare.

That is why I don't understand why we need it a new health coverage plan because we could just modify the one we have now to expand to everybody.

Between:
Medicaid
Walking in the ER and being billed for payments
Grants like the Hill Burton and Chips
Medicare

I am sure they could fit everybody into one plan or another

That is why I don't understand why we need it a new health coverage plan because we could just modify the one we have now to expand to everybody.

between:
medicaid
walking in the ER and being billed for payments
grants like the Hill Burton and Chips
medicare

I am sure they could fit everybody into one plan or another
That's exactly what would happen, and Grandma won't have to sit tied up in her wheelchair in front of the death panel.

Wondergirl
The President is shilling for something in all the "town hall" meetings of Obots he attends.

You are distorting the facts to say that because there is no final bill then there is nothing in existance to be unpopular .

The fact is that there is a bill that made it out of committee in the House(H.R. 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 ) ;there is a Kennedy proposal in the Senate ;there is another bill being negotiated in the Senate Committee.The President urges us to support whatever it is that will emerge from the backroom deals, and that it needs to passed right now, preferably a couple of weeks ago,without any debate . The President has never advanced his own plan... he is relying on Congress. Why should it get passed without debate ;without public comment ,without listening to testimony? Why not eliminate a lot of the legal mumbo-jumbo in the House bill and just change the language of the controversial provisions if ,as they claim ,the provisions are being misinterpreted ?

If the President does NOT support the House bill he should make it clear to the public and do it today . He should not continue to defend the undefendable ;and lie about it's content when by his own admission he has not even read the bill on the House floor.

He would do a great service to advance his cause if he were to commit to signing onto to whatever law he signs for him and his family. Simularly ;everyone in Congress should make the same commitment.

inthebox

Did you see where patrons of Whole Foods are boycotting the business because Mackey dared to pen his op-ed about his ideas that doesn't concentrate money and power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats ? He supplies his company with excellent comprehensive coverage and benefits , and he thinks his ideas would work nationally.
Careers: U.S. Benefits | WholeFoodsMarket.com (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/benefits_us.php)

The boycott by the ignorant is gaining momentum on places like Twitter and Facebook.

Mackey;who cannot be accused of being a greedy capitalist (He does his job at Whole Foods for a dollar a year salary) has some pretty solid sensible libertarian solutions to Health care reform . But the people who are boycotting have lost sight of the big picture.


Medical saving accounts invested in safe options ,combined with catastrophic coverage ;elimination of individual state mandates or provide for the customer's right to negotiate with a plan provider outside the state ,would be my solution for most Americans .




Here is what I could purchase if I was allowed to purchase my Health Insurance from BCBS Georgia "Tonik Plan " for about $100/month :

Network: PPO
Deductible: $5,000
Coinsurance (after deductible): 100%
Physician Office visits: $20 copay for first 4 visits, then plan pays 100% after deductible.
Drug Coverage: $10 generic / $30 preferred / $50 non-preferred.
Physician Choice: Yes
Dental Care: $0 for cleanings, exams and x-rays. You pay 20% for minor restorative procedures like fillings after $25 deductible.
Vision care: Plan pays $50 toward a routine eye exam, glasses or contact lenses and you'll pay the rest.
Professional Services (X-ray, lab, diagnostics, etc.): Plan pays 100%
Outpatient Care: Plan pays 100%
Hospital Inpatient Services: Plan pays 100%
Emergency Care: Plan pays 100%
Physical/Occupational Therapy, Chiropractic Services: Plan pays 100%
Preventive Care : Plan pays 100%
But this plan is not available to people in most states.

The people who are not covered due to financial contraints should be incorporated into existing State and Federal programs . The libs shouldn't object to that since they ultimately want everyone in the contraints of a socialist single payer plan .But in case they do ,maybe they would prefer that the uninsured were given vouchers to negotiate a deal of their own . Add into this some tort reform and most of the problems with our system would be addressed.
Them we could address the reforms needed for Medicare/Medicaid .

That's exactly what would happen, and Grandma won't have to sit tied up in her wheelchair in front of the death panel.

I won't believe that until I see the actual bill he is trying to pass because I heard the exact pages that it is written that they WILL over see who gets care and who doesn't and it was four pages long and then later mentioned through out some other pages.

I did post the pages on another post

You are distorting the facts to say that because there is no final bill then there is nothing in existance to be unpopular . Hello CB:

The BALLS of these rightwingers must be dragging on the ground...

excon

Read my lips. There is no final bill yet. Right now it's a proposal. President Obama had hoped the Congress would get it all together before the recess, but that didn't happen. Framing a final bill is what all the discussion is about.

I agree, and it is ultimately up to us the Ameterican healthcare consumer to speak up about what we want, don't want, are willing to pay for.

Government rationing and lack of choice is definitely NOT WANTED.
Government run healthcare / universal healthcare leads to these undesirable effects.

The Canadian supreme court, in 2005, ruled that access to waiting lines is not access to healthcare, so private sector healthcare has since been allowed.

I don't see how POTUS Obama can say 1] you can keep your doctor, you can keep your private health insurance, and at the same time 2] state that the current form of healthcare has to change?




G&P

Wondergirl
the President is shilling for something in all the "town hall" meetings of Obots he attends.

You are distorting the facts to say that because there is no final bill then there is nothing in existance to be unpopular .

The fact is that there is a bill that made it out of committee in the House(H.R. 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 ) ;there is a Kennedy proposal in the Senate ;there is another bill being negotiated in the Senate Committee.The President urges us to support whatever it is that will emerge from the backroom deals, and that it needs to passed right now, preferably a couple of weeks ago,without any debate . The President has never advanced his own plan....he is relying on Congress. Why should it get passed without debate ;without public comment ,without listening to testimony? Why not eliminate alot of the legal mumbo-jumbo in the House bill and just change the language of the controversial provisions if ,as they claim ,the provisions are being misinterpreted ?

If the President does NOT support the House bill he should make it clear to the public and do it today . He should not continue to defend the undefendable ;and lie about it's content when by his own admission he has not even read the bill on the House floor.

He would do a great service to advance his cause if he were to commit to signing onto to whatever law he signs for him and his family. Simularly ;everyone in Congress should make the same commitment.

inthebox

Did you see where patrons of Whole Foods are boycotting the business because Mackey dared to pen his op-ed about his ideas that doesn’t concentrate money and power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats ? He supplies his company with excellent comprehensive coverage and benefits , and he thinks his ideas would work nationally.
Careers: U.S. Benefits | WholeFoodsMarket.com (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/benefits_us.php)

The boycott by the ignorant is gaining momentum on places like Twitter and Facebook.

Mackey;who cannot be accused of being a greedy capitalist (He does his job at Whole Foods for a dollar a year salary) has some pretty solid sensible libertarian solutions to Health care reform . But the people who are boycotting have lost sight of the big picture.


Medical saving accounts invested in safe options ,combined with catastrophic coverage ;elimination of individual state mandates or provide for the customer's right to negotiate with a plan provider outside the state ,would be my solution for most Americans .




Here is what I could purchase if I was allowed to purchase my Health Insurance from BCBS Georgia "Tonik Plan " for about $100/month :

Network: PPO
Deductible: $5,000
Coinsurance (after deductible): 100%
Physician Office visits: $20 copay for first 4 visits, then plan pays 100% after deductible.
Drug Coverage: $10 generic / $30 preferred / $50 non-preferred.
Physician Choice: Yes
Dental Care: $0 for cleanings, exams and x-rays. You pay 20% for minor restorative procedures like fillings after $25 deductible.
Vision care: Plan pays $50 toward a routine eye exam, glasses or contact lenses and you'll pay the rest.
Professional Services (X-ray, lab, diagnostics, etc.): Plan pays 100%
Outpatient Care: Plan pays 100%
Hospital Inpatient Services: Plan pays 100%
Emergency Care: Plan pays 100%
Physical/Occupational Therapy, Chiropractic Services: Plan pays 100%
Preventive Care : Plan pays 100%
But this plan is not available to people in most states.

The people who are not covered due to financial contraints should be incorporated into existing State and Federal programs . The libs shouldn't object to that since they ultimately want everyone in the contraints of a socialist single payer plan .But in case they do ,maybe they would prefer that the uninsured were given vouchers to negotiate a deal of their own . Add into this some tort reform and most of the problems with our system would be addressed.
Them we could address the reforms needed for Medicare/Medicaid .


That is an excellent insurance plan, though a lot would hesitate at the $5000 deductible.

I do agree that there should be private health insurance reform:

1] If you don't have employer provided health insurance, you should be able to 100% be able to deduct the cost of your health insurance premiums. Those with health insurance through an employer SHOULD NOT have a tax advantage COMPARED TO those who don't have employer provided insurance benefits.

2] Health Savings Accounts [HSA] : pre tax money that can be used to offset the high deductible. You should be able to roll it over year to year.

3] NATIONWIDE health insurance, just like auto insurance. The health insurance co's should have to compete with each other nationwide, so that one or two insurance companies don't have a virtual dominance in one geographic area and can thus charge higher premiums for the coverage offered. This give the consumer more choice and the insurance companies more potential customers.

4] NO FOR PROFIT health insurance companies. Profit should be reinvested into the company, or given back in the form of lower premiums and or broader coverage to the consumer. The profit should go to the health insured rather just like it would go to the share holders.

5] Health insurance portability, to take with you between jobs, between moves, from year to year. - COBRA is way to expensive.

6] Multi -year health insurance contracts. Like term life. You apply and get a low rate while you are young and healthy and there is a contract that details the rate as you get older or should you develop and chronic illnessess.

7] As to pre existing illnessess, that coverage has to be transparent. You may be covered, but realistically, you will be paying higher rates, just like if you had 3 speeding tickets a year you will be paying more for auto insurance.





G&P

I agree, and it is ultimately up to us the Ameterican healthcare consumer to speak up about what we want, don't want, are willing to pay for.
It looks like co-ops are the current consideration.

I don't see how POTUS Obama can say 1] you can keep your doctor, you can keep your private health insurance, and at the same time 2] state that the current form of healthcare has to change?
I have private coverage and have my own doctor, and feel that the current form has to change. I know too many people who are either out of work or, for some other reason, don't have private coverage.

Is the reason they have no coverage because state regulations disallow national health insurance company competition, thereby increasing the cost to the consumer?
Or regulations that mandate coverage for things the individual consumer may never need, like pregnancy care.

Some of the young actually choose NOT to have health insurance. Would they be penalized if Obama mandated "universal" coverage?

As to loss of health insurance due to job loss, then fix the root problem, job loss.

--------------------------------------------------

The thought that expanding medicare or medicaid, in these economic times when it is predicted medicare will be in the red by 2017, make no sense at all.


--------------------------------------------------


Tom

Go figure, Whole Food's success in providing health insurance and good outcomes for its employees and for the dollar, is a reason to boycott? Just because he use his 1st Amendment right to express an opinion contrary to the Obama plan?




G&P


Have a policies that reward business growth, not penalize success with higher tax rates.

Is the reason they have no coverage
Cost is too high for private coverage. For employees, workplace doesn't offer it.

why no health insurance
Part-time job, no coverage; also, employers are not required to offer health insurance to any employee.

.White House appears ready to drop 'public option'
.…
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his core principles of reform.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

It's hardly the same rhetoric Obama employed during a constant, personal campaign for legislation.

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul)

.White House appears ready to drop 'public option.' White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News[/url]
He's never tried to ram anything down anyone's throat, and has always been open to discussion--and has said so more than once.

No Obama doesn't ram, his Presidency tends to sneak.

No Obama doesn't ram, his Presidency tends to sneak.
Please cite a "for instance."

Let me see... ''for instance''...

ONE the stimulus
They had that passed without being read through before most people could bat an eye.

Let me see ....... ''for instance''....

ONE the stimulus
they had that passed without being read through before most people could bat an eye.
Obama had never told us anything about a stimulus package that was being put together? Did he have to get a democratic vote on it from the general public before it got approved by Congress?

He told us ABOUT it but that doesn't mean we knew what was in it. Hardly anybody even read it before they voted it in. So there is a difference between knowing about something and Democrats that didn't give two hoots to read it. Besides much of it benefited them and not us anyway.
I bet you can't even tell me everything that is in it now.
I still haven't seen a pro Obama provide links for the actual health care bill

He told us ABOUT it but that doesn't mean we knew what was in it. Hardly anybody even read it before they voted it in. So there is a difference between knowing about something and Democrats that didn't give two hoots to read it. Besides much of it benefited them and not us anyway.
I bet you can't even tell me everything that is in it now.
I still haven't seen a pro Obama provide links for the actual health care bill
Where have you been vacationing?? Everyone was all huffy about p. 425 and putting Grandma on an ice floe!! The bill has been online all this time, all 1018 pages of it --

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

This for one doesn't look good to me

16 Trust Fund.
17 (iii) LIMITATION TO AVAILABLE
18 FUNDS.—The Secretary has the authority
19 to stop taking applications for participa20
Tion in the program or take such other
21 steps in reducing expenditures under the
22 reinsurance program in order to ensure
23 that expenditures under the reinsurance
24 program do not exceed the funds available
25 under this subsection.

this for one doesn't look good to me

21 reducing expenditures under the
22 reinsurance program in order to ensure
23 that expenditures under the reinsurance
24 program do not exceed the funds available
25 under this subsection.
Sounds responsible to me.

In order to not exceed the funds available

They are already sunk cause the government is broke and even with all citizens paying into it I don't see how they will be able to afford all the health problems our nation has.

I don't see how they will be able to afford all the health problems our nation has.
Aren't you paying attention?

Cost is too high for private coverage. For employees, workplace doesn't offer it.

Part-time job, no coverage; also, employers are not required to offer health insurance to any employee.


That is why competition among private health insurance companies, and now apparently with insurance co-ops, should lower premiums through competition.

