Will the united states ever have universal healthcare?

As far as I know, you would need a time machine to answer that question with a 100% conviction.

In the meantime, Barrack Obama is saying that he is trying to get it, there is tons of controversy, and nothing is really finalized (as far as I know) yet.

The majority of Americans don't want it. But it's very possible it could be imposed on us.

Hello m:

The majority of Americans want it. The beginnings of it will probably pass this year.

excon

Close to 70% of Americans have said that they are satisified with their current medical system. 80% have stated that there is no MEDICAL CRISIS that is driving Obama's policies. 60% say that they would like to see changes and reforms in the medical system that would lower costs and increase accessibility but SEE NO EMERGENCY NEED to do so. And 67% of Americans have said that they are against Obamacare in its various legislative forms currently in debate.

But it is still possible, despite the overwhelming lack of support for it, that Obamacare will pass anyway.

Elliot

Hello m:

The majority of Americans want it. The beginnings of it will probably pass this year.

excon

Can you site a poll that says that they want Obamacare? Or any form of Nationalized health care?

Yes, there are plenty of people who want reform... but when examined, the vast majority of them support the CONSERVATIVE-PROPOSED reforms that Tom and I have listed... towit:

1) Make the cost of it tax-free. That automatically lowers the effective cost by 15-30%. That will make it more affordable to more people.
2) Create tax exempt Medical Savings Accounts
3) Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care
4) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not
5) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties.
6) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people.
7) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.
8) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.
9) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.
10) Create a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.
11) Keep the government out of running health care!! Government is the least productive and most wasteful organization in existence. It should not be used to try to bring efficiency to any part of the economy, much less the health care industry.

These are the reforms that most Americans want... not a government takeover of the medical system.

Elliot

Close to 70% of Americans have said that they are satisified with their current medical system.
Hello H:

Close to 70% of conservatives make up numbers. Otherwise, why don't they cite their source?

The numbers that interest me, and should interest you, are the numbers we got in the last election. Obama won with 52% of the vote. Therefore, I'd say that 52% of the American people support his policies.

excon

Lol ;that's hilarious . President Bush won in 2004 and yet that did nothing to help him get Social Security reform passed ;even though he made it the centerpiece of his 2005 legislative agenda.

lol ;that's hillarious . President Bush won in 2004 and yet that did nothing to help him get Social Security reform passed ;even though he made it the centerpiece of his 2005 legislative agenda.Hello again, tom:

That's because his centerpiece was dufusorian in its breadth and scope. Whereas, health care reform is a necessity.

What is it about going broke, like we just did, so appeals to you right wingers?

excon

Hello H:

Close to 70% of conservatives make up numbers. Otherwise, why don't they cite their source?

The numbers that interest me, and should interest you, are the numbers we got in the last election. Obama won with 52% of the vote. Therefore, I'd say that 52% of the American people support his policies.

excon

That doesn't tell us anything about what people think about natiuonalized health care.

Obama is only looking at that 52% number from 2008 too. That's why he's going to lose. He's stuck in the past, just like you are, and isn't able to deal with the changing landscape.

Obama is indeed the bringer of change. He's changing the political landscape from liberal to conservative. And he can't see it any better than you can.

So you just keep relying on that 52% number from 2008. Keep ignoring the fact that Obama's personal poll numbers are dropping like a stone to well below 50% from 65%+ back in April, support for his health plan is in the low 30s and dropping, and his "wrong-track" numbers are well over 55%.

And the Dem Congress is in even worse shape. Remember the sweep of the Congress in 2008 by the Dems? Predictions right now are for a massive Republican sweep in 2010 to take back Congress.

If Obama manages to pass national health care, you can consider it the death knell of the Democrat party. Especially on top of TARP, TARP2, the Stimulus Bill, the Omnibus Bill, Cap & Trade, and the government takeovers of priivate industry. It'll take the Reps years, maybe even decades, to repair the damage. But the Reps will be guaranteed to be in power for decades to fix it. As much as people didn't like Bush, they never believed that Obama would ever do the crazy things he's done... and now they'll forevern take a Republican they can't stand over a Democrat they don't trust.

The Dems are done if Obamacare passes.

Elliot

The Dems are done if Obamacare passes.Hello again, El:

Wrong again. The Dems are done if Obamacare fails.

excon

Hello again, tom:

That's because his centerpiece was dufusorian in its breadth and scope. Whereas, health care reform is a necessity.

What is it about going broke, like we just did, so appeals to you right wingers??

excon

It beats the hell out of someone increasing the national deficit 800% in one year while we are broke.

People can understand a business cycle that includes recessions and even depressions. What they can't handle is someone who INCREASES spending by 800% while it's happening.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Wrong again. The Dems are done if Obamacare fails.

excon

That too.

They've pretty much trapped themselves.

If they win the issue, they lose independents and blue-dog Dems and therefore lose the elections.

If they lose the issue, they lose their far left which is DEMANDING national health care by any means necessary. The unions and the Moveon.org types are already talking about abandoning them and pulling their support for the Dems in Congress if Obamacare doesn't pass.

The dems are done. They had 4 years to screw things up in Congress, and they did so with great aplomb. They created their own no-win environment.

This is exactly what Tom, Steve and I predicted during 2008... that the Dems would have one chance, and they would screw it up massively.

Elliot

Can you site a poll that says that they want Obamacare? Or any form of Nationalized health care?

Yes, there are plenty of people who want reform... but when examined, the vast majority of them support the CONSERVATIVE-PROPOSED reforms that Tom and I have listed... towit:

1) Make the cost of it tax-free. That automatically lowers the effective cost by 15-30%. That will make it more affordable to more people.
2) Create tax exempt Medical Savings Accounts
3)Lower taxes so that more have the disposable income to afford health care
4) Modify Medicare and Medicaid to cover those that SHOULD be covered under these programs but are not
5) Tort reform, if properly enacted, could lower medical spending by as much as 60%, especially in "high risk" specialties.
6) DEREGULATE the medical industry. Useless regulation costs money that could be spent better actually HEALING people.
7) De-unionize the hospitals. Union benefits cost a fortune. Union contracts require minimum numbers of employees even if those employees are redundant or not needed. That costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.
8) As an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, the government could give uninsured citizens a stipend to pay for their health insurance (adjustable based on family size). This stipend would have a time limitation built in so that it doesn't become an "evergreen" welfare program. But it will give families some time to get their feet back under them after a job loss that lasts more than a couple of months by allowing them to purchase the insurance plan of their choice. It is NOT meant to be a permanent benefit and should have a cut-off of, say, 18 months or 2 years. After that, you're on COBRA and pay for your insurance yourself.
9) Since private insurance is cheaper when you have group coverage, let everyone who is collecting unemployment insurance in every state form their own group via the state unemployment office. This group can then find the group coverage that suits them best. Even if they have to pay out of pocket, they'll be paying group rates that are cheaper than trying to pay the individual rate.
10) Create a "build-your-own-policy" service. It allows people to get the coverage they want and need without having to pay for the stuff they don't want or need. This can make policies WAY cheaper while still providing the coverage needed.
11) Keep the government out of running health care!!! Government is the least productive and most wasteful organization in existence. It should not be used to try to bring efficiency to any part of the economy, much less the health care industry.

These are the reforms that most Americans want... not a government takeover of the medical system.

Elliot

Hey where are these things in HR 3200, as well as health insuurance portability and nationally / across state lines?






G&P

Hey where are these things in HR 3200, as well as health insuurance portability and nationally / across state lines?






G&P

That's kind of the point, ITB.

They are perfectly good, relatively low-cost, FREE-MARKET solutions to health care reform, but nobody on the left even wants to talk about them.

Why not?

Elliot

A friend sent me this email. I went to the link and read the whole thing. You should too.

Obamacare

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: This article explains obamacare and tells what part of healthcare has already been voted on when it was hidden in the stimulus bill passed earlier. snopes.com: Dr. Dave Janda - The One Word to Describe Obamacare (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/janda.asp)

A friend sent me this email. I went to the link and read the whole thing. You should too.

Obamacare

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: This article explains obamacare and tells what part of healthcare has already been voted on when it was hidden in the stimulus bill passed earlier. snopes.com: Dr. Dave Janda - The One Word to Describe Obamacare (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/janda.asp)

This article makes exactly the same points I have been making.

Speaking of Democrats trapping themselves, just look at the two faces of Barack Obama (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/25/obamateurism-of-the-day-104/). He has taken to using "diametrically opposed claims in the same speech in order to argue for his policies."


At the 17-minute mark we hear this:

“Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to ten years. I don’t know if people are aware of that. If I was a senior citizen the thing I’d be worried about right now is Medicare starts running out of money because we haven’t done anything to make sure we are getting a good bang for our buck, when it comes to health care”.

Five minutes later:

“I do think it’s important for, particularly seniors who currently receive Medicare, to understand that if we’re able to get something right, like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe, the government can have a role, not the dominant role, but a role in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance.”

This is the theme of the week by the way, the rousing success of Medicare. I heard Anthony Weiner (D-NY) arguing this same point this morning, how efficient Medicare is - while admitting they were going to have to cut services to "bend the cost-curve" as Obama would put it (which is a huge reason to be suspicious of the "death commission"). It was also argued for in Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/health-reform-throwing-go_b_266596.html) yesterday.

So that's the latest theme, we'll take a "successful" albeit broke, unfunded program and expand it to everyone with the necessary cuts to "bend the cost-curve" and all will be "well."

Oh, wonderful. I wonder who came up with the brilliant idea to use a bankrupt government program as a model for success?

Could it be the same speech-writer that told Obama to use the Postal Service's competition with FEDEX, DHL and UPS as an example of what happens when government and the private sector compete?

Elliot

Something like that. Either these guys are really clueless or think they think we are. Maybe some of both.

Something like that. Either these guys are really clueless or think they think we are. Maybe some of both.

The whole point of ramming this down our throats quickly without giving us a chance to look into it was so that we would remain clueless. That's been Obama's MO from day one.

Now that the process has been slowed down, the more we check into it, the more it smells like rotten fish. He and the Dems had been hoping we wouldn't get a whiff, and that he could hide the rot under a mask.

But the mask is off and the smell is pretty strong. And instead of getting some fresher fish to sell, Obama is still trying to sell us the rot.

Elliot

I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.

But--it's because I'm selfish.

I worked very hard to get where I am financially. I'm not rich, but I no longer live paycheck to paycheck. I held off having kids until I could afford them. I paid off my debt, and got rid of my cell phone, cable, and got a library card.

Yes, there should be medical programs to help those who have fallen on hard luck through no fault of their own.

BUT---I can't feel sorry for people who can't go to the doctor to get a pregnancy test because they can't afford it because they already have 4 kids. I can't feel sorry for people who are homeless, doing drugs, and detiorating their OWN health.

Yet---I'm in the highest tax bracket for my income range. Until this year, we didn't have a house to write off. We still don't have kids to write off. Why should I have to wait longer to see a doctor (like it is in countries with social health care) because everyone ELSE has a complaint too? Why should I PAY to have to wait longer to see the doctor?

Screw that.

I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.Why should I PAY to have to wait longer to see the doctor?Hello Syn:

I can't believe it either... But, don't let them fool you anymore... You know how your insurance company writes a check to the doctor?? That's how the government will do it. I don't think you'll have to wait any longer... That's what the RIGHTY'S say, but they have NO evidence to back it up - NONE - they ain't got DIDDLY!

excon

I can't believe who I'm agreeing with on all of this, but I absolutely do NOT want a government run medical program.

I knew there was someone in there somewhere that didn't always have to disagree with me ;)

Hello Syn:

I can't believe it either.... But, don't let them fool you anymore.... You know how your insurance company writes a check to the doctor??? That's how the government will do it. I don't think you'll have to wait any longer... That's what the RIGHTY'S say, but they have NO evidence to back it up - NONE - they ain't got DIDDLY!

excon

Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?

With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.

Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?

With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.Hello again, Synn:

That IS the question, of course... I don't know if the government WILL be able to manage the health care budget, or not. I DO know that it's a DOABLE job. To wit. We spend twice as much as any other western nation in the world, and we're not TWICE as healthy. As a matter of fact, we're FAR from the healthiest...

So, is there waste in the system that can be cleared out?? Duh!! Will the billions earned by the health insurance companies help? Sure. Do I KNOW that that's what will happen?

NO - primarily, because there's no bill on the table, and there doesn't look like there's even going to be one. So, the info I provided above would be for an excon's WISH health care system.

What I DO know, is that if we don't fix it, it will BANKRUPT us.

excon

The other thing is we can just start letting people take personal responsibility for THEMSELVES and stop asking the government to help them out.

I grew up poor, I was poor in my 20s, and now I'm solidly middle class in my 30s.

If *I* can do it, so can other people. It's just how much they're willing to work and sacrifice to do so---and many are willing to work, but few are willing to sacrifice.

I am not a good person, though. I have absolutely no problem with people living on the streets, starving, whatever. People should go to their FAMILIES first. Then they should go to their CHURCH. The government should be the LAST place they go, and seriously? It SHOULD be shameful to pay with food stamps or medical vouchers or whatever else the government hands out.

Essentially I'm saying this: If the mom in front of me at the grocery store who is paying for food with food stamps, but is wearing all designer clothing gets the SAME benefits I do, without the sacrifice---what the hell is the point of trying to get ahead?

The other thing is we can just start letting people take personal responsibility for THEMSELVES and stop asking the government to help them out.Hello again, Synn:

It's got NOTHING to do with that... We don't accuse people of asking the government to "help them out" when they drive on the highway, or flip on a light switch, do we? Of course not.

This debate has to do with pooling our resources for the best possible outcome. We let the government take responsibility for our roads, our fire and police protection... We pool our power needs, water, snow removal and dog catching responsibilities... Health care, as a matter of fact, is just another utility to be shared by all of us.

excon

I don't see MY health care as something that can be better managed by the government.

We're talking about whether I live or die here, not whether I can drive to work, or take a bus, or have electricity to talk to you here on my computer.

I just have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the government can get us out of this problem. How about LESS government interference, and see if THAT works? MORE government interference has simply gotten us to the place we are now.

I don't see MY health care as something that can be better managed by the government. We're talking about whether I live or die here,Hello again, Synn:

Nahhh, we're not. Does the government tell you which road to take?? No it doesn't. It just gives you the roads. What we're talking about here, is who's going to write the check's.

Whether you live or die is STILL going to be between you, your doctor and your maker.

excon

Amazing!

Here I agree (somewhat) with Synnen AND Ex!

That is, if Ex is talking about REAL Co-ops run by private not-for-profit groups.

NOT RUN BY GOVERNMENT.

It has worked for over 100 years for real estate insurance, and the premiums are significantly lower than other insurance companies charge.

Is there any reason why this method would not work for health insurance? Or any other insurance, for that matter.

You do realize that you are the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal healthcare, right? So it obviously works for others (like us here). But I agree with you, there's something about the american mentality that probably can't allow this to pass.

Gal ;even the Heritage Foundation favors private co-ops . It's the Schmucky Shumer's gvt run co-op that is a difference without a distinction to the "public option" .

You do realize that you are the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal healthcare, right

And what is Medicare and Medicaid ?

and what is Medicare and Medicaid ?For all citizens. All.

But I agree with you, there's something about the american mentality that probably can't allow this to pass.

Yeah, we kind of like being different, leading instead of following others over the cliff.

All citizens do not need public assistance . Are you saying all citizens in Canada need public assistance ? Pathetic.

all citizens do not need public assistance . are you saying all citizens in Canada need public assistance ? pathetic.Silly immature word games tom. It's universal healthcare for all. One less worry in our lives and a healthier population. Works for us, as pathetic as we are. :)

Yes, but will what I pay to the GOVERNMENT to have Obamacare be less than I pay to my INSURANCE company?

With the way the government handles money in every OTHER endeavor they do, I'm betting that it won't be.

Let's do the math, Synnen.

The stated goal of this legislation is to

1) Add 46 million people not currently covered by insurance
2) Eliminate any limitations in health care due to pre-existing conditions

At the same time, based on 60 years of information and data from Medicare, we know that the cost of health care is increasing 35% faster for Medicare than it is for private insurance.

We also know that the government is less efficient than private businesses. The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan arm of Congress) has determined that the administrative costs of running healthcare would be as much as 300% higher than the administrative costs of running the system through private insurance companies. (The Heritage Foundation estimates it at 500%, but let's assume 300% for a low-ball estimate.)

Please explain how we can add tens of millions more people to the system, eliminate any blockages to access currently in the system for pre-existing cconditions, increase operating costs per patient by 35% and increase administrative expenses overall by 300% and expect to pay LESS than we do now?

Even if you plugged the profits that insurance companies take back into the equation, you are only talking about 3.4% profits. That 3.4% plugged back into the system does not offset the 35% increase in operating expenses or the 300% increase in administrative expenses.

I'll admit that the stated goal of the program --- increased access to all, regardless of pre-existing condition or financial condition --- sounds laudible. But it is incompatible with the OTHER stated goal of the program, which is to lower prices. You cannot lower costs when you increase spending, and adding 46 million people will DEFINITELY increase spending. So will putting the administration of the system into the hands of the same inefficient government that runs the postal system, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.

Simply put, your instinct on this is correct. It is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the government-run health insurance program that has been proposed in Congress to cost LESS than private health insurance.

Elliot

Silly immature word games tom. It's universal healthcare for all. One less worry in our lives and a healthier population. Works for us, as pathetic as we are. :)

No, it works for YOU. Nearly 70% of your fellow Canadians say that it DOESN'T work for them.

No, it works for YOU. Nearly 70% of your fellow Canadians say that it DOESN'T work for them.That's one of the biggest lie you've told so far and you've told many! You're obcessed with telling us we hate our system yet you can find a Canadian on this board that says that... yet just have a look at the health boards here to see americans with issues with your current system.

