[excon]

Hello Steve:

I think Ron Paul is right. THAT is the problem with THIS bill. Nobody should be forced to participate.

However, if we get to single payer, the term "health INSURANCE" would't apply. Nobody would have buy anything. They just have to pay their taxes.

excon

PS> Lest you think that my "taxes" comment means that I think taxes would go UP, let me disabuse you of that notion...

If you compared what you spend on your present health care, you'll spend LESS in taxes with single payer, and get MORE health care than you're getting today.

Yes, there's THAT much waste!

[ETWolverine]

PS> Lest you think that my "taxes" comment means that I think taxes would go UP, let me disabuse you of that notion.....

If you compared what you spend on your present health care, you'll spend LESS in taxes with single payer, and get MORE health care than you're getting today.

Yes, there's THAT much waste!

This statement is just not true. I have already explained why private health care is much more efficient than government-run health care. The desire for PROFITABILITY creates efficiency. The government, which is not driven by profits, has no reason to be more efficient. The fact is that the administrative costs of managing health care or health insurance would double or triple under the government.

That's not MY estimate, that's the Congressional Budget Office's numbers.

As much waste as you think there is now in the medical system, it would be MUCH worse under a government-runb system.

Elliot

[excon]

The desire for PROFITABILITY creates efficiency.

Hello again, El:

You're still living in your little fantasy world where your insurance company will pay for whatever your needs are, because they want you to keep paying your premium.

Even you, can't believe that crap.

excon

[Skell]

Hello again, El:

You're still living in your little fantasy world where your insurance company will pay for whatever your needs are, because they want you to keep paying your premium.

If there is an insurance company out there that provides such a service please give me their details!!

[ETWolverine]

If there is an insurance company out there that provides such a service please give me their details!!

You're coming in late to the conversation, Skell.

In another post, excon argues that the government can do a better job of healthcare administration than the private sector because the private sector is too worried about profits to care about people.

I argued the exact opposite. My point was that the insurance companies only make money if you are alive. As long as you are alive, you are a source of income for the insurance companies. As long as you are alive, you pay a premium for your insurance coverage, which is the primary source of insurance company revenues. It is therefore in the insurance company's best interest to keep you alive, so that you can continue paying insurance premiums. PROFITABILITY is the driving force that makes insurance companies want to take care of their customers.

The government, on the other hand, makes its money from taxes, not premium payments. Old people no longer earn, and no longer pay much in taxes. But they are the source of most medical costs. Therefore, old people are effectively a drain on a government-run health care system. The older and sicker they get, the more money they cost the government to keep them alive. It is therefore in the best interests of the government to allow old people to just die and concentrate on keeping young people healthy, because YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE REAL SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE GOVERNMENT. They are the ones who earn money and are therefore the ones who pay the most in taxes. Old people are just a cost. Young people are an income source. Therefore, it is best to cover young people and let old folks die.

And if you think that this is craziness, please look at what Obama said recently in a NY Times Magazine interview dated 4/28/09:

“So now she’s [Obama's Grandmother] in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look…maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that–you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible. And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly…things fell apart.

"I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether…society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”

In other words, he doesn't think that giving care to old people who may not survive for very long is a sustainable model because the cost is too high.

So when I say that it is in the best interest of the government to allow old people to die rather than pay for their care, I am getting that dfirectly from Obama himself. This is what Obama believes.

Oh sure, he's willing to pay out of pocket for his own grandmother's care. He says so himself in the article. But he's trying to create a single-payer government system that will deny that right to others.

In any case, that is why excon is referring to... my beliefe (fully justified, I believe) that the insurance companies have it in their best interest to keep older patients alive because they are a source of income, whereas the government's best interest lies in letting older patients die in order to cut costs.

Elliot

[Skell]

I've been monitoring the conversation Elliot. As I've said before I don't generally chime in if the discussion is on matters that don't have any sort of impact on me (e.g. US Health Care). But I still read every post.

You and Excon both make some good points.

My main concern with your mindset is your almost blind trust in insurance companies. You think the Government and Obama are out to get you but the insurance companies are your best friend.

You must be a used car dealer's dream customer.

[ETWolverine]

I've been monitoring the conversation Elliot. As ive said before I dont generally chime in if the discussion is on matters that dont have any sort of impact on me (e.g. US Health Care). But i still read every post.