In addition, have national competition. Mandate minimum coverage basics, but live any additional coverage up to the individual or group consumer.

It has been 4 years since I was an employer, but I only had 1 direct and 20 shared amongst other and we provided health insurance for all full time employees.



G&P

That is an excellent insurance plan, though a lot would hesitate at the $5000 deductible.

Agreed ;although that could be negotiated with the insurance company. If this type of plan went along with health saving accounts then the amt of money needed for the deductible would easily be available.

Hello in:

Here's a solution - at least part of one... I don't know if it alone would do much, but it's certainly part of the problem... I discussed it on these pages years ago. If I remember correctly, the Wolverine didn't like my solution then, and I doubt he'll like it now... That's how come I know it's a goodun..

I don't like to be sold prescription drugs on television. If I need them, I want my doctor to tell me - not some huckster on the tube. I don't know how much big pharma spends on selling us that stuff, but I'll bet it's a lot. And, they do it because it WORKS... Worse than that, however, is my belief that big pharma created lots of illnesses that weren't there in the first place, just so they could sell drugs... (and you want to put pot dealers in jail... )

How many millions suffer from that age old ailment called Restless Leg Syndrome... Or what about those sufferers from overly dry eyes?? There's dozens of others of big pharma created illnesses... I'm sure you've got your own...

ALL advertising for prescription drugs should be BANNED. Besides being the right thing to do, it'll save billions... Most of all, it'll stop a lot of people who are taking drugs they don't need and could be harmful.

excon

Although you can attribute RLS sometimes to side effects of medications it would be a stretch to say that those evil Pharmaceutical companies created the illness. You are neglecting to include other common causes like iron-deficiency anemia ;Vitamin B12 and magnesium deficiency ;symptoms related to Parkinson's disease ,varicose veins... etc. there are more .

Now ;according to some reports ,the President struck a deal with "big Pharma " that they would go along with his plan and shill for it using advertising dollars if he would keep some provisions like bulk gvt. Purchase discounts and buying from Canada out of the legislation. I assume you also oppose their advertising advocacy for the President's plan ?

Yeah that is the root of the problem people think they can eat and drink anything and it is safe then they never connect that the chemicals and preservatives they put in foods is the direct link to their health problems.
Instead of balancing their vitamins and minerals they jump to be put on meds that have the long list of side effects.

I know I have adrenal exhaust and it is probably actually hypokalemia from all the years I was addicted to Pepsi. I know I'd rather balance my supplements than go the meds route.

I assume you also oppose their advertising advocacy for the President's plan ?Hello tom:

I oppose ANY deal made with the devil... That's why I'm sitting here and not in congress. I KNOW how deals are made. I just don't happen to like it.

excon

Sapph . The one thing I'm sure of is that any reform package I would put together would include coverage for alt.care including supplementation.

Disclaimer :Yes ;that is the industry I work in (after doing my time in the Pharmaceutical industry) ;but I have seen that results of choosing natural alternatives over using drugs can sometimes be obtained ;as well as using supplementation to support a drug regimin .

I have seen examples of adjusting mineral levels as the answer to issues like stress ;where the use of the anti-stress medications risks turning the patient into suicidal basket cases.

I'm not saying that supplementation is a cure all to 100 % replace pharmaceuticals ,but if prevention is a goal in reform then it should be considered in coverage.

I agree with Excon to a large extent about Pharma's advertising . You know there is a problem when the disclaimer takes as long to recite as the allegeded benefits to taking the drug .

ALL advertising for prescription drugs should be BANNED. Besides being the right thing to do, it'll save billions.... Most of all, it'll stop a lot of people who are taking drugs they don't need and could be harmful.

excon

Prescription drugs are actually advertised in the States?? Wow...

Yeah and they have a super long list of side effects. The ads in a magazine generally take up the entire page.

although you can attribute RLS sometimes to side effects of medications it would be a stretch to say that those evil Pharmaceutical companies created the illness. You are neglecting to include other common causes like iron-deficiency anemia ;Vitamin B12 and magnesium deficiency ;symptoms related to Parkinson's disease ,varicose veins ...etc. there are more .

Now ;according to some reports ,the President struck a deal with "big Pharma " that they would go along with his plan and shill for it using advertising dollars if he would keep some provisions like bulk gvt. purchase discounts and buying from Canada out of the legislation. I assume you also oppose their advertising advocacy for the President's plan ?

On the one hand, like any other businesss, pharma is marketing themselves. On the other hand is the underlying message: you have this symptom, we have this pill.

Like you mentioned, there are sometimes underlying treatable causes that might get missed because the consumer is convinced that all they need to do is take this or that pill, and the doctor, also subject to this advertisement, finds it more time efficient to prescribe this pill, rather than have a discussion with that patient as to working up the underlying cause.

So I agree with Ex on this one





G&P

Does anyone agree with the similar emphasis on INDIVIDUAL decision making, not on government mandates, in improving personal health behavior and thus potentially preventing illnesses or controlling chronic diseases. This seems to be the approach by Whole Foods and Safeway. System wide, this would save US healthcare a ton of money.

Good behavior; quitting smoking, getting closer to an ideal body weight, controlling blood pressure, controlling blood sugar levels; should be rewarded. Lower premiums, or cash back.





G&P

I certainly do . I sort of went on that tangent when I said if prevention is a goal in reform then it should be considered in coverage.

I agree too
I don't want health care and I certainly don't want to pay for something I don't use more than a ER visit once in a blue moon.

Hello righty's:

During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed...

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much exercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff... What's the difference?

excon

But I have the right to NOT get insurance the way it is now. The way it will be I won't be able to afford it.

Prevention is where I think the government has a right to take the lead in healthcare.

It is good to have panels and research and accounting for what treatments, preventative care, is cost effective for the US population as a whole.


Vaccinations, mamograms, nutritional education, smoking cessation, substance abuse counseling and rehab, are some of the areas in which the tax dollar would be wisely spent.


Chemotherapy, dialysis, coronary bypass, joint replacements - acute care should be left primarily to the doctor / patient.

I am not oppposed to the accountants and the number crunchers SUGGESTING that treatment A has better outcomes than treatment B for this or that group of people but healthcare is far from cookbook.


G&P

Prevention is where I think the government has a right to take the lead in healthcare.



Unfortunately they want the money they make on the meds so they discredit many preventatives as quackery and they allow foods to be filled with synthetic processed garbage.

Hello righty's:

During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed....

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much excercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff.... What's the difference?

excon

Private insurance companies don't have the coercive power to tax us/ take our money, to 1] gain power for themselves by using tax revenue to 2] redistribute tax revenue as they see fit.


There is one government. No choice, no options.
There are multiple options in health, auto, life, home insurance.






G&P

There is one government. No choice, no options.
There are multiple options in health, auto, life, home insurance.Hello again, in:

Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.

Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..

excon

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much exercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff... What's the difference?


There is a huge difference in my view between building in incentives and covering preventive care on the one hand;and monitoring and mandating behavior on the other. I certanly was not implying that it should be forced on an individual .

But that is exactly what is being proposed in the Senate Bill being crafted by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) .

Under the plan the brownshirts... oops I mean the government will recruit a “national network of community-based organizations” to “promote healthy living and reduce disparities”.(Section C of Title III entitled" Creating Healthier Communities, with Community Transformation Grants "is on pages 382-387 of the bill ).

3 types of entities will be eligible to receive grants under the program: State government agency; local government agency; or a national network of community-based organizations.
The bill has HHS and the CDC award grants “for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of proven evidence-based community preventive health activities in order to reduce chronic disease rates, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.”

Subparagraph (A) of the section entitled, “Community-Based Prevention Health Activities,says the eligible entity (community-based organization) "shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure–
“(i) decreases in weight;
“(ii) increases in proper nutrition;
“(iii) increases in physical activity;
“(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;
“(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and
“(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].”

Don't worry ;Sen.Dodd doesn't think that ACORN would be eligible to monitor your weight.

This is a vehicle for the inclusion of pork into the bill . The provisions designers Sen Kennedy and Dodd envisons local communities using funds from this bill to do infrastructure projects loosely related like build and maintain sidewalks, parks, bike paths, and street lights.It can be argued that these are worthy projects for local communities to take on ,but should these be included to pad bills addressing health care coverage ?


“These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,'' said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.
“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,'' Coley said in a statement.


In health bill, billions for parks, paths - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/09/in_health_bill_billions_for_parks_paths/)

No ;no one is saying you should prohibit it from happening . But I question why the Federal Government should fund them.

Hello righty's:

During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed....

If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much excercise you need each day...

But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff.... What's the difference?

excon

Here's the difference:

The insurance companies can put whatever restrictions they want on me. If I don't like it, I can buy DIFFERENT insurance. Or choose to pay medical expenses out of pocket. Or renegotiate my deal with them... I'm sure that if I am willing to pay them enough money, they'll cut me any deal I want, with as few restrictions as I am willing to pay for.

In a single-payer government system, there is no other option. There is no other insurance to buy. The government will not make special deals with me. And I won't be able to pay out of pocket, because that's illegal in a single-payer system.

The difference, excon, whether you are willing to recognize it or not, is CHOICE.

Elliot

Hello again, in:

Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk.... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.

Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..

excon

So... according to you, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are not allowed to pay out of pocket for services not covered under your insurance plan. That's what you are saying.

And it is just simply not true. You know that. I know that.

We both know that if something isn't covered under medical insurance you still have other ways of paying for it. And you can still get the services you need, EVEN IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR THEM. We've pointed out all the programs that are in place to help people who need medical care that isn't covered under insurance or that are uninsured.

So who is it you think you are fooling when you say that individuals in a private health plan have no choices?

Elliot

Devils advocate
I think what ex is saying is you have this paid for insurance that you think has you covered and they find a pre existing condition and bing your not covered and that in itself isn't much of a choice

So... according to you, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are not allowed to pay out of pocket for services not covered under your insurance plan. That's what you are saying.

And it is just simply not true. You know that. I know that. Hello again, El:

Sure... And, if he didn't like the way his broken down VW is working, he can buy a Mercedes Benz...

But, in the REAL world, where I live, I don't know anybody who can buy services that their insurance won't cover...

It's like saying that every poor slob has the choice between Filet Mignon, and pheasant under glass... Which is true if he has the bread... But the FACT of the matter is, his only real choice is between corn flakes and twinkies...

You are WRONG! WRONG and WRONG!! Plus, you're even WRONGER than that.

excon

devils advocate
I think what ex is saying is you have this paid for insurance that you think has you covered and they find a pre existing condition and bing your not covered and that in itself isnt much of a choice

Problem with that argument, Zip, is that there IS a choice. Several of them, in fact.

1) Challenge the insurance company's decision via that company's appeals process, (9 times out of 10, they end up giving in and paying if you challenge them)

2) Pay out of pocket for the services you need,

3) Go to any one of the thousands of charitable organizations that assist people who are in that situation in getting the services they need,

4) Go to the local ER and get the services anyway, since the hospitals cannot turn a patient away for inability to pay.

Any and all of them are viable options. These are CHOICES available to those on private insurance that are NOT available in a single-payer government insurance plan.

Hello again, El:

Sure... And, if he didn't like the way his broken down VW is working, he can buy a Mercedes Benz... But, in the REAL world, where I live, I don't know anybody who can buy services that their insurance won't cover...

Really? You mean you've NEVER paid out of pocket for a medical need?

I do it about twice a week. I go to therapies that are NOT covered by my insurance and pay out of pocket for those services.

I think you are being less than honest about that. At SOME point, you have paid out of pocket for a medicine, an exam, a diagnostic test, a therapy, that was not covered by your insurance. The amount may have been small, or it may have been large. But you CHOSE to pay it.

Under a single-payer government system, you can't do that.


It's like saying that every poor slob has the choice between Filet Mignon, and pheasant under glass... Which is true if he has the bread... But the FACT of the matter is, his only real choice is between corn flakes and twinkies...

The choice may indeed be between cornflakes and twinkies. But cornflakes will keep your belly full, and twinkies are a nice snack supplement. True, it ain't fois gras and filet mignon, but it'll keep you alive. And a choice between cornflakes, or twinkies or PAYING OUT OF POCKET for filet mignon is still a choice.

Now... compare that to the government single-payer choice, which amounts to "We'll decide what's on the menu, if it ain't on the menu you don't get it, and if you don't like it, tough, you ain't getting anything else."

Then they proceed to tell you that the only thing on the menu is stale bread and gruel, and if if you're over 65, you only get half as much of it as everyone else, because giving you the same as everyone else isn't cost effective. And the COST of the stale bread and gruel is anywhere from 35% to 500% higher than you could buy it on your own, but you're not allowed to buy it on your own.

I'll take the corflakes and twinkies with occasional servings of filet mignon and pheasant under glass that I pay for myself rather than being forced to eat the overly expensive gruel and stale bread, thanks.


You are WRONG! WRONG and WRONG!! Plus, you're even WRONGER than that.

Excon

Nuh uh.

(Hey, I figure that's about the same 6-year-old level as what you wrote.)

Elliot

Elliot is correct of course. By contrast ;inside various sections of HR3200 are "limitation on review"provisions.

As an example here is the section covering readmission into hospitals.. pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:





ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (I), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.



And, under “Definitions”:



''(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term 'applicable condition' means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary.. .



And:



''(E) READMISSION.—The term 'readmission' means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.



And:



''(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of—.. .

''(C) the measures of readmissions.. .

Really? You mean you've NEVER paid out of pocket for a medical need? I do it about twice a week. I go to therapies that are NOT covered by my insurance and pay out of pocket for those services.

I think you are being less than honest about that. Hello again, El:

Nope. YOU are the one who's being dishonest... You are unable to argue the points I make so you deflect to some ridiculous point... You KNOW what I mean. You are purposefully being obtuse. You are doing that because you don't have a REAL reply... That's fine. I'm used to your crap...

