 |
Spit made a specific point about for profit insurance companies making health care decisions for you.
My posting shows that under the President's plan ;for profit companies will still be making that determination in conjunction with faceless nameless bureaucrats .
President Obama has made you the person who will craft a new health care plan. What will your plan look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
We already have a solution. We came up with it about 233 years ago. It's the solution that the Founders used. It's a very simple solution. It's called the free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And it's the DEMS who keep saying NO to it. They have refused for DECADES to even try a free market solution.
We're not the party of NO. We're the party that has solutions that have worked for over 2 centuries. The DEMS are saying NO to what works. THEY are the party of "NO".
"Yes We Can" is better translated as "NO More Doing Things The Way They Have Worked In The Past." Or perhaps "No More Free Choice". Or maybe "Our Way or the High Way."
Elliot
Under the false assumption that we absolutely need 100% universal health care coverage ;gun to my head...Quote:
President Obama has made you the person who will craft a new health care plan. What will your plan look like?
I would probably model something close to the Swiss system which still gives the individual wide latitude of choice .
Healthcare in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But ;as I said ,that is under the assumption that we need 100% coverage .
My other option would be for separate coverages for basic care and catastrophic care . But mostly I think that if people are truly given a wide range of options ,providers would have to compete for the patient and that would automatically reduce costs.
Spitvenom, I have explained this before, but you haven't been listening.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Yes, there is some underwriter in an office somewhere at your insurance company making decisions about your health. However, it is in his best interest to make sure you continue to live a long time so that you can continue paying your insurance premiums. That's how the insurance company makes a profit. The longer you live, the more money he (or his company) makes. Therefore, it is in his best interest to get you the medical care you need so that you continue to pay for health insurance. To put it simply, "thar's gold in them thar old people".
However, when the government is in charge they don't make money from your premiums. They make money from your taxes. The less they pay out, the better off the government is. Therefore, it is in the government's best interest for you to die. In fact, the older you get, the more they need you to die, because you are no longer contributing to the tax base and are consuming the greates amount of medical care... the older you are, the more you are a leech on the system. The less they give you in terms of services, the better off the government is in terms of profitability.
I would MUCH rather have someone who is interested in keeping me alive be the person in charge of my health decisions than someone who's best interest is in my death. I'll take the private health system any day of the week.
Follow the money, folks.
Elliot
So you believe your healthcare system is in good shape?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So by your logic the longer a person lives the more he pays taxes right? It is in the government's interest that people live longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's the idea. But, in the real world if you need a $250,000 operation, the insurance adjuster can make a quarter of a million $$$'s drop to the bottom line TODAY, by DENYING you the operation. If he's allowed to do that, you betcha he will.
How long, if EVER, will they recoup $250,000 from YOUR premiums?? Dude! You think you'll be protected because they pay attention to the bottom line. I say you won't, because they pay attention to the bottom line.
excon
You are right I don't listen to anything on here. I read a lot of stuff though. But that gets pushed out when I have something more important to remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That is your assumption on how it will work but since we don't have that system you are just assuming.
Yes. US Patients have better access to healthcare facilities than those in nationalized systems. Cancer survival rates show that the USA is far ahead of Europe and Canada for every type of cancer... we have lower mortality rates, higher cure rates, and quicker recovery times from surgery. We also have wider cancer screening. For all diseases, we have better medical outcomes than those of Europe and Canada. For heart care we have better surgical and medicinal outcomes. For elective surgery, we have quicker response, better success rates, and shorter rehab times. We are quicker at diagnosis of all diseases because we have more diagnostic equipment. We are the largest producer of new medical techniques and pharmaceuticals. And we have shorter wait-times for medical procedures.
Am I satisfied? YES!! I am 100% satisfied at all levels. What I can't understand is why anyone who has experienced both private healthcare and public healthcare WOULDN'T be satisfied with the US system as it is.
Is the US health system in good shape? Yes. It is, quite simply, the best system in the entire world. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination... after all it is run by humans. But it is much better than any other system, which is also run by humans... but those humans have no incentive to be better at their jobs than anyone else, because they get paid the same either way.
Yes, I am 100% satisfied.
Uhhhh... wrong. People who are retired no longer pay significantly into the tax system because they are no longer earning income. They have outlived their usefulness as a source of income for the government. In fact, their main source of income in most cases is Social Security... which means they are a drain on the system both because of healthcare costs AND because of Social Security. They are a net loss for the government no matter how you slice it. Even if they pay taxes, it is less than they are receiving from the government in SS and medical benefits. Old people cost the government money.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
In a private system, though, they have to continue to pay for their health insurance regardless of whether they are retired or not. They are a continuing source of income for insurance companies.
Elliot
If you're satisfied with the system then that's great for you. It doesn't seem to be the case for many though. This website is one example.
How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?
