Click on your link, type mailing in the search box and click 'search.' The first document, Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing" is the original story.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Click on your link, type mailing in the search box and click 'search.' The first document, Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing" is the original story.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It's time we stopped making small businesses shoulder the burden of providing health insurance to Americans. Our current system places an unfair burden on American business and leaves the unemployed with no health care.
Of course they made it look as complicated as they could on purpose. But is it wrong? Someone show me where it's wrong. Anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You know I get pissed when people act like you can just go see a Dr. My wife was in a car accident like 4 years ago and cracked a vertebra and needed a spinal fusion. She had to wait 3 months for an appointment at Jefferson in Philly And she had kick @$$ insurance. Then had to wait another 3 months for the surgery. So please save the argument that with a government plan that you will have to wait to see a Dr Because it already happens.
Explain to me how it faithfully describes the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Also I could take the operation of our Content Management System and it's procedure and condense into one PDF that would make your head spin. But of course we don't do that, we have the procedures outlined in a user-friendly way depending on the roles we play in it.
I went to the doctor 2 weeks ago for my bum knee, my MRI is next week - I'm still playing summer hockey so I'm not out of commission. I'm happy with the way this is working.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! This is pretty much exactly what happened to me--including the accident, the broken vertebra, and the spinal fusion and the months of waiting to see a surgeon and then another two months waiting for my surgery date. Except in California, so it's not just one place. This is happening everywhere. They spent all that time stalling and trying to come up with a reason not to cover me or to find ways to cover me more cheaply--physical therapy for a broken back? And all those months, I was in terrible pain and couldn't work or even sleep at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
People with kicka$$ insurance already have to wait long periods for care and often have very little choice of which doctor they can see.
If you are still playing hockey, you clearly aren't exactly having a health crisis. In that case, waiting 3 weeks for an MRI and probably another week or two for your follow-up isn't a big deal. But not everybody has minor problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You guys are the ones claiming it's wrong, explain to me how it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Oh, are Obama and Democrats in Congress trying to ram a bill down our throats that will cost untold trillions of taxpayer dollars that would force us to participate in your Content Management System?Quote:
Also I could take the operation of our Content Management System and it's procedure and condense into one PDF that would make your head spin. But of course we don't do that, we have the procedures outlined in a user-friendly way depending on the roles we play in it.
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
(President Obama at a town hall event last month)
This thread was started with the premise that the PDF faithfully represents the health care reform, however we now know that this PDF flowchart was made as complicated as possible on purpose by the republicans. How do we know it's not all lies? It likely is unless you can prove that it faithfully recreate the process outlined in the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Oh and about my CMS simili... you fail at comprehension of an analogy.
Then there is already a government program for you. It is called Medicare. It was developed specifically for those over the age of retirement OR those who are disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Since there is already a government system that was created JUST FOR YOUR SITUATION, there is no need to create another one.
MEDICARE!! You should look into it. It's FREE (except for the taxes you pay). No premiums.Quote:
I'm already FORCED to pay a huge premium or have no health insurance at all.
As opposed to being spent for pork barrel projects in the billions of dollars... the same way Social Security has been used.Quote:
At least with a government plan my huge premium would cover sick people instead of paying executives millions of dollars a year.
You'd rather have your money pay for the study of gophers in the wild in Minnesota or some other pork project, than to executives of companies that actually supply you with a service that you can use.
Brilliant thinking.
First of all, what reasons do you have to believe that your taxes would be less than your premiums? Of all the nationalized health care systems in the world, which one makes you believe that you will end up paying LESS in taxes for your coverage than you do now in premiums?Quote:
And I have every reason to think that with a goverrnment plan my tax increase would be much lower than the premium I'm now paying, so frankly, that's a net gain for me and a net gain for the millions of people now uninsured.
Secondly, you are suggesting that there will be a net gain for millions of people who are uninsured. Are you aware of the fact that Obama himself admitted that after 10 years and $23 trillion spent on his national health care plan, he STILL expects there to be about 35 million people uninsured. So you are saying that in order to cover 10 million people, we need to dismantle a system that works for 260 million people and replace it with one that still doesn't cover 35 million? Doe that make any sense to you?
I can. Just look at that chart I posted again.Quote:
How should I know? Ask my HMO. I can't imagine any government plan being any MORE complex or confusing than what I'm already dealing with.