The other thing is we can just start letting people take personal responsibility for THEMSELVES and stop asking the government to help them out.

I grew up poor, I was poor in my 20s, and now I'm solidly middle class in my 30s.

If *I* can do it, so can other people. It's just how much they're willing to work and sacrifice to do so---and many are willing to work, but few are willing to sacrifice.

I am not a good person, though. I have absolutely no problem with people living on the streets, starving, whatever. People should go to their FAMILIES first. Then they should go to their CHURCH. The government should be the LAST place they go, and seriously? It SHOULD be shameful to pay with food stamps or medical vouchers or whatever else the government hands out.

Essentially I'm saying this: If the mom in front of me at the grocery store who is paying for food with food stamps, but is wearing all designer clothing gets the SAME benefits I do, without the sacrifice---what the hell is the point of trying to get ahead?

Kudos to you for working hard. Individuals like you are what makes this vountry great. :)

I think the underlying reason there is healthcare cost inflation is that third party payors [private and gov ] keep the real cost of healthcare insulated from the consumer. * The providers have no incentive to give the consumer a break because they don't get paid by directly by the consumer but by the gov or health insurance. Perversely the incentive is to try to get the most out of the third party payor.

* if the government is going to cover 80% of the cost of a vehicle and you pay 20 %
[ medicare ] why get a Chevy Cobolt [ < 25 k ] when you can get a Cadillac CTS [ $40k ] cheaper than if you actually had to pay 100% of the Chevy?




G&P

That's one of the biggest lie you've told so far and you've told many! You're obcessed with telling us we hate our system yet you can find a Canadian on this board that says that...yet just have a look at the health boards here to see americans with issues with your current system.

I have posted the statistics of your own country's polls in the past on this board.

If you have issues with the fact that most of your people think that they wait too long for care, don't get access that they need, and die waiting on lines, then the problem you have is with your own system, not me.

I never lie. I always have evidence to back up my claims. You should have learned that by now.

Elliot

Not to Hi-Jack the thread but why does health care not cover dental? Why do we have dental insurance and then health insurance? It's been proven that bad teeth can lead to heart attacks and heart disease. Seems to me that would be a health problem. Does anyone know why this is?

and what is Medicare and Medicaid ?

And S-Chip, and the VA Medical system, and the Native American Medical System, and the Massachusets State Medical System and Oregon State Medical System.

Roughly 40-45% of the US system is already run by government.

And every one of those programs is a FAILURE. They are broke, mismanaged, overspent, inefficient, bloated, disorganized and of poor quality. Access is limited, care is mediocre, and patients are generally dissatisfied with service.

I find several points interesting.

1) People see the USA and consider us the only industrialized country in the world without government health care. But we DO have government health care, and it ain't working. It's a friggin disaster wherever it has been tried.

2) People want to give the same government that has broken all of those health care programs MORE power to do the same thing to the REST of the medical care in this country, and never recognize the idiocy of granting more power to the same people who screwed things up in the first place.

Elliot

I have posted the statistics of your own country's polls in the past on this board.
a) No you haven't
b) you agreed that anyone can find a poll to back up their claim

If you have issues with the fact that most of your people think that they wait too long for care, don't get access that they need, and die waiting on lines, then the problem you have is with your own system, not me.

I never lie. I always have evidence to back up my claims.See, you lied right there!

Not to Hi-Jack the thread but why does health care not cover dental? Why do we have dental insurance and then health insurance? It's been proven that bad teeth can lead to heart attacks and heart disease. Seems to me that would be a health problem. Does anyone know why this is?

That's actually a good question. One that I'd like to know the answer for.

But there is a good FREE MARKET SOLUTION to that problem... the "build-your-own-policy" concept that I have spoken about before. With it, you could buy only the coverage you need, and not have to pay for the stuff you DON'T want. You could buy the family dental coverage you need for a couple of extra bucks, but drop the unneeded coverage for, say, drug addiction care or massage therapy. So you save a few bucks by not getting what you don't need, but pay only for what you DO need.

In terms of dental care, I will tell you this: The British government-run health care system DOES cover dental, at least in theory... and the Brits are notorious for having some of the worst teeth on Earth. That's because ACCESS to dental care in the UK is about on par with access to any other specialist in the UK... which is to say, poor. Annual dental appointments for checkup and/or cleaning are unheard of. You see a dentist when you have an abssessed cavity or other major dental problem. Cavities are a low-priority item and if you are persistent, you might see a dentist in a few months to get it checked out and filled.

So you can be covered by the system, but if you can't get an appointment with the dentist or orthodontist your teeth are STILL going to suck.

I don't even want to think about what that means in terms of accessibility to OTHER specialty care in the UK.

Elliot

See, you lied right there!

No I didn't.

But as I said before, I ain't going to REPEAT posting links for you anymore. You just ignore them anyway. Which makes YOU the liar, not me.

More good news from government run health care. Not only has the VA told 1200 Vets they have a fatal neurological disease just in time to make use of their new "death book," but the VA is likely to be sued for negligence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302175.html?wprss=rss_print/asection) for other reasons...


Army veteran Juan Rivera reported to the veterans hospital in Miami for a routine colonoscopy in May 2008. Almost a year later, the 55-year-old father of two learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs had not properly sterilized the equipment used for the procedure.

A test then revealed that he had been infected with HIV. "The VA has issued me a death sentence," Rivera said, according to his attorney.

A problem with sterilization practices at a VA facility in Tennessee was discovered in December, and the department has notified more than 11,000 veterans who had endoscopic procedures at three of its facilities that they may have been exposed to cross-contamination. VA has advised them to return for testing.

As of Aug. 3, eight of those patients have tested positive for HIV, 12 for hepatitis B and 37 for hepatitis C, according to VA.

Rivera, who served in the Army for 13 years and drives a truck for the U.S. Postal Service, filed notice last month of his intent to sue VA. The administrative claim, filed with VA under the Federal Torts Claim Act, says his infection was caused by the department's failure to clean its equipment and to follow proper procedure.

"He's angry, stunned and distraught that the government he served so well for so long has done this to him," said his attorney, Ira Leesfield.

Lawyers predict that Rivera's case marks the beginning of a rush of lawsuits against VA alleging negligence in the handling of medical equipment.

Yep, I can't wait for the feds to be in charge of my health care.

I get good care from Medicare, BUT

I heard a report just days ago that 42&#37; of doctors are not taking any NEW Medicare patients. What will those forced into Medicare do when they can't find a doctor willing to treat them?

What happens to the rest of us when Medicare finally goes belly up? It will, because that's where it's headed.

Closing with this thought; as long as you are healthy, ANY healthcare system is OK.

What happens to US? What US are you talking about?

I'm PLANNING for stuff like that. I have a SAVINGS account, and a retirement fund, and will probably have COBRA insurance, or some other form of insurance.

I KNOW, and have known since I was like 12, that I cannot count on Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid when I reach those ages.

So... what happens to the rest of YOU when it goes belly up? I don't care, as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Damn right Synnen. My wife couldn't understand why I put a so much money into my ING account and my IRA and my 401K from work when we got our joint checking account. I had to explain to her that I always heard social security isn't going to be there when we are old so we need to have some type of money. My wife thinks I'm paranoid I think I smart.

But I still think we should give universal health care a shot.

Just curious, has there been any public statement by Dr. Ezekial Emanuel on his position about Teddy Kennedy's treatments ? Was treating him a waste of resources ? Did the President say he should just take a pain pill ?

Hello again, tom:

There was a life saving operation that he COULD have gotten, but his health insurance company turned him down cause of the cost. The adjuster said that the tuition is due on his sons private school, so he's going to use the commission he gets for saving the company millions, on the tuition.

Read about here: Ask Excon (http://www.askexcon.com/)

excon

I'm pretty sure his insurer denied him. Went against their profit motive.

Ex - nice site! :) Let me know if you need some development work done.

Hello again, tom:

There was a life saving operation that he COULD have gotten, but his health insurance company turned him down cause of the cost. The adjuster said that the tuition is due on his sons private school, so he's going to use the commission he gets for saving the company millions, on the tuition.

Read about here: Ask Excon (http://www.askexcon.com/)

excon

Ex,

Kennedy was on GOVERNMENT health care. OF COURSE he was denied. He was over 65 and in poor health and had a history of alchoholism and a brain tumor (both are pre-existing conditions). What did you expect them to do... give him the services he needed? Where's the cost savings by a government insurance plan in doing that?

Ex,

Kennedy was on GOVERNMENT health care. Which one did he choose?
Choose and Enroll (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/types.asp)

NK,

I was just joking with Excon. Excon has no actual evidence that Kennedy was denied for any medical care. In fact, I would argue that with his family's money and his political status, he probably got the same level of care that a US President would get. Excon was on a rant, and I just ranted back at him.

Nevertheless...

Kennedy chose the same plan that ALL members of Congress get. The FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan).

It's actually a great plan. That's why members of Congress have refused to allow themselves to be subject to the plan that they are putting forward for everyone else. They don't want to give up their high-end coverage to take what they are proposing for everyone else.

There have been a number of bills in Congress that have proposed that if Obamacare is passed, that all members of Congress and their staff should have to go to the same government health program that the average person has to deal with. Not surprisingly, Congress members have shot down such bills about 12 times so far.

So here's my question: if the health care plans coming out of both houses of Congress are not good enough for Congress to adopt for themselves, why should regular Americans accept it? To quote one woman at a town hall meeting held by Senator McCain on Monday, "If the plan isn't good enough for Congress, Senator, it isn't good enough for us."

Elliot

Yes he sure had a gold plated plan courtesy of the US taxpayer . I have yet to see a Dem say they would switch to the gvt. Public plan they advance for everyone else.

I can assure you of one thing ;he was not denied any care and if there was a line for treatment he went to the front of it.

And no; Zeke Emanuel did not say that Teddy was once 25 and had his time... He just says that about everyone else.

Hmmmmm he was once 25... Mary Jo was not available for comment.

To quote one woman at a town hall meeting held by Senator McCain on Monday, "If the plan isn't good enough for Congress, Senator, it isn't good enough for us."

That's ironic, because didn't Kennedy himself say if it's good enough for Congress it's good enough for the rest of us?


The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

But what's "good enough" for us isn't good enough or Congress now?

I've really been thinking about this, and come up with a way that I could approve government run health care:

Your government health care card would be completely and totally based on how much money you paid in on income taxes.

Each tier would enjoy better benefits--say, a longer hospital stay, or brand name medications instead of the generic, or quicker access to needed tests, or whatever.

People in the lowest tiers could still get basic health care--but that's IT. They get BASIC health care. Think HMO health care---the kind where they do outpatient surgery for appendicitis or something. With one notable exception: If you are in the absolute lowest tiers of the health plan, ALL birth control and ANY counseling needed due to choosing adoption over raising your child would be FREE. Completely and totally free.

Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?

Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.

One of my favorite characters in literature is John Galt . Another one from the same book was Francisco d'Anconia . He was willing to destroy his family fortune rather than to have it seized.

Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?

Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.Hello again, Synn:

Ayn Rand was a proponent of acting in one's self interest. She DID, however, distinguish self interest from selfishness. It's a distinction our friends on the right are unable to make. I think they should read her again, and maybe Robert Ringer too, and maybe Harry Browne. Those folks didn't' miss it.

excon

Universal health care success story of the day (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208970/Man-collapses-ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html)...


After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably relieved to have his appendix taken out.

Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home.

But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance.

To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication.

In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure.

The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him.

Mr Wattson told of the moment he realised there had been a serious mistake.

'I was lying on a stretcher in terrible pain and a doctor came up to me and said that my appendix had burst,' he said.

'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told these people I had my appendix out just four weeks earlier but there it was on the scanner screen for all to see.

'I thought, "What the hell did they slice me open for in the first place?"

'I feel that if the surgery had been done correctly in the first place I wouldn't be in the mess I am today. I'm disgusted by the whole experience.'

Mr Wattson first went under the knife on July 7 after experiencing severe abdominal pain for several weeks. He was discharged but exactly a month later he had to dial 999 after collapsing in agony.

Following the second operation his incision became infected and he was admitted to hospital for a third time for treatment.

He said: 'I had a temporary job at a sports shop but when I took in two medical certificates saying I had my appendix out twice they didn't believe me.

'Now I'm helpless. I can't go out and find a job, I can't go to interviews, I can barely walk and am in constant pain. Before the first operation they told me I had to have my appendix removed and when I woke up afterwards they said it had been a complete success.

'But then I keeled over in agony one month later and when they did some tests at the hospital we could see the appendix was still there on the scans.

'As far as I was aware they took my appendix out and no one told me any different.

'I have no idea what they did take out, but I want to find out what went wrong.'

A spokesman for Great Western Hospital confirmed that a representative had met Mr Wattson and that an investigation had been started.

He was unable to confirm what, if anything, was removed in the first operation.

Paul Gearing, deputy general manager for general surgery at Great Western Hospital NHS Trust, said: 'We are unable to comment on individual cases.

'However, we would like to apologise if Mr Wattson felt dissatisfied with the care he received at Great Western Hospital.'

I've really been thinking about this, and come up with a way that I could approve government run health care:

Your government health care card would be completely and totally based on how much money you paid in on income taxes.

Each tier would enjoy better benefits--say, a longer hospital stay, or brand name medications instead of the generic, or quicker access to needed tests, or whatever.

People in the lowest tiers could still get basic health care--but that's IT. They get BASIC health care. Think HMO health care---the kind where they do outpatient surgery for appendicitis or something. With one notable exception: If you are in the absolute lowest tiers of the health plan, ALL birth control and ANY counseling needed due to choosing adoption over raising your child would be FREE. Completely and totally free.

Otherwise---is this "Atlas Shrugged"? Each pays according to their ability, but is treated according to their need?

Count me out of THAT sort of plan. You can call me John Galt if you want to.



I agree, but what about the wife or husband that stays at home raising the kids?




G&P

How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?

I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.

Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.

A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.

I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.

Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"

Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?

I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether treatment should happen.

Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? They're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".

Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say... better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?

Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.

I agree, but what about the wife or husband that stays at home raising the kids?




G&P

It costs an extra $1.37 per paycheck to have my husband on my insurance, with the same coverage I have. I think that kids are $3.00 each or so, but I don't have them so I'm not positive.

Can the government match that kind of pricing?

We have a double header success story in the UK today. Not only did doctors remove a man's appendix twice, but Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html).


'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.

'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.

In the midst of all the debate, let us not forget that the REAL danger in the proposed health care bill(s) is government control over virtually every aspect of our lives.

I'll bet none of you arguing for govt health care want the control that comes with it, as it is now written.

If you do, tell us why.

How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?

I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.

Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.

A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.

I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.

Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"

Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?

I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether or not treatment should happen.

Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? they're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".

Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say...better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?

Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.

My, my, Synnen. This post looks positively CONSERVATIVE in it's content. You talk about "best interests of the individual" (which is just another way of talking about the "Invisible Hand" theory), personal responsibility, government overstepping it's bounds...

I do believe there's a hidden conservative (or at least a Rand-style Libertarian) buried in there somewhere.

Good post, great thoughts.

Elliot

My, my, Synnen. This post looks positively CONSERVATIVE in it's content. You talk about "best interests of the individual" (which is just another way of talking about the "Invisible Hand" theory), personal responsibility, government overstepping it's bounds...

I do believe there's a hidden conservative (or at least a Rand-style Libertarian) burried in there somewhere.

Good post, great thoughts.

Elliot

I've been called a Centrist.

It's funny--I'm ALL about individual rights and the Federal government backing the heck off on personal decisions---including, but not limited to: health care, religion, marriage, abortion, and family planning.

And I don't care what people do with their lives, as long as they take responsibility for it--which too often means that they LITERALLY pay for it, with money, rather than making good on their debts to society and the community.

There's a joke out there where the punch line is "Welcome to the Republican Party" about a girl who considers herself liberal but will not go to the Dean and split her hard earned grades to share with her friend who didn't work so hard. I read that joke and realized that I was more conservative than I really thought.

The whole thing comes down to this, for me: I'm tired of paying for other people to not work as hard as I do, and still have more than I do. I'm tired of handouts, of government "fixes" and tax money spent on things like football stadiums. I'm tired of working my butt off, and OTHER people getting the rewards of it.

How is it selfish to NOT pay according to my ability so that others can pay less and get the same thing I am? Or, because they have more need (and/or more kids), they get MORE than I do, even though they pay less?

I GET that for schools. I understand it completely for highways/roads/whatever. I even understand it for things like a police force, a fire department, etc. I get those things because they affect ME, too. Those things are a benefit to society as a whole.

Better educated people make more responsible decisions than undereducated or uneducated people do.
Using highways/roads/etc---well, of course I want them in good repair--I use them too--and it seems to me that it's a benefit to society to have well constructed, easily used roads--for example, in an emergency, good roads allow medical personel, fire fighters, and police better and quicker access to combat the emergency.

A police force and fire department are there to protect us--ALL of us.

I fail to see how universal health care affect ALL of us positively.

Are they going to make LAWS on who is covered and who isn't under this? What will the rules be? "No Income? NO Problem! (as long as you don't smoke and are not obese)"

Does the government get to tell me I can't have certain kinds of treatment because of my lifestyle? You KNOW they will. If I go in with lung cancer, KNOWING that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and still smoke--will I have to pay that out of pocket? Or will this just be another nail in the coffin of legal tobacco in the US? What about fast food, then? Everyone KNOWS obesity is bad--can we deny people health care if they eat at a fast food place more than once a week? Or will we just have to work on banning those places too?

I don't want the government in health care, because I don't want them making the RULES of health care. I don't want the government to decide based on MORAL issues whether or not treatment should happen.