Yes, El. I HAVE paid out of pocket... for the things I could afford... But, what I was talking about, and what you KNOW I was talking about, is the MAJOR medical procedures that your insurance won't cover, and that are beyond ANYONE'S ability to pay out of pocket for, unless the patient is WEALTHY...

That would be MOST procedures. Consequently, unless it is for some MINOR procedure, THERE IS NO CHOICE!! NONE! ZERO! NADA!

I don't know what's so HARD for you to get.

Are you NOW going to say that the person can go to an emergency room for this procedure?? You're not going to say that are you?? Well, maybe you are...

excon

Hello again, in:

What I'd like to do, is change the conversation... There are several points that the right wing believes, that are NEVER going to change. Arguing with them/you is POINTLESS, as can be seen. I have pointed out the untruths of the right wing opposition continuously, and to NO avail...

What I'd LIKE to talk about, is the fact, that as wrong as the right is, they're/you're WINNING! Let's talk about how a Democratic president, with a 100 seat or so majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, CAN'T get its agenda passed.

excon

Let's talk about how a Democratic president, with a 100 seat or so majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, CAN'T get its agenda passed.


I'm going to be part of a telephone town hall meeting with Congressman Engel tonight . I will specifically address my concern that members like Anthony Weiner ;on the Chris Matthews show yesterday were stubbornly resisting any option that did not include a public option. He was insistant that the Senate should go nuclear and adopt reconciliation to get it done if they couldn't get the 60 votes .
He appears to be one of the leading radical Democrats revolting against any flexibility and is now a critic of the President for deemphisis of the public plan as a priority .

The President as Wondergirl likes to point out never went to Congress to tell them what he would like in a plan .

Had he done so perhaps we would be debating his plan . But he didn't,and that left the loons like Pelosi ,Waxman ,and evidently Weiner to try to bum rush a Fabian socialists plan down our throats .

I intend to remind Engel that ultimately he represents the people and not the narrow vision of the lefty ideologues that control the Congress.

The President as Wondergirl likes to point out never went to Congress to tell them what he would like in a plan .
Liar, liar, pants on fire! That is NOT what WG said!

Hello again, El:

Nope. YOU are the one who's being dishonest... You are unable to argue the points I make so you deflect to some ridiculous point... You KNOW what I mean. You are purposefully being obtuse. You are doing that because you don't have a REAL reply... That's fine. I'm used to your crap...

Actually, I answered each of your points on a point by point basis. You just don't like the answers, so you seek to dismiss them.

Fact: A person who is denied a medical service by his insurance company can still purchase that service on his own. He also has the option of getting that medical procedure without paying for it at all, through charitable organizations or by just going to an ER and obtaining it. That fact is not open to dispute. You can argue all you want about how hard it is, how difficult it is, yadda yadda. Fact is, it can be done and it IS done every single day by people all over the country.

Fact: You cannot do that under a single-payer government health plan. You can claim all you want that the government won't limit our care, won't place limitations on what they'll cover. The fact is that government health care systems all over the world, including the ones inside the USA, limit care every day. And if they do, you're screwed because there is no other option.

End of story.


Yes, El. I HAVE paid out of pocket...

That's it. You just admitted to my entire point. I win the argument. You lose.

If you can pay out of pocket, if that CHOICE exists, no matter how hard it is for you to make that choice, then you prove my point. That choice is NOT available in single-payer government health care.

You can talk all you want about how hard it is to pay out of pocket. Under a government system the option isn't even available. If it comes to a choice of "hard to accomplish" or "not an option", I'll take "hard to accomplish".

There's nothing else to talk about.

Elliot

Liar, liar, pants on fire! That is NOT what WG said!

Really?


Obama had never told us anything about a stimulus package that was being put together?

Looks like you did.

Or did AMHD "misplay what you said"?

Elliot

This just from this op

Originally Posted by inthebox https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/alternatives-obamacare-387127.html#post1925491)
Obamacare, whatever that may be, is unpopular

Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Willis? A bill hasn't even been written yet, much less passed and signed. There is nothing in existence yet to be unpopular.


Originally Posted by 450donn https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/alternatives-obamacare-387127.html#post1925639)
HUH!!!
The anointed one demanded that this "non" bill be passed by congress before the recess. So what is it that Nobama was demanding be passed. Another piece of garbage to waste another trillion dollars on?

Read my lips. There is no final bill yet. Right now it's a proposal. President Obama had hoped the Congress would get it all together before the recess, but that didn't happen. Framing a final bill is what all the discussion is about.

I pointed out originally in #9 response that the President hadn't advanced his own plan and just like the bucket list stimulation bill ;he will rely on Congress to do the work . (to refresh your memory... Excon responded something to the effect that my balls were dragging on the floor) .

If they send him a pork sandwich he will be happy to sign it . He has no ideas of his own.
If I am wrong then please correct me by showing me the outline for his plan that he submitted to Congress.

Speaking of Obama letting Congress do the work, Nat Hentoff - a guy who is not exactly a right-winger mind you - points out (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3) the ominous part of Obamacare is not the legislation but the regulations hammered out by the bureaucrats once the legislation is passed.


I was alerted to Lanes' crucial cautionary advice — for those of use who may be influenced to attend the Obamacare twilight consultations — by Wesley J. Smith, a continually invaluable reporter and analyst of, as he calls his most recent book, the "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books).

As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:


"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.


"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could."

Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives — and what is set into law? To begin with, Charles Lane, Wesley Smith and others whom I'll cite and add to as this chilling climax of the Obama presidency comes closer.

And that is why it's so scary to even consider passing this behemoth of a bill. It is intentionally vague even at over a thousand pages, the details will be worked out later while your back is turned.

Hello:

It could be written in half a page... Or less. If one wanted single payer, it could be called: Medicare for all. If one wanted a public option, it could be called: buying into Medicare. It should be written like that, and it should be sold like that. It's simple and everybody would understand it. If they DID that, it would pass with flying colors...

Then we wouldn't have to reform the insurance companies. Let them continue to do what they've always done.

excon

Hello:

It could be written in half a page... Or less. If one wanted single payer, it could be called: Medicare for all. If one wanted a public option, it could be called: buying into Medicare. It should be written like that, and it should be sold like that. It's simple and everybody would understand it. If they DID that, it would pass with flying colors...

Then we wouldn't have to reform the insurance companies. Let them continue to do what they've always done.

excon

I happen to agree with you that if the bill were presented in that fashion it would be easier to sell. Not to mention being more transparent to the public. I still wouldn't agree with the idea, but I agree that it would be easier for the public to buy in to the idea.

So why do you think that the bill ISN'T being presented that way? Why are the Dems going out of their way to first muddy the waters and then get us to drink? Why did they write a bill that was so long that THEY didn't even bother reading it, and then try to ram it through without giving anyone else time to read it? And why did they make it so complicated when it could have been made really easy and simple to understand? And why did they not even CONSIDER any of the other ways that health care in America could be reformed to cover the uninsured, lower medical costs across the board and increase access to all?

Elliot

Why are the Dems going out of their way to first muddy the waters Hello again, El:

Why?? Because they're Democrats.

excon

Hello again, El:

Why??? Because they're Democrats.

excon

For once we are in agreement.

Though I think that the reason may be more sinister than that. I believe that they attempted to hide a bunch of stuff into this bill that they really didn't want us to know about. They buried it in the bill and tried to get it passed quickly so that we wouldn't have time to find it. Same as they did with the pork in the stimulus bill and the pork in the omnibus bill and the hidden provisions of the Cap & Trade bill.

If for no other reason than that, this bill should be killed.

Elliot

Darn that broken U.S. health care system, U.S. life expectancy at all-time high (http://www.mydesert.com/article/20090819/LIFESTYLES03/90819012/CDC++U.S.+life+expectancy+at+all-time+high).


-- Record high life expectancy was recorded for both males and females (75.3 years and 80.4 years, respectively). While the gap between male and female life expectancy has narrowed since the peak gap of 7.8 years in 1979, the 5.1 year difference in 2007 is the same as in 2006.

-- For the first time, life expectancy for black males reached 70 years.

-- The U.S. mortality rate fell for the eighth straight year to an all-time low of 760.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2007 -- 2.1 percent lower than the 2006 rate of 776.5. The 2007 mortality rate is half of what it was 60 years ago (1532 per 100,000 in 1947.)

-- The preliminary number of deaths in the United States in 2007 was 2,423,995, a 2,269 decrease from the 2006 total.

-- Heart disease and cancer, the two leading causes of death, accounted for nearly half (48.5 percent) of all deaths in 2007.

-- Between 2006 and 2007, mortality rates declined significantly for eight of the 15 leading causes of death. Declines were observed for influenza and pneumonia (8.4 percent), homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent), heart disease (4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent), hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent).

-- The death rate for the fourth leading cause of death, chronic lower respiratory diseases, increased by 1.7 percent. Preliminary death rates also increased for Parkinson’s disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and Alzheimer’s, but these gains are not statistically significant.

-- There were an estimated 11,061 deaths from HIV/AIDS in 2007, and mortality rates from the disease declined 10 percent from 2006, the biggest one-year decline since 1998. HIV remains the sixth leading cause of death among 25-44 year-olds.

-- The preliminary infant mortality rate for 2007 was 6.77 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 1.2 percent increase from the 2006 rate of 6.69, though not considered statistically significant. Birth defects were the leading cause of infant death in 2007, followed by disorders related to preterm birth and low birthweight. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was the third leading cause of infant death in the United States.

Still below other nations but you're catching up!
Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook. png/800px-Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook. png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Fact book.png

Darn that broken U.S. health care system, U.S. life expectancy at all-time high (http://www.mydesert.com/article/20090819/LIFESTYLES03/90819012/CDC++U.S.+life+expectancy+at+all-time+high)Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, we're doing good... But, it looks like the other Western nations, the ones that take care of ALL their people, are ahead of us. Or is the map not telling the real story?

excon

Don't worry, NK. Eat a few more Big Macs and you'll be right there with us.

Don't worry, NK. Eat a few more Big Macs and you'll be right there with us.
There you have it, nailed him with facts and he comes back with personal attacks.

Keep trying to spin stuff, we'll be here to show the truth.

Ex, I ask again, who is NOT getting health care in this country? Whether we've caught up to those other countries is irrelevant to the point. The report belies the narrative that our health care system is broken or failing. It needs changes, we've all acknowledged that, but let's have an HONEST discussion and an HONEST attempt to fix what's wrong instead of ramming a massive, intentionally vague, unsustainable, complete overhaul of the system.

There you have it, nailed him with facts and he comes back with personal attacks.

Keep trying to spin stuff, we'll be here to show the truth.

Personal attacks? You have absolutely no sense of humor do you?

ex, I ask again, who is NOT getting health care in this country? Hello again, Steve:

SOMEBODY isn't getting health care, or are you saying that health insurance companies pay for EVERYTHING? Nahh, you wouldn't say that... You wouldn't be saying, that the average working stiff who is turned down by his insurance company, can afford to PAY for the services himself, would you?? Nahh, you wouldn't be saying that... You wouldn't be saying, that an average working stiff who's been turned down for medical services by his insurer can get those services at his local emergency room?? Nahhhh, you wouldn't be saying that... You wouldn't be saying that this person is going to get charity to pay for these medical services, would you? Nahhh, you wouldn't be saying that.

You wouldn't be saying that a working poor person, with NO insurance, could get a check up at his emergency room, would you?? Nahhh, you wouldn't...

By the way, where WOULD a working poor person with NO insurance get a check up?? Where would that be?? Where?? You say everybody is getting health care, but it's just not true - not true at all.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

SOMEBODY isn't getting health care, or are you saying that health insurance companies pay for EVERYTHING? Nahh, you wouldn't say that... You wouldn't be saying, that the average working stiff who is turned down by his insurance company, can afford to PAY for the services himself, would you?? Nahh, you wouldn't be saying that... You wouldn't be saying, that an average working stiff who's been turned down for medical services by his insurer can get those services at his local emergency room?? Nahhhh, you wouldn't be saying that... You wouldn't be saying that this person is going to get charity to pay for these medical services, would you? Nahhh, you wouldn't be saying that.

Excon, you have again made the classic mistake of confusing health care with health insurance.

There are plenty of people in this country without health insurance.

There are NONE without health care.


You wouldn't be saying that a working poor person, with NO insurance, could get a check up at his emergency room, would you?? Nahhh, you wouldn't...

They do all the time. Are you saying they don't?


By the way, where WOULD a working poor person with NO insurance get a check up?? Where would that be?? Where?? You say everybody is getting health care, but it's just not true - not true at all.

Excon

They go to ERs for their day-to-day care. Got the sniffles, go to your local ER to get it checked out. Happens all the time. My brother, the doctor, deals with such people every day.

They also go to free clinics. You've heard of those, right?

Are you saying they don't? If you are, you are either lying or lacking in the facts.

Elliot

You wouldn't be saying that a working poor person, with NO insurance, could get a check up at his emergency room, would you??? Nahhh, you wouldn't...

By the way, where WOULD a working poor person with NO insurance get a check up????? Where would that be???? Where??? You say everybody is getting health care, but it's just not true - not true at all.

You know, in my area Planned Parenthood has made one its primary arguments for its existence is to provide health care, mostly for women but not exclusively, including regular checkups. That might be a place to start.

Also in my area (which I've mentioned many times now), our public hospital furnishes regular outpatient care for those who can't afford it both at the hospital and at a separate clinic.

We have a medical school branch where such people can get regular health care.

We have a fairly advanced cancer center funded largely by a private foundation and other charitable gifts.

Several times a year checkups, various screenings, etc. are offered free of charge or at reduced rates at clinics sponsored by various groups.

Are we the only community in the country that does such things? If our community of 200,000 can do it why can't others?