Yes it is. You do remember the 3-6 months I mentioned. That is longer than the 2.5 months you are talking about. And the national average, including care for those without any insurance whatsoever in this country is about 3 weeks. You really are on a sucky plan. You might be better off on another plan or on Medicare. You should look into it.Quote:
I DID have to wait a month to see the PT and that was only a month because I made a dozen phone calls to different people trying to get seen sooner than 6 more weeks--i.e. 2.5 months. So don't tell me it's better, because it's not.
Yep. You definitely need to look at another plan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your plan sucks.Quote:
Likewise, when I hurt my back in 2004, I was in agony and no one would do anything for me for 3 months. It took a month to get one appointment, for an exam, another month to get the follow up etc. After my surgery in another city (6 months later), I developed a surgical infection and my own doctor refused to even talk to me. (She came out and looked at me in the waiting room and turned her back and walked away. Apparently, I was some kind of legal liability.) They sent me to an ER in a strange city on a Friday an hour and half a way and I had sit in a hallway for 12 hours watching gunshot victims and junkies trying to score a fix, while I waited for antibiotics for an abdominal infection. This was just three weeks after major surgery.
But not every plan does. The great thing about a free market system is that you can choose to join another plan. Including Medicare.
What percentage of revenues is spent on executive pay and bonuses? What percentage of revenues is disbursed as dividends? Unless you can answer these questions, there is no way to know whether you are correct.Quote:
Hate to tell you this, but if you average health care costs withOUT the millions of dollars in executive pay, bonuses and stock dividends, health care is (by some miracle) cheaper and we can actually afford to cover all those uninsured people whose only crime is to not have health insurance.
As a point of fact, executive salaries (even the ones you list below) are less than 1/10th of 1% of revenues and expenses. Which means that if operating expenses DOUBLE or TRIPLE, even if every single dollar of executive pay, bonuses, and dividends are eliminated, we will still be paying 299% of what we are paying now. And that doesn't include the salaries for all the government workers to make the system work... and the retirement and pension benefits (almost full salaries) of every person who retires from working at the government health system.
It is called "efficiencies of scale".Quote:
I can't imagine how you reasoned that out. It makes no sense. Are you a shill for the insurance industry? How can paying millions per year--billions over 10 years--make anything cheaper?
Let me put it this way. Insurance companies, the good ones anyway, make more money when they are efficient (spending less to get more). It is their JOB to become as efficient as possible so that they can make as much money as possible. The more efficient they become, the more money they make.
The government, not being a for profit entity, doesn't care whether it is efficient or not. That is why the government can spend $500 for an ordinary hammer. Also, agency budgets are based on how much they spend. The more they can justify spending, the more they get from the government. They therefore have no reason to be efficient, and every reason not to.
The result is that while private insurance companies strive to keep their costs low, government agencies do not. Anf the government agency will justify this fact by stating that their cost for services rendered by health professionals is the HIGHEST level they can get away with, not the lowest. Worse, the government works on a "use it or lose it" budget system. Any money they DON'T use this year is money they cannot claim that they need next year, and their budget will be cut. Since they want their budget to GROW, not shrink, they will use every dollar they are given, and then some. And they will have to justofy it by showing higher costs, not lower costs.
That is the nature of government budgeting.
Actually, what you are saying is actually true. Our public education system is a failure. PRIVATE SCHOOLS across the board have MUCH BETTER results than public schools. Compared to other countries (Japan, China, most of Europe) kids graduating from our public high schools are functional illiterates. Our public school system is a complete failure. That is why there has been talk of privatizing the education system through a voucher program and through charter schools.Quote:
If that were true then countries that have nationalized health care--as we have nationalized education and defense, would have higher costs and worse care. In fact, the reverse is true.
The only reason that this doesn't apply to our military is because we have an all-volunteer military that is highly disciplined. That makes our military the most powerful military in the world. When we didn't have a volunteer military (ei: Vietnam), we didn't have all that effective a military either. I believe that it is the volunteerism that counts in our favor.
However, even though it is an EFFECTIVE military, it is not EFFICIENT in its spending practices. The DOD is, in fact, one of the most inefficient government agencies in the governmment. Its spending practices are no different from the spending practices of the rest of our government, only it is actually BIGGER than most govermment agencies, and therefore even more wasteful. Effective in combat doesn't mean efficient in spending practices.
See my responsese above. Unless you know what percentage of total revenue or total expenses this amounts to, you have no idea whether eliminating these compensation levels will make a bit of difference... especially if government operating expenses will be twice or three times as high.Quote:
Of course, I know. I'm not an idiot. The CEO for my company makes several million dollars per year. You can look these things up. The CEO of Aetna is among the highest paid executives, according to Forbes. All of this is public knowledge for publicly traded companies.