Let's put it this way: How many people would bounce away from this entire idea if even a single abortion were covered under a universal plan? But how can you DENY abortions under the plan? they're LEGAL (to a certain point, anyway). Yet people would be up in arms about their tax dollars being used to "kill innocent babies".

Maybe it IS selfish, in a way. But tell me this: how is it in my self interest to approve this? I'm part of society, and others in society feel the same way I do--what's a DIRECT benefit I'm going to get that I don't have now? How is a healthier populace (at the expense of tax dollars that could go to say...better education on how to be healthier via personal responsibility) going to make life better for anyone besides the people who currently don't have insurance?

Edited for italicized area because I KNEW my phrasing was off.

I agree, but just to play the other card this time:

I am in favor of "free" preventative, evidence [ both fiscally and medically ] based measures, like vaccinations, or mamograms and colonoscopy, cholesterol checks, nutritional counseling. Prevention lowers cost for the whole system and thus for you and I.


I don't want the government deciding that a single 20 year old with cancer deserves cancer treatment because they have potentially longer to live; while a 35 yo married individual with children deserves it less because they are older.




G&P

I don't want the government deciding that a single 20 year old with cancer deserves cancer treatment because they have potentially longer to live; while a 35 yo married individual with children deserves it less beacuse they are older.Hello again, in:

I don't want that either. But, our heath care is already rationed, in that it's rationed FROM those who can't afford it. So, private health insurers make life and death decisions about who lives and who dies every day in the name profit.

Which obscenity do you like best?

excon

And why can't they afford it?

Maybe government/state regulations that mandate certain coverages that the consumer does not want?






How Not to Reform Health Care | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10279)



New regulation and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to costs. A new mandate for prescription-drug coverage was added, and high-deductible policies were restricted.





What of allowing pretax dollars going to a health savings account?

Or... can they not afford it because they choose to have OTHER things in their lives?

How many people that say that they can't afford health insurance still have a TV, computer, cable, internet, and a cell phone? How many of them have video games instead of a library card?

Again--no sympathy.

People can afford anything they work to afford---and SACRIFICE to afford.

Are there accidents that can change a life in a second? Absolutely. Can ANYONE plan for something that ends up costing $2.5 million dollars? Of COURSE not! But that doesn't mean they can't scrape together the money for a preventative screening once a year, and afford the OTHER things that come up that aren't quite so drastic. Yes, that's one more payment they need to make every month (I don't know a health care facility that accepts only cash up front--most have some sort of payment plan), but seriously---how many of the people REALLY are working two jobs, use birth control responsibly, have no internet or cable or cell phone and STILL can't make ends meet?

It's all about taking personal responsibility for your actions. If you can't afford health care for your infant because you're 15 and don't have a job or high school diploma, well... that's what adoption is about.

I have NO problem helping people out from random accidents and hard spots. I have SERIOUS issues bailing people out of their bad choices.

I have NO problem helping people out from random accidents and hard spots. I have SERIOUS issues bailing people out of their bad choices.

And that, from my perspective, is the key point on most domestic policy issues, but especially health care.

Well said.

Elliot

But wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts? Seems like all this craziness was well established when obama took office.

But wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts?

Actually various gvt bailouts have occurred since at least the 1970 Penn Central bailout. That one resulted in the creation the next year of AMTRACK and it's tax soaking sponge.

These have included bailouts to banks, Chrysler twice , Lockheed ,the airline industry ,and even NY City (1975) .NYC received $2.3 billion even though the headlines said that President Ford told NYC to drop dead. In this case NYC paid back every dollar .

Yes it's true President Bush did TARP ,but President Obama has continued bailout nation on steroids,and had in effect almost completely nationalized the American auto-industry and is attempting a similar take over of the national healthcare industry .

but wasn't it george w that started us on all bailouts? seems like all this craziness was well established when obama took office.

First of all, under Bush, all the "bailouts" were in the form of loans. And while those were BAD DECISIONS in my opinion, there was a HUGE difference between lending these companies money and actually TAKING OWNERSHIP OF THEM. Bush lent the auto industry money. Obama took them over, fired people he didn't like, and installed his own leadership in those companies.

Under TARP, Bush proposed that "toxic assets" be purchased from companies that were in trouble. That was changed by Bernanke, Geithner & co. from the purchase of toxic assets to the lending of money to various financial firms. BOTH of these were bad decisions, in my opinion. However, once Obama took office, he changed the plan again, and instead of making TARP a program for lending money or buying up toxic assets, he instead used it as a program to CONTROL COMPANIES. He used the loans to AIG as an excuse to control executive pay within that company. He refused to allow banks to pay back TARP money even when they offered to pay it back because he weanted to maintain ccontrol of those companies.

There's a huge difference between what Bush did... government interference, which was bad enough... and what Obama did, which was an ACTIVE TAKEOVER OR PRIVATE INDUSTRY BY THE GOVERNMENT.

So yes, it may have started under Bush... maybe. But what Bush did wasn't THIS.

It's time for the left to stop their cry of "It's all Bush's fault." Obama is President. The buck stops with him. Bush is no longer President. Anything that happens under Obama's watch is Obama's decision. If he can't handle that, he should never have run for the office.

Elliot

So, after all this debate, can it be agreed that:
The united states MAY have UHC, but it is impossible to tell the future so we'll just have to wait and see?

I really don't see how arguing about all of this is supposed to answer the OP's question, or the point.

Perhaps it is a pointless exercise. But the OP got to see both sides of the issue vigorously debated .

If you have a crystal ball you could answer the question but since this was posted on a discussion board ,one would properly assume the question would be "discussed" .

For my 2 cents ;I think only on boards like this will the OP get all sides of the issue.

Perhaps it is a pointless exercise. But the OP got to see both sides of the issue vigorously debated .

If you have a crystal ball you could answer the question but since this was posted on a discussion board ,one would properly assume the question would be "discussed" .

For my 2 cents ;I think only on boards like this will the OP get all sides of the issue.

Yep, both sides of the argument, but when you get in all about bailouts with no direct link to the healthcare, I think it kind of defeats the purpose.

Ooh... I thought this was originally posted somewhere else. Was it moved, or am I mistaken?

I'll take that two cents, thank you!

I note your critique that we often go off on tangents only loosely related to the question . I have to give my share of mea culpa about that. The biggest reason for this is the habit here of c/p a part of a reply to support or refute.
I try to connect it back to the OP but often fail. These questions take on a life of their own here.

I note your critique that we often go off on tangents only loosely related to the question . I have to give my share of mea culpa about that. The biggest reason for this is the habit here of c/p a part of a reply to support or refute.
I try to connect it back to the OP but often fail. These questions take on a life of their own here.

Well, that is why this was set up as a Current Events discussion board in the Member Discussions section rather than as a Political or Current Events Q&A board. Discussions are MEANT to go off on tangents, whereas Q&As are supposed to be specific to the question asked.

I have no problem with letting a discussion take us wherever it goes. That's part of the fun of this section of AMHD.

Elliot

Yes, I agree, but I originally thought that this was posted in current events, not discussions, that's why I brought it up...

:o I didn't check before I posted... :p

will the united states ever have universal healthcare?Hello again, mad:

I don't know about universal health care... But, I read on page 1245, Paragraph 3.b through 4.c that the government has found a cure for hair loss.. Plus, if you read carefully on page 1416, hidden in the words, you'll find the solution to the auto industry's woes.

This bill will do it all.

excon

This bill will do it all.

excon

Yep... and bankrupt the country in the process. As well as most individuals who join it, but who won't be able to afford the taxes that stem from it.

It'll do anything... except let you keep what you earn, let you get decent health care, or give you the freedom of alternatives to the government plan.

Elliot

Again--I wouldn't have a problem with it IF:

1. The government could show that they're in any way, shape, or form capable of balancing a budget.

2. You get the health care "card" equal to what you paid into the program. Didn't pay anything? You ONLY get basic and emergency care--by which I mean that you can get a flu shot, immunizations, a yearly checkup, and treatment for any medical, life-threatening emergency. This does not count towards counseling, psyciatric care, elective surgeries, or the sniffles. It doesn't count towards treatment of acne, or dieting plans, or smoker cessation plans (yes, I know how bad smoking is and how hard it is to quit--all it takes is ONE carton's worth of cigarettes not bought to have the money for a cessation product.). It DOES count toward any form of birth control. It DOES count toward abortions. It also counts towards mandatory sterilization of anyone NOT paying into the UHC fund who still manages to get pregnant or impregnate someone else. There's no excuse for that when keeping your zipper up, your legs crossed and FREE birth control can help you control yourself from having a child you can't afford.
3. A GED or High School Diploma is a pre-requisite for receiving medical benefits for yourself or your children.
4. After retirement, you must have paid in at least 5 years worth of dues to receive medical care (we could extend Soc Security long enough to cover those already retired, or within that 5 year range). Again, how much care you get is completely dependent on how much you paid into the program.
5. Dependents may receive care based on your program, so that house-wives and house-husbands still exist. Their "pension" plans are much the same--it's based on what is put in.

If we're just going to hand out free medical care to idiots who can't manage money or can't get off their rear ends and WORK, then I want no part of it.

I refuse to pay according to my ability for someone else to use all of the funds toward their need. If that's what will happen, I'll quit my job, apply for Welfare, and have free medical care and food for the rest of my life on the taxpayers' dollars, without actually paying taxes myself. Hell, me quitting my job might actually put my husband and I out of the highest tax bracket for our income level, and we might actually get a tax RETURN every year, instead of actually withholding at the highest amount, adding on an extra $100 per paycheck and STILL paying in about $3k every year.

Again--I wouldn't have a problem with it IF:

1. The government could show that they're in any way, shape, or form capable of balancing a budget.

2. You get the health care "card" equal to what you paid into the program. Didn't pay anything? You ONLY get basic and emergency care--by which I mean that you can get a flu shot, immunizations, a yearly checkup, and treatment for any medical, life-threatening emergency. This does not count towards counseling, psyciatric care, elective surgeries, or the sniffles. It doesn't count towards treatment of acne, or dieting plans, or smoker cessation plans (yes, I know how bad smoking is and how hard it is to quit--all it takes is ONE carton's worth of cigarettes not bought to have the money for a cessation product.). It DOES count toward any form of birth control. It DOES count toward abortions. It also counts towards mandatory sterilization of anyone NOT paying into the UHC fund who still manages to get pregnant or impregnate someone else. There's no excuse for that when keeping your zipper up, your legs crossed and FREE birth control can help you control yourself from having a child you can't afford.

I'm with you so far. And given some of our past discussions on the topic of sex ed, I'm pleasantly surprised by your position on this.

Personally, I happen to believe that the best form of birth control for any woman is an aspirin... squeezed tightly between the knees. And the best for any man is to have to see the first half hour of "There's Something About Mary" over and over again.



3. A GED or High School Diploma is a pre-requisite for receiving medical benefits for yourself or your children.

I'm not sure of my position on this one. Certainly I think that a GED or HS Diploma is desirable... but should it be a prerequisit for government health insurance? If a HS dropout can get private insurance, why should he be banned from getting government insurance if it is available. Do we have a HS Diploma requirement for Medicare or Medicaid? Should we? I don't know.

I think your GOAL is laudible. I'm just not sure it is either fair or enforcable.


4. After retirement, you must have paid in at least 5 years worth of dues to receive medical care (we could extend Soc Security long enough to cover those already retired, or within that 5 year range). Again, how much care you get is completely dependent on how much you paid into the program.

That actually seems fair to me. What you pay for is what you get out of it.


5. Dependents may receive care based on your program, so that house-wives and house-husbands still exist. Their "pension" plans are much the same--it's based on what is put in.

Again, that seems fair, as long as the working spouse's contributions can be counted toward the house-spouse's "account".


If we're just going to hand out free medical care to idiots who can't manage money or can't get off their rear ends and WORK, then I want no part of it.

I refuse to pay according to my ability for someone else to use all of the funds toward their need. If that's what will happen, I'll quit my job, apply for Welfare, and have free medical care and food for the rest of my life on the taxpayers' dollars, without actually paying taxes myself. Hell, me quitting my job might actually put my husband and I out of the highest tax bracket for our income level, and we might actually get a tax RETURN every year, instead of actually withholding at the highest amount, adding on an extra $100 per paycheck and STILL paying in about $3k every year.

We are in general agreement with these points.

But one thing that you don't address is freedom of choice within a public system... the ability to pay OUTSIDE the system for what cannot be purchased within the system. If government insurance won't cover my hip replacement, I want the option of being able to either pay for it with supplementary insurance or out of pocket. Under a single-payer system, that would NOT be permitted. I want that level of choice.

So add freedom of choice to your list, and I could possibly agree to what you are proposing.

Elliot

Elliot,

Meant to throw that in there. Posting from work, so it took me about an hour to type that up, and just forgot to add it..

Elliot,

Meant to throw that in there. Posting from work, so it took me about an hour to type that up, and just forgot to add it..

Then consider us to be in agreement on this one. :):):)

Elliot

Speaking of open mikes, the uproar over Joe Wilson being heard shouting out "You Lie!" at Obama has taken some interesting turns. Though he's already apologized Pelosi is threatening him with a "resolution of disapproval" if he doesn't also apologize on the House floor (no mention of when anyone will demand Harry Reid do the same in he Senate for calling Bush a liar).

Obama and Democrats have sworn all along that the reason for Wilson's shout out doesn't exist in the bills. So why did they make this move today?


The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Wilson_wins.html). "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

Just exactly what can we believe from Obama and the Dems on this?

Just exactly what can we believe from Obama and the Dems on this?Hello Steve:

When them death panels are gone, we can believe 'em... They're still there, ain't they?? Wolverine??

excon

Speaking of open mikes, the uproar over Joe Wilson being heard shouting out "You Lie!" at Obama has taken some interesting turns. Though he's already apologized Pelosi is threatening him with a "resolution of disapproval" if he doesn't also apologize on the House floor (no mention of when anyone will demand Harry Reid do the same in he Senate for calling Bush a liar).

Obama and Democrats have sworn all along that the reason for Wilson's shout out doesn't exist in the bills. So why did they make this move today?



Just exactly what can we believe from Obama and the Dems on this?


Well for one thing ;responding to the outburst that brought the issue to the forefront, the administration did a Friday night ,under the radar clarification of it's polices regarding illegals participating in the President's plan .


The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president's health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.

The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.

Here, the administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.



The bullet points sent tonight by the White House:

Undocumented immigrants would not be able to buy private insurance on the exchange. Those who are lawfully present in this country would be able to participate.
Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.
Verification will be required when purchasing health insurance on the exchange. One option is the SAVE program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) which states currently use to make sure that undocumented immigrants don't participate in safety-net programs for which they are ineligible.
There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.


WH on health care, illegal immigrants - First Read - msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx)

Well done Joe Wilson. In this case the truth trumps protocol .You would never had been heard had you not lost control. The fact is that Republicans had tried to make similar safeguards and verifications in HR3200 amendments and were blocked by the Congressional Dems. Wilson had served on one of those committees

The question now is ;will the President veto the final bill if his outline is not included in it ? I kind of doubt it.

Hello Steve:

When them death panels are gone, we can believe 'em... They're still there, ain't they??? Wolverine???

excon

Well, I haven't seen any chages to sections 142, 143 and 1233 of the House bill. So... yes, they're still there.

Elliot

Well, I haven't seen any chages to sections 142, 143 and 1233 of the House bill. So... yes, they're still there.

Elliot
LOL! You're still trying this stuff? http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif

LOL! You're still trying this stuff? http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif

Just until those sections are eliminated from the Bill or the Bill is killed.

Until then, what is on paper is very clear, easy to read, and clearly harder and harder to deny... Obama wasn't able to convince anyone that there aren't death panels, because people have read the bill and understand what it says now.

Now... you can argue that insurance companies ALSO have death panels if you wish. But you can't deny that this Bill has them.

Or you can... but nobody will believe it anymore. Not if they read the bill.

Elliot

Until then, what is on paper is very clear, easy to read, and clearly harder and harder to deny... Except that you can't quote a direct quote from the bill to prove your point, you always need to "read between the lines" or link the text with some other external material.


But you can't deny that this Bill has them.I vehemently deny it.

I vehemently deny it.Hello again, NK:

Who you talking to? The dinning room table again?? I've told you about that stuff...

excon

Hello again, NK:

Who you talkin to? The dinning room table again??? I've told you about that stuff....

exconSorry I forgot. :)

Sorry I forgot. :)

Yep... all those Americans who have seen it, read it, and know it for what it is... they're all dining room tables.

You and excon keep believing that. You keep running with that. You guys make sure that the DNC keeps running with that too.

THESE dining room tables vote.

Elliot

THESE dining room tables vote.Hello again, El:

Fortunately for the country, there's only a few of 'em. But BOY, can they yell!

excon

Hello again, El:

Fortunately for the country, there's only a few of 'em. But BOY, can they yell!

excon

I guess the other 67% of the public that is against Obamacare doesn't count.

You're dreamin', excon.

Elliot

I guess the other 67% of the public that is against Obamacare doesn't count.Hello again, El:

Yeah... my dinning room table, not only can't read, but it makes up numbers too.

excon

Lol yesterday the President claimed on 60 Minutes that the shouting was more interesting than the policy wonkery coming out of the "civil " debate and that is why the Dems are losing the debate .

Then David Axelrod claimed the town halls and tea parties were distractions to be ignored .

I'm sure King George III had similar advisors.

By the way The London Daily Mail estimated that there were 2 million loud dining room tables in Washington Saturday .

Hello again, El:

Yeah... my dinning room table, not only can't read, but it makes up numbers too.