Are you saying they don't? If you are, you are either lying or lacking in the facts.Hello again, El:

If you have a complaint, they'll treat you at the ER. If you have a ROUTINE procedure that you need, such as a check up, they won't. If you say they will, you're either lying or you don't have the facts.

Steve, you say I won't answer your question, yet you won't answer mine. If all this great health care is available just for the asking, why would ANYBODY buy insurance??

excon

If all this great health care is available just for the asking, why would ANYBODY buy insurance??????

exconGood question.

Hello again, El:

If you have a complaint, they'll treat you at the ER. If you have a ROUTINE procedure that you need, such as a check up, they won't. If you say they will, you're either lying or you don't have the facts.

Steve, you say I won't answer your question, yet you won't answer mine. If all this great health care is available just for the asking, why would ANYBODY buy insurance??????


No one said it was "just for the asking." I do say no one has to go without health care. I've also explained what the purpose of insurance was, to "insure" against catastrophic loss and not pay for your every sniffle. If you guys want to pay for every sniffle for the uninsured then take some of those billions of federal dollars and build some clinics for those who need it, open up the insurance industry to more competition such as cross-state shopping, allow us to pick what we want to pay for in a policy, enact tort reform - and leave the rest of us alone.

I believe in a safety net for those who truly need it, but I don't believe in the liberal idea of "social justice." I buy insurance of all kinds because I'm a responsible person, I want to protect my family and I want to protect others from a loss if I'm liable. That's why we buy insurance, we work hard, we pay our way, we want to be responsible. Many DON'T because they AREN'T responsible, not just because they can't afford it.

Good question.

Because what we BUY is better. The doctors are more responsive, the wait times are shorter, the care is more personal, the doctor gets to know you, and he develops a relationship with you.

Whereas, in an ER you can wait for 10 hours before you are seen for your sniffles, the doctor has about 150 other cases most of which are more important than yours because they score higher on the triage scale, and he MIGHT have a few minutes to spend with you, but it isn't the half hour or hour that a private physician might spend with you. And he isn't YOUR doctor... chances are if you go back to the same ER two months later, that doctor will have rotated to another area or even another hospital.

So the care is there, and it gets you the care you NEED, but not necessarily the care you WANT. Good, but not the best money can buy.

If you want that higher level of care, you need to pay for it. If you can't, you make do.

Elliot

But would 48 year old FDR with polio survive the rulings of the Death Commission ? How about JFK with Addison's disease ? Actually he followed the Obama perscription . He took the pain killers.

No one said it was "just for the asking." Hello again, Steve:

If it's NOT just for the asking, then SOME people who ask WON'T get it, true?? If there are HOOPS to go through, then SOME won't qualify, true? If everybody qualified, there wouldn't be hoops, true? Therefore, SOME people won't get health care no matter HOW MUCH they ask, true??

If they happen to be one of the less than responsible people you mention, they probably WON'T qualify, true? If you're saying that THIS group won't get medical services because they DESERVE it, we can argue about that. But, there's no doubt that SOME people don't get health care, by your own admission.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

If it's NOT just for the asking, then SOME people who ask WON'T get it, true??? If there are HOOPS to go through, then SOME won't qualify, true? If everybody qualified, there wouldn't be hoops, true? Therefore, SOME people won't get health care no matter HOW MUCH they ask, true???

If they happen to be one of the less than responsible people you mention, they probably WON'T qualify, true? If you're saying that THIS group won't get medical services because they DESERVE it, we can argue about that. But, there's no doubt that SOME people don't get health care, by your own admission.

excon

And you think that the government plan is going to have FEWER hoops?

Have you ever had to get anything done at the DMV? Or had to wait to buy postage at the post office? Or had to deal with the IRS? Or even your local police station? How many hoops have you had to jump through to obtain the very basic services you were trying to obtain? How much paperwork have you filled out? How many lines have you waited on? How many different departments have you been switched to by a computerized voice mail system before being cut off or hung up on? How long have you listened to really bad muzak while waiting for some bureaucrat to pick up his phone to answer your question incorrectly?

Based on your PERSONAL experience in dealing with government agencies (and I know you have such experience), what makes you think that a government-run health care system is going to have FEWER hoops for people to jump through than the private system?

Elliot

And you think that the government plan is going to have FEWER hoops?Hello again, El:

So you ADMIT, that people are DENIED health care because of hoops in the private system. I'm glad you've come around.

excon

Hello again, El:

So you ADMIT, that people are DENIED health care because of hoops in the private system. I'm glad you've come around.

excon

I've never denied that. What I have said is that...

1) The number of problems is LOWER than those on the left would have us believe. I have in fact acknowledged that there are roughly 10-12 million people who are uninsured in the long term. But there are NOT 46 million uninsured Americans that need to be helped.

2) The problems of our fundamentally sound health care system, that covers 97% of our population just fine, can be solved through other means than destroying it and replacing it with a system that is fundamentally flawed.

3) A government system is fundamentally flawed and creates much worse problems of accessibility of care than they solve.

In point of fact, I have listed on a number of occasions a list of 10 things that we can do to improve our health care system. I would not have listed those items if I didn't think there weren't areas that needed improvement. In fact, inthebox linked to one such list in the OP.

The fact that you can claim that I have stated that there are no problems when I specifically listed SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS means that you have
a) been ignoring what I have actually said in favor of what you THINK I have said, and
b) are arguing just for the sake of arguing without even knowing what you are arguing against.

Neither of those are the traits of a good debater. Or a good problem-solver. Or a good listener for that matter.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

If it's NOT just for the asking, then SOME people who ask WON'T get it, true??

How many things are literally "just for the asking?" The "you'll love my nuts" guy might tell you if you act now he'll double your order "just for the asking" but it's not really "just for the asking" is it? No, there are conditions, you have to pay separate shipping and handling. A magazine might send you 4 free issues with no obligation "just for the asking" but it's not really "just for the asking" is it? No, if you do nothing they'll bill you for the rest, if you only want the free issues you have to do something, cancel your subscription.

There are conditions to most everything, call 'em hoops if you want. I still call it responsibility for the most part, an ethic America used to have of working hard and paying your way. For the neediest among us paying your way may mean waiting, filling out forms, applying for assistance - ASKING for help. For others it may mean negotiating, bartering or living within your means - sacrificing the satellite HDTV, the iPhone, the $30,000 car and $300,000 house they shouldn't have bought in the first place.


If there are HOOPS to go through, then SOME won't qualify, true? If everybody qualified, there wouldn't be hoops, true? Therefore, SOME people won't get health care no matter HOW MUCH they ask, true??

No I don't quite see the logic in your logic. There ARE hoops for all of us already and if you think those hoops are too much now just wait until the feds are in control of everyone's health care. Just ask all those car dealers that have been telling everyone $4500 towards a car is yours "just for the asking." They can't get their money from the feds and now they're hurting for operating funds.


If they happen to be one of the less than responsible people you mention, they probably WON'T qualify, true? If you're saying that THIS group won't get medical services because they DESERVE it, we can argue about that. But, there's no doubt that SOME people don't get health care, by your own admission.

I haven't admitted any such thing. As has already been pointed out repeatedly - aside from the other options we've listed - all they have to do is walk into an ER. It may suck but we don't have to remake the industry so we'll all have have the same mediocre level of care.

But would 48 year old FDR with polio survive the rulings of the Death Commission ? How about JFK with Addison's disease ? Actually he followed the Obama perscription . He took the pain killers.Hello again, tom:

So, you think that the death commission called your insurance company WOULD have approved treatment for those people?? Really?? Why is Obama's death commission different?

By the way, wouldn't Roosevelt's condition be considered Pre-existing?? I think it would. I don't think there's an insurance company that would SELL him insurance at ANY price. What? You DO?? Really?? Addison's?? Dude, if YOU know about it, so the does the health insurance industry... I'll bet that made Kennedy uninsurable... What, you think they insure sick people?? Nahhh. There ain't no profit in insuring sick people.

I swear, you own health insurance stock.

excon

Hello again, tom:

So, you think that the death commission called your insurance company WOULD have approved treatment for those people?? Really?? Why is Obama's death commission different?

I've answered that already.

Insurance companies make more money by people being kept alive.

The government makes more money by making sure that those who cost the most are DEAD.


By the way, wouldn't Roosevelt's condition be considered Pre-existing?? I think it would. I don't think there's an insurance company that would SELL him insurance at ANY price. What? You DO?? Really?? Addison's?? Dude, if YOU know about it, so the does the health insurance industry... I'll bet that made Kennedy uninsurable... What, you think they insure sick people?? Nahhh. There ain't no profit in insuring sick people.

Ah... but Roosevelt could go out and buy his own health care out of pocket if he so chose. Which he would NOT be able to do under a single-payer government plan. And once the death commission decided that his life expectancy was nil, he wouldn't get anything more than "the red pill" which is probably an aspirin. Or maybe a sugar pill.

And there's the fact that if Franky Roosevelt were willing to pay a high enough premium, he could easily find an insurance company to cover him. It would cost him a bunch, but he could do it. And if he DID do it, you could be damned sure that the insurance company would do everything in their power to make sure that their golden goose stayed alive for as long as possible so they could continue to get PAID!!

Money talks, bull$h!t walks. That's what makes the system work.


I swear, you own health insurance stock.

Excon

Nope, we just have a common sense that you lack.

Elliot

I've answered that already.

Insurance companies make more money by people being kept alive. Hello again, El:

So, you're saying they'll approve procedures that keep people alive because it's profitable to do so?? Really? You're saying that an insurance company makes LESS money when they deny treatment to people... Hmmmm.

Just how does that math work?? You got a 67 year old guy who needs $120,000 operation, but even if he gets it, he's only got, what, 5 years to live? You're saying, the premium he's going to pay for the rest of his life is going to be MORE than the $120,000?? How do you figure??

Dude! It's no wonder the banking industry went broke with people like you running things.

excon

Hello again, in:

Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.

Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..

Excon


Every job I've had in which the employer provide health nsurance had more than one option, even HSA's. Will you have that under single payor?





If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice.



This is a defeatist attitude of helplessness. Very few conditions are truly genetic. Most are genetic and environmental and behavioral.

Take obesity for example: this is associated or correlated with higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, high cholesterol, osteoarthritis, obstructive sleep apnea... etc.

One can passively accept this or one can ACTIVELY CHOOSE to do something about it. Eat right, exercise etc.. Safeway and Whole Foods provide incentives / rewards for good behavior. This is regardless of socioeconomic status.

Does your auto insurance penalize you for speeding tickets, and reward you for a spotless record?

Does home insurance go down if you actively choose to put an alarm system or make sure smoke detectors are installed.

Why should the health insurance companies not penalize you if continue to smoke or be obese? These behavioral habits cost money and well being. You can choose cheaper generics or pay for name brand medications, you can choose higher premiums and a lower deductible or a lower premium and a higher deductible. With government there is much more limited choice. Ask any vet in the VA system what VA hospital they can go to or what medications are available. THAT IS REALITY.

Tell me where in HR 3200 is the government giving personal incentives to actively choose the right health behaviors?






G&P

Still below other nations but you're catching up!
Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook. png/800px-Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook. png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Expectancy_2008_Estimates_CIA_World_Fact book.png


And the US will have declining life expectancy IF:

There is a push by the government to make everyone DNR

There is a push by the government to "lower costs" which will lead to rationing and squelch research, development, and technologic innovation.

The government has its way and reduces reimbursement to hospitals and physicians:
Physicians, will retire, cut back on hours worked, and medical school enrollment and qualifications will drop.





G&P

Hello again, El:

So you ADMIT, that people are DENIED health care because of hoops in the private system. I'm glad you've come around.

excon

EMTALA forbids ERs from denying care based on income.

Private insurance and private doctors, heck private businesses have the right to deny anyone service.

Why should you expect free service or service provided to you at lower than the cost of doing that service?

Do you expect this out of your electrician? Plumber? Grocer? Home bulider? Barber? Lawyer? Internet provider?

Are people DENIED shelter or food or clothing? Or are these things available at a COST?

If you think the cost is to high, don't you think that may be due to gov regulations? Will more help?



G&P

And the US will have declining life expectancy IF:

There is a push by the government to make everyone DNR

There is a push by hte government to "lower costs" which will lead to rationing and squelch research, development, and technologic innovation.

The government has its way and reduces reimbursement to hospitals and physicians:
Physicians, will retire, cut back on hours worked, and medical school enrollment and qualifications will drop.
Those countries that have a life expectancy higher than yours all have universal healthcare. But don't let that stop you, please continue to fear monger - it's what you do.

I swear, you own health insurance stock.

Nah ;it isn't profitable enough . I already provided a Yahoo link for this
But here it is again :

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/why-not-medicare-everyone-386822-2.html#post1924105#post1924105

Industry Browser - Yahoo! Finance - Full Industry List (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html)

The health insurance industry rakes in a disgustingly greedy 3.4% profits ranking it 86th among American industry .
I'd rather invest in microbreweries .

Now ;some like CIGNA are doing well.
Industry Browser - Healthcare - Health Care Plans Industry - Company List (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html)
But most have very modest returns .

Edit... Ex do you have any stake in the companies represented by the Friends Of Obama... especially big Pharma ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultants


The firms were hired by Americans for Stable Quality Care and its predecessor, Healthy Economy Now. Each was formed by a coalition of interests with big stakes in health care policy, including the drug maker lobby PhRMA, the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and Families USA, which calls itself "The Voice for Health Care Consumers."

Tom, you were absolutely right about dropping the public option being meaningless. It's just another Democrat Trojan Horse (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362450890157932.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)...


Mr. Schumer's conditions are a national structure, federal financing, and a ban on federal appointees who have ties to the insurance industry. This "co-op" would be federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed. Expressing his opposition to smaller organizations and his demand for a national "co-op," Mr. Schumer says, "It has to have clout; it has to be large." He adds, "There would at least be one national model that could go all over the country," which would require "a large infusion of federal dollars."