FierceHealthCare.com, a daily online news report for the health care industry, reports the following. Forbes gives Williams has getting $38 million, so I guess they are counting differently.
* Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.
* H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - Total Compensation: $12,236,740.
* Angela Braly - WellPoint - Total Compensation: $9,844,212.
* Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - Total Compensation: $9,047,469.
* Michael Neidorff - Centene - Total Compensation: $8,774,483.
* James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - Total Compensation: $5,292,546.
* Michael McCallister - Humana - Total Compensation: $4,764,309.
* Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total Compensation: $4,425,355.
* Richard Barasch - Universal American - Total Compensation: $3,503,702.
* Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group - Total Compensation: $3,241,042.
And that's JUST the top CEOs. You add all the salaries of the next layer down for EACH company and you are talking real money.
More research needed.
Elliot
That's my point, I'm in Canada and I'm getting fairly quick response for a minor (which may become major in the near future) problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The Dems haven't tried to say that the number of agencies or the way they are interconnected is false. They have simply tried to say that there is an outflow of money to go along with the inflow at certain agencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
In other words, they agree that the plan really is this complicated, but Republicans need to be more careful about showing the inflows and outflows of cash more correctly.
But the interconnectivity of the agencies on this org chart is not in dispute... even though the Dems wish it was.
Elliot
Sorry. I didn't realize you were in Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
(And, if I may make an unasked for suggestion, cut out the hockey until you've strengthened your knee or otherwise got it fixed. :) If it's damaged, you can only make it worse if you fall or similar.)
You fail at comprehending the premise. The thread is about the organization of the proposed health care system.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Again, you guys are saying it's wrong, the simple question is still what is wrong? If you can't point out anything in error then I'd suggest you shut up about it.Quote:
however we now know that this PDF flowchart was made as complicated as possible on purpose by the republicans. How do we know it's not all lies? It likely is unless you can prove that it faithfully recreate the process outlined in the bill.
Your analogy is irrelevant.Quote:
MY GP says that all ligaments are strong, it's the meniscus that may be the issue. As long as I follow my feeling as to what I can do and I can handle some inflammation then he's given me the OK. He's like me, active to the point that we need it, being totally inactive is that last option. :) But thanks for the concern.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well, for one... There's no start and there's no end... Even Democrats would have the end showing unlimited free health care. But, it's not there. I don't see it... You'd think the Republicans who made the chart wouldn't have forgotten THAT part.
But, they did... So, I think it's made up. The Democrats wouldn't have forgotten that part. That IS the part that counts, after all.
excon
It seems that everything you don't understand is irrelevant. All I'm asking is for you to explain to us some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill, to ensure that it's accurate. Or are you simply parroting yet another conservative talking point like a sheep?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The point you seem to have missed is that NOBODY seems to be able to describe these relationships. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM UNDER THIS BILL SO RIDICULOUS. It is the very fact that it is so incomprehensible that makes it so ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I see so it's a bogus flowchart - that is indeed the point we are making. Buh-bye.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Actually it takes a pretty big set to try and tell the world what I do and don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
All I'm asking is for you to support the claim that the chart is wrong. If you think it's wrong and is a lie you should be able to tell us how so. And, you should be able to understand it's an organizational chart, not an explanation of the specifics of the bill. I believe that's been made abundantly clear.Quote:
All I'm asking is for you to explain to us some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill, to ensure that it's accurate. Or are you simply parroting yet another conservative talking point like a sheep?
I can't "explain ... some of the relationships in that diagram as they relate to the wording in the bill," "how it faithfully describes the bill," how it "faithfully represents the health care reform" or any other way you want to rephrase your point because that's not the purpose of the chart. Understand?
I am no longer disabled and I am too young for Medicare.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I would rather have my money pay for my health care, or for health care for someone working at mimimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas than to pay for a new, longer yacht, yes. Absolutely. I don't understand why you would argue with that.Quote:
You'd rather have your money pay for the study of gophers in the wild in Minnesota or some other pork project, than to executives of companies that actually supply you with a service that you can use.
I think this is just common sense, and, yes, having a social conscience, caring about other people. No mystery.Quote:
Brilliant thinking.