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/asymmetrical-political-warfare-392160-6.html#post1978021

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/asymmetrical-political-warfare-392160-6.html#post1978021
You posted a link where I caught you guys making up numbers again! Classic! Thank you.

NK---what are the REAL numbers then?

NK---what are the REAL numbers then?

He doesn't know. He's just GUESSING that the numbers were wrong by trying to compare pictures...

His claim in the other thread was a ridiculously low "100,000".

Elliot

NK---what are the REAL numbers then?Real numbers for what Syn?

For the 9/12 thing?

Protest Crowd Size Estimate Falsely Attributed to ABC News - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055)

ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-protesters-march-washington/story?id=8557120), attributed to the Washington, D.C. fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."

Yeah ABC news . Did they have their anchor cover it live ? No Did any of the dinosaurs ? No . The DC Metro regularly puts on extra trains for large events .But instead they announced they would close stations if they became too crowded. Most of the Sunday shows only gave it brief mention . But they covered Cindy Sheehad's vigil and tent city circus in Texas all summer when Bush was President. So sure I trust their numbers...

The numbers are from the fire department. Reading comprehension is important.

Sorry don't buy it. 70,000 would fit in Giants Stadium. This crowd went back to the Washington Monument

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6Y5ctiQjR7g/SqvjissvpYI/AAAAAAAAK0o/vxffAZJaKZg/s400/_Device+Memory_home_user_pictures_IMG00034-20090912-1328.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/images/natmall.jpg

http://hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pk-stand-in-the-gap.jpg?w=366&h=493

- can you link me to where the first picture comes from please?

- the second picture is from WorldNetDaily and looks incredibly doctored. WND would not be a repuatble sit at all.

- the third picture is indexed as being from April 2009.

Forget it ;it's a waste of my time to try to find sources you approve of.

I mean, dude, the last pic is of a beautiful sunny day and the first two are completely overcast. C'mon.

Maybe that's doctored too.

The did a great job with the shadows, kudos to the photoshopper. :)

Oho... you don't like WND, so it automatically doesn't count.

I get it.

The picture "looks incredibly doctored". Where did you get your degree in forensic picture analysis?

As for the third picture, you say it is "indexed" as belonginf to the date "April 2009". Really? Do you know that website's storage protocals enough to know that hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pk-stand-in-the-gap.jpg?w=366&h=493 indicates that 2009/04 means the date "April 2004"? Could it be the 4th picture in that particular set of photos, which is stored in the sub-file for the year 2009? You are ASSUMING that this picture is from April 2009. It MIGHT be, but you don't know that.

Do you know of any event that occurred in April 2009 that would have drawn those types of crowds? Maybe there was one. It might have been a Tea Party event on Capital Hill... y'know, the ones that took place in April that "nobody attended" according to the MSM.

Or not.

Point is that you are ASSUMING that WorldPress.com stores its pictures by date... and only by month, not by day... rather than by story name.

Elliot

The picture "looks incredibly doctored". Where did you get your degree in forensic picture analysis?Years of working in the industry.



As for the third picture, you say it is "indexed" as belonginf to the date "April 2009". Really? Do you know that website's storage protocals enough to know that hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pk-stand-in-the-gap.jpg?w=366&h=493 indicates that 2009/04 means the date "April 2004"? Could it be the 4th picture in that particular set of photos, which is stored in the sub-file for the year 2009? You are ASSUMING that this picture is from April 2009. It MIGHT be, but you don't know that.

Yea I do, here's where it's from: Promise Keepers breaking one off for the ladies The Writing on the Wall (http://hiscrivener.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/promise-keepers-breaking-one-off-for-the-ladies/) it has absolutely nothing to do with the 9/12 event. <sigh>

Years of working in the industry.

Is that anything like your years of work in Canadian healthcare? Cause you calim to be an expert on that too... and yet everything you say is directly contrary to what the real experts say.



yea I do, here's where it's from: Promise Keepers breaking one off for the ladies The Writing on the Wall (http://hiscrivener.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/promise-keepers-breaking-one-off-for-the-ladies/) it has absolutely nothing to do with the 9/12 event. <sigh>

Then what is the source of the photo? Cause it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story in the blog either.

Elliot

You are an argumentative little thing aren't you? I'm off for a while, kids, supper, hockey etc.

You are an argumentative little thing aren't you?

You just figured that out NOW?!

:D

Then what is the source of the photo? Cause it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story in the blog either.

Elliot
Here's the answer: PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd ? at different event (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/14/tea-party-photo-shows-large-crowd-different-event/)

But it turns out the photo is more than 10 years old, apparently taken during a 1997 Promise Keepers rally.
Why is there such a need to lie and misrepresents things?

It has been confirmed at a number of sites that the photo posted was of a different event.
A 'tea party' protest photo turns out to be fake | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/tea-party-protest-photo-is-a-fake.html)

It has been taken down from the web page I found it on with a correction.

Absolutely pathetic to try to pass a 12 year old photo as one from an event you try to pimp.

Just to interject something. This poll says 73&#37; of doctors favor a public option, including 10% who favor public option only (i.e. single payer).

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960&sc=fb&cc=fp)

Depends on which polls you are looking at I guess. That's why I don't cite them too often

Here's one that says doctors have a much different view... that 45&#37; would consider quitting their profession if Obamacare was passed.

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199)

depends on which polls you are looking at I guess. that's why I don't cite them too often
But you'll cite one from a very pro-conservative mag. Look at their headlines: IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Editorial.aspx#today) It's all the stuff you say here.
Here's my favorite: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/PollsAbout.aspx
"An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed TIPP was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season, coming within three-tenths of a percentage point of Bush's actual margin of victory. "
Hmmm... wasn't there another election after that? LOL!

Why would an NPR poll be any less weighted towards an agenda ? Like I said ;I don't put much stock in polling data.

But you'll cite one from a very pro-conservative mag. Look at their headlines: IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Editorial.aspx#today) It's all the stuff you say here.
Here's my favorite: IBDeditorials.com: IBD/TIPP Economic, Presidential Election, and Political Polls (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/PollsAbout.aspx)
"An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed TIPP was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season, coming within three-tenths of a percentage point of Bush’s actual margin of victory. "
Hmmm....wasn't there another election after that? LOL!

So... Internet Business Daily, which makes its money through the free market, is more biased than NPR, which receives its money from the Federal government and is therefore beholding to the government's (meaning Obama's) position?

Some interesting facts about the IBD story:

1) 65% of doctors are against a government expansion plan. The President is quick to point out that the AMA backs his plan, but he ignores the fact that AMA membership is only 18% of all doctors... which would NOT indicate that he has majority support among doctors.

2) 45% of doctors say they would leave the practice of medicine if Congress passed the plan that the White House is pushing. With over 800,000 doctors working in 2006, that would mean that 360,000 of them would consider leaving the practice of medicine if we get Obamacare. Which means we would be facing the same shortage of medical professionals that other countries with nationalized health care face. This would result in rationing of care.

3) 71% of doctors say that they do not believe the President when he says that nationalized health care can expand the pool of insured by 46 million and it will cost less and provide better service. Apparently doctors can do math.

Interesting findings. Ones that seem to agree with the poll results of Americans in general. Doctors don't seem to be any more in favor of nationalized health care than the rest of the American public.

Elliot

If we don't get universal health care it won't be for a loack of Obama's efforts. In addition to his visiting 5 morning shows yesterday (all but the most popular channel, Fox of course, maybe because Chris Matthews called the Obama White House “the biggest bunch of crybabies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoNMvubV87M)” he’s seen in 30 years of reporting), he'll be visiting Letterman tonight I believe.

The all Obama all the time media is bad enough, but how many laws did he break for engaging the National Endowment for the Arts as his propaganda mouthpiece (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mflynnjnolte/2009/09/20/pregame-report-the-nea-conference-call/)?

maybe because Chris Matthews ...You make fun of the guy, even call him a dolt (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1664863-post35.html) and now you'll take his word for something? LOL! Flip-flopper!!

You make fun of the guy, even call him a dolt (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1664863-post35.html) and now you'll take his word for something? LOL! Flip-flopper!!!!!!!

Excuse, me NK, that dolt is still a dolt. Chris Wallace, not Chris Matthews called the administration crybabies. I knew who I was referring to even though I typed the wrong last name. If you had actually looked at the Youtube site you might have noticed my typo yourself, but you tend to get too giddy over the possibility of making one of us look foolish to use your brain.

Now can you address the substance of the post and why our president is using the NEA to promote his agenda?

Interesting USA Today-Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/Cost-Is-Foremost-Healthcare-Issue-for-Americans.aspx) today...

Interesting: 60% living paycheck to paycheck - Smart Spending Blog - MSN Money (http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/smartspending/archive/2009/09/22/60-living-paycheck-to-paycheck.aspx)

As the economic downturn trudges on, many workers are struggling with household budgets. About six in 10 workers -- 61&#37; -- report they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/HomeMortgageSavings/help-i-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.aspx) just to make ends meet, compared with 49% last year and 43% in 2007, according to a new nationwide survey of more than 4,400 workers by CareerBuilder.
Thirty percent of workers with salaries of $100,000 or more report that they too live paycheck to paycheck, versus 21% in 2008.

Interestin indeed.

From the Gallup poll that Speechless cites:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/htjkdcqeuk6zekapp3zmuw.gif





80% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care?

And 61% are even satisfied with the COST of their health care?





And then there's this:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rhdypaga50ejcrgqnimxbq.gif

According to this, the biggest problem that most Americans see with their health care is the cost.

Not accessibility.

Not being dropped because of pre-existing conditions.

Not the number of uninsured.

Not even insurance company greed.

Cost... this is single biggest problem with health insurance in America by a larger than 2:1 margin over every other problem that people see in health care.

So, what's Obama's solution to dealing with health care reform? He chooses the single option most likely to drive UP costs... having the government, the single most inefficient group in the world, take it over.

Of course some people here will talk about how the poll is skewed.

Others will argue that we ought to have government take over anyway because those greedy insurance companies are the ones driving up the costs, and anyway profit is evil.

But it seems to me based on this and other polls that MOST Americans see the real issues and understand what the real solutions are... or at least what they AREN'T.

Elliot

Cost... this is single biggest problem with health insurance in America by a larger than 2:1 margin over every other problem that people see in health care.

So, what's Obama's solution to dealing with health care reform? He chooses the single option most likely to drive UP costs...
Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

Actually, according to the CBO, the cost of administration of health care by the government would be anywhere from 3-5 times the cost under private health insurance. (The Heritage Foundation says that's a low estimate, but we'll use it anyway.)

Furthermore, the government actually pays 35% more for health care than private insurance companies do.

Add the costs of eliminating competition, shortages of equipment and service providers, the number of doctors LEAVING the practice of medicine, longer waiting times, longer times out of work while you wait to be treated, etc. and your costs are now over 500% higher than in private health care.

Sorry, NK, but your statement is incorrect.

The way to lower health care costs is not to nationalize it, but rather to open up COMPETITION by allowing portability. Instead of having a choice between 2 or 3 insurance companies in a state, there will be roughly 1600 insurance companies competing for your business in EVERY state.

The way to lower health care costs is to make the costs pre-tax... thuse creating an immediate savings of 30% or more.

The way to lower health care costs is to have tort reform similar to what we have seen with the "medical malpractice panels" in Texas. These panels review every medical malpractice suit filed in the state of Texas. If they determine that the case has merit it moves forward. If they determine that the case has NO merit and is frivolous, the case is rejected. This system has lowered malpractice insurance costs by something like 60%, decreased the number of cases in the court system, decreased the amount of "defensive medicine" being practiced and increased the number of practicing medical doctors in Texas by 7500 in two years. Due to the lower medical malpractice insurance costs, malpractice premiums have decreased, resulting in lower overhead for doctors. This has resulted in medical costs for individuals dropping as well, due to fewer defensive medicine tests and lower fees charged by doctors. Also, competition between doctors has increased with the influx of new practitioners. There has been an across-the-board decrease in medical costs of something like 20% - 30% in the past two years in Texas. Medical costs are lower, the doctors have a more inviting environment in which to practice with lower overhead and fewer malpractice hassles, and the people are getting a better deal for their dollar and a bigger choice of health care providers.

THAT is how you lower medical costs. Not by nationalizing it. It's called the Free Market, and it works every time its tried. Unfortunately, that occurrence is way too rare.

Elliot

THAT is how you lower medical costs. Not by nationalizing it. It's called the Free Market, and it works every time its tried. Unfortunately, that occurence is way too rare.

Elliot

You had me nodding my head until this.

Please--the ONLY places that a TRULY free market, with no government oversight have EVER worked is in developing countries, in the 70s and 80s---and ONLY under a government of terror.

And the ONLY people it benefitted, in the long run, were those that were ALREADY wealthy. Do some research into the Chicago School of Economics and Milton Friendman--and into their involvement in South America in the 60s and 70s. A COMPLETELY free market isn't the answer--all that does is make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and eliminate the middle class.

I have no problem with government interference in the system to either make it more affordable, or to make it more humane (required coverage by insurance companies, for example, even with a pre-existing condition). What I have a problem with is that our government has proven itself to be inept at running ANYTHING in the last oh... 40 years.

As far as costs being lowered for medical insurance--even living paycheck to paycheck, that's taken out of my check before I even see it. I also have REALLY good coverage for about $10 a paycheck. Granted, that's subsidized by my employer, but with no "pensions" anymore, that's where companies can make themselves more appealing to prospective employees. I know more than one person who chose between jobs based on the benefits package.

Someone posting before me also posted stats about people who are living paycheck to paycheck. The FOLLOW UP question to that is "How many perks and unnecessary toys have you eliminated from your budget?" Bet most of those people living paycheck to paycheck still have cable, a cell phone, a new-ish car, broadband internet, and eat lunch out at least once a week.

Sorry mate, your scare tactics have no basis in reality. R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt. Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already? The government doesn't pay more for healthcare, where do you get that erroneous fact? The two think tanks you quote are both conservative and have a vested interest in the status quo.

I do want you to prove the "500&#37;" number though.

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

What are the income tax rates in Canada? (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#provincial)

Is your total tax federal PLUS provincial?

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?


G&P

What are the income tax rates in Canada? (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html#provincial)

Is your total tax federal PLUS provincial?

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?


G&P

I think we would all like to know that. And by the way we pay much less than Americans in Australia and we have universal health care

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?Actually I'm not sure I'd know how to break that down. But one thing I can tell you is that Canadians still seem to contribute to their rRSPs, take vacations, have a savings account and aren't all over this forum asking questions about being in serious credit trouble.

R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt.


I don't want ANY facet of my health care centralized under the feds.


Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already?

Doctors won't leave the practice? Isn't Canada having a boom in private clinics?

I don't want ANY facet of my health care centralized under the feds.I don't want my health being decided on by the free market. Also our feds are a little different than your feds so the comparison is not apples to apples.

Hello again,

NK brings up that old argument that you guys NEVER seem to address... Why do you think the insurance adjuster will be any more kind to you than a bureaucrat will? BOTH are deciding your fate. BOTH have to account to a BOSS. BOTH are charged with saving money...

What's the difference?? Oh, I know what the Wolverine says, but it makes no sense.. He says they'll pay a LOT of money because they want to keep their customer happy so they can sell more insurance...

Ordinarily, the free market DOES work that way... But, when you're SICK, and NOBODY else will SELL you insurance BECAUSE you're sick, the free market is GONE, and you're stuck with the decision the insurance adjuster makes...

I don't know WHY that doesn't scare you. Especially when you pretend that the bureaucrat is going to be a prick, but YOUR insurance adjuster is just a fine fellow... Nope, righty's, it don't make no sense.

excon

And I don't want to be like this guy: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health-insurance/risk-v-saving-money-399373.html

I realize that you guys have only known that kind of system and I've only known my system but it certainly makes me understand all the crazy medical questions on this board if I had to worry about a $1500 deductible.

Also our feds are a little different than your feds so the comparison is not apples to apples.

Then what's your point? If we're to comparing apples to apples it would seem your input on our health care is irrelevant.

Sorry mate, your scare tactics have no basis in reality. R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt.

And nothing actually gets developed.

What was the last medical breakthrough or new drug to make it out of Canada and into mainstream medical practice.

Hasn't been one in decades. Because there's no profit in it in Canada.

So you have this wonderful government-run R&D establishment that isn't researching or developing anything.

It ain't a "scare tactic" NK. It's reality.


Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already?

Just because we have a shortage of doctors (which we actually DON'T have... what we have is a shortage of doctors in certain specialties) doesn't mean they won't leave anyway.

And we already posted the poll that SHOWED that 45% of doctors currently practicing medicine would consider quitting their practices and leaving medicine entirely if healthcare is nationalized. So please don't tell me it can't happen... the doctors are ALREADY considering it.

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199)


The government doesn't pay more for healthcare, where do you get that erroneous fact? The two think tanks you quote are both conservative and have a vested interest in the status quo.

Which two "think tanks" are you talking about. I'm citing the Congressional Budget Office.

And the fact that Medicare is paying roughly 35% more than private insurance comes from two sources. One was the comments by the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf. The other is from the Jeffry Anderson at the Pacific Research Institute.

In fact, according to Anderson, the annual per-patient costs paid by Medicare and Medicaid in the 1970s used to be $344 per patient, compared to $364 in the private sector. That was a $20 savings. Today the Medicare & Medicaid annual per patient cost is $8,955, compared to $7,119 in 2008. That means that the government is paying $1,836 more per patient than private insurance... or 26% more per patient. And that's DIRECT costs... it doesn't take into consideration the INDIRECT costs.


I do want you to prove the "500%" number though.

That's easiest of all... I don't even need to cite a study or poll. It's simple math.