National structure, federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed... but it's not government run health care. Do they really think we're that stupid? Don't answer that...

Hello again, El:

So, you're saying they'll approve procedures that keep people alive because it's profitable to do so?? Really? You're saying that an insurance company makes LESS money when they deny treatment to people... Hmmmm.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying.


Just how does that math work?? You got a 67 year old guy who needs $120,000 operation, but even if he gets it, he's only got, what, 5 years to live? You're saying, the premium he's going to pay for the rest of his life is going to be MORE than the $120,000?? How do you figure??

That insurance company, by providing GREAT SERVICE, not only gets to collect premiums from this 65-year-old guy for the next 5 years at $1500/month ($90,000 or 3/4 of the cost of your hypothetical operation), but they also attract several new clients due to word of mouth advertizing. Just one more client for 5 years that results from word of mouth advertising about how good that insurance company is would result in another $90K of income, which in turn would result in a 50% Return on Investment for the cost of that operation (including bothe the original client's $90K and the new client's $90K). The better the service, the more clients they get. The more clients they get, the more profitable they become. And OLD FOLKS TALK TO EACH OTHER, especially about their medical care. Old folks are the best means of word of mouth advertizing in the world, as has been shown over and over again.

Thar's gold in them thar old folks, and the insurance companies want that gold. So they keep the golden goose as warm and comfortable and well-fed as possible.


Dude! It's no wonder the banking industry went broke with people like you running things.

excon

You look at finance like a static, one-time-only, transaction. You only see one part of a very large, constantly changing equation that has ripple effects throughout the economy.

That's why I'm a financial professional and you're not.

Now... exactly how would a nationalized single-payer health care system justify the cost of that $120K operation? Or would they do what we've been saying they would do... use the same math that you use (which is appropriate when PROFITS aren't the motivator) and decide not to bother giving that 65-year-old guy his operation? Would it result in a Death Panel that denies care based on cost? Since their motive isn't PROFITS but rather SAVINGS, the best thing they could do is deny this patient the care he needs.

But perhaps you can explain the math to me and tell me how this patient would be served by a single-payer government system.

But you won't bother defending the single-payer system because the position is indefensable. You will instead attack the private insurance industry again.

Elliot

Tom, you were absolutely right about dropping the public option being meaningless.


I know the schmuckster like the back of my hand .

Those countries that have a life expectancy higher than yours all have universal healthcare. But don't let that stop you, please continue to fear monger - it's what you do.

They also ALL (every single one of them without exception) have lower cancer survival rates, lower heart condition survival rates, lower organ transplant survival rates, lower survival rates for any disease you can name, and generally worse medical outcomes for every condition. That has been shown over and over again in every study published by Lancet, AMA, the American Cancer Society, etc.

But go continue to try to tell us how much better your system is than ours.

Elliot

I know the schmuckster like the back of my hand .

You have the Schmuckster on the back of your hand? Quick, get him off. You have no idea where that thing's been. (Or maybe you do, which is all the more reason... ):D

They also ALL (every single one of them without exception) have lower cancer survival rates, lower heart condition survival rates, lower organ transplant survival rates, lower survival rates for any disease you can name, and generally worse medical outcomes for every condition. That has been shown over and over again in every study published by Lancet, AMA, the American Cancer Society, etc.How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

But perhaps you can explain the math to me and tell me how this patient would be served by a single-payer government system.Hello again, El:

Guy gets sick. Guy gets operation. Government pays bill. Done.

excon

Speaking of better systems, another example of the benefits of government health care...

Family told by NHS: Alzheimer's is not a 'health condition' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6049942/Family-told-by-NHS-Alzheimers-is-not-a-health-condition.html)

And closer to home, the VA has issued a directive that "instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices," a Clinton era "planning document" whose use was rightly suspended by the Bush administration.

The Death Book for Veterans (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html)

Hello again, El:

Guy gets sick. Guy gets operation. Government pays bill. Done.

excon

Guy gets sick. Guy applies to the government for pre-approval of an operation. Guy is denied because the cost is too high and the amount of quality of life improvement isn't justified.

Yeah... he's done all right.

Elliot

Guy gets sick. Guy applies to the government for pre-approval of an operation. Guy is denied because the cost is too high and the amount of quality of life improvement isn't justified.

Yeah... he's done alright.Hello again, El:

Just so we're clear... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

But, what IS happening now, is that every day, insurance adjusters are denying medical care in the name of PROFIT. That's not hype. That's so. Your position that they pay for EVERYTHING, but the government won't, is ridiculous on its face.

excon

Just so we're clear.... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't.... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

Ex, some conclusions are pretty easy to reach. When one of the major provisions of the plan is to have a committee determining what treatments they deem effective, it's only logical to conclude they aren't going to pay for a lot of things. And having a wife that's dealt with Medicare and Medicaid payments for along time, I know first hand how difficult it is to get them to pay anything. Why do you think so many doctors stopped taking such patients? The government doesn't pay enough to cover their costs and it's an extreme hassle to jump through all those hoops to get paid. Do you honestly think the Feds are going to get better about that once they add a couple hundred million more people to the rolls? And how many doctors, nurses and others in the field are going to walk away rather than deal with the government exclusively?

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-08/ramirez-trojan.jpg

When one of the major provisions of the plan is to have a committee determining what treatments they deem effective, it's only logical to conclude they aren't going to pay for a lot of things.
That's right, it's good to receive a treatment that's effective. Would you rather get a treatment that's ineffective? Where did you make the illogical conclusion that they aren't going to pay for a lot of things?

Do you honestly think the Feds are going to get better about that once they add a couple hundred million more people to the rolls? And how many doctors, nurses and others in the field are going to walk away rather than deal with the government exclusively?Hello Steve:

I have NEVER said that there won't be rationing of health care. All I've ever said, is that insurance companies ration health care too.

It's simple economics. We've got the amount we spend, and we have the result we get. In comparison to other nations, we don't get much bang for our buck. It's MY view, that that's a MANAGEMENT problem, not a rationing problem. It LOOKS solvable. Does that mean I think government WILL solve it? No. But, who knows, I could be surprised. There's certainly NO surprise what's going to happen if we DON'T fix it.

If the government doesn't fix it, they'll ration too. But, will they do it any LESS than the private insurers do now?? NO! Is it to be any more feared than what's happening today? NO! Personally, I don't care WHO the guy works for that won't approve medical services I need.

excon

How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

Life expectancy, as I have previously explained and you obviously have forgotten, is not a just function of medical care. It is also a function of genetics, diet, excersize, lifestyle, environment, stress, job environment, crime, CULTURE, etc.

The USA simply has the WORST DIET ON THE PLANET. (And I'm typing this one-handed as I grab another bunch of chips from the bag next to me.) We also have the highest stress levels, and the longest working hours. Our cost of living is high, and that creates high stress levels about finances. And we have more violent crime (especially murder) than any European country. Those are the factors that are driving our life expectancies.

And none of them effect MEDICAL OUTCOMES, which are PURELY a factor of medical care.

That is why the country with the best medical care can still have the lowest life expectancies.

However, as more Americans become aware of the need for a better diet, better excersize and a healthier lifestyle, our life expectancies are beginning to catch up with those of other countries. We see it happening. As Steve pointed out in #68.

NK, you really have to get off this "he lied" kick and learn to actually check your facts first. People who disagree with you are not liars. They're just better informed than you.

Oh, one more point. The USA has higher rates of preventive care than anywhere else in the world too. So your argument that "the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives" is just pure BS. More of our women get pap smears and mamograms than in any other country. More of our men get collonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings. More US citizens see their primary doctors at least once a year. More men and women get tested for diabetes. Across the board, we have better preventive medicine than you do. So your argument that you guys get better preventive care than we do and that is why you are "healthier" than us is also a crock of crap.

Source: June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."

Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Elliot




Elliot

Life expectancy, as I have previously explained and you obviously have forgotten, is not a just function of medical care. It is also a function of genetics, diet, excersize, lifestyle, environment, stress, job environment, crime, CULTURE, etc.So you've now chosen to use intangibles as measures of life expectancies? Ok with me. I guess I'd rather live in a country with less crime, less stress, citizens concerned with their diet and exercise, etc and still have universal health care.


The USA has higher rates of preventive care than anywhere else in the world too. So your argument that "the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives" is just pure BS. More of our women get pap smears and mamograms than in any other country. More of our men get collonoscopies and prostate cancer screenings. More US citizens see their primary doctors at least once a year. More men and women get tested for diabetes. Across the board, we have better preventive medicine than you do. So your argument that you guys get better preventive care than we do and that is why you are "healthier" than us is also a crock of crap. Where do all those millions without insurance go for their preventative care? The ER?

Hello again, El:

Just so we're clear... The for profit insurance company is going to pay whereas the government, who isn't interested in profit, won't... You know this, how? You actually don't know this at all. You just BELIEVE the right wing hype about it.

I know it because that is EXACTLY what is happening in Europe and Canada under these systems. I don't have to guess at it. I know it because it is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. And in the USA, the VA Medical system is doing it, the Native American Health System is doing it, and the Massachusets state-run system is doing it. We don't have that far to look to find this to be true.


But, what IS happening now, is that every day, insurance adjusters are denying medical care in the name of PROFIT. That's not hype. That's so. Your position that they pay for EVERYTHING, but the government won't, is ridiculous on its face.

Actually, no it's not. The government gets more money for letting people die, especially if they aren't paying into the system anymore. Insurance companies get more money by keeping them alive for as long as possible. This is simple economics.

And you haven't been listening. You are saying that I said things that I haven't said.

1) As I have pointed out to you, if you are willing to pay a high premium, they will cover you for 100% of anything you want.

2) As I have also pointed out to you, for those who are denied coverage and cannot pay a higher premium, they can purchase out of pocket.

3) As I have also said, for those who are denied and cannot pay out of pocket, there are additional alternatives.

4) And as I have also said, in a single payer health plan if you are denied, there is no other option.

You just don't want to hear these simple facts. You can not counter them, except to try to argue that it makes no sense, when it clearly does... nor can you deny the fact that the government is denying coverage to people right now, and other countries are denying health care to their citizens right now... even though those systems are supposed to cover everyone for everything.

Elliot

Basically ET favours a system that favours the rich.


4) And as I have also said, in a single payer health plan if you are denied, there is no other option.You repeat that like it's a common occurrence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care. I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

So you've now chosen to use intangibles as measures of life expectancies? Ok with me. I guess I'd rather live in a country with less crime, less stress, citizens concerned with their diet and exercise, etc and still have universal health care.

Actually, these are very tangible variables. And very measurable. In fact, if you eliminate crime as a cause of death, the statistics show that we actually have longer life expectancies than you Canadians with your universal health care. But since crime IS a factor, we can't state that as a fact.

But what we CAN say is that if you see a doctor in the USA for any ailment, you've got a better chance at surviving in the USA than you do in Canada. And THAT is the only statistic that counts when measuring the effectiveness of our medical systems.


Where do all those millions without insurance go for their preventative care? The ER?



The ER in some cases. Also:


Free clinics.
Church based charitable health programs. (Darn those evil religious groups.)
Insurance-company-run health community care events. (Darn those evil insurance companies)
Free community health care services offered by hospitals. (Darn those evil medical service providers.)

And many more.

Elliot

The ER in some cases. Also:


Free clinics.
Church based charitable health programs. (Darn those evil religious groups.)
Insurance-company-run health community care events. (Darn those evil insurance companies)
Free community health care services offered by hospitals. (Darn those evil medical service providers.)

And many more.Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

Basically ET favours a system that favours the rich.

I'm curious as to why when I say that if you are on government health care and the government denies your claim, you have no other option, you automatically assume that this favors the rich?

I favor a system that allows for choices OTHER THAN the health care system you are in, in case that system doesn't do what it should for you. And a GOVERNMENT SINGLE-PAYER system doesn't allow for any other options.

How is that a case of supporting a system that favors the rich?

You, on the other hand, favor a system that treats everyone like children, gives no options for individual freedom or individual choice, and prevents personal improvement of the human condition.


You repeat that like it's a common occurrence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care.

And therefore it doesn't happen, right?


I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

This last sentence makes no sense.

However, your own government's health care statistics show that people are REGULARLY denied care, forced to wait for care that is urgently needed, and many end up dying before they get the treatment that would have saved their lives. YOU may not know any of these people, but they exist (or they did until they died waiting on lines they should never have been forced to wait on).

I happen not to know anyone who has been denied care here in the USA, but government statistics that say it is happening. Does the fact that I don't know any such people make it less true?

You need to stop thinking that YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is the be-all and end-all of knowledge of the Canadian health care system. Because frankly, you're not that knowledgeable about it.

Here's my personal story: My grandmother, who died in March, had been chronically ill. She was brought to Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, NY just before she died. She was covered by PRIVATE INSURANCE, as well as Medicare. Medicare never paid a dime, but her private insurance covered every penny of her medical costs, which were rather high. The doctors in the hospital were jumping all over themselves to find out what else they could do to help her... they even wanted to trache her. My father and his siblings signed a DNR/DNI so that they would let her go easily without drawing out the inevitable.

The doctors in the hospital were jumping all over themselves to find out what else they could do to help her...

If we had been on government health care, she never would have been in the hospital in the first place. Doctors would be under orders to let her die, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE WANTED. If we had wanted the doctors to perform "heroic measures" to try to save her, we would have been denied that option, because my grandmother's utility had run out.

And I experienced the same thing THREE TIMES in the past 18 months, with three grandparents at two different hospitals. So I know it wasn't an isolated case.

I know which system I prefer. I prefer the one where the doctors are jumping all over themselves to help the patient and have to be told by the family to stop, rather than one where she would not receive care in the first place.

So if you want to compare personal experiences, I'll see your "I don't know anyone" and raise you "two grandmothers and a grandfather in the past 18 months".