It is well established that 20% to 30% of health insurance premiums do not go to health care. Instead they go to running all these different insurance companies, paying executive compensation, corporate jets, stockholders, etc. The money saved by weaning these guys and eliminating the HUGE bureaucracy that is the health insurance industry would cover all the uninsured in America.Quote:
First of all, what reasons do you have to believe that your taxes would be less than your premiums?
The Obama plan is a compromise plan because the health insurance industry and big pharma (whose interest is different but also opposed to a government plan) have convinced politicians that we can't have single payer. In fact, single payer would cover everyone. And that's what we should be asking for. The reason we don't is that the health insurance industry would go the way of the Dodo bird under single payer and like any group of people with a good thing going, they are fighting for their existence.Quote:
Secondly, you are suggesting that there will be a net gain for millions of people who are uninsured.
As far as I'm concerned, the health insurance industry has had its chance to get it right and they failed. As a friend wrote to me:
Quote:
What did Ron Williams of Aetna really do to warrant that compensation [$38 million]? Did he fund some break through technology that would reduce health care costs? No. Did he come up with any new innovations to help people stay well? No. 
All he does and gets paid to do is increase profits for the shareholders. So how does he do that? He just jacks up the prices to the consumers and makes sure that more claims are denied, or that they pay out much less per claim and put more of the burden on the consumer.
If Apple operated this way, then the Macintosh LISA from 15 years ago would be costing more now and doing less. Instead, we have the iPhone. The health insurance industry does not do anything to innovate.
It DOESN'T work for 260 million people. Are you saying that even if it did work for those 260 million, we should just blow off the health of the 45 million people who are not covered (where did you get 10 million?? )? Are you aware that the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance because they get no treatment or it comes too late to help?Quote:
So you are saying that in order to cover 10 million people, we need to dismantle a system that works for 260 million people and replace it with one that still doesn't cover 35 million? Doe that make any sense to you?
Like I already explained to you, I cannot switch plans under our current system. Obama's plan would force insurers to accept me but they could still charge exorbitant rates. We need single payer, like Canada, the UK, France and other countries that have made the health of their citizens a national priority.Quote:
Yep. You definitely need to look at another plan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your plan sucks.
First of all Medicare IS nationalized medicine, but only for the elderly. It's not free market. But you right. It works if you are eligible.Quote:
But not every plan does. The great thing about a free market system is that you can choose to join another plan. Including Medicare.
Second, you keep saying I have a choice to go to another insurer even though I've explained that I and millions like me do not in fact have access to this imaginary marvelous free market system that dispenses great health care on demand.
When's the last time you or your partner had a serious illness, wolverine? Do you really know what it's like in the trenches when you are too sick to figure out the system or don't have suction?
I am sure you believe that.Quote:
What percentage of revenues is spent on executive pay and bonuses? What percentage of revenues is disbursed as dividends? Unless you can answer these questions, there is no way to know whether you are correct.
Can you document that assertion? And what do you mean "even" the ones I listed. Those are just the tip of the iceberg, a mere handful of the highest salaries.Quote:
As a point of fact, executive salaries (even the ones you list below) are less than 1/10th of 1% of revenues and expenses.
That's simply untrue. Government workers make a fraction of what unregulated private executives pay themselves. The top GS ranking, GS 15, maxes out at $145,000.Quote:
And that doesn't include the salaries for all the government workers to make the system work... and the retirement and pension benefits (almost full salaries) of every person who retires from working at the government health system.
2009 Government Pay Schedule - GovCentral.com
And why are you defending exorbitant executive compensation? Are you saying that you honestly don't think that $38 million a year could make a difference? One guy's take home could provide coverage for 10,000 young families whose children need vaccinations or whose dads need hernia operations.
I don't think I have to document every single insurance executive's pay and what he spends it on to make my case.
Well it's efficient for the executives.Quote:
It is called "efficiencies of scale".
It is their job to NOT PAY OUT if they can possibly help it. We need a system whose job it is to ensure the health of its citizens.Quote:
Let me put it this way. Insurance companies, the good ones anyway, make more money when they are efficient (spending less to get more). It is their JOB to become as efficient as possible so that they can make as much money as possible. The more efficient they become, the more money they make.
The EFFICIENT thing to do is to not treat people. Who wants that?Quote:
The government, not being a for profit entity, doesn't care whether it is efficient or not. That is why the government can spend $500 for an ordinary hammer. Also, agency budgets are based on how much they spend. The more they can justify spending, the more they get from the government. They therefore have no reason to be efficient, and every reason not to.