The government doesn't pay for just one workforce. Thanks to union contracts with SEIU (the DNC's single largest contributor, by the way) and AFSCME, the government is required to pay pensions that are nearly full salary for anyone who has worked in government for 20 years or more, regardless of their age, for the rest of their lives. Plus they must also cover their medical insurance and that of their families.

What that means is that the government is required to pay their CURRENT employees, plus the ones that retired 20 years ago and the ones who retired 40 years ago. That's three full time staffs that they must pay for... which makes their administrative costs 300% of what they would be in the non-union private sector.

Then there's the fact that unions have very strange contracts. Under many union contracts, if a union employee is promoted, he must be replaced with not one, but TWO employees. This is especially true in the government-employee unions. (Less true in blue-collar unions, but it still happens there too.) The unions see this as a method of increasing or maintaining their membership dues... if the employee stays where they are, they lose nothing. If the employee gets promoted, they see an INCREASE in dues. Ditto if an employee leaves the agency to work elsewhere.

The point is that this results in massive OVER-EMPLOYMENT in government agencies. They always have more people than they actually need to do the work. (Just take a look at your local Department of Motor Vehicles if you don't believe me, and see how many people are sitting around doing nothing or reading their newspaper or playing solitair on their computers while others do the work.)

This causes increased employment costs to the agency... after about a decade, the over-employment costs can rise as high as 100%... meaning twice as many people employed as are actually needed. After two decades, that number will be 200%, because of the pension rules I discussed before.

So... the "immediate" (within 10 years) cost increase of government health care over private insurance would be about 300% (3 sets of salaries) and increasing to 500% thereafter (due to over-employment caused by union contracts).

And none of this even takes into consideration government waste... the fact that the government is just simply an inefficient body that wastes money on $500 hammers and $300 toilet seats. Government contracts ALWAYS overpay compared to the private market. I know this for a fact... I used to work in administration for a government hospital. My brother-in-law does contract law for a government-run hospital. The evidence of overpaying by the government for medical equipment, supplies, services, etc. is massive. A 35% difference doesn't even begin to cover it... it's an overly conservative estimate.

So... between paying 3 sets of salaries, overemployment by 100-200%, and massive waste, we're easily talking about a 500% increase in administrative costs.

The CBO agrees with this rough estimate. The Heritage Foundation, though, thinks that I'm being too conservative in my numbers and that the actuall increase will be MORE that 500%. Since the CBO has a habbit of underestimating, I think the Heritage Foundation is going to be closer to correct.

Elliot

But, when you're SICK, and NOBODY else will SELL you insurance BECAUSE you're sick, the free market is GONE, and you're stuck with the decision the insurance adjuster makes....

Just exactly how is an insurance company going to stay in business if they don't furnish the services they're in business for? If they aren't going to pay claims they're not going to have customers.

Another aspect you guys miss is often the insurance company is our advocate with the provider. Twice this year alone - on claims totally roughly $4,000 - the insurance company is what stood between me and a provider trying to get me to pay a bill the insurance company denied because of the provider's screw-ups. Just last week a doctor's office tried to tell me a claim was applied to our deductible so we needed to pay the balance. Their problem is I actually read the EOB's and I know the policy. If they want their money they're going to have to correct their claim because I know I only owe a $25.00 copay at most for this $764 bill. The insurance company is on my side in this.

Just exactly how is an insurance company going to stay in business if they don't furnish the services they're in business for? Hello again, Steve:

By lobbying congress for favors they CAN'T get from the market place.. If the market supplied all the profits they could possibly want, why do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even more BILLIONS on lobbying??

I KNOW why. So do you.

excon

What was the last medical breakthrough or new drug to make it out of Canada and into mainstream medical practice.

Hasn't been one in decades. Because there's no profit in it in Canada.

So you have this wonderful government-run R&D establishment that isn't researching or developing anything.You can read about Health Canada here is you wish: Health Canada - Home Page (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php)



What that means is that the government is required to pay their CURRENT employees, plus the ones that retired 20 years ago and the ones who retired 40 years ago. That's three full time staffs that they must pay for... which makes their administrative costs 300&#37; of what they would be in the non-union private sector.I don't understand your math here. Pay them what exactly? What changed from the previous administration here?


Then there's the fact that unions have very strange contracts. Under many union contracts, if a union employee is promoted, he must be replaced with not one, but TWO employees. Can you show me the clause where it says this, that would be interesting.

Hello again,

NK brings up that old argument that you guys NEVER seem to address... Why do you think the insurance adjuster will be any more kind to you than a bureaucrat will? BOTH are deciding your fate. BOTH have to account to a BOSS. BOTH are charged with saving money...

DIRECT EXPERIENCE... that's what makes me think so.

I've been to the DMV. I've dealth with insurance adjustors. Guess which ones were easier to deal with. Guess which ones I got a better outcome from.

And I'll bet that you've had the same comparative experience as I had, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

That's why 80% of Americans say that they are satisfied with their current insurance system... because it's easier to deal with a private insurance company, even the adjustor, than it is to deal with the DMV or the IRS or the unemployment office. That has been the collective experience of MOST PEOPLE IN THE USA.

THAT'S how I know it will be easier to deal with the insurance company than it is to deal with the government... because I already do both. And so do you. And you already know which is easier to deal with, whether you have the cajones to admit the truth or not,

Game, set and match.

Elliot

DIRECT EXPERIENCE... that's what makes me think so.
Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL! Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

...because it's easier to deal with a private insurance company, even the adjustor, than it is to deal with the DMV or the IRS or the unemployment office. The doctor's office deals with the government health department not the individual.

Hello again, Steve:

By lobbying congress for favors they CAN'T get from the market place.. If the market supplied all the profits they could possibly want, why do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even more BILLIONS on lobbying???

I KNOW why. So do you.

excon

So... by that logic, any special interest group that spends money on lobbying is up to something nefarious?

THAT'S how I know it will be easier to deal with the insurance company than it is to deal with the government... because I already do both. And so do you. And you already know which is easier to deal with, whether you have the cajones to admit the truth or not,Hello again, El:

My FIRST experience with making a claim happened when I was a young lad. My father had just died, and I inherited ALL of his clothes. He was IN the haberdashery business in Beverly Hills, Ca, plus he was my dad and was a sharp dresser...

In any case, I put about 25 shirts, that I'm sure my dad paid $50 each for, into the local shirt laundry.. They got stolen.. The insurance company offered me $25 for all of 'em, and I've been getting ripped off by insurance companies ever since...

Yes, I had to wait. But at least I GOT a drivers license at the DMV.

excon

Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL! Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

And what percentage of those people are just someone who got screwed as compared to the people who can't get insurance because they were a flipping idiot and jumped in front of a train and lived and now have lifelong problems?

I don't care whether their train was being too lazy to get a job with insurance (even McDonald's has insurance), drug use, disease that they contracted through being an idiot (like... say... AIDS), or driving too fast for conditions.

And---I agree with Elliot. I'd MUCH rather deal with a crooked insurance rep than with an IRS agent or person at the DMV. In a HEARTBEAT.

And seriously---how hard is it to see your government representatives? If I wanted to talk to my senator about how my health care is affected by the government, just how easy do you think it would be to see him? I can walk down to my insurance agent any day of the week, though. I can ALSO get his boss's phone number, and then HER boss's phone number if I'm still not happy. Do you think I'd be able to jump through hoops to get the president on the line if my customer service sucks under UHC? I can get the president of my insurance company on the line, though.

Tell me about ONE THING the government has run correctly and without going over budget.

If you can argue that UHC will be run like something the government has done right, you MIGHT get me to jump sides.

But... I don't think you'll come up with anything.

So...by that logic, any special interest group that spends money on lobbying is up to something nefarious?Hello Synn:

Uhhh, YES!

excon

I'd MUCH rather deal with a crooked insurance rep than with an IRS agent or person at the DMV. In a HEARTBEAT.

And seriously---how hard is it to see your government representatives? You never have to deal with a gov rep, you deal with your doctor.

So... MADD is nefarious? What about the Red Cross? What of lobbyist groups for better education?

"Lobby" has become such a dirty word that too many people don't realize that ANYONE can lobby.

The PROBLEM is that the lobbying system tends to be too much like running for office---whoever has the most money is probably going to win.

I don't understand your math here. Pay them what exactly? What changed from the previous administration here?

Absolutely NOTHING. That's my point. The cost of the government to do ANYTHING is as much as 500% higher than in the private sector, because the government pays at least 3 full sets of salaries for MORE employees than they actually need.

This same model is what got the automobile companies in trouble... they had to pay the pensions and medical benefits for two generations of retired workers plus the salaries and benefits for their current work force. That is how their union contracts were written. And it bankrupted GM and Chrystler.

That's the same employment model the government uses, because the contracts are with the same unions (or very similar ones).

So in order to deal with health care for the entire nation, the government will have to hire more people. They will eventually OVERHIRE because that's what the union contracts require. After 20 years, those people will retire, but continue to get paid nearlyu their full sallaries and benefits. After another 20, another batch will retire, and they too will receive nearly full salaries and benefits. And the first generation of employees will STILL be getting their full sallaries and benefits as well, since they are only just reaching their 60s and probably have another 20 years to live. Plus the third generation of employees that is the current work force.

That's three generations of employees... three full workforces... plus the number of "over-employed" people that any government agency hires...

500% of what the private sector pays for employment and benefits for employees and administrative costs. And that's before a single penny is spent on actual operations.

Taking a look at the budget mess in California, we can see this exact problem. California has to pay the salaries of 3 sets of firemen, 3 sets of police, 3 sets of road-workers, 3 sets of DMV employees, 3 sets of state tax agency employees,. etc. all across the board. Under normal economic conditions, that's not going to break the bank of government... they can just increase taxes to cover the excess. But not during a recession.


Can you show me the clause where it says this, that would be interesting.

It isn't part of the health care bill if that's what you're asking.

It's the regular conditions of the US government pension and retirement plan and the contracts with the unions. You can probably find some of it at the Office of Personnel Management website Retirement Information and Services (http://www.opm.gov/retire/index.aspx).

Elliot

You never have to deal with a gov rep, you deal with your doctor.

So... if I feel like I've been badly billed for my share of UHC, then I get to call my doctor up and argue it with her? Is that appointment with her going to be covered under UHC?

I've never met a doctor yet that dealt with their own billing. You usually talk to your insurance company, who talks to the doctor's billing office.

The PROBLEM is that the lobbying system tends to be too much like running for office---whoever has the most money is probably going to win.Hello again, Synn:

Bingo.

excon

Hello again, Synn:

Bingo.

excon

Ex--so why should I let the guys with the most money who won decide MY health care future--ESPECIALLY since they aren't going to use it themselves?

No one yet, by the way, has pointed out something the government has run right in the last 20 years--why give them something else to screw up?

Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL!

It becomes relevant when 80% of the rest of the country agrees with my experience and shares that experience.

As opposed to every single poll showing the exact OPPOSITE of what you say happens in Canada.

I'm in agreement with the majority of my country. You're not. That's what makes YOUR personal experience irrelevant. It doesn't reflect the realities of everyone else.


Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

Really? How many people can't get insurance in the USA?

How many are paying exhorbitant amounts?

How many have declared bankruptcy due to medical issues?

You continue to make these claims, and every single one of them has been DEBUNKED over and over again, but you continue to ignore the facts.

Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of Americans have been dropped by their insurance due to a pre-existing condition, and virtually ALL of them have been able to find other means of paying for health care.

The number of people who have declared bankruptcy in the USA because of medical issues has been found to be fewer than 80,000, and most of those have been found to be cause by TIME OUT OF WORK, not medical costs. Medical costs is actually the least likely cause of bankruptccy in the USA.

The number of Americans without medical insurance for more than 4 months is fewer than 15 million or less than 3% of the population.

So for all your alarmism about the "great health care crisis" there is no crisis. There's a problem, yes... but it ain't a crisis. And it can be solved rather easily without resorting to nationalizing a system that works 97% of the time.

I have given a very long list of things that could be done to improve the health care system. And that system COULD be improved significantly, there's no question.

But there is NO HEALTH CARE CRISIS. Never has been. And there never will be... unless Obama nationalizes health care. THEN there will be a MAJOR crisis.

Elliot

Hello again:

In fact, I'm NOT a lover of government. I'm a free enterprise kind of guy... I LOVE the choices the market place gives me - except when it comes to INSURANCE... First off, they MAKE me buy it for my car. What kind of choice is that?? How many billions did the insurance company lavish on the lawmakers so they'd give 'em a GIFT like that?? I'd say it was several billions, wouldn't you??

The next thing is, I find it mighty hard to distinguish between private enterprise and a company who, in fact, ACTS as arbitrary as the government does, BECAUSE it has managed to get LAWS passed that give it POWER to almost act like a government agency... They got those laws passed by LOBBYING, and you're right - they have the MOST money, and they won.

So, having been a hater of government services, you can imagine how I DREADED turning 65 and had to deal with Social Security AND Medicare. If the DMV is screwed up, can you imagine how screwed up THOSE agencies are??

Guess what? I went to my local SS office to sort out a simple problem. They opened on time. There was only about 5 people waiting. I was seen within 10 minutes. My problem was HANDLED on the first effort.

So, there ARE government agencies that do an OK job. The military is one, followed by the police departments, and the fire departments... Yes, we complain about pot holes, but the roads division does OK. I don't mind the FDA, cause I think it keeps my food clean. I could go on

So, to say that government run health care would be nightmare based on YOUR experiences with the government agencies YOU dealt with, would be shortsighted.

excon

Really? How many people can't get insurance in the USA?

How many are paying exhorbitant amounts?

How many have declared bankruptcy due to medical issues?

You continue to make these claims, and every single one of them has been DEBUNKED over and over again, but you continue to ignore the facts.Hello again, El:

Well, you got YOUR facts, and we got OURS. They AIN'T the same. If we present 'em again, you ain't going to believe 'em, just like I don't believe your crap. But, I'm going to present a little proof, anyway. I know you won't believe it, so it's not for you. It's for people who actually read.

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

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

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

I know that didn't make a dent into any of YOUR facts. It's cool. That's why I'M here.

excon

So....if I feel like I've been badly billed for my share of UHC, then I get to call my doctor up and argue it with her?
You don't get billed. It's part of your taxes.

You don't get billed. It's part of your taxes.

What a silly argument.

If you pay for it in taxes, it doesn't count...

So, if you are billed for your taxes for medical care in error, who do you go to?

If the government makes the decision not to cover something that you are clearly covered for, who do you go to?

Oh, I know... those things never happen... because the government NEVER makes mistakes.

But if it ever did... how long would you be waiting on hold for someone in the government to take your call?

I, on the other hand, just call up my doctor or my insurance agent, and the problem gets handled. Because that's what the agent or the doctor's billing office getting paid for... handling my problems. It usually takes less than 5 minutes on the phone to handle a billing issue. I've occasionally waited for as long as 20 minutes...

And you?

Oh, sorry... they don't make mistakes in Canada.

Elliot

What a silly argument.No it's how it works here. You obviously have absolutely no idea how the healthcare system works here.

What a silly argument.

So, if you are billed for your taxes for medical care in error, who do you go to?
Hello El:

DUDE!

I'm not Canadian. But, I'll BET the Canadians pay taxes based upon OTHER criteria, and NOT on how much medical services they used. Kind of like you're not billed in your taxes for the amount of time you spend on the GOVERNMENT highway...

Do you not understand that taxes and bills for services AREN'T the same?

DUDE!

excon

Hello again:

In fact, I'm NOT a lover of government. I'm a free enterprise kinda guy.... I LOVE the choices the market place gives me - except when it comes to INSURANCE... First off, they MAKE me buy it for my car. What kind of choice is that??? How many billions did the insurance company lavish on the lawmakers so they'd give 'em a GIFT like that??? I'd say it was several billions, wouldn't you???

And the REASON they MAKE you buy it is so that you can pay for the poor SOB that you may or may not permanently injure severely. You also have the other option of paying for someone else's medical bills for the rest of your life, without insurance to help you with it---but the REASON is that if YOU cause and accident that injures someone else, then YOU are responsible for paying for them to be healthy again. That's why they MAKE you buy it. Not to help insurance companies, but because most Americans are poor planners and don't save for paying medical bills for someone else in the case of an accident. It's to protect the INJURED, not to help the insurance companies.


The next thing is, I find it mighty hard to distinguish between private enterprise and a company who, in fact, ACTS as arbitrary as the government does, BECAUSE it has managed to get LAWS passed that give it POWER to almost act like a government agency... They got those laws passed by LOBBYING, and you're right - they have the MOST money, and they won.

And the middle class of America, who will--despite claims that taxes won't be raised to pay for this--be the ones paying for this. Guess what? If the middle class would band together, we have MORE money than the insurance companies.


So, having been a hater of government services, you can imagine how I DREADED turning 65 and had to deal with Social Security AND Medicare. If the DMV is screwed up, can you imagine how screwed up THOSE agencies are???????

Guess what? I went to my local SS office to sort out a simple problem. They opened on time. There was only about 5 people waiting. I was seen within 10 minutes. My problem was HANDLED on the first effort.

Great! I get the same service with my insurance company! So... why should I change?


So, there ARE government agencies that do an ok job. The military is one, followed by the police departments, and the fire departments... Yes, we complain about pot holes, but the roads division does ok. I don't mind the FDA, cause I think it keeps my food clean. I could go on

And I would say that the military is fighting an economic war, and isn't doing the job that a country's military should be doing--and HOW much has this country gone into debt to fight a "war on terror" that is doing nothing but creating more terror, only this time it's for the residents of the middle east? I would say that most police and fire departments run just fine---but those aren't federal, are they? Maybe we should have LOCAL health care, instead? Then we might actually KNOW the people we're helping with our money? And I have YET to hear of a road project that didn't go above budget. As a matter of fact, I think MOST of those agencies go above their budget every year. Who's going to pay for those expenditures?