No Spitevenom, I'm not just assuming. The Netherlands government is already performing euthenasia against the wishes of patients in order to keep their medical costs down. The UK, France and Canada are regularly denying life-saving medicines and techniques on the grounds that they are "experimental" despite their proven efficacy in the USA because those medicines and techniques are too expensive. The VA system regularly denies lifesaving procedures that are de rigure in the private system on the grounds of cost. (Just look at the OP of this string for one example.)Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I'm not assuming anything. I'm observing what is going on elsewhere where universal healthcare is the norm. There's no assumption involved at all. The money thing is already in play in universal/government-run health systems, even in the USA. It WILL happen because it is ALREADY happening.
Elliot
Interestingly enough, I saw a poll last week that said that 60% of Americans do not want universal healthcare. At the same time, 60% of Americans wanted to see "fundamental change" in the US healthcare system.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Clearly whatever it is they want changed, nationalization of their healthcare system is NOT what they want. But they were never asked what kind of changes they want to see.
Usually by spending their retirement savings. That's what it's there for. But that's not the issue. Once they are in the insurance company's computers, they are an ongoing source of income. They need to be protected so they can remain a source of income.Quote:
How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?
Elliot
excon was correct in last post here.
So now we are like Europe. You don't think the US is better then those countries? You don't think the US can do it better then these countries. Hmm some American you are.
If they do that enough times, excon, people start leaving that insurance company for other choices. That's the advantage of a multi-payor system... if you don't like the service you can go elsewhere, and there is always someone else willing to give better service so they can take your money. And the company that keeps dropping patients because they aren't giving good service is going to go out of business soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But in a universal system, there is no other choice. They can give as terrible service as they desire and there's NOTHING you can do about it. You're stuck. If they refuse to give you the surgery you need, there is no other insurance company to switch to, and you are not allowed to pay privately for the procedure. That's is what "single-payor" means.
Follow the money, excon.
Do I think the US can do better than Europe? Not when we have European-style socialists in office trying to create a socialist system just like that of Europe. But you already knew that, Spit.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
You see, capitalism takes human nature, specifically greed, into consideration and focuses it toward the goal. Socialism tries to deny the existence of human nature, and the result is that the system fails because both greed and laziness come into play.
Nationalized healthcare is a case of socialism ignoring human nature... the greed factor that will cause the government to limit the care it gives and the laziness that causes mediocrity in the healthcare system. PRIVATE healthcare understands both greed and laziness, and so uses greed as an incentive for success and a counterforce against laziness. This is pure Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations stuff. And it has been proven true over and over again. It's what killed the Soviet Union.
So now we have a government that is attempting to re-try a failed experiment that has no chance of succeeding because human nature precludes the possibility of its success. It has failed here where it has been tried (the VA system, the auto industry's labor unions, public education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,) it has failed in Europe, and it will fail on a much grander scale if we are forced into government-run single-payor healthcare. It is a system based on a utopian view of the world that is completely at odds with human nature and the real world we live in. Humans can't live in utopia because we're humans, not angels.
Elliot
No he wasn't. Read my follow-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That's a shame that you don't believe American's can get this done. We as a country are better then that.
On what particular bit of history do you base that statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
As I said, every time we have tried a socialist response to a problem, it has failed miserably. The VA system, medicare, medicaid, social security, price fixing of vaccines (under Clinton), the UAW's control of the auto industry, the public education system, welfare, etc.
What makes you think that this time would be any different? What makes you think it is something we should even attempt?
There is nothing American about socialized healthcare.
I am not going to waste time trying to convince you because when it comes to the government you are a gloom and doom type of guy.
That's pretty much what I get too. Pessimistic about everything, no solutions about anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Spit and NK,
I have been giving solutions. I have been doing nothing BUT give solutions.
Well, that, and explaining why Obama's solutions won't work.
But I have been giving alternatives to his plans. You guys just refuse to accept them as viable alternatives to Obama's ideas.
In other words, I'm not the one lacking in solutions. YOU are.
You have no solutions for the problems that are inherent in socialism. Your answer when I raise those issues is to say that I'm just "doom and gloom" and "the party of No". You have not given a viable response to any of my valid points. You have not even proven that the system we have now doesn't work. But you have come to the conclusion that I'm wrong and you're right...
And you call me and other conservatives the "party of No". YOU guys are the party of "No Answers".
If there were no evidence for my position, then yes, I would be a pessimist. But there is, and you have done NOTHING to allay those issues.
So please, refrain from the "doom and gloom" talk until and unless you have the ability to show me how this system can possibly work better than any other government run healthcare system.
Put up or shut up, guys.
Elliot
I like a two tier system.
El if you have all the solutions when are you running for any politcal office? Seems like you are doing a disservice to the country if you are just going to sit on a website and talk about all your great idea's. I am not paid to have a solution but what I can do Is support the one that has been presented. Sure you think it won't work but then again you think Hybrids have to be plugged in so...