This is because they skim high income families who already have huge advantages over the kids left behind in public schools, just as private insurers currently skim middle to high income families with minimal risk of getting sick.Quote:
Actually, what you are saying is actually true. Our public education system is a failure. PRIVATE SCHOOLS across the board have MUCH BETTER results than public schools.
"Total failure" is a gross exaggeration. I say that with some confidence because I was entirely educated in U.S. public schools. Japan and most European countries (if not all) provide universal public education paid for by TAXES. They don't have higher scores on standardized tests because they have private schools. They just have better public schools! They also have universal HEALTH CARE. In Japan it's a mix of public and private. In Europe health care is usually publicly funded. Every country in western Europe has better health statistics than we do in terms of health, longevity, and infant mortality.Quote:
Compared to other countries (Japan, China, most of Europe) kids graduating from our public high schools are functional illiterates. Our public school system is a complete failure.
I am really unclear what your point is here. If our military were private and run by executives making millions of dollars a year--who pillage their companies to feather their own nests-- and if this private military were operated "efficiently", it would only defend states and industries that were easy to defend in case of war, explaining to California and Iowa that it would InEfficient to defend them. That's what health insurerers now do.Quote:
The only reason that this doesn't apply to our military is because we have an all-volunteer military that is highly disciplined.
Quote of the day by Ed Morrissey on the Democrats' plan to ignore the CBO and ask us to just trust them instead...
Quote:
The Obama administration and the Democrats have yet to learn that one cannot spend their way back into solvency. We already have government programs for medical care that don’t work. If Congress wants to overhaul Medicare/Medicaid to make it financially viable, the VA to make it responsive, and Indian Health Service to make it do anything for its consumers, that would be enough for any Congress to do. Otherwise, we don’t need the Church of Democratic Spending asking us to ignore the evidence of massive irresponsibility and ask us to believe that they can perform some kind of transubstantiation to make it into cost savings for the American taxpayer.
No, the flowchart is real. It is based on the Health Care Bill. It just makes absolutely no sense. It is so convoluted, so complex, so assinine that nobody could possibly understand it. JUST AS NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THE HEALTH CARE BILL ITSELF. THAT is what we are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You seem to be having trouble understanding this very simple point... are you OK?
Elliot
And to reinforce that point, John Conyers doesn't' even think there's a point to reading the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Duh, I don't know, so maybe the people that pass the bills will have a freakin' clue as to what they're ramming down our throats? A bill that is "so convoluted, so complex, so assinine" that "lawmakers" can't understand it without two lawyers should be the first clue that the legislation sucks and so does the "lawmaker." .Quote:
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
I still don't think it means much that the Republican's chart is complex. It's a complicated rendition of a hack of an already badly functioning and complicated system (private payer). If I opened up my computer it would look complicated. Does that mean it's a bad computer because I can't instantly understand how it works? If you looked at how a single cell in your body actually worked, you wouldn't be able to understand it. That doesn't make it a bad cell.
If Wolverine can't understand why I have no options even though I keep trying to explain, why should we expect a single page diagram of the entire US health care system to be easy to understand? We don't expect other things--like how an F15 works, say, to be simple. If you want simpler, you have to start over from first principles with a national health care system. Everybody is so terrified of change, though, they are afraid to do that even though we know for a fact it works in other countries and their health care is cheaper and better for the majority of people.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
The point you're missing, is that you SAY nobody could understand the bill - yet some Republican staffer could. In fact he made a DETAILED flow chart of the bill. How could that be if nobody can understand the bill? So, either he's full of crap, or you are.
I can't seem to decide. Ok, I believe YOU. The flow chart is hooey!
excon
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
asking
Likewise, a lot of the stuff on this chart is just the government as it already functions. The treasury, the IRS, and the VA are not specific to a new health care plan.
The huge blue box in the middle that says Bureau of Health Information is just a giant (and extremely useful) website/database of statistics and other information that the federal government makes available. I go there all the time to look things up. Don't freak out guys; it's basically just a library.
asking
If your health insurance companies are saying that you aren't elligible for THEIR services because you have a pre-existing condition, then you ARE de-facto disabled. If you are not disabled, you should be eligible for other forms of insurance than the HMO you are on. Something is not right here.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If you are being denied care by private insurance, and are not elligible for Medicare, then there is a problem with Medicare... a government-run program. Why would you trust the same government that is screwing you over now to somehow do a better job with a BIGGER program? Does that make sense to you?