So, to say that government run health care would be nightmare based on YOUR experiences with the government agencies YOU dealt with, would be shortsighted.

excon

True---but to think that it would be BETTER than what MOST people already HAVE is also not seeing the forest for the trees.

And the REASON they MAKE you buy it is so that you can pay for the poor SOB that you may or may not permanently injure severely. You also have the other option of paying for someone else's medical bills for the rest of your life, without insurance to help you with it---but the REASON is that if YOU cause and accident that injures someone else, then YOU are responsible for paying for them to be healthy again. That's why they MAKE you buy it. Not to help insurance companies, but because most Americans are poor planners and don't save for paying medical bills for someone else in the case of an accident. It's to protect the INJURED, not to help the insurance companies.


Bingo ! The mandated part of auto insurance is to protect the other guy from you. Comprehensive insurance is voluntary provided the car is completely yours.

Great! I get the same service with my insurance company! So....why should I change?

True, but to think that it would be BETTER than what MOST people already HAVE is also not seeing the forest for the trees.Hello again, Synn:

Here's the forest YOU'RE not seeing... If you LIKE your current service, you SHOULDN'T change. There's NOTHING in the bill that says you have to. That would be NOTHING! Don't be mislead. You may KEEP what you have.. I think that's just fine that you'll be able to keep what you have. How could you not think that's OK?

Yes, I think it IS better that insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage because you have a pre-existing condition. How could you NOT think that's better.

Yes, I think it IS better that insurance companies can't cut you off when you get sick, as they do now. How could you NOT think that's better?

Yes, I think it IS better to cover everybody. How could you NOT think that's better?

Paying for it?? That's another question. But, to assume that it CAN'T be done, because it's, you know - THE GOVERNMENT, in my view ISN'T a good enough reason... Especially when I KNOW there's enough money currently being spent on health care to DO the job. So, in my view it CAN be done. The question is WILL the government be able to do it. In my view, the benefits far and away exceed the risks or the costs.

excon

Hello again, El:

Well, you got YOUR facts, and we got OURS. They AIN'T the same. If we present 'em again, you ain't going to believe 'em, just like I don't believe your crap. But, I'm going to present a little proof, anyway. I know you won't believe it, so it's not for you. It's for people who actually read.

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

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

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

I know that didn't make a dent into any of YOUR facts. It's cool. That's why I'M here.

Excon

And I counter with this:

The Medical Bankruptcy Myth &mdash; The American, A Magazine of Ideas (http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth)

And here is Dranove and Millenson's paper that tears apart the numbers cited by Himmelstein.
Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact -- Dranove and Millenson 25 (2): w74 -- Health Affairs (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/w74)

Their own research shows that only 17% of bankruptcies are driven by medical costs. But they cite a Department of Justice report showing that the number is even lower than that, with 12-13% of total bankruptcies being caused by medical costs.

Tell me, is the DoJ also biased?

But another interesting thing that Dranove and Millenstein found was that bankruptcies caused by medical costs were actually HIGHER in Canada under nationalized health care than in similar years in the USA... indicating that government involvement in health care would not lower the incidence of medical-related bankruptcies, but might actually increase it.

This comparison of US and Canadian bankruptcy rates is born out by this paper written by the Frazier Institute.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/HealthInsuranceandBankruptcyRates.pdf

And here's a paper from Arpana Mathur for The American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060719_MedicalBillsAndBankruptcy.pdf

On page 4 of the paper, it states that



The Office for United States Trustees (in the US Department of Justice), on the other hand, found that medical debt was not a major factor in the majority of bankruptcy cases filed in 2000.9 More than 50 percent of filers reported no medical debt at all, while only 11 percent had medical debt in excess of $5000. Further, only in 5 percent of the cases was medical debt one-half or more of total unsecured debt. On average, medical debt was only about 6 percent of all unsecured debt. In comparison, credit card debt comprised about 40 percent of all unsecured debt. More than half the cases reported credit card debt in excess of 50 percent of all debt.


This would seem to indicate that even in cases where people claimed that they were going bankrupt because of medical bills, those medical bills were actually only about 6% of their total problem... in other words MASSIVE CONSUMER DEBT, not medical bills were the real reason that they going bankrupt.

Point is that Himmelstein was not just wrong, but WAAAAYYYY wrong. His mistake is that he doesn't take the time to differentiate between medical and consummer debt in bankruptcies, and assumes that anyone who has ANY medical debt must be going bankrupt SOLELY because of that debt, regardless of how large or small the medical debt amount is. If someone filing for bankruptcy has $50K of debt, and $500 of it is medical debt, Himmelstein calls that a "medical bankruptcy". His methodology is off base, and that results is skewed numbers.

Even those who agree with him that medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcy in the USA are in agreement that his numbers are way off. (See Domowitz and Sartain's 2000 report (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=182814), which states as much, but which shows numbers 20% lower than Himmelstein's.)

Elliot

No it's how it works here. You obviously have absolutely no idea how the healthcare system works here.

Yes, I know that's how it works there.

You pay for services you never receive, and probably get mis-billed all the time, and never even know it because the government is handling your money for you. A large percentage of your population get denied for services they really need and are legally entitled to, or end up waiting for long periods until they receive it, and end up coming HERE for their services. You have nobody to talk to about billing issues or denials of services. There are too few doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners. There is a shortage of equipment.

And you think that's how its supposed to be.

AND THAT'S MY POINT. You expect mediocrity from your system and are happy when you receive it, and only mildly disappointed when you don't. And you're HAPPY about that state of affairs.

Yep, that's how it works there.

Elliot

Yes, I know that's how it works there.

You pay for services you never receive, and probably get mis-billed all the time, and never even know it because the government is handling your money for you. A large percentage of your population get denied for services they really need and are legally entitled to, or end up waiting for long periods until they receive it, and end up coming HERE for their services. You have nobody to talk to about billing issues or denials of services. There are too few doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners. There is a shortage of equipment.
All lies. All of it. You have lost any credibility you may have had. Not one thing you said was correct. LOL!

All lies. All of it. You have lost any credibility you may have had. Not one thing you said was correct. LOL!

Actually every single word of it has been documented. By your own government, no less.

Sucks being you, doesn't it.

Elliot

You know what I find amazing?

I find it amazing the number of times that Canadian government statistics can be posted about the Canadian health care system, and NK can claim that the Canadian government is lying about its own health care system.

But he thinks I've lost all credibility.

Elliot

And I don't want to be like this guy: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health-insurance/risk-v-saving-money-399373.html

I realize that you guys have only known that kind of system and I've only known my system but it certainly makes me understand all the crazy medical questions on this board if I had to worry about a $1500 deductible.

I wonder if this fellow has a car payment, a plasma or lcd, a desktop computer, a laptop, a cell phone, rent / mortgage, auto insurance, home insurance, cable, internet connection, furniture ---- the point being that goods and services cost money - this includes healthcare --what makes people think that their own health is not worth paying money for, or expect other taxpayors to pay for their health?

If he makes 50k he is paying over 3500 a year to the social security and medicare ponzi schemes.


G&P

You never have to deal with a gov rep, you deal with your doctor.

You can't if the doctor doesn't accept medicare or medicaid


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=1

In the 70s price controls on the price of oil caused SHORTAGES AND HIGH PRICES, as well as long as long lines and rationing at the gas stations. Rent control in NYC has made affordable apartments even rarer. What makes people think, with that kind of track record, that government will not only cover more people but reduce costs? Has the price of a postage stamp ever gone down?


G&P

Actually, what happened in the 70s was probably BETTER than what could have happened to this country if the people who follow the Chicago Economic School had actually had as much power then as they do now. Well, it would have been worse in the US--it was already pretty horrible in South America under those same people.

What I STILL don't understand, and what NO ONE has explained to me is this: What's WRONG with the system we have that's actually going to be IMPROVED under the new system?

Seems to me that someone is getting screwed, no matter which system you use. It's just that with the PRESENT system, it's those who do not have insurance through their employment and those with chronic illnesses.

Why can't we just improve the CURRENT system, instead of starting a NEW system with a "company" (the US Gov't) who has a high failure rate with money and organization?

Once again--I'm not enthused about a health care system that isn't good enough for our current Congress.

Hello:

So, there's this sick little girl. Her dad is trying to buy insurance for her, and he makes too much to be eligible for Medicaid... The insurance company said they'll SELL insurance for the girl if she can go one full year WITHOUT going to the doctor because of her "pre-existing" condition...

Ten months in, the little girl develops a few symptoms... Does the family go to the doctor and THROW ten months down the drain, or do they wait it out and HOPE for the best?? What kind of a country would force parents to make this kind of decision?

excon

So I have a friend in a country with socialized medicine. She found a lump in her breast back in April. Because of the long line for the UHC, she finally got an appointment for a mammogram LAST WEEK.

Still waiting on the results from that, but she's been scared to death for FIVE MONTHS.

Yes, she could get private insurance, but with the economy she can't afford it. Private care is a LOT more expensive under socialized medicine.

Why should she have had to WAIT for something that could have been LIFE THREATENING?

From what I understand, it's a combination of more people seeking care, fewer doctors and technicians working in the socialized sector, and less available medical equipment.

So... my question still stands: Why don't we FIX the existing system so that situations like yours do not happen, rather than implementing an entirely NEW system under an administrator that hasn't shown it can properly oversee ANYTHING?

Hello:

So, there's this sick little girl. Her dad is trying to buy insurance for her, and he makes too much to be eligible for Medicaid... The insurance company said they'll SELL insurance for the girl if she can go one full year WITHOUT going to the doctor because of her "pre-existing" condition...

I take it the dad doesn't have insurance at work? If he does, why didn't he cover his family? Pre-existing doesn’t matter during open enrollment or as a new hire – at least in Texas it doesn’t.


Ten months in, the little girl develops a few symptoms... Does the family go to the doctor and THROW ten months down the drain, or do they wait it out and HOPE for the best?? What kind of a country would force parents to make this kind of decision?

What kind of parent would even weigh a decision about throwing 10 months away or taking his kid to the doctor? I think your premise is flawed, generally an insurance company will insure you or not, period. If they do, you get it without waiting, you just don’t get covered for that condition for a year. Try again.

Hello:

So, there's this sick little girl. Her dad is trying to buy insurance for her, and he makes too much to be eligible for Medicaid... The insurance company said they'll SELL insurance for the girl if she can go one full year WITHOUT going to the doctor because of her "pre-existing" condition...

Ten months in, the little girl develops a few symptoms... Does the family go to the doctor and THROW ten months down the drain, or do they wait it out and HOPE for the best???? What kind of a country would force parents to make this kind of decision?

excon

Is this a scenario you are making up? Or can you document this case?

Just out of curiosity... if this case were true, and if the parents made their case known to their local church, synagogue or mosque, or some other local charitable organization, don't you think that there would be people jumping at the chance to contribute a few dollars to help this little girl get the care she needs DESPITE not having health insurance?

Americans are the most charitable people in the world. We generally donate more for worthy causes than the people of any other nation.

We also love a good dramatic story... this has all the makings of a great drama... the innocent cute little girl with a mystery illness, the honorable father moving mountains to get his daughter the help she needs, the "evil" insurance company that is standing in their way. It's a PERFECT STORY for a fundraiser. It's got all the right emotional triggers... which, of course, is why you're using it to prove a point.

Do you really think that kid and her family will be denied the care that they need. Hell, any smart PR person at a local hospital would see the PR advantages of donating this kids care in full and making sure it got into the local newspapers. PR people LOVE that kind of stuff.

Do you really think that nobody would help this kid if this was a real case?

If this case is real and can be documented, I guarantee that the result will be that the family gets the help they need... which will PROVE my point about there being alternative ways of getting care even if you don't don't have insurance.

Care to take that bet?

Elliot

So....my question still stands: Why don't we FIX the existing system so that situations like yours do not happen, rather than implementing an entirely NEW system under an administrator that hasn't shown it can properly oversee ANYTHING?Hello again, Synn:

There's some KEY phrases in the debate. One of them is "government takeover". You're using a derivative of that phrase when you say "entirely NEW". It gives me a clue that the discussion ISN'T about reaching a solution. It's about presenting your side.

That's because instead of talking to me about WHY I say it's NOT a NEW system, you just proclaim it to BE a new system and speak about it as though it's so...

There's a disconnect there, that's NOT usually present in YOUR previous discussions with me. Oh, its missing between me and the Wolverine. We just yell at each other... But, I'm surprised that you're speaking the party line too.

So, I'll say again, that if you like what you HAVE, you can keep it. You will experience NOTHING new. It will be business as usual... With the exception that your insurance company can't deny you medical care because they found out you had acne and didn't tell them about it... That AIN'T a bad thing..

They also can't DROP you if you get sick. That AIN'T bad either. They'll also have to SELL insurance to the little girl who can't get any. I don't think that's bad either...

In fact, I think these are improvements in what you already have. I can't imagine you thinking they aren't. I also wonder why you don't talk to me about that stuff.

But, the point you make is valid... If there ISN'T enough medical services to go around, RATIONING will take place... Duh!!

Right NOW, today, there isn't enough medical services to go around and RATIONING IS taking place. But, instead of deciding who get's care based upon who's older, who's Republican, who's white, or who's worth it. We RATION care based upon how much bread is in the bank..

I think that's disgusting.

excon

Excon, darling

I actually am not trying to be argumentative. From where I sit, it IS a new system. It's not being built on the OLD system. It's basically a new corporation getting into the insurance business, instead of the government passing laws to make the EXISTING insurance companies operate more humanely.

Now, I'm not USUALLY interested in the government getting MORE involved than they already are with businesses--but to me, passing laws that benefit the MAJORITY of Americans would be a good thing.

As far as rationing goes---I worked HARD to get to a position where I can have decent insurance. Rationing it based on party lines is STILL about who can afford it. Rationing based on race is STILL about money--just ask any minority about the gap in salaries. Rationing based on who is "worth" it is completely arbitrary. At least money is something people can understand--because you either worked for your money and understand the value of it, or you didn't, and you're happy to spend OTHER people's money on things for yourself--like insurance.

Don't kid yourself, doll. It will ALWAYS come down to money, and who's got it.

There's a disconnect there, that's NOT usually present in YOUR previous discussions with me. Oh, its missing between me and the Wolverine. We just yell at each other... But, I'm surprised that you're speaking the party line too.

So, I'll say again, that if you like what you HAVE, you can keep it. You will experience NOTHING new.

And that my friend is "speaking the party line" if ever I saw it. Almost word for word what Obama says, and it's only half true if that.

What kind of parent would even weigh a decision about throwing 10 months away or taking his kid to the doctor? I think your premise is flawed, generally an insurance company will insure you or not, period. If they do, you get it without waiting, you just don't get covered for that condition for a year. Try again.

Is this a scenario you are making up? Or can you document this case?

Do you really think that nobody would help this kid if this was a real case?

If this case is real and can be documented, I guarantee that the end result will be that the family gets the help they need... which will PROVE my point about there being alternative ways of getting care even if you don't don't have insurance.

Care to take that bet? Hello righty's:

Here's the deal. I saw it on PBS. They did an hour and half special. I looked at their website to see if I could find the family's name, or some other stuff to verify my post... I can't. You're going to have to take my word that there IS this family, and you're going to have to take the word of PBS, in that they're not going to make up a story like this.

You BOTH seem to deny that a case like this IS even possible, or that you think IF it IS happening, it's a RARE occurrence. I don't think it's rare.

Steve, you're probably right. She had insurance for everything BUT that condition. I don't see a difference, though. The family waits for coverage and risks the child's health, or they take her to the doctor and go bankrupt. The family in the video chose bankruptcy.

Yes, El, I'll take that bet... You keep on saying that charity will take care of it, but you can't document that AT ALL. You just SAY it. In fact, I think that a lot of people DIE because they can't get health care. Maybe they're too sick to visit their temple. Maybe they're too old. Maybe the church doesn't have an extra $100,000 laying around to to give it away...

Having said all that, I'm sure the Wolverine will accuse me of making it up. I don't think YOU will, though, Steve. You seem to know me better than Elliot. He misses things these days.

excon

So, I'll say again, that if you like what you HAVE, you can keep it. You will experience NOTHING new. It will be business as usual...



The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans."

The Associated Press: Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJK9ly3ovzfflxGjV-dxk2sLILKgD9ASOPSO2)

Medicare Advantage is voluntary supplemental insurance. So people who have opted for this will see a change in their coverage. These plans threaten the lefts goal of universal coverage so the left has long dreamt of eliminating them.
Excon
It appears that you are the one talking the party line because those are words that the President often repeats . However the bills coming out of Congress ;especially HR3200 tell a different tale . Since insurance companies will NOT have the option to take on new customers after "the day before the first day of Y1"...The legislation is designed to have private insurance wither on the vine. Also terms of private insurance will be frozen ;no adjustments allowed .

Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Also they are lying when they say that nothing changes if you are in a company provided plan. In fact the employer has exactly 5 years to make their plan identical to the public option .
The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Synnen is right ;this is reinventing the light bulb. The costs will be astronomical in just creating the infrastructure to service this new system and I have yet to see where costs get contained.

Having said all that, I'm sure the Wolverine will accuse me of making it up. I don't think YOU will, though, Steve. You seem to know me better than Elliot. He misses things these days.

I don't think you're making it up, I just think there's probably more to the story... just like Obama's story about the woman with acne and breast cancer (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/of-course-obama-omitted-critical.html).

I don't think you're making it up, I just think there's probably more to the story...just like Obama's story about the woman with acne and breast cancer (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/of-course-obama-omitted-critical.html).Hello again, Steve:

Not really. They spent a LOT of time with this family. They lived in Ok. and they interviewed Senator Colburn about them. Like the lady that attended his town hall whose husband was sent home from a nursing facility because she couldn't pay, he told the interviewer that the family should seek charity.