Elliot

Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

It beats the hell out of "If you're sick and you're denied coverage by the government, just go and die."

Elliot

You repeat that like it's a common occurence but no one, I repeat NO ONE I know has ever been denied care. I guess I could estimate that to me around a few hundred people at an average of 40 - that's a lot of man-years as a sample.

Do you know anyone who has been denied care by a private insurance company? No? It must not have happened then.

That's right, it's good to receive a treatment that's effective. Would you rather get a treatment that's ineffective? Where did you make the illogical conclusion that they aren't going to pay for a lot of things?

Um, a large part of that isn't just "effectiveness" but whether they deem a treatment to be "cost-effective." That's how.

Um, a large part of that isn't just "effectiveness" but whether or not they deem a treatment to be "cost-effective." That's how.Ok, quote the part of the bill that says that. Link to page number and paragraph would be great.

Do you know anyone who has been denied care by a private insurance company? Yes, you.

Ok, go ahead and quote the part of the bill that says that. Link to page number and paragraph would be great.

Lets go with HR 3200. Section 1233 (pages 424 - 434).

Then there's section 141, which refers to the Health Choices Administration how it sets standards for insurance coverage. And section 142, which refers to the National Health Insurance Exchange which also sets standards for insurance coverage.

Both of these are rationing bodies. They determine who gets what coverage, how much of it, and what the standards for coverage are. Part of their job is to use QALY calculations to determine whether the coverage you need is cost effective. And if it's not, your dead. Thus they are death panels, regardless of what you call them.

When you are done reading these sections of the bill, read this op-ed from the Washington post.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html)

It's there. It's hidden in the language of the bill, but it's there.

Elliot

Lets go with HR 3200. Section 1233 (pages 424 - 434).

Then there's section 141, which refers to the Health Choices Administration how it sets standards for insurance coverage. And section 142, which refers to the National Health Insurance Exchange which also sets standards for insurance coverage.

Both of these are rationing bodies. They determine who gets what coverage, how much of it, and what the standards for coverage are.I read those pages and it says nothing at all of what you wrote.

In fact here is Section 141 in its entirety:

•HR 3200 IH
SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH 8
CHOICES COMMISSIONER. 9
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an 10
Independent agency in the executive branch of the Govern- 11
Meant, a Health Choices Administration (in this division 12
Referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’). 13
(b) COMMISSIONER.— 14
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be 15
Headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this 16
Division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who 17
Shall be appointed by the President, by and with the 18
Advice and consent of the Senate. 19
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC.—The provisions of 20
Paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relat- 21
Ing to compensation, terms, general powers, rule- 22
Making, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social 23
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the 24
Commissioner and the Administration in the same 25
Manner as such provisions apply to the Commis- 26
Sioner of Social Security and the Social Security Ad- 1
Ministration. 2

Show me the text in the bill that supports your argument - so far we've seen nothing.

I read those pages and it says nothing at all of what you wrote.

In fact here is Section 141 in its entirety:


Show me the text in the bill that supports your argument - so far we've seen nothing.

Section 141 is about two pages long and you didn't show all of it. Section 142 is just about as long.

By your own standards, would that make you a liar, as you have called Speechless countless times?

BOTH of those sections discuss the responsibilities of these panels and the methods by which they set STANDARDS within the health care system, and the methodology by which they do so. And that methodology includes QALY testing... what is referred to in the legislation as "efficiency testing" but actually refers to COST EFFICIENCY, not efficacy of the service being provided.

In other words, death panels that determine whether you get treatment based on your age and the cost of the treatment.

And you completely ignored section 1233 which talks about the death counselors for people over the age of 65. Would ignoring that ALSO make you a liar, as you have called Speechless?

Nah... it's just those of us on the right wing who lie, right?

Elliot

Ok, go ahead and quote the part of the bill that says that. Link to page number and paragraph would be great.

NK, you seem to know more about it than we do so tell us how it's going to work. We're not idiots despite what you may believe, I mean of course want the most effective treatments. But knowing how my country works, the people behind this, the already established committee to determine "comparative effectiveness," the fact that controlling costs is mentioned on a daily basis and what it would take for the government to manage health care for everyone, my conclusion is entirely logical.

If you love the fact that your government decides which treatments are best then I'm happy for you. For me, trusting the feds to make that determination is about as intelligent as playing Russian Roulette... in fact, I don't see much difference between that and Obamacare.

How does a nation with lower rates in all those fields have higher life expectancies? Because a) what you say is not true and b) the citizens can see a doctor regularly to nip issues at the bud i.e. they are generally healthier throughout their lives. Just take a look at the health boards on this forums - it's chock full of americans asking for medical advice for problems that should require a doctor's advice ASAP.

Maybe one reason you Canadians have a higher life expectancy is you keep sending people here for testing and treatment (http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/) and footing the bill.

Those countries that have a life expectancy higher than yours all have universal healthcare. But don't let that stop you, please continue to fear monger - it's what you do.

I've given you examples and reasons "universal" government run healthcare will reduce life expectancy in the US, and your reply is to say "fear monger?"

Well if the FACTS are to be feared then cal me a fear monger all you want.



Private health insurance: In one door and out the other? (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1197140)





The Supreme Court decision to invalidate Quebec's laws banning private health insurance for services covered under the Canada Health Act continues to stir the passions of physicians and health care providers. At their annual meeting, delegates of the Canadian Medical Association condemned the failures of the public health care system. By a two-thirds majority, they voted to entertain, after a 6-month period of study, the introduction of “private supplementary health insurance.” An opposing motion by the Canadian Association of Internes and Residents was defeated by the same margin.

...

However, a monopoly health care system that does not deliver promised care in a timely, nonarbitrary and fair manner fails this legal test. Governments must either fix the dysfunctions of their health care monopoly or permit individuals to seek care (and the private health insurance to purchase it) elsewhere.





This isn't "rightwing" or GOP or private health insurance propaganda, this is your own medical society and Quebec's majority supreme court decision back in 2005. No a hip replacement was not denied but delays in care and waiting lists might as well be a denial of healthcare.



Here are more facts

GOVERNMENT MEDICINE SHOULD HORRIFY AMERICANS (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18318)


Besides using life expectancy as a measure of healthcare provided is full of potential confounding factors like:

Tobacco use: does one country have higher tobacco use rates per population? If so this may account for a lower life expectancy.

The same can be said for obesity rates, or high blood pressure rates. Certain ethnicities have higher rates of certain diseases. For example there are higher rates of high blood pressure and diabetes in blacks, hispanics, and certain American indians. Are these factors accounted for in the national life expectancy rates? How about drug abuse or alcoholism rates?

These factors have more of an influence on life expectancy rates than mode of healthcare delivery.




G&P

Those of us opposed to universal healthcare as Obama would have it, have proposed alternatives or changes. Not a peep on the Obamacare side to demonstrate that either these are already part of HR 3200 or should or should not be incorporated. Why?

Why is it that those in favor of Obamacare cannot produce RESULTS better than the current system. Are we as Americans suppose to trust the government to get it right and do it in a cost effective manor?

Unfortunantly this is true:

Marion Illinois woes spur VA to widen probe (http://www.gulfwarvets.com/marion_illinois_va.htm)




Sens. Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois requested the hearing. The two Democrats have pushed the VA repeatedly for information about the Marion facility, 15 miles east of Carbondale, where nine patients died in surgery from October 2006 to March 2007. That was more than four times the expected rate.



Is this the type of healthcare Obama wants for all Americans?




G&P

Section 141 is about two pages long and you didn't show all of it. Section 142 is just about as long.
Here are two links to the bill:
Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

They both show the text as I stated. Please show a link to the bill from a government site that shows any missing text from Section 141. Otherwise retract your post.

NK, you seem to know more about...blah, blah, blah..All I asked was for you to show the text in the bill to back up your statement. You obviously could not do that so your statement is bogus at this point, just more fear-mongering.

Is this the type of healthcare Obama wants for all Americans?No, that's obviously a gross misconduct of medecine. It's the same as someone posting info about people dying because of the current private insurance system and extrapolating it to represent your whole system. I'm assuming you wouldn't buy that either.

Maybe one reason you Canadians have a higher life expectancy is you keep sending people here for testing and treatment (http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/) and footing the bill.Some people do go but it's a small number. It's another one of your talking points.

The Most Outrageous U.S. Lies About Global Healthcare | Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_about_global_healthcar e?page=full)


In general, Canadians are not flocking south for health care, and for good reason. According to a report from the Fraser Institute, a prominent Canadian think tank, both the Canadian and U.S. governments spend about 7 percent of their GDPs on health-care costs. (The United States, including private expenditure, spends about 16 percent of GDP on health care.) But all Canadians are covered for all medical care, plus some prescription drug costs. In the United States, 47 million are uninsured, and hundreds of thousands declare bankruptcy every year due to medical bills.
There are wait times in Canada, but nobody waits for emergency surgery; McConnell's claim about bypass patients is untrue. In 2007, a non-emergency patient in Ontario waited (http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/Final_Wait_Times_AIB_EN_080229.pdf) about 61 days for elective bypass surgery, according to Canada's health service. Such collected data is not made public (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=07&year=2007&base_name=american_wait_times) in the United States.


Usually the healhcare program picks up the bill for any procedures done elsewhere so that the person does not experience financial hardship to boot. It matters not whethere you are a McDonald's employee or the CEO of Molson, you get cared for.

No, that's obviously a gross misconduct of medecine. It's the same as someone posting info about people dying because of the current private insurance system and extrapolating it to represent your whole system. I'm assuming you wouldn't buy that either.

If you read the text, the VA has in place a process to certify doctors, apparently the ball was dropped on this end. Why hire a surgeon with a troubled past? Why not do the due diligence that is already should be SOP? Because when you pay way below the market rate for a professional, you will not get qualified candidate.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/21/770288/-The-truth-about-HR-3200-(Part-2))




23 (1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERV
24 ICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the es
25 sential benefits package for preventive items and

1 services (as specified under the benefit standards),
2 including well baby and well child care.





Partnership Applauds Obama's 'No Cost-Sharing' Protections for Preventive Services (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/partnership-applauds-obamas-no-cost-sharing-protections-for-preventive-services,909398.shtml)






A study by Partnership for Prevention's National Commission on Prevention Priorities found that increased utilization of just five clinical preventive services - daily aspirin use, tobacco cessation counseling, adult pneumococcal immunization, and breast and colon cancer screening - would save an additional 100,000 lives a year, while all five services either save money or are cost-effective.







This is very good and the Obama administration should be pointing this out.







G&P

Because when you pay way below the market rate for a professional, you will not get qualified candidate.You'd have to prove that cause/effect relationship.

Because when you pay way below the market rate for a professional, you will not get qualified candidate.Hello again, in:

You should consider that we ARE the market. We're the biggest on the block. We're the last western nation to guard our health care profits. So, once THIS market goes, there ain't no other. Therefore, the guy who would have become a doctor, will become a banker...

Consequently, the people who become doctors will be those who want to SAVE people instead of get rich. Frankly, I'd rather have the former.

excon

That is exactly what happened at the Marion Il VA.

Physician pay is limited by congress.

Salary Table 2007-CIN (http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/html/cin.asp)

Grade 15 step 10 $142,000


Physician Compensation Data, Doctor Salary, Physician Pay | Cejka Search (http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm)


Private sector general surgery

Start at about $223,000 median $338,000


--------------------------------------


Tell me what qualified general surgeon with experience [ remember 4 years medical school age 26, and at least 5 years residency age 31 if not more ] would work at $81,000 less than the startting salary of a surgeon just out of training? Remember that VA salary is regardless if you do 10 surgeries a month or 50.





G&P

inthebox,
Dude, why do you have so much spacing in your posts? It's like 45 lines with only 10 lines of text. Why?

Hello again, in:

You should consider that we ARE the market. We're the biggest on the block. We're the last western nation to guard our health care profits. So, once THIS market goes, there ain't no other. Therefore, the guy who would have become a doctor, will become a banker...

Consequently, the people who become doctors will be those who want to SAVE people instead of get rich. Frankly, I'd rather have the former.

Excon

You don't think doctors should get compensated for at least 7 years of school and training, this is AFTER a college degree. Add the fact that many willl have 6 figure debt, be close if not over 30? Add the fact that at any time in your career you are statistically likely to get sued frivoulously and loose all that you have ever worked for. Even suits that are dropped take time and legal costs.


It is arrogant attitudes like your's and Obama's to assume that doctors should not get paid or think you know how to do their job better than doctor's do.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama: Doctors Taking Tonsils Out For Money Instead Of Diagnosing It As Allergies (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/22/obama_doctors_taking_tonsils_out_for_money_instead _of_diagnosing_it_as_allergies.html)





"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.



News from the American College of Surgeons: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama (http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html)




Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient




It is this arrogance coupled with stupidity that makes me, and apparently more and more Americans, not trust one word this president says. And you expect him to direct your healthcare?







G&P

inthebox,
Dude, why do you have so much spacing in your posts? It's like 45 lines with only 10 lines of text. Why?

Is that your reply? To the information I link to prove my point? Can you logically counterpoint with facts and information? I won't change my style to accommodate you because I find one long paragraph with multiple points tedious.


G&P

You don't think doctors should get compensated for at least 7 years of school and training, this is AFTER a college degree. Add in the fact that many willl have 6 figure debt, be close if not over 30? Add in the fact that at any time in your career you are statistically likely to get sued frivoulously and loose all that you have ever worked for. Even suits that are dropped take time and legal costs.... It is arrogant attitudes like your's.. Hello again, in:

When I said we're the market, I meant that WE'RE THE MARKET. When the change comes, it'll ALL change. Schools won't make fortunes for training doctors any more. Banks won't make fortunes loaning money to future doctors any more. Lawyers won't sue doctors any more if they can't get paid.