Quote:
I would rather have my money pay for my health care, or for health care for someone working at mimimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas than to pay for a new, longer yacht, yes. Absolutely. I don't understand why you would argue with that.
I think this is just common sense, and, yes, having a social conscience, caring about other people. No mystery.
Because it isn't going to be used to pay for YOUR health care or the health care of someone working at minimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas. It's going to be used for pork barrel spending, just like Soccial Security money is. That's why Social Security is bankrupt. The huge mystery is why you would trust the same people who bankrupted social security by spending the money for other purposesd NOT to do the same with your health care money? THAT us the huge mystery... why would you be so gullible?
Yep... you got to pay the clerks to run the day-to-day operations of the insurance companies. 20-30% of the money made by insurance companies goes to salaries for the lower and mid-level employees' salaries. Do you think they ought to be working for free?Quote:
It is well established that 20% to 30% of health insurance premiums do not go to health care. Instead they go to running all these different insurance companies, paying executive compensation, corporate jets, stockholders, etc. The money saved by weaning these guys and eliminating the HUGE bureaucracy that is the health insurance industry would cover all the uninsured in America.
Now... here's the part you seem to miss.
While insurance companies have to pay 20-30% of their income for their employees salaries and benefits, those insurance companies only have one set of employees at a time. When someone retires from an insurance company, that's it. They no longer receive any pay from that insurance company.
Government employees are a bit different. They continue to receive pensions after they retire, and they can retire with full pension after 20 years on the job. A person who starts working at age 25 will work for 20 years until age 45. After that, HE CONTINUES TO RECEIVE HIS FULL PAY (or close to it) until the day he dies. At age 45, he can go and start a private business and rececive an income from the business AND his retirement package. That same employee can continue to live until he's 85 years old or more. By that time, two more generations of government employee will have retired as well, and also be receiving full benefits. At any one time, the government is paying for 2-3 sets of employees: the ones currently working, and two sets of people who have retired and are collecting full salaries in the form of pensions.
So while the cost of salaries and benefits for health insurance company employees would be 20-30% of revenues, the employment costs of the Government health care plan would be THREE TIMES AS HIGH.
Now how, exactly, do you think the government is going to pay for that without increasing the amount you pay in taxes for insurance coverage?
No, the reason we don't is because in countries that have single-payer insurance coverage, the care is ABYSSMAL because the government can't afford to cover everyone. Take a look at how the UK is rationing drugs to cancer patients, how few MRI machines there are in Canada, and how long the lines are in France to get basic health needs met. Nationalized health care coverage is EXPENSIVE, and since the government can't afford it and can't justify raising taxes any higher, the only thing they can do is cut services.Quote:
The Obama plan is a compromise plan because the health insurance industry and big pharma (whose interest is different but also opposed to a government plan) have convinced politicians that we can't have single payer. In fact, single payer would cover everyone. And that's what we should be asking for. The reason we don't is that the health insurance industry would go the way of the Dodo bird under single payer and like any group of people with a good thing going, they are fighting for their existence.
Actually, they've never been given a chance at free market solutions. There has not been a time since FDR when the government hasn't been involved in regulating, taxing, controlling and generally being involved in health care. The reason that employers started offering health insurance to employees in the first place is because the government started capping salaries for certain jobs. Since the companies could no longer compete on salaries, they had to compete on benefits. The point is that the very existence of employer-based insurance in the firmst place is due to government interference in the free markets to begin with.Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the health insurance industry has had its chance to get it right and they failed.
Why don't we tell government to get out of the way and let the free market find it's own solutions. That is something we've never tried... at least not since the 1940s. We should give it a shot before declaring that it won't work.
Where did I get the 10 million figure from? There are 46 million people currently not covered by insurance. Obama said that he expects that after 10 years there will still be 36 million people not covered by his health plan, no matter what he does. Ergo, he is suggesting a change in the entire system of health care on the basis of insuring 10 million people... less than 3% of the entire US population.Quote:
It DOESN'T work for 260 million people. Are you saying that even if it did work for those 260 million, we should just blow off the health of the 45 million people who are not covered (where did you get 10 million?? )? Are you aware that the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance because they get no treatment or it comes too late to help?