Hello again:
Elliot isn't wrong. He's just forgetful, and doesn't grasp context. He complains that all we need is a free market, and it'll be OK. What he forgets is that we HAD a free market at one time. It worked good too. Doctors even made house calls, and people could pay for their own health care.
But, something changed. Lots of people began jumping on the health care gravy train; insurance companies, first and foremost, the trial lawyers, the pharma industry, med schools, government bureaucrats, medical device companies... I'm sure there are others. Me being able to name them isn't important...
What's important, is that there is a lot of dead weight being carried around by ALL of us. If we could go back to the good old days as Elliot would like, I'm all for it.
But, he lives in the fantasy world of "wouldn't it be nice". Because in the real world, where you and I live, those hangerson ain't going to go willingly.
Therefore, they're going to have to be reformed, re-regulated, and maybe even removed from the equation. That's fine with me.
excon
I would not have a problem with a 2-tier system as well. At least then we have a choice of whether to be part of the government-run system or not. But that is not what is being proposed by the Obama Admin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Elliot
Run for office? Bite your tongue.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
No, I'm not a part of the Washington elite and have no desire to become part of it. I'm a person with ideas, not a whore for power.
Besides, I have too much baggage in my past to run for office.
Now... just because I don't run for office, does that mean that a) I'm not entitled to an opinion on the issues, or b) I HAVE to support the ideas of the current government? Because that seems to be your argument here. You seem to believe that if I'm not being paid to have a solution, then I have to support the solutions of others.
Well you're right, I don't agree with the solution being presented. It is a failed solution with lots of examples of that failure, both here and in other countries. Why should I support something that has a history of failure? Do you support policies being put forward by governments that are in power that you know are fundamentally flawed?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Communism tried it and failed. The VA system has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. The countries that have nationalized healthcare do not have the beneficial outcomes that we have here in the USA. Why would we try the same failed thing again and expect the result to be any different from what it has been every other time it was tried?
You can talk about not having solutions all you want, but the fact is there is an alternative. It's called the free market. And it HAS been proven more effective than the socialist system of health care. Even those who do not have health insurance still get health care in the USA. That is NOT true in socialist health care systems where the wait times for procedures have been known to kill the patients that would otherwise have lived, and that have denied life-saving procedures to patients based on cost. The socialist system has failed, whereas the American private system has succeeded.
Elliot
The proposals being floated by Obama and others on Capitol Hill in no way propose the elimination of the insurance industry's involvement . If anything the popular plan (Kennedy's ) would give 100 % coverage by shifting payment for the gappers to the tax payers . Insurance companies ,doctors ,those "evil " Pharmaceutical companies ,the really evil slip and fall lawyers (who also make the laws ) will still be getting their cuts... and if their cuts are less ,then expect the services provided to become curtailed.
Can you link us to the details of what he is proposing please?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Excon,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You're right, we should talk about context.
Insurance companies exist because they make health coverage less expensive to the clients than if they had to pay out of pocket. The insurance companies get paid a monthly fee from ALL their clients, pool that money, and use it to pay out for medical benefits for the few who are sick. They provide a service, and it is a service with value.
I'll agree with you on the thing with the trial lawyers, but I have also presented a solution to that problem... tort reform in the form of civil grand juries.
The pharmaceutical industry creates the medications. It is EXTREMELY expensive to create medications. Some of the rough numbers I have seen look like this:
Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year, in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year. Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year. Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year. If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another $100+ million a year. So for ONE DRUG that is successfully fielded, the cost is roughly $2 BILLION. But that's just for the research and development on that one drug. For every successful drug fielded by a drug company, there are roughly 10,000 compounds that fail somewhere along the line... all of which adds to the cost of developing that one successful drug. If every one of the 10,000 failures failes during rat screening (which is not the case... they usually fail later in the process), the cost of those failed drugs is only another $5 billion. But that's a low-end estimate.
So the cost of developing ONE new drug is roughly $7 billion dollars... as a low estimate. And it doesn't even consider the cost of liability insurance in case they are sued over their new drug.
And yet, despite the incredible cost of developing those drugs, most pharmaceutical companies in the USA have a program to give reduced-cost or even free drugs to patients with financial difficulties. THOSE ARE PATIENTS FROM WHOM THE DRUG COMPANIES WILL NEVER RECOUP THEIR COSTS. But they do it anyway, because they see it as a civic responsibility.
Patient Assistance Programs | Pfizer: the world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company
The Merck Company Foundation
Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patient Assistance Programs
Eli Lilly and Company » Patient Assistance Programs
https://www.genentechaccesssolutions...assistance.jsp
Alcon Assistance Program for Patients, Clinics, and Institutions | Alcon
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Patient Assistance Program | Wyeth
Amgen - Patients - Patient Assistance
Products & Care - Patient Assistance and Support Programs
Ditto for most medical device companies. The costs of development are high, but these companies generally offer free or reduced price products to those who cannot afford them.