It won't cost much to become a doctor anymore, because doctors won't be making the big bucks...

I have nothing against doctors, and I'm not arrogant at all. It IS true, that medical school costs a lot of money... I just think they ought to wait longer than two weeks before they earn it all back. (That's a joke.)

I suppose I could call YOU arrogant, if you think I want to spend $.75 cents of every dollar I make on health care, which is where it'll be in 10 years if we do NOTHING, instead of the $.25 cents I spend today.

For YOU to want ME, and your fellow Americans to suffer THAT fate, is beyond arrogance.

excon

Suppose I could call YOU arrogant, if you think I want to spend $.75 cents of every dollar I make on health care, which is where it'll be in 10 years if we do NOTHING, instead of the $.25 cents I spend today.



Where do you get this figure?

And no one is FORCING YOU to spend YOUR MONEY in any particular way. Now the government can take your money in the form of taxes, and spend your money any way they see fit. Where is your outrage over that?




G&P

Hello again, in:

When I said we're the market, I meant that WE'RE THE MARKET. When the change comes, it'll ALL change. Schools won't make fortunes for training doctors any more. Banks won't make fortunes loaning money to future doctors any more. Lawyers won't sue doctors any more if they can't get paid.

excon

And what do you base this prediction on? What has the cost of colllege done in the last several decades?

College tuition is far outpacing the cost of living - Aug. 20, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/pf/college/college_price.moneymag/)

Lawyers sue doctors to get money from the MALPRACTICE INSURERS, as well as the doctor, if that doctor has any assets. And lawyers do such a good job that this happens.

St. Paul Cos. Exits Medical Malpractice Insurance - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/business/st-paul-cos-exits-medical-malpractice-insurance.html)


Oh BTW, thinking that a lawyer won't sue is thinking a scorpion won't sting,

The Scorpion and the Frog (http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html)



G&P

And what do you base this prediction on? What has the cost of colllege done in the last several decades?Hello in:

For a righty, you don't understand the market very well. How many students will the high priced medical schools attract if the doctors they produce CAN'T make money?? How many lawyer will sue, if they CAN'T make money??

When the market goes, ALL the supporting services will go too.

excon

Is that your reply? To the information I link to prove my point? Can you logically counterpoint with facts and information? I won't change my style to accomadate you because I find one long paragraph with multiple points tedious.


G&P

No.

That wasn't my reply.


It was a comment. Your style make sa thread much



Longer than it needs be.


No need to accommodate me I guess.


Busy now, may reply later.






Me,


NK.

Some people do go but it's a small number. It's another one of your talking points.

LOL, I just posted a brand new article, it wasn't me making the point.


Usually the healhcare program picks up the bill for any procedures done elsewhere so that the person does not experience financial hardship to boot. It matters not whethere you are a McDonald's employee or the CEO of Molson, you get cared for.

Um, I said "and footing the bill."

You'd have to prove that cause/effect relationship.

Look at the people who run the US Postal Service.

They get paid less than the people who do similar jobs at DHL, UPS and Federal Express.

The US Postal Service is courting bankruptcy. They are cutting services (5 days of delivery instead of 6), cutting the number of post offices, cutting hours, cutting the number of mail boxes (by 1/2 according to one report I read) and will again be raising the price of stamps.

If you pay people less than other similar businesses will, you will get less competent employees, and they will run your business into the ground.

Please keep in mind that Obama's model for private insurance being able to compete with the "public option" was the Postal Service and it's competition with DHL, FEDEX and UPS. But the Postal Service is FAILING, and a huge part of that failure is due to the incompetence of the cut-rate-wage employees. That, and the general incompetence, inefficiency and waste of the Federal government.

You wanted proof of the cause and effect of wages to competence: here it is.

Elliot

Hello again, in:

You should consider that we ARE the market. We're the biggest on the block. We're the last western nation to guard our health care profits. So, once THIS market goes, there ain't no other. Therefore, the guy who would have become a doctor, will become a banker...

Consequently, the people who become doctors will be those who want to SAVE people instead of get rich. Frankly, I'd rather have the former.

excon

TANSTAAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Doctors, even those who are completely altruistic in their desire to help others, still have to pay the mortgage and utility bills. Give them the choice between a job that pays well and one that doesn't, even the most altruistic person will bow to inevitability and take the job that pays.

That's why Canada has a shortage of doctors right now. So does the UK. And France. And Cuba. And Denmark. And Russia. And Poland. And Japan. And pretty much every other nation that has nationalized health care. (Norway, interestingly enough doesn't have a shortage, and their's the closest to a private health care system still left in Europe.)

We don't.

But I know, I know, profits are bad. Doctors have to be dirt poor and earn no money in order to be considered good guys. Otherwise, they're just in it for the profits and must be evil.

Elliot

You wanted proof of the cause and effect of wages to competence: here it is.Hello again, El:

Well, if the government is so incompetent, why are you worried about a public option?

excon

We don't.


Situation Critical: U.S. ERs Face Shortage of Doctors - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3890732)

Situation Critical: U.S. ERs Face Shortage of Doctors



ANALYSIS-Shortage of doctors could damage healthcare reform | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN21255541)

ANALYSIS-Shortage of doctors could damage healthcare reform



Country facing shortage of doctors - WTHR | Indianapolis (http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=10951555)

the country is facing a growing shortage of family doctors.

TANSTAAFL There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.Hello again, El:

I don't know. In the East you have private toll roads... I even drove on one... I'm sure it was built and run by highly paid private workers... But, it was just as smoooooooothe as any public road I've been on...

So, what's your point?

excon

Hello in:

For a righty, you don't understand the market very well. How many students will the high priced medical schools attract if the doctors they produce CAN'T make money???? How many lawyer will sue, if they CAN'T make money????

When the market goes, ALL the supporting services will go too.

excon

Yep.

As a matter of fact, one of the ideas being floated by Obama was to make the tuition at medical schools free in order to continue to attract med students. That's cause Obama knows that if he stops hospitals from paying top dollar for their employees and cuts reimbursement rates, they will lose their best medical staff. So he's creating an incentive for them. He forsees the same loss of services that you are predicting, excon, and he knows it is inevitable under his proposed system of nationalized health care.

The problem with his solution is two-fold.

1) Who's will foot the bill for the free medical school?
2) If Medical school is free, by what standard will the wheat be cut from the chaff among candidates?

The answer to the first problem is obvious. WE WILL BE PAYING FOR IT IN HIGHER TAXES. Not only would we have to support the bloated bureaucracy of the government medical system, which drives the price of medical care anywhere from 35% to 500% higher than the private systems, but we will also have to support the cost of EDUCATING these doctors.

The second problem needs to be explained a bit further.

Part of the way that medical schools decide who are the best candidates are academic grades. Getting into medical school is academically hard for a reason. But there is another method they use... the cost of medical school. If a student doesn't believe that they will be a good enough doctor to make enough money to pay back his very high student loans, chances are he'll choose not to go to medical school. I didn't think I would be a very good doctor, even though I had pretty decent grades and would have been accepted into any number of medical schools. I became a banker instead. My brother did think so, and he's a radiologist. The COST of a medical school education keeps out some of the chaff and only lets in the wheat. It is not a perfect system by any means, but it works pretty well.

If you eliminate the COST of medical school, you are eliminating one of the ways that medical schools keep out less qualified practitioners. The result will be an increase in less qualified practitioners. If you combine that with salary capping and lower reimbursement rates for doctors, what you get is a migration of highly qualified candidates OUT of medicine, and a migration of less qualified candidates INTO medicine. Within a decade, you get a medical system that is MEDIOCRE at best, and downright tragic at worst.

Yes, lowering medical school costs may also allow some very qualified candidates who would not otherwise be able to afford medical school into the system. And that might be a good thing. But there is another factor that is often overlooked... the length and difficulty of an extended medical education.

Lawyers go to school for 4 years and then make top dollar at some law firm, corporate interest or in private practice. But doctors go to school for 4 years. Then they have internships for between 1 and 3 years, depending on specialty. Then they become Residents. Then they take boards which take a year to study for. Then they go into fellowships for several years to practice their specialty. During all this time, they are working DOG hours (36-hour shifts, long on-call periods, etc.) and getting paid relatively low. We're talking about a 10-12 year medical education before the doctor is ready to make any serious money. There's a huge sacrifice in Medicine that doesn't exist in Law or Accounting or even Dentistry.

Now... Let's say you're a poor person who has been interested in medicine since you were 6 years old. You want to help people. You are smart and have good grades. But you find out that you can't afford medical school. You are disappointed, but life's full of little disappointments, and you learn to go on in some other field of endeavour.

Then you find out that medical schools are going to be free. You are excited to be able to go. You figure, in a few years, after a long and hard education, you'll be able to write your own ticket.

Then you find out that it is going to take you 12 years of education before you can "write your own ticket" after all. And even after that 12-year period of working like a slave for what in your career path is considered minimum wage, you have now been told that your salary will STILL be limited by the government, and won't be all that high after all.

On the other hand, you can get into lawschool just as easily and be making top dollar in 4 years. You might want to help people through medicine, but you don't want to be poor in order to do it. You can help more people as a rich attorney making donations to large charities than you can as a doctor working 60 hour weeks for no pay.

What do you do?

The chance of getting a few more VERY ALTRUISTIC and very qualified poor people to go to med school does not offset the number of middle-class and upper-class people who are also highly qualified who will choose NOT to go into medicine in the new environment.

This very problem has plagued the UK medical system since the 1940s and 1950s, and they still haven't figured out how to counter it without privatizing the system. France has similar problem, as do most European countries. Canada has seen a migration of medical talent from Canada to the USA because the pay is better. All of this has been documented in various studies. And it WILL happen here if we let Obama have his way.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You're very good at hyping conservative ideology. However, as we learned from the Bush and Reagan years, when put into actual practice, it fails.

I don't disagree that many people WON'T become doctors because they can no longer get rich. I DO disagree that the new class of doctors pursuing the field will be less qualified that their predecessors.

excon

Hello again, El:

Well, if the government is so incompetent, why are you worried about a public option?

excon

I'm worried because it isn't going to be an option.

The way this is all being set up, it will FORCE people into the public "option". Here's how:

1) Anyone who doesn't have private health care in the year in which the "public option" is made available will not be allowed to obntain private health insurance. They will be FORCED to take the public option.

2) Any companies with more than $750K in revenues (which is most small businesses) that do not offer private insurance to their employees will be forced to either offer the public option or will be forced to pay a 7.5% non-insurance tax (ostensibly to cover the cost to the government for insuring all those employees). The costs of EITHER obtaining private insurance that they can't afford OR being forced to pay the non-insurance tax will force many small businesses out of business. That will force their employees and themselves onto the public option by din't of the fact that they are uninsured (see #1).

3) By making medical insurance a taxable item, the government will be driving the cost of private health insurance up, forcing many individuals and businesses to go with the government option because it will be the only way to manage costs.

4) By regulating the private insurance companies up the wazoo, the government is driving the cost of private insurance through the roof. Businesses and individuals that have to choose between the artificially inflated prices of private insurance caused by that regulation or the public option will choose the public option... because of non-market forces that are driving private insurance costs.

In short, the government has stacked the deck. They control the means of supply via regulation the laws by which the private insurance companies and private businesses must operate.

So it is not that people will CHOOSE the public option. It's that they won't have any choice at all, because the government will be FORCING them to take the government option.

The CBO estimated that something like 125 MILLION Americans will be FORCED off their private health insurance and into the public option against their will on day one that the legislation takes effect. That's roughly 41% of the US population.

So... what worries me is not that there will be FAIR competition between the government and the private sector. What worries me is that there WON'T BE fair competition between the government and the private sector, because the government has stacked the deck.

You want real competition in medical insurance? Open up inter-state commerce between insurance companies like we have with auto-insurance. Allow portability of medical insurance. Allow build-your-own-insurance planning the way we do with auto insurance and life insurance. Create REAL competition between the insurance companies.

You want real competition between the government and private insurance? Stop the government from stacking the deck with tax laws over small businesses and regulation over the insurance industry. Until then there is no competition, there is only the power of government over individuals and private companies.

Why am I worried about a public option? Because it ain't going to be optional.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You're very good at hyping conservative ideology. However, as we learned from the Bush and Reagan years, when put into actual practice, it fails.


Really? When did the Reagan policies fail? Reagan caused the largest period of economic growth in our history, with personal wealth increasing at a massive rate never before seen in history. And Bush II pulled us out of a massive recession caused by Clinton and the 9/11 attacks in record time, DESPITE the actions of the Dems in fighting those policies.


I don't disagree that many people WON'T become doctors because they can no longer get rich. I DO disagree that the new class of doctors pursuing the field will be less qualified that their predecessors.

Excon

Tell it to the Canadians, the French, the Brits, the Poles, the Checks, the Swiss, the Spanish, etc.

All of them have issues with both the quantity and the quality of the doctors in their countries.

Whereas we have the best doctors in the world, and plenty of them.

So you can disagree all you like. You're still wrong.

Elliot

Excon,

Have you ever wondered why rich doctors get rich?

It probably has something to do with their compentence. They are GOOD at their jobs, and they become rich doing those jobs.

Take away the ability to become rich, and all you are left with are mediocre doctors who do a mediocre job for mediocre pay. While the people who are really good go on to do something else for a living and get rich doing it.

It's called competition. While it is true that employees have to compete for the best jobs, you seem to forget that employers have to compete for the best-qualified employees. Take away their ability to compete, and they won't get the best. The best will go just elsewhere because they ARE the best and can afford to.

Elliot

The best will go just elsewhere because they ARE the best and can afford to.Hello again, El:

It's like I was telling in, when our market goes, there's no elsewhere to go. They could try banking. They could use some of the "best".

excon

Hello again, El:

So, when you're sick, it's time to go begging... You're something else.

excon

You twisted talking about alternative care

Into being sick and begging pg11

you twisted talking about alternative care into being sick and begging pg11Hello again, zip:

I don't know about the twisting part, but I couldn't find it on page 11. If I did, when I did it, it WAS in context with the general conversation going on at that time...