As for how many people are really uninsured in the USA:
There are 46 million people uninsured. Approximately 10 million of them are illegal aliens. Of the remaining 36 million, approximately 15 million have CHOSEN not to have health insurance. Of the remaining 20-21 million, approximately 50% of them are uninsured for a period of 4 months or less, and become insured again thereafter. They, for all intents and purposes, are covered. So we are only talking about 10 million or so that are uninsured for a period of more than 4 months... and most of those manage to get coverage within a 1-year period. In any case, while they may not have health insurance, they all receive health care, even if it is from free clinics, ER rooms, charities, etc. But the point is that the number of people uninsured for more than 4 months in the USA is under 10 million. Or 3% of the population.
So I ask again, why do you think that we need to dismantle a system that works 97% of the time? Why not instead try to fix the 3% of the times that it doesn't work? Why not work on insuring the 10 million long-term uninsured, instead of messing up the system that works the rest of the time?
No, you didn't explain it to me. You simply stated it as a fact. I am asking you to explain it to me. WHY can you not change plans? IF you are not disabled, what is the issue. If you ARE disabled, there's Medicare. Either way, you can get a better plan than you have now.Quote:
Like I already explained to you, I cannot switch plans under our current system.
Correction: they have made health INSURANCE for their citizens a top priority. Care is a different matter entirely. Their care is shoddy, accessibility is poor, mistakes are common, long waits are the norm, and people literally die waiting for treatments for months at a time that we get within a few days. They all receive the same level of healthcare, whether they are rich or poor... but that level of care is awful.Quote:
Obama's plan would force insurers to accept me but they could still charge exorbitant rates. We need single payer, like Canada, the UK, France and other countries that have made the health of their citizens a national priority.
I'll have to respond to the rest of your post another time.
Elliot
Hello again, asking:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You know what else is suspicious about this flow chart? A flow chart starts and stops at something. It flows from a beginning to an end... But, where's the end where it says FREE HEALTH CARE?? You'd think that it would be in an even bigger box than the blue one in the middle...
But, I couldn't find it. You wouldn't think a Republican would forget that, would you?
excon
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
No. Nothing you said there makes any sense at all.
You seem surprised that people are denied health insurance for pre existing conditions. And, IF they are, you call them disabled... Really?? DISABLED?? And, because they have a pre-existing condition, which makes them disabled, THAT makes them eligible for medicare?? Really? You think that stuff??
Dude! You actually know NOTHING about our health care problem. You're blinded by rightwingism... You just repeat what you're told.
excon
Looks like you have a few too many quango's in there Elliot, time to fire some public servantsQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It seems to me that asking & spit have identified real problems in your health care system, yet no one here acknowledges them. Elliot even has the audacity to argue with them and tell them it's their fault. They should change providers! You're disabled so get medicare...
Elliot it seems that you live in a bubble. You've identified that previously when it comes to your children's upbringing. Its one big perfect bubble when it comes to healthcare, education etc. etc. But these are real people with real problems and the fact that there is such a debate going on must mean that there are many many more people like spit and asking with these problems. Yet you consistently deny it...
Skell,Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
The government already has provided for a system to take care of people that fall through the cracks of private insurance through Medicare and Medicaid.
If these people are not covered, it is because of one of two things:
1) Either these people do not know their options.
2) The government programs designed to help them have failed.
If option one is true, that is not the fault of private health care. And more often than not, the reason that people are uninsured is because they don't know their options. They don't know what they are eligible for (just like that lady with cancer at the Obama speech a couple of weeks agao that so many people made so much hay over... turns out she didn't know she was elligible for Medicare AND Medicaid.
Therefore, the people who do not know what they are elligible for should try to educate themselves BEFORE trying to claim that the entire system has failed. The system hasn't failed in these cases... the system is working fine. The people have failed to educate themselves as to their options.
If the second option is true, if Medicare and Medicaid have failed to cover those who should be covered, then how is that the fault of the private health care system? Again, people are trying to blame private insurance for the failures of the govermment health systems. And they are willing to give the same government that has failed them EVEN MORE POWER to fail them further. There is absolutely no logic to their argument.
As for your accusation that I live in a bubble... I wish trhat were the case. Then the actions of fools who want to destroy the best medical system in the world and replace it with a system that every socialist nation is trying to get AWAY from wouldn't be affecting me. Unfortunately, I live in the same world as the rest of you. And you're messing it up, which affects ME.
This, of course, leaves aside the fact that I pay a rather heafty sum for my monthly coverage. I am currently on COBRA, which means that I pay the full cost of my coverage myself. This after having been unemployed for 11 of the past 18 months. I know very well the cost of health insurance and how it effects those with little to no income. And despite that, I STILL say that the system works better than any other system in the world. Not because it is cheap, but because it is more EFFECTIVE AT TREATING ILLNESS AND TRAUMA THAN ANY OTHER SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. If we socialize that system, the quality of care will deteriorate as it has in every country where it has been tried. Which means that I won't get the level of care that I am paying for, and neither will anyone else.
