[Synnen]

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.

[excon]

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

Hello Synn:

Uhhh, YES!

excon

[NeedKarma]

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.

[Synnen]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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.

Elliot

[Synnen]

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.

[excon]

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

[Synnen]

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?

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[NeedKarma]

What a silly argument.

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

[excon]

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

[Synnen]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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 — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

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

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/comme...uptcyRates.pdf

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

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060719_M...Bankruptcy.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, which states as much, but which shows numbers 20% lower than Himmelstein's.)

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

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