So what is your issue with pharmaceutical and medical device companies? Are they too profitable for you? Are their costs too high? Look at the numbers and tell me, truly, if they are making too much money and killing the medical system.
I agree with your assessment of government bureaucrats. What I can't understand is if you believe that government bureaucrats are part of the problem, why would you advocate more government intervention in the medical system? I guess it's the same logic that tells you that the best way to cut the national debt is to increase borrowing, and the best way to fix a national budget deficit is to spend more. But I sure don't understand it.
I don't get what your issue with medical schools is. Seems to me that medical schools have been pretty much unchanged over the past 200 years. The system by which doctors are trained is the same today as it was in the days that you agree the free-market system worked. The stuff they learn has improved, but the method by which that information is imparted is unchanged. It is a guild-based system, wherein advanced practitioners teach less advanced ones (fellows teach residents who teach interns), a system of hand-on training, and a system of theoretical testing (board certification). This is the same system that has existed since the Medieval Persia, and probably earlier. I'm not sure what your issue is with the medical school system in the USA, or how nationalizing medicine will improve medical education.
So what is your issue? What part of the system is broken? What part of the "broken system" do you believe will be fixed by nationalizing it? How will nationalizing it fix the problems without causing worse problems, like a lack of products and services, increased wait times for basic services, a decrease or complete elimination in R&D, and a decrease in both the number of and quality of practitioners? Not to mention a mass exodus from the industry (like the one we saw from vaccine companies in the Clinton era).
Elliot
No, I can't. That's because he hasn't put it online, because he's afraid that people might actually learn what he has planned.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
But if you are trying to find out what he has planned, all you need to do is look at what he did with the S-Chip (child health care) program... he rammed that through as a part of the "stimulus bill". He is creating a government-run health system in which even people who can afford their own health care will be part of the government system. His expansion of S-Chip without allowing debate on the issue, and by keeping it hidden in a much larger bill, is a clear statement of Obama's intent. He wants to nationalize healthcare for everyone, whether they need it or not, and he will brook no debate on the issue.
So in answer to your unasked question of "how do I know", my response is "look at what he has already done." His plan is clear.
Elliot
You keep on your fear mongering, it's what you do best.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
We have discussed this at length over the years. Suffice to say, that you're just fine with it the way it is. You find no fault with any of the hangers on.
The problem is, there is more going out than is coming in. Something has to be cut out. You think ALL those hangers on are going to get THEIR money, because they somehow DESERVE it, and it's going to be the PATIENTS who loose services. I think it's going to be one or more of useless hangers on. Then there will be MORE services, and cheaper prices.
An example of that would be the insurance industry. They are absolutely unnecessary. I'll bet if we threw them out, there would be BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$'s available for health care... It could even be TRILLIONS!!
excon
You mean as opposed to the fear-mongering you did about Bush being a dictator?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
At least I have some evidence to back me up. All you had was your hate. In fact that's STILL all you've got.
I also notice that you NEVER seem to have a response to any of my points. It's easier to just try to dismiss it as "fear mongering" or "pessimism" or "no solutions". But there are other people who read this, see the points I'm making and agree with them.
Peekaboo, I see you, NK. You don't respond because you CAN'T respond. You have no response because there IS no response.
I'm right, you're wrong, that's the end of the story. Your own inability to actually answer the points I have made proves it.
Elliot
Nice try, you must be getting desperate for material. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Obama's plan such as it is (he likes defering to Madame Mimi ) is not as some are suggesting a single payer /remove the insurance companies from the equation plan. It is simply adding about 50 million people (some who want coverage... many who don't) into a "public " insurance plan. Medicare is $80 trillion in the hole and this will just add to the public obligation to entitlements.
The longer strategery(in theory ) is that since this public insurance plan would be run as a non-profit ;that the private companies would find it hard to compete ;and the government can lure more and more people into the public plan. Employers will be given incentives to drop their employee benefit programs and encourage the employees to sign on. This will incrementally create a universal government run insurance... probably in cooperation with the select private businesses that have garnered favor with the government (see my crony socialism posting ) .
To pay for this nonsense he floated the idea of draconian carbon emission taxes. But someone got to him and told him the reality that if you tax something revenues actually end up reduced. Now there is talk of taxing soda and potato chips instead.
Social Security,Medicare,Post Office... the list goes on and on of incompetently run government agencies. Guess we will be adding national health care to the list.
I guess that's one of the problems with the US, their entire government is run by buffoons and has been for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Governments by nature are inefficient . Surely you aren't saying there is no inefficiencies and waste in the Canadian government .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 PM. |