But, if you're saying that I don't argue fair, don't argue with me then. I got my hands full enough trying to correct the wrong ones we already got.

excon

Hello again, El:

It's like I was telling in, when our market goes, there's no elsewhere to go. They could try banking. They could use some of the "best".

excon

As you point out, they will simply NOT GO INTO MEDICINE, and instead go into other industries, like law, banking, accounting, computers, etc. Anything that pays better than medicine. They will just exit medicine.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

I'll take it as another win, thanks.

Elliot

As you point out, they will simply NOT GO INTO MEDICINE,
Thanks for proving my point for me.Hello again, El:

You have to win all sides before you can claim victory... The part you're missing, is that people who would have had to work for Wal Mart, are going to be able to go to medical school. Cause being a doctor, even under socialized medicine will still pay better.

Sorry, Wolverine. Wrong again.

excon

Hello again, El:

You're very good at hyping conservative ideology. However, as we learned from the Bush and Reagan years, when put into actual practice, it fails.

I don't disagree that many people WON'T become doctors because they can no longer get rich. I DO disagree that the new class of doctors pursuing the field will be less qualified that their predecessors.

excon

Every country with universal health coverage has a larger percentage of primary care physicians [ pcps] [ internal medicine, pediatricians, family practice, OB-GYN, some may include general surgery ] than specialists, this is not true in the US. The US is perhaps top heavy in specialists ] The US will have and does have a shortfall of pcps, especially in rural areas. Specialists make more money and because reimbursement is rewarded for the more you do, especially procedures, rather than the more you think, for which all that schooling is required, areas with a high percentage of specialists tend to be higher in healthcare expenditures. Pcps also deal more with preventative health and management of chronic illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure. It is cheaper and better for the person to have a pcp manage and control such things as high blood pressure and diabetes, thus preventing or delaying a complication, like a heart attack. The cardiologist generally does not see the person till after they have had a complication, like a heart attack. In other words, prevention and disease management by pcps is better and cheaper than the needed specialist care for a complication.

I say this because.with the aging baby boomer population this compunds the problem of a shortage of pcps. "free " universal health care will only increase the demand for pcps. Cash for clunkers demonstrates this.


The question is, where are all the pcps going to come from?

Only 2% of medical school students say they are going into primary care? Are 98% greedy money grubbing sobs? No doubt some are, every group of people hhas them.

Factor in, more women are in medicine than a generation ago, women tend to work less hours than men and are still mom to children, the time demands of being a pcps are huge, so a lot of students will choose "lifestyle" - less hours [ < 50 per week ] in fields like radiology, opthamology, dermatology rather than in primary care.

Factor in large student debt not only from medical school but also undergraduate college. Imagine having to pay easily over $ 1000 dollars a month on school loans.

Factor in that there are easier ways to make potenetially more money- like banking. Getting an MBA is shorter, though may be as difficult, than getting an MD







G&P

Hello again, El:

It's like I was telling in, when our market goes, there's no elsewhere to go. They could try banking. They could use some of the "best".

excon

You keep referring to the quote "market" ? This means the free market with regard to healthcare? At least you are being transparent.

But kiss goodbye to innovation and technologic advancement, other than in IT to monitor every individuals finances and personal medical record.

In the 1990s eye surgery to correct nearsightedness began. It was literally by microscalpel, radial keratotomy. It cost about $3000 per eye, out of pocket, totally free market. The cost of a machine to do this ran in the millions of dollars. With competition, and better technology LASIK is perhaps half this cost with better results. This was not in some government cost benefit analysis or comparative value scale.

There are already guidelines by NIH, CDC, and various medical societies that state what is standard of care, but this leaves out what is the future - knowledge will stagnate as some cookbook protocol determines your care and what the doctor can legally do. Believe it or not but plenty of surgical advancements have come under the duress of the operating room or the battlefield. Critical thinking, vision, and doing ALL YOU CAN for the person at hand is ALL THAT MATTERS. Will the a governmental medical cookbook allow this?





G&P

Hello again, El:

You have to win all sides before you can claim victory... The part you're missing, is that people who would have had to work for Wal Mart, are gonna be able to go to medical school. Cause being a doctor, even under socialized medicine will still pay better.

Sorry, Wolverine. Wrong again.

excon

First of all, medicine in soicialized medicine countries does NOT pay better than Wal-mart. Sorry to break that to you, but there's a reason that people don't become doctors in those countries, and PAY is the major factor.

Second: you can spend 12 years working 60-hour weeks for slave wages, and then MAYBE get a market rate for your wages that manages to cover your day-to-day costs of living that have been building up for those 12 years (for which medical students will have to take out loans to cover, even if their medical school bills are covered --- my brother has more student loans to cover his rent and utility bills than to cover his medical school tuition, and he is not unusual), or you can go straight to Wal-mart and work for a market wage right away that MAYBE will cover your day-to-day cost of living.

If it's the same "maybe", I might as well not work as hard and get the same thing. Why be a slave for 12 years first, if all I'm going to be doing is "just getting by". I can do less work and get the same gain.

That's the problem with socialism in a nutshell.

And that's the problem with Obama's health plan.

Elliot

But kiss goodbye to innovation and technologic advancement, Wrong. If they proceed like they do in Canada then they have a department set up for just that (Science and Research - Main Page - Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/index-eng.php)) to benefit all Canadians, not just the elite who can afford it.

Wrong. If they proceed like they do in Canada then they have a department set up for just that (Science and Research - Main Page - Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/index-eng.php)) to benefit all Canadians, not just the elite who can afford it.

What has that Science and Research department actually produced?

Something like 75% of all medicines, medical technologies and medical innovations in the world come out of the USA. Many come from Israel, which also has a free market medical system with a public option safety net for catastrophic care only (the Kuppat Cholim system). It is one of the few places where medical technology and medical R&D is stronggly pursued. They get credit for about about 10-15% of all medical innovation. Pretty good given the size of their economy compared to the USA's.

Japan does another 5-10%, and much of it is good stuff. For them it's a cultural thing as much as a business thing... the need to be productive in society. But the money is the real incentive, and because Japan doesn't filed the cost of a full-up army like most other countries do, they can afford to subsidise more of their medical system from the government, which makes it more cost effective to be in medical R&D and medicine in general in Japan than in other socialized medicine countries. But they still don't come anywhere near the USA's level of production, despite their very large economy. They don't even produce as much as Israel, despite being a much larger economy.

The rest of the world combined only produces about 10% of all medical innovation. That includes Canada and all of Europe and Asia.

So yes... there is SOME medical R&D in Canada... but not much. There's just no money in it.

Elliot

ET,
Answer my previous question about the text that shows the Dems want death panels.

Interestingly enough, the site that NK linked to regarding Canadian medical research has a little blurb at the bottom in which they try to take credit for "helping develop" the vaccine for Polio... a vaccine first invented by Jonas Salk, an American. A second vaccine, an oral one, was developed by Albert Sabin, naturalized American Citizen born in Bialostock, Poland in 1921. As far as I can tell, Canada had nothing to do with it.

So what, exactly, has Canada's medical R&D establishment done since curing Polio?

Elliot

ET,
Answer my previous question about the text that shows the Dems want death panels.

If they didn't they'd change the wording. The fact that they don't change the wording means that they LIKE the wording. Which means that they WANT death panels.

You keep refering to the quote "market" ? This means the free market with regard to healthcare? At least you are being transparent.Hello in:

I am NOT a lover of government services... But, when the private system breaks down, the government is the only one left. I'm NOT anti profit. I'm anti stealing. When the insurance companies, with government help, set themselves up as the ONLY providers in a given area, they no longer compete. They steal. That's called a monopoly, and that's a license to rip us off. That's exactly what's happening...

I said the same thing about the bankers who looted the country while we weren't looking...

Yes, there will be an evening out in the medical services industry. It remains to be seen what will happen when the profit motive is removed... There IS a societal price to pay when we let ourselves get ripped off that way. Maybe having the best and the brightest gointo banking instead of medicine is one of them.

But, I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I see opportunity for people who could NEVER have gone to medical school, suddenly being presented with that opportunity. I don't know. But, there is NOT doubt that if we don't make major changes in it, it'll BANKRUPT us.

excon

ET,
Answer my previous question about the text that shows the Dems want death panels.

Already did, several times. You have simply ignored it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. The people who really want to know will see where to read it. For those who wish to ignore what it says in the bill, I don't have time to post linkes 10 times to have you ignore them each time.

And by the way, you completely ignored section 1233 in your own post. Care to explain that?

Again, does that make you a liar as you accused Speech?

Major changes
On suday morning G M A
Ran a piece on Robot Doctors
Showed a robot controlled by a doc making rounds at a hospital

showed a robot controlled by a doc making rounds at a hospitalHello again, zip:

Cool. Ain't technology grand.

excon

Wrong. If they proceed like they do in Canada then they have a department set up for just that (Science and Research - Main Page - Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/index-eng.php)) to benefit all Canadians, not just the elite who can afford it.

Formularies and Reimbursement Restrictions - Pharmacare in Canada: Issues and Options - Health Policy Research Working Paper 01-01 (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/hpr-rpms/wp-dt/2001-0101-pharma-med/method-eng.php#conclusion)

This is all beureacratic mumbo jumbo that has more to do with management than hard core clinical advancements and results..




G&P

Hello again, zip:

Cool. Ain't technology grand.

excon

Yes it is.

It'll be a pity when there's no more of it being created.

Hello in:

I am NOT a lover of government services... But, when the private system breaks down, the government is the only one left. I'm NOT anti profit. I'm anti stealing. When the insurance companies, with government help, set themselves up as the ONLY providers in a given area, they no longer compete. They steal. That's called a monopoly, and that's a license to rip us off. That's exactly what's happening...

I said the same thing about the bankers who looted the country while we weren't looking...

Yes, there will be an evening out in the medical services industry. It remains to be seen what will happen when the profit motive is removed... There IS a societal price to pay when we let ourselves get ripped off that way. Maybe having the best and the brightest gointo banking instead of medicine is one of them.

But, I'm a glass half full kinda guy. I see opportunity for people who could NEVER have gone to medical school, suddenly being presented with that opportunity. I dunno. But, there is NOT doubt that if we don't make major changes in it, it'll BANKRUPT us.

excon

Let us take medical helicopters

Medical helicopter needs funding - Yahoo! Canada News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090811/science/canada_calgary_calgary_helicopter_palliser_halo)

Kentucky has more medical helicopters than Canada - Latest News - Kentucky.com (http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/903659.html)

KY with less population, less area, less total income than Canada has 6 more medical helicopters!!

Private system broken down? I know for a fact that, very sick pediatric patients get flown from western KY to Kosairs in Louisville, a 3 hour car ride, regularly. This is regardless of ability to pay, some may argue this adds to the cost of healthcare, but what price do you pay?

Transport of the Critically Ill Pediatric Patient (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:K-yjV_Bqol0J:sccmwww.sccm.org/specialties/pediatric/picu_course/Documents/catalog_ppt/11_initial_stabilization.ppt+medical+helicopters+k entucky+louisville+pediatric&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Notice there is no mention of checking with any third party payors or analyzing comparative effectiveness.

What is the problem with Canada? FUNDING - that is the bottom line. Not severity of illness. Natasha Richardson may have had a fighting chance if helicopter was available.


BTW, at my hospital , due to a shortage of neurologists, we already have a robot, with the neurolgists at U of L. And don't forget the equipment and maintenance costs for all this, aside from the fact that, a comprehensive neurological exam for a condition like a stroke or a seizure is not physically possible through a robot, but has to be done through a nure practitioner.


G&P

Hello in:

I am NOT a lover of government services... But, when the private system breaks down, the government is the only one left. I'm NOT anti profit. I'm anti stealing. When the insurance companies, with government help, set themselves up as the ONLY providers in a given area, they no longer compete. They steal. That's called a monopoly, and that's a license to rip us off. That's exactly what's happening...

You mean as opposed to the government setting themselves up as the only providers in the entire country...

How brilliant.


I said the same thing about the bankers who looted the country while we weren't looking...

You mean the bankers who were required under Federal Regulations to make 60% of their loans to people who they knew couldn't pay those loans back... under penalty of being shut down? Those bankers?


But, there is NOT doubt that if we don't make major changes in it, it'll BANKRUPT us.

Excon

By what mechanism will that occur? How will we go bankrupt if we don't change the system?

Over 90% of Americans are covered by medical insurance. 5% are uninsured for less than 4 months, which essentially means that they are covered as well, except for a short period. The other 5% are long-term uninsured.

How is that 5% going to bankrupt us? What is the mechanism by which that will occur?

And is there NO OTHER WAY to solve the problem of covering that 5% of the population than nationalizing EVERYONE'S health care?

Typical Democrat thinking. If there's a broken window that needs repair, demolish the entire house and rebuild it SMALLER than before, but for a higher cost. Don't bother just replacing the broken window, which would solve the entire problem.

Elliot

By what mechanism will that occur? How will we go bankrupt if we don't change the system?Hello again, El:

From the website of the National Coalition on Healthcare;

--------------------
National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.

National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year.
----------------------

If, as a banker, you don't see bankruptcy looming, it's no wonder our banks went bust..

excon

Hello again, El:

From the website of the National Coalition on Healthcare;

--------------------
National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.

National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year.
----------------------

If, as a banker, you don't see bankruptcy looming, it's no wonder our banks went bust..

excon

And Obama wants to spend $23 Trillion to set up nationalized health care.

You tell me which system is more likely to bankrupt us.

You see, I CAN do basic math. $23 Trillion is MORE than $4.4 Trillion.

Game, set and match.

Elliot

I knew the robot would help