So I resent your argument that I live in a bubble. It is neither true, nor does it answer the main argument, which is that socialized medicine is neither cheaper nor better than private medical care. It is, in fact, more expensive and of a lesser quality.
Interestingly enough, you miss another important point about private medical care. Private care leads to competition. Competition leads to lower pricing and higher quality. That quality and pricing affect EVERYONE across the board... including the uninsured guy who walks into the ER. The quality of HIS care is improved as well, even though he is uninsured.
In socialized medicine, there is no competition, there is no improvement, and the quality of care is the LOWEST common denominator, not the highest.
Trying to attack me for "living in a bubble" doesn't change any of these arguments. You have to resort to such arguments because you have no economic arguments to defend your support of socialism, which has failed as a system EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAS EVER BEEN TRIED THROUGHOUT HISTORY, whether in the form of communism, feudalism, communalism, or dictatorship. What makes you think that WE can do a better job of socialism than every other country in the world that has tried it and failed? The fact that I may live in a bubble cannot offset this basic fact of history and economics. SOCIALISM IS A FAILED EXPERIMENT.
And implementing it HERE is idiocy.
Especially when Obama himself has admitted that 3/4 of those not currently insured are STILL not going to be insured 10 years from now under his system. If that's true, then wrecking the current system to replace it with socialism is not only idiotic... it's FUTILE as well, and a huge waste of $23 trillion.
Now, skell, why don't you read some of my prior posts in this string and others, where I suggested that instead of trying to destroy the current system and replace it with a failed experiment, we should instead try to get those who are not currently covered to be covered. That would solve the biggest issue, the uninsured. Why don't we work on tort reform, which would lower doctors' overhead by as much as 60%, and result in lower costs of medical care. These two actions alone would solve MOST of the problems facing our system.
But instead of fixing a system that works 97% of the time (85% if you accept the "46 million uninsured" number, which is demonstrably false), you'd rather destroy that system and replace it with one that has a 100% failure rate.
You think that socialism is the answer to our problems... and you think I live in a bubble?
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Some people are too young to qualify for Medicare, and make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Therefore, they go uninsured.
I repeat: You know NOTHING!
excon
Medicare qualifications is not only based on age. It is also based on disability. If someone is too disabled to work, he qualifies for Medicare, regardless of his/her age.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If a person is unable to work because of a disability, but is denied coverage by Medicare, it means the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. Which just proves that the people who run it cannot be trusted to cover the rest of us properly either.
Medicaid qualifications are means based. It covers anyone earning less than 150% of the poverty level in their state. If a person is making less than 150% of the poverty level in their state, they qualify for Medicaid.
If someone is making less than 150% of the poverty level but is not being insured by Medicaid, it means the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. Which just proves that the people who run it cannot be trusted to cover the rest of us properly either.
So the only people who are not covered by Medicare and Medicaid are people who are fully capable of working and are earning 150% of the poverty level, but still cannot afford medical insurance. THOSE are the people we need to concentrate on helping.
And the number of people in that category for more than a 4 month period is roughly 10 million. (Not 46 million, as some would like us to believe.)
If we handed each of those 10 million people a $1500 check every month to pay for their medical insurance at a private insurance company, the total cost to the US govermment would be $180 billion... a far cry from the $2.3 trillion a year it would cost to create a socialized medicine plan.
Even if we assume the 46 million uninsured number is correct, the total cost to the US govermment would be $828 billion... which is still significantly less than the $2.3 trillion it would cost to create a socialized medicine plan.
So why on G-d's green earth would we agree to spend $2.3 trillion to do what we could do for between $180 million and $828 million, while still keeping our current system and still keep the government out of our business.
Why is this such a hard concept for people?
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You can slip and slide around the truth as much as you want, but I ain't going to let you get away with it.
The only person telling someone, who HAS a job, and who HAS a pre-existing condition which prevents them from buying insurance, that they're DISABLED and eligible for Medicare, is YOU! You are BONKERS. You know NOTHING!
excon
I will respond later. I am off to the physical therapist. Wolverine has obviously never applied for disability... I'm grinning from ear to ear at his fantasies about how easy it is to be classified as disabled.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 AM. |