You and Excon both make some good points.

My main concern with your mindset is your almost blind trust in insurance companies. You think the Government and Obama are out to get you but the insurance companies are your best friend.

You must be a used car dealer's dream customer.

You misunderstand, Skell. I don't have a blind trust of insurance companies. But I do have a blind MISTRUST of government.

COMPANIES can be dealth with, and you can usually get what you want from them by either pointing out to them why it is in their best interest to give youwhat you want, or by being such a big pest that it is more cost effective for them to give you what you want than to waste time and money NOT giving it to you. (That, by the way, is why customer service representatives usually make good if you complain about a product. It is more cost effective to either give you a replacement item or give you credit than to waste their time, money and reputation fighting you.) And in cases where they don't give you what you want, you have the choice of going elsewhere to get it.

Government agencies, on the other hand, aren't worried about their profitability, wasted time, money or reputation, or anything else. They claim to be worried about the plight of the people and they further claim to be "well-meaning" and "altruistic". They have people on staff who's full time job is to make sure that everything is by the book, all in the name of protecting society, of course. They employ petty little dictators who have to justify their existence in the universe by making sure every little detail is micro-managed and every person who makes a claim is properly harassed into an appropriate level of subjegation. And if the government agency is the only game in town, you have no recourse or other options.

I don't blindly trust insurance companies... but they are COMPANIES, which means that their bottom line is profitability, which can ONLY come if they provide the agreed-upon services. I completely DISTRUST government agencies, because they don't think in terms of profitability.

Robert Heinlein said it best in the voice of Lazarus Long: "Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

I never trust someone who says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I'd rather trust someone who's only in it for himself. At least then I know where he stands, and have the ability to appeal to his greed in order to get what I want or need.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

More odds and ends on Obamacare...

Madame Pelosi, after sounding a little like a dictator in an interview with USA Today, smeared opponents of Obamacare,"But this (reform) is going to happen. And those who oppose it are mainly just opposed to health care." Um, just who exactly is opposed to health care, Mimi?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

The president again doesn't even know what's in a bill of incredible scope that he's trying to ram down our throats. He was asked if people will "be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” Obama's response was “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

He was still sure enough to tell us again that, “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” That may not be a lie but it's certainly disingenuous as has been shown before.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

This scares me:

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Yeah, I know the argument, it's a good thing to have an advance directive so everyone will know your wishes. Whatever, I tend to agree that this is an open invitation for abuse. We already know the plan is to ration care based on your value to society and cost effectiveness so why not push seniors to sacrifice care so more worthy members of society can be treated?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Lastly, an accidental moment of truth from the president:

“The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system,” Obama said in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers.

He finally got it right, you can bank on greater inefficiencies under Obamacare.

[speechlesstx]

Well, does everyone feel better now that the president has explained Obamacare?

I assume this question was from Jake Tapper at ABC:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You said earlier that you wanted to tell the American people what's in it for them, how will their family benefit from health care reform. But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care. When you describe health care reform you don't -- understandably you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?

Are you ready? This is what we're going to have to sacrifice...

They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.

Specifically, "If there's a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?"

So, we're going to have to give up the red pill. Got it? Other than that he avoided the question and went into the deficit, how he saved the economy and how he's cutting spending.

[tomder55]

We have to be protected against those rasklly doctors blinded by profits who would remove tonsils for a quick buck rather than treating allegies .

[speechlesstx]

we have to be protected against those rasklly doctors blinded by profits who would remove tonsils for a quick buck rather than treating allegies .

That was the one quote I heard last night. I can't remember the last time anyone in my circle of influence that mentioned a tonsillectomy, perhaps because some years ago someone decided they weren't usually necessary.

His administration must be Seinfeld fans and every day is a sort of "opposite" day. His knack for taking credit things that are opposite of reality is amazing. The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo come out opposed to Obamacare and he cites them as shining examples of what his plan is all about. Another half million new unemployed last week and he's rescued the economy. You get the idea...

[speechlesstx]

House Democrats have blocked the GOP from sending a mailing with a flow chart guide to Obamacare. Frankly I didn't realize they could do that sort of thing, block House members from communicating with their constituents. But once one sees the flow chart it's easy to understand why they would want to...



Pdf here.