The Wolverine knows about coverage for pre-existing conditions, and WHY this could happen to a family. I believe he recently got a new job, and was refused coverage for his pre-existing condition for a year. He keeps talking about some therapy that he pays for out of pocket, but if something major happened to him relating to his pre-existing condition, he's going to go broke. THOSE kinds of treatments cost a lot more than the therapy he's paying for. Just ask him.

excon

Hello righty's:

Here's the deal. I saw it on PBS. They did an hour and half special. I looked at their website to see if I could find the family's name, or some other stuff to verify my post... I can't. You're gonna have to take my word that there IS this family, and you're gonna have to take the word of PBS, in that they're not going to make up a story like this.

You BOTH seem to deny that a case like this IS even possible, or that you think IF it IS happening, it's a RARE occurrence. I don't think it's rare.

Steve, you're probably right. She had insurance for everything BUT that condition. I don't see a difference, though. The family waits for coverage and risks the child's health, or they take her to the doctor and go bankrupt. The family in the video chose bankruptcy.

Yes, El, I'll take that bet... You keep on saying that charity will take care of it, but you can't document that AT ALL. You just SAY it. In fact, I think that a lot of people DIE because they can't get health care. Maybe they're too sick to visit their temple. Maybe they're too old. Maybe the church doesn't have an extra $100,000 laying around to to give it away....

Having said all that, I'm sure the Wolverine will accuse me of making it up. I don't think YOU will, though, Steve. You seem to know me better than Elliot. He misses things these days.

excon

You're probably right that the church doesn't have $100,000 lying around.

But I'll bet you there are 1000 people with $100 each that they could afford to donate to a worthy cause.

As for documenting the charities that help people in this mythical child's specific situation... I have in the past posted roughly 20 or 30 websites for charitable agencies and corporate websites that help such people for free. And I haven't gotten to any of the religious-based organizations, just the secular ones.

And every time I have done it, you have had ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE. Because you know I'm right and you're wrong about this one. The alternatives are out there. They are available. You know it, I know it and the rest of the nation knows it too.

That's why the American people not buying your line and Obama's line about massive numbers of people dying without medical care in the USA. If people want the care, it's there for them. That fact is too well documented to be disputed.

That mythical kid of yours, if she actually exists, is going to be well taken care of. Probably better than most people who DO have insurance... because she's going to be the poster child example of how well the current system works. Assuming that she exists at all.

Elliot

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital - About Us (http://www.stjude.org/about)

Shriners Hospitals for Children - Main Hospital: About Shriners Hospitals for Children (http://www.shrinershq.org/About/)

EX, just some of the many places the child in your scenario could get help. People are free to donate of their own charity knowing how their money is being spent.

With government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you are talking of at least 7.5% of income and if you are a small business owner at least 15% of income for these programs. Does the money really stay in a "lock box" to be used for those programs only? And how fiscally sound our these programs to be considering adding more beneficiaries? The numbers do not lie. Boomers are going to put a massive strain on these systems, while the population of taxpayors to support them are dwindling.

Social Security, Medicare Face Insolvency Sooner - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124212734686110365.html)

Yes, healthcare costs are rising, but going the same government route to bankruptcy is INSANITY



G&P

Most charitable organizations specialize in certain problems such as cancer. But what about physicals, shots, etc, that people need? I don't think it makes sense having all 40 million uninsured people using these places, they would run out of money in a heartbeat.

Hello again:

I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.

Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.

excon

Hello again:

I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.

Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.

I don't know who begs for health care, if you want health care you get health care. If you can't pay it you don't pay it. We've been round and round on this, and while it sucks that indigents and others clog up our ER's THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO WITHOUT HEALTH CARE.

Nobody has to go without health care in this country already and you all know it.

I don't know who begs for health care, if you want health care you get health care. If you can't pay it you don't pay it. We've been round and round on this, and while it sucks that indigents and others clog up our ER's THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO WITHOUT HEALTH CARE.

Nobody has to go without health care in this country already and you all know it.Hello again, Steve:

I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT! If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.

People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT! If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.

People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.

People die for other reasons, they don't die from "being without insurance." I read where this study that says all these thousands die from being without insurance was a myth. They used old data and many of those who died actually died with insurance that was acquired after the study period if I recall. I will post it if I can find it again, but meanwhile stop buying into every talking point... that's what you tell us to do isn't it?

Now for a nice spin on your claim (http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/24m-had-health-insurance-but-died.html)...


CNN reported that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance and there were 2,426,264 total deaths in the U.S. last year according to the CDC.

Since 45,000 didn't have health insurance it is logical to assume that 2,381,264 had health insurance but died anyway.

So if you have health insurance be prepared to die.

We now return you to normal programming.

CNN reported that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health insurance and there were 2,426,264 total deaths in the U.S. last year according to the CDC.

Since 45,000 didn't have health insurance it is logical to assume that 2,381,264 had health insurance but died anyway.

So if you have health insurance be prepared to die.

We now return you to normal programming. ..

What you have proven is death is inevitable so it is pointless to have health insurance, you will die whether you have it or not. Therefore what is this debate about, surely not the benefits of health insurance. Health insurance is a method of paying now for the costs you might incur later, but as your system works on the assumption you are healthy and employed anyway, you are not getting the cover you are actually paying for. This is because insurance is not about meeting costs or making payouts but accumulating wealth. It is about risk management, and you are the risk. Premiums will always exceed costs

So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definitely a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definately a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

This may be the best worded argument for a universal coverage system I have ever seen.

but it is definately a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

You think the fox is guarding the hen house now? Wait until the Feds are guarding it. Unbelievable. LOL!

We now know that if the Senate bill is passed you could be put into jail if you refuse to sign on to an insurance plan.
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?sho wall)
I'm guessing that penalty will not apply to illegal aliens .

I'm wondering how many in DC are thinking of this mandate as a revenue enhancement for the government. A $2000 per year "penalty" versus a $500 per month premium... this much math a lot of people can do.

Hello:

So, the new secret plot the Dems are hatching up is to put people in JAIL if they don't buy insurance, huh? Would that be BEFORE or AFTER they've seen the death panel? But, of course, if you're a Republican or white, the OTHER secret plots would have already disposed of you. Same thing if you're poor or old.

So, I wonder whose going to be left to put in jail?

excon

So, the new secret plot the Dems are hatching up is to put people in JAIL if they don't buy insurance, huh?

What secret plot? Here's the note to Sen. Ensign (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_090925_document2.html), it speaks for itself.

Hello again, Steve:

I can't read it. It's JIBBERISH. If I read it correctly, please explain, in ENGLISH, what the following phrase means?

"... wilful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like, may be charged... "

That sentence makes absolutely NO sense. "Pay" what, to whom, and for what isn't mentioned...

In fact, it looks like a sanction for violation of a TAX code rather than anything to do with the health care debate...

Help me out here.

excon

What you have proven is death is inevitable so it is pointless to have health insurance, you will die whether you have it or not. Therefore what is this debate about, surely not the benefits of health insurance. Health insurance is a method of paying now for the costs you might incur later, but as your system works on the assumption you are healthy and employed anyway, you are not getting the cover you are actually paying for. This is because insurance is not about meeting costs or making payouts but accumulating wealth. It is about risk management, and you are the risk. premiums will always exceed costs

So you need a different principle in operation to achieve the objective of covering the costs of illness. A social contract where you pay into a pool and the pool meets your costs when incurred. This is what has been implemented in countries with universal health care and it works well. Perhaps this pool might be administered by an insurance company for a fee, or you may have some form of additional cover, but it is definately a bad principle to have the fox in change of the hen house as is the case now.

So... we should pay according to ability, and get use according to need?

"Who is John Galt?"

Hello again, Steve:

I can't read it. It's JIBBERISH. If I read it correctly, please explain, in ENGLISH, what the following phrase means?

"... wilful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like, may be charged... "

That sentence makes absolutely NO sense. "Pay" what, to whom, and for what isn't mentioned...

Do I have to do all the work for you? Follow the links (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Flout_the_mandate_penalty_Face_the_IRS.html?showal l) in the article tom linked to...

"Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation."


In fact, it looks like a sanction for violation of a TAX code rather than anything to do with the health care debate...


You'd be right, under the Senate plan if you don't buy insurance the IRS would enforce the penalty which COULD be imprisonment.

This may be the best worded argument for a universal coverage system I have ever seen.

Thank you, It helps to think outside the system

So....we should pay according to ability, and get use according to need?

"Who is John Galt?"

Yes, that's the idea because you don't know when you might have the need and lack the means to pay. Serious illness often removes the means to pay at time of greatest need

Most charitable organizations specialize in certain problems such as cancer. But what about physicals, shots, etc, that people need? I don't think it makes sense having all 40 million uninsured people using these places, they would run out of money in a heartbeat.

Sarge,

Have you ever heard of free clinics?

Pretty much every urban hospital has a free clinic system attached to it specifically to help the people we are talking about. There are also churches and other groups that run free clinics. Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies also fund free clinics throughout the country.

You are worried about these systems running out of money, but you aren't worried about the government --- which just announced that it will be operating Social Security in the red over the next two years due to high unemployment and increased retirement, and which has bankrupted Medicare and Medicaid, and which currently has a $3 Trillion budget deficit and over $50 trillion in unfunded debt (including money owed to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), and which has a deficit net worth of $-12 Trillion --- is going to run out of money?

Please explain how you can come to that conclusion logically. Do you really think that the government is BETTER at handling money than the private sector?

Elliot

Hello again:

I addition to sGt's cogent remarks, I suggest simply listing a bunch of charity's where people CAN get help doesn't tell me that they DO get help.

Now explain to me, if help is demonstrably available (by your own admission, now) but people don't take advantage of that opportunity, why it is MY problem to help them? Or any other tax-payer's problem? Or the government's problem?

These people aren't being denied the care they need. They are refusing to take that care... at least according to your own statement above that the charities ARE there but people don't use them. That's THEIR problem, not mine or any other taxpayer's.


Besides, in THIS great country, when a person gets sick, it's a time when they should be taken care of. Instead, we require a large percentage of them to start begging... That is DISGUSTING, plain and simple.

Excon

We don't require them to beg. The charities are there for them to take advantage of without having to beg for one red cent. At WORST they have to fill out a form that is no more onerous to complete than the form they would have to fill out at their doctor's office anyway.

The help is available without the government getting involved. You know it, we know it, the American people know it... and that is why they ain't buying the crap that Obama is selling. Why you continue to buy it and try to sell it to others is beyond me.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

I DON'T know it. You SAY people get care at the ER or from charity's, but I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Well if Excon doesn't believe it, it must not be true. Even if it is demonstrable that it IS true.

Great argument excon. Right about on par with NK's argument that if he hasn't seen it, then the government statistics of Canada must be wrong.


If you are UNINSURED and you need an operation to cure your CANCER, you won't get it at the ER, and I don't believe that a charity is going to pay for it.

Well, your belief is WRONG.


People DO die from being without health insurance in this country, and you all know it.

Excon

Not because they have to... they only die in this country from "lack of health care" because they don't take advantage of what is available to them from other sources.

And how many people die in this country from lack of healthcare? How widespread is this "crisis" in our healthcare system?

I'll bet it's some very small fraction of 1%, if that many. After all, the total number of Americans without health care is 3% of the population. And not all of them, not even a large portion of them, are currently sick. And of the number that are sick, a majority are not dying and have not died. Which places the actual number at much lower than 1%.

Which does NOT constitute a widespread crisis by any stretch of the imagination.

Elliot

We don't require them to beg. The charities are there for them to take advantage of without having to beg for one red cent. At WORST they have to fill out a form that is no more onerous to complete than the form they would have to fill out at their doctor's office anyway.

The help is available without the government getting involved. You know it, we know it, the American people know it... and that is why they ain't buying the crap that Obama is selling. Why you continue to buy it and try to sell it to others is beyond me.

Hello again, El:

So, just ONE phone call and a form is ALL that stands in the way of getting a charity to pay some six figures worth of medical costs for an uninsured person...

Is that your story? You're sticking to that, huh? Like Barney Frank said to the dinning room table he was talking to at the time, what planet do you normally reside on?

excon

PS> Please try to read my stuff a little better. I AM pretty clear, unless of course, you WANT to twist what I say... But, as usual, I ain't going to let you get away with it...

My recognition above that there ARE charity's doesn't mean that I think ALL charity's PAY whatever any applicant asks them to, even if they fill out the FORM.. I'm STILL laughing at your suggestion that they do.

Hello again, El:

So, just ONE phone call and a form is ALL that stands in the way of getting a charity to pay some six figures worth of medical costs for an uninsured person...

Is that your story? You're sticking to that, huh? Like Barney Frank said to the dinning room table he was talking to at the time, what planet do you normally reside on?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or are you just making it up as you go along.

Those charities are DESIGNED to help people pay for the health care they otherwise can't afford. If they ain't doin' that, what are they there for?

So in essence you are saying that all of the charities listed by people on this website are ALL failing to do the job of helping people get healthcare... and so are ALL the insurance companies, ALL the hospitals that give free care to people who can't pay for it, AND so is Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody without insurance can get their health care from ANY of these organizations, according to your argument.

All of these are failures at accomplishing their stated goals.

But the government, who has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is going to do what all these organizations can't.

Is that your story? You're sticking to that, huh? Like Barney Frank said to the dinning room table he was talking to at the time, what planet do you normally reside on?

Don't you get tired of being proven wrong so often?


PS> Please try to read my stuff a little better. I AM pretty clear, unless of course, you WANT to twist what I say... But, as usual, I ain't going to let you get away with it...

My recognition above that there ARE charity's doesn't mean that I think ALL charity's PAY whatever any applicant asks them to, even if they fill out the FORM.. I'm STILL laughing at your suggestion that they do.

And what I recognize is that you are WRONG about that. Oh, you're right that charities won't cover EVERYTHING... just the important stuff necessary to keep people alive and relatively healthy. They don't pay for boob jobs or hair transplants or for botox. But they WILL pay for heart surgery, cancer treatments and organ transplants.

That's what they are DESIGNED to do.

So unless you are arguing that every single one of those charities has FAILED at their jobs, then people DO have access to the care they need, even if they don't have insurance.

And again, I'm not going to let you get away with evading a simple question:

How many people die in this country from lack of healthcare? How widespread is this "crisis" in our healthcare system that is supposedly driving this mad rush to nationalization? Give me facts and figures and sources to back them up.

Just the facts, man. I don't want your opinions, your assumptions, or your conclusions. Just give me the facts on how many people die each year due to lack of health care. That was YOUR statement of the reason we need health care reform. Until you can prove that there is even a widespread problem, much less a crisis, there's nothing to discuss and no reason to even push for nationalization.

Unless nationalization is the goal in and of itself, rather than better access to care.

Which by now we all know it is.

Elliot

Unless nationalization is the goal in and of itself, rather than better access to care.Which by now we all know it is.Hello El:

So, everybody is getting health care, nothing is wrong, and this whole thing is simply a left wing plot to nationalize our health care system??

That's your story now?? I got one word for you. Ku ku. Maybe that's TWO words.

excon

PS> Uhhh, Dude?? I thought the goal was to kill old people... That's NOT your story anymore??

So, everybody is getting health care, nothing is wrong, and this whole thing is simply a left wing plot to nationalize our health care system???

???

Hey Ex, you have finally got the picture, it's a communist plot to take over those there U-nited S-tat-es of Am-er-ic-a. And it is so devious Mao himself could not have thought of it, he just has to contend with selling the last capitalist the rope to hang himself, or was that Marx? I get the two confused, anyway they are well advanced on their plot. Now I wonder what happens when these com-mun-ista succeed in killing the GOOSE that laid the golden egg?

I find it strange that the rightists, fascists that they are, could possiblely conceive that to look after the average joe properly could actually be detrimental to the well being of society as a whole. They might care to ask how it is that a nation with universal health care actually has one of the strongest economies in the world right now.

I find it strange that the rightists, fascists that they are, could possiblely concieve that to look after the average joe properly could actually be detrimental to the well being of society as a whole. They might care to ask how it is that a nation with universal health care actually has one of the strongest economies in the world right now.

Clete, no one is saying the system is perfect. No one wants people to be denied health care... and as far I know no one is being denied health care. Even The One himself (who has yet to put forth health care plan of his own) switched the focus of his rhetoric from "health care" to "insurance coverage," perhaps that's because we ARE getting health care and excellent care at that.

I'm all for looking after the average Joe, but I adamantly oppose the government having so much control over such a very personal aspect of my life. I also have worked hard, paid my own way and I darn well expect every other able-bodied person in this country to do the same to the very best of their ability. That probably makes me a racist, but I'm tired of whiny people expecting government to take care them when they can darn sure take care of themselves. We need LESS government intrusion, fewer government mandates and we need to change this pathetic entitlement mentality.

I make no apologies for loving my freedom, demanding government return to its proper role, expecting to get to keep what I earn and especially for telling a bunch of lazy people to get off their a$$ and take care of themselves. So there. Feel free to rip me apart for my lack of compassion.

Until you can prove that there is even a widespread problem, much less a crisis, there's nothing to discuss and no reason to even push for nationalization. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or are you just making it up as you go along.Hello again, El:

I know you don't believe me. But maybe you'll believe the Seattle Times... Here's the link: Local News | Ailing Market jeweler struggles without health insurance | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009955499_susansauls28m.html). If you don't want to read it, I'll understand, so I'm going to post the first couple paragraphs..

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

Susan Sauls has liver and lung cancer. She has lost weight, her hair is gone and she's constantly nauseous from aggressive treatments. But she goes into her work studio every day to piece together pendants and earrings for her business at Pike Place Market.

"I don't have a choice; I have to work," Sauls said. "If I don't work, I don't have income."

Without income, she can't pay for her medical treatments because she's uninsured. As a small-business owner who makes $22,000 to $28,000 a year, her income is too high for her to qualify for any government health plan but too little for her to afford private coverage.

And the 60-year-old Kent resident has medical bills adding up to more than $100,000.

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

How come her friends don't tell her about charity? Don't they know that ALL she has to do is make ONE phone call and fill out ONE FORM, and they'll pay for EVERYTHING?? How come the newspaper doesn't know that and tell her? How come the only person in the world that knows that is YOU??

It's because you make it up, and we ALL know it...

excon

I thought she lived in Oklahoma (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-20.html#post1997828) and Sen. Coburn was taking up her case. Now it's a Seattle Jeweler? Tell her to go south and get universal care in Oregon. If they won't pay for her treatments they might at least offer to end her suffering (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1).

Tell her to go south and get universal care in Oregon. If they won't pay for her treatments they might at least offer to end her suffering (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1).Hello again, Steve:

That's your answer?? She should kill herself?? You don't agree with Elliot that she should make her phone call??

You guys are pathetic.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

That's your answer???? She should kill herself????

LOL, you know that's not my answer. I was just trying to figure out how a woman in Oklahoma became a woman in Seattle, which is just north of a state that does have universal care... a state which apparently DOES think that's the answer. Ain't universal health care wonderful?

LOL, you know that's not my answer. I was just trying to figure out how a woman in Oklahoma became a woman in Seattle, which is just north of a state that does have universal care ... a state which apparently DOES think that's the answer. Ain't universal health care wonderful?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know why you think the Oklahoma woman is the same as the Seattle woman.. Finding people like that ISN'T hard. There's LOTS of them... I only looked at the front page of my home town newspaper, and there she was.

excon

PS> By the way, Washington offers death with dignity too.

PPS> I don't understand your post. It looks like you're giving up. I WOULD too, if I were you, given the evidence. Just this woman and her plight alone should be enough to convince you, but you want to make fun instead...

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know why you think the Oklahoma woman is the same as the Seattle woman..

Just trying to figure out which story you're telling, you were talking about a woman in Oklahoma as your example then it switched to a lady in Seattle. I have the utmost empathy for these folks and I know there are others, I just disagree with a massive overhaul of the health care system, giving the feds so much power over our health care as the solution.

There was a day when your distrust of the federal government was obvious and it blows me away that you're fighting so hard to give them this kind of power. The instance in Oregon I cited should tell you the kind of incompetence we can expect if it goes national. If you want to take care of people - as we all do - then let's do it right without rebuilding this nation from the ground up which is what this President and this Congress seem hellbent on doing.

I followed that logic, actually.

Here's the bottom line: I have yet to meet a doctor who thinks we need UHC. I have yet to meet a doctor who thinks that the SAME PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE will not be getting treatment under UHC--it's just that the STANDARD for choosing which people do and do not get treatment will change.

Frankly, Ex--it SHOULD be the people who can afford it who get health care, and the people who can't afford it who do not.

By YOUR logic, there should be a nationalized phone company that's administered by people paying the SAME BILLS that they've always paid, getting less covered areas, paying more for any extras--but by gum, everyone should have a phone! And air conditioning! Do you know how many people die in MN every year because their apartments are too hot?
http://www.severeweather.state.mn.us/Documents/Heat_can_kill.pdf -look on the right side! In 1995, in states that are in the same zone as MN (WI and IL) had almost 800 deaths because of heat! Why aren't we providing FREE air conditioning to all of those people who can't afford it!

Seriously--it's unfortunate that some people cannot get health coverage right now. But that doesn't mean that UHC is the answer. Changing our EXISTING program would be a much better start to the whole process. If they find that changes DO NOT WORK, after giving them a real try, then YES, we can talk about UHC.

But in the meantime, where are the families of those without insurance? How about we change laws so that you can purchase coverage for people in your family who you may or may not live with, but can claim as a partial dependent or some such? I'd be HAPPY to purchase extra insurance through work for my mother if she did not have insurance! Open up competition across state lines for insurance companies (which by the way, WILL be forced out of business by this--and THEN there will be MORE people without jobs in this country). Allow people to tailor their insurance needs more easily.

What you're not seeing is this, Ex: It's waaaaaay more expensive to go out and buy a whole new car than it is to fix your car when it breaks down. Sometimes you HAVE to do it, but to me the whole UHC movement is like having a flat tire on your car and buying a new car instead of changing the tire.

There was a day when your distrust of the federal government was obvious and it blows me away that you're fighting so hard to give them this kind of power. Hello again, Steve:

I'm glad you mentioned that. I am STILL no lover of government... In fact, I'm the same free market guy you came to know and love... But, when private business gets government to DISTORT the free market to their advantage, government is the ONLY one who can DISTORT it back...

You wonder, I'll bet, how a free market guy like me could think such stuff. Elliot keeps on telling us that the free market, if left alone, WOULD work... I don't disagree...

It's the "left alone" part that I don't agree with, and the market ISN'T free. It's manipulated. In fact, they don't want to be left alone. They WANT the government to tip the scales to THEIR advantage, and that's what happened. Don't believe me?? Then answer this question. If honest and open competition in the free marketplace was ALL that a health insurance company needed to do to make money, WHY do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even MORE BILLIONS on lobbying congress?? I KNOW why and so do you. They do it to get laws that GUARANTEE them profits WITHOUT having to compete for them, and that's what they did. That kind of stuff doesn't work out in OUR favor too well.

Now, if they didn't distort the market in their favor, I wouldn't be in support of the government distorting it back. But they DID, and I AM.

excon

PS> The same thing can be said for the financial system and its collapse. They lobbied congress to tip the scales in their favor, and congress obliged. If the banks served US, instead of the BANKERS, I wouldn't be in support of regulating them, either. But, they DON'T, and I DO.

What you're not seeing is this, Ex: It's waaaaaay more expensive to go out and buy a whole new car than it is to fix your car when it breaks down. Sometimes you HAVE to do it, but to me the whole UHC movement is like having a flat tire on your car and buying a new car instead of changing the tire.

Exactly.

By YOUR logic, there should be a nationalized phone company that's administered by people paying the SAME BILLS that they've always paid, getting less covered areas, paying more for any extras--but by gum, everyone should have a phoneHello again, Synn:

If the phone companies lobbied congress, so as to manipulate the market to their advantage, in the same way that HEALTH INSURANCE companies do, you're right... But, they don't. In fact, the free market competition in THAT industry provides us with CHEAP disposable cell phones with an HOUR of prepaid minutes for only $30. EVERYBODY can afford to call their momma...

Plus, you are RIGHT even further, Synn, in the sense that there ARE certain commons which SHOULD be held by ALL of us, and be FREE for ALL of us to use... Kind of like fire protection and crime protection... You don't get a bill when your house is on fire, and you shouldn't get a bill when you get sick.

excon

If the phone companies lobbied congress, so as to manipulate the market to their advantage, in the same way that HEALTH INSURANCE companies do, you're right... But, they don't. In fact, the free market competition in THAT industry provides us with CHEAP disposable cell phones with an HOUR of prepaid minutes for only $30. EVERYBODY can afford to call their momma...


And how did that work when it was just Ma Bell monopoly ?

WHY do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even MORE BILLIONS on lobbying congress??? I KNOW why and so do you. They do it to get laws that GUARANTEE them profits WITHOUT having to compete for them, and that's what they did. That kinda stuff doesn't work out in OUR favor too well.

Then we need to fix this lobbyist problem and Obama promised to do just that. Well guess what, another broken promise. He seems to be on a record pace for breaking promises.

This President and this Congress are moving too fast and too wide in scope. If they can't fix such "fundamental" things as lobbyist influence and if they can't clean their own house of corruption then I darn sure don't want their hands on our health care. Obama promised "fundamental change," let him start in his own neighborhood and THEN we can tackle things like health care properly.

and how did that work when it was just Ma Bell monopoly ?Hello tom:

Not too good. When I could ONLY go to Ma Bell, I used to PAY a bunch of money for long distance service. But, since the government broke 'em up, it's free. I wonder how much I'd be paying NOW if the government DIDN'T do that. I wonder if poor people would have been able to afford to call home.. I'll bet not.

What's your point?

excon

Then we need to fix this lobbyist problemHello again, Steve:

The people should be able to LOBBY congress. Even the richest of the rich should be allowed. We don't have a lobbying problem. We have a TERM LIMIT problem...

If our congressman could only run for ONE term, then they'd have NO NEED to take money for the next campaign. Plus, he'd have to go BACK to the society and LIVE under the laws HE passed. Given that he would have to satisfy NOBODY, maybe he could try to satisfy his constituents.

But, when it costs MILLIONS to run, his hand is Always out. He's bought and paid for by people with more money than me.

excon

When I could ONLY go to Ma Bell, I used to PAY a bunch of money for long distance service.I think you take the wrong lesson from the breakup of Ma Bell.
Ma Bell was a quasi-government approved monopoly running the telephones like a utility company .Of course it was inefficient .There was no competition until it was deregulated.

Same is true in the insurance business. I still contend that the various state and federal mandates limits competition and drives up the costs.

Hello again, Steve:

The people should be able to LOBBY congress. Even the richest of the rich should be allowed. We don't have a lobbying problem.

No? Then what's that tax cheat Tom Daschle, a major health insurance Lobbyist, doing with the President's ear still? Isn't that exactly what you're talking about as the problem, health insurance companies tipping the government scales to THEIR advantage? Surely there are no favors being passed between Obama, Congress and K Street are there?

Absolutely we all have the right to lobby Congress, but Congress and paid lobbyists seem to have a bit of an ethics problem don't you think?

Same is true in the insurance business. I still contend that the various state and federal mandates limits competition and drives up the costs.

They do it to get laws that GUARANTEE them profits WITHOUT having to compete for themHello again, tom:

We're saying the same thing.. You make it sound like it's not the insurance companies fault, and I say they're loving every minute of it...


Absolutely we all have the right to lobby Congress, but Congress and paid lobbyists seem to have a bit of an ethics problem don't you think?Hello again, Steve:

I do.

excon

You're missing my point, Ex.

No, everyone SHOULDN'T be able to call home to talk to their mommy. Everyone SHOULD be able to call 911, and they can. Hook up a phone to a phone jack in any house, and most of the time, it's connected enough to call 911. That's it. You want to talk to your mommy, do it on your own dime. Hell, for $0.35, you can talk to your momma from a pay phone anywhere, for 4 whole minutes!

Look, I'm actually doing some studying up on economics in general right now (and let me tell you, the last 30 years of world econ scares the hell out of me). The state SHOULD have some commodities that they offer to EVERYONE--and they do. They have emergency services, they have road construction, they have the post office, there are zoos, there are public schools, what have you.

But by making healthcare socialist, you're ALSO offering up the idea that water, soap, heat, clothing and food should be socialist---after all, those are things that EVERYONE should have.

That's bull.

Yes, people should have access to water and heat and clothing and food--but what they can AFFORD should be what they get. How else are you going to make everyone ELSE pay their bills? I mean seriously--why SHOULD I pay my electric bill? The government says I should have it, at a price that ANYONE can afford! Why SHOULD I pay my water bill? EVERYONE should be able to have water! Why SHOULD I pay my medical bill--even though I was a lifelong smoker until I got cancer and THEN quit--the GOVERNMENT should pay for that too!

Screw that.

People make choices. Sometimes the choice is to smoke or not. Sometimes it is whether to do drugs. Sometimes it's whether to shut off the TV and get out and exercise. Sometimes the choice is to parent a child they can't afford on their own instead of choosing adoption.

People should LIVE with the results of their choices. If you can't afford to pay your mortgage, you sure as HELL shouldn't have cable TV, a cell phone, and high speed internet. If you can't afford to pay for insurance, then you should make some healthy LIFESTYLE choices--don't smoke, exercise, eat healthy: in other words, minimize your chances of needing medical care in the first place.

I frankly do not feel sorry for many of these people who do not have insurance. I'm sure they've made choices at some point or another that led them to the point they're at. The percentage of people who TRULY had nothing to do with the point they're at for medical bills (an accident, HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion, they were pushed off a bridge by a maniac, whatever) is relatively small.

But again--let's try fixing the system we HAVE, instead of throwing a whole new system out there.

The thing is--it's the WHOLE system. It's welfare state of mind that this country has. It's the sense of entitlement people have for things that are NOT essential (how many Katrina victims in uninsurable houses had TVs? They couldn't afford to get out of town, but they had a TV and cable in their below-the-water-line house!). It's the attitude that so many people have that it's someone else's problem and that they can't fix it anyway. It's the "it's not my fault I lost my house, it's the fault of the bank that gave me the loan to begin with!" attitude.

But---there are ways OUT of poverty. It just means you have to make sacrifices on your way out, it all--and most people aren't willing to do so. So yes--I see this as the middle class once again paying for the poor to sit on their asses, watch Oprah on their cable TV, get a check every month, and have too many kids.

I make no apologies for loving my freedom, demanding government return to its proper role, expecting to get to keep what I earn and especially for telling a bunch of lazy people to get off their a$$ and take care of themselves. So there. Feel free to rip me apart for my lack of compassion.

The "I'm all right jack" mentality works well while you are in full health and have a good job. But I have observed that the costs of health care in your economy are much higher than they are elsewhere and you cannot say that the standard is that much greater after all we all enjoy the advances in medicine. So it seems your politicians are seeking to redress the part of the equation that is getting out of hand, and those who are making the money are screaming the loudest. I recall when it happened here 30 years ago, it was to be the end of life as we know it with all the attendant arguments; Lack of choice, lower standard of care, committing suicide, bankrupting the system, the end of the health insurance industry. In fact the only thing that happened was that the new system created the opportunity for some medical enterpreneurs to exploit the system and the costs were contained and regulated. The drug companies hate it, the would be millionaire doctors hate it, but the turn around in hospitals is quicker and everyone can afford it

The drug companies hate it, the would be millionaire doctors hate it, but the turn around in hospitals is quicker and everyone can afford itHello clete:

YOU LIE!

excon

The "I'm all right jack" mentality works well while you are in full health and have a good job. But I have observed that the costs of health care in your economy are much higher than they are elsewhere and you cannot say that the standard is that much greater after all we all enjoy the advances in medicine. So it seems your politicians are seeking to redress the part of the equation that is getting out of hand, and those who are making the money are screaming the loudest.

You think I'm "making the money?" I AM the average Joe.


I recall when it happened here 30 years ago, it was to be the end of life as we know it with all the attendant arguments; Lack of choice, lower standard of care, committing suicide, bankrupting the system, the end of the health insurance industry. In fact the only thing that happened was that the new system created the opportunity for some medical enterpreneurs to exploit the system and the costs were contained and regulated. The drug companies hate it, the would be millionaire doctors hate it, but the turn around in hospitals is quicker and everyone can afford it

Good for you, Clete. I still don't trust OUR government to completely overhaul the system.

Hello clete:

YOU LIE!

excon

Why would I lie, I just tell it like I see it. Did I say the system didn't have problems, No. But they don't arise from universal health care initiatives but from government bungling by trying to continually cut costs of service delivery. When a government runs out of money they will try to cut costs. The reality is that like everything else, those who have the most to loose pay the most and not the other way round. You cannot expect the poor to pay when they don't have the money, as is suggested by some lunatics here, but a nation full of sick people benefits no one. When you remove disadvantage you create the environment for growth

why would I lie, I just tell it like I see it.Hello again, clete:

I thought, being an Aussie and all, that you might misunderstand my comment. You did. Americans knew what I was saying. I was just repeating what our congressman Joe Wilson said to our president, Barack Obama during his speech to a joint session of congress.

I don't think you lie.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I thought, being an Aussie and all, that you might misunderstand my comment. You did. Americans knew what I was sayin. I was just repeating what our congressman Joe Wilson said to our president, Barack Obama during his speech to a joint session of congress.

I don't think you lie.

excon

Ok, you got me with that one, I was aware of the incident.

We are perhaps more civilised in our parliament, a politician who said that would be forced to withdraw or be ejected, out on his nellie so to speak. You can say the honorable gentleman is mistaken but any suggestion he is deliberately misleading the parliament without substantiation isn't allowed

We are perhaps more civilised in our parliament, a politician who said that would be forced to withdraw or be ejected, out on his nellie so to speak. You can say the honorable gentleman is mistaken but any suggestion he is deliberately misleading the parliament without substantiation isn't allowedHello again, clete:

As it should be here... But our right wing southern party forgot its southern manners.

excon

Hello El:

So, everybody is getting health care, nothing is wrong, and this whole thing is simply a left wing plot to nationalize our health care system???

That's your story now??? I got one word for you. Ku ku. Maybe that's TWO words.

excon

PS> Uhhh, Dude??? I thought the goal was to kill old people... That's NOT your story anymore???

Actually, if you will read my posts, you will see that I have outlined several areas where there are problems with our system.

But NOT ONE OF THEM requires nationalization to fix the problems.

In fact, as you have repeatedly ignored, I have also proposed 11 items to fix the system without having to resort to nationalization.

So your post is a strawman... I never made such an argument.

What I said was that

1) the problems in our system do not constitute a "crisis" or even a widespread problem. The number of people who need help under our current system is actually very small,

2) nationalization will do nothing to solve those problems and in fact will INCREASE them to the point where they DO become a crisis, wherein accessibility and quality of care will both go down while cost goes up by as much as 500%, and

3) there are other ways to solve the problems we DO have that do not require the government to run health care.

All of these things are provable and have been amply documented.

Stop putting up strawman arguments and deal with facts.

Elliot