Originally posted by Capitalizt
Our "piece of " private system works for 85% of the country who is currently insured krypt..
That's why according to a Harvard study, healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy, and a huge number of those people are insured. Yea, great healthcare system, with the world's highest inflation.
quote:
and there is a reason the vast majority of new medications and treatments are developed here rather than the socialist hellholes overseas..because we don't rape our companies quite as hard as they do (yet).
Now, you'r changing the subject. I'm not talking about drug companies, I'm talking about health insurance.
quote:
I'm all for helping the uninsured..but you do this by making it more affordable for them to buy insurance..
Private insurance companies don't give two s about their policy holders. Their primary objective is to return profits to shareholders. You actually think they want to lower costs for their policy holders?
quote:
Cutting taxes dramatically on both them and the healthcare companies would be a good start.
That's like saying giving tax breaks to oil companies is going to lower our gas prices...lol
quote:
Tort reform would be another..and legalizing the purchase of out of state insurance plans would lead to a huge cost savings as well.
Those are insignificant reasons why our healthcare system is horrible, but things that I would include in any reform.
quote:
There are plenty of ways besides socialism-lite to increase access to healthcare. More federal control is far from the best answer.
Your misconception that all things public are bad is comical. I find it funny that you would rather have for-profit corporations, whose only loyalty is to shareholders, control health insurance. Only in America!
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by vinnie97
That's amazing...our "piece of " private system is so much worse than all other western democracies.
A recent Harvard study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 60% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy...for middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection...," said Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard University, who helped compile the study.
The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan who have PUBLIC INSURANCE.
quote:
Is this what you read in some propaganda piece or made up/distorted statistic?
If you want to be an , I can gladly be one too.
quote:
It must be a fluke that Canadians near the border travel to the US to have routine procedures done here. I'll even give you another example of what the "public option" will provide you. A good friend of mine in the UK on it is at risk of paralysis due to nerve compression in his neck. Since July, he has been waiting for an appointment that might arrive in October/November. With private insurance, he himself admitted this 4-month wait could be lowered to a mere week.
They have a single payer system. That's not what the healthcare reform is advocating. Perhaps before you take a position on something, you should know what both sides are actually advocating?
Obama's health care plan called for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. It would have required parents to cover their children, but did not require adults to buy insurance.
My personal preference is cooperative insurance companies and a health insurance industry where profit is illegal. No denials because of pre-existing conditions, no difference in premium because of health stutus, etc.
quote:
Government bureaucracy is just as expensive, if not more so, than the system we have now...and it's way more inefficient as illustrated in that example above.
"The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems don't devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured."
Economist Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1
quote:
Some reforms (kudos, Capitalizt) are needed but not the boondoggle that Pelosi and her cronies are trying to ram down our throats.
Yea, what you guys want are patches that really fix nothing. I'v already decided the right wing don't give two s about reforming healthcare, but stick to their laissez-faire capitalism mantra as if in a ideological trance.
Max Thomson
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Your entire country was formed on liberal ideology you clueless hacks. Where do you think they got “Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness” for crying out loud?
You wouldn’t know "liberal ideology" if it was up you with an arm full of chairs.
Leave it to trolls like you to attack a poster for presenting a legitimate point of view and simply encouraging a debate. Someones been playing too many videogames. Maybe try to get outside more rather than insulting others on the interwebs just because their opinion differs from yours?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Max Thomson
Maybe try to get outside more rather than insulting others on the interwebs just because their opinion differs from yours?
A recent Harvard study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 60% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy...for middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection...," said Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard University, who helped compile the study.
The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan who have PUBLIC INSURANCE.
Don't forget that in addition to paying nearly DOUBLE in terms of health care costs related to GDP, we are achieving poorer results.
quote:
Healthier than thou
Aug 20th 2009
From The Economist print edition
How Britain’s health system compares with America’s
Illustration by David Simonds
THE NHS is the closest thing the English have to a national religion, Nigel Lawson, a former Tory chancellor, once observed. Seldom has that tart comment seemed more apposite than in recent days, as both Gordon Brown and David Cameron leapt to the defence of the NHS following vitriolic criticism in America of Britain’s “Orwellian” health service. Some of the charges against it are absurd, but does the tax-financed NHS deserve such worship this side of the Atlantic?
Comparing the performance of health systems is tricky. For one thing, people may attach different values to crucial features such as coverage, choice, equity and the quality of clinical care. For another, people’s health reflects influences like lifestyles that have little to do with medical care. Cost must also be taken into account. The World Health Organisation attempted an evaluation in 2000, in which Britain came 18th out of 191 countries and America 37th, but the methods used to compile the ranking were heavily criticised and it has not repeated the exercise.
On the most basic metric of life expectancy at birth, Britain (79.1 years) outscores America (77.8). Longevity is admittedly a crude and indirect indicator of population health. Yet a similar story emerged from a study in 2006 that used direct measures to compare the health of middle-aged people: the Americans were sicker than the English.
Another line of inquiry is to investigate how health systems perform in tackling conditions that are treatable, comparing death-rates for such illnesses among the under-75s. Britain does not emerge well from one such ranking, compiled by Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Their study, published in early 2008, placed Britain 16th among 19 advanced countries (France came first). But America came last.
On the other hand, Britain scores worse than America in five-year survival rates for cancer. High-tech diagnostic equipment is less abundant: in 2007 there were, for example, 25.9 MRI scanners per million Americans compared with 8.2 in Britain. Expensive new drugs generally become widely available sooner in America than in Britain. One reason is that in Britain they are subject to a cost-benefit assessment. Although this approach has been demonised in America it merely makes explicit the rationing in any medical system through the decisions of insurers and funders.
And then there’s the question of overall cost. Even after a huge expansion of the NHS budget over the past decade, spending on health care in Britain amounted to 8.4% of GDP in 2007 compared with 16% in America, according to the OECD. Public spending on health care per person is actually higher in America (through Medicare, Medicaid and other government programmes).
Both health systems have their virtues and their faults. At its best, America offers extraordinarily good clinical care, but too many people lack insurance cover or fret about losing it. The NHS provides health care to all at a much lower total cost, but patients have less clout. Both countries are crying out for reforms to bring about better and cheaper care. http://www.economist.com/world/brit...ory_id=14259044
Why people want to maintain the status quo of a health care system that costs more and delivers less than virtually every other advanced country boggles the mind. That even ignores the moral issue of not providing health care to every citizen.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Don't forget that in addition to paying nearly DOUBLE in terms of health care costs related to GDP, we are achieving poorer results.
Why people want to maintain the status quo of a health care system that costs more and delivers less than virtually every other advanced country boggles the mind. That even ignores the moral issue of not providing health care to every citizen.
They don't want to accept that in many countries, public healthcare provides more care for less money. It comes from a generalization that all things government equate to communism. I heard one idiot on CNN talk about Obama pushing what he called, "Afro-leninism". Guy probably didn't even know what Leninism is..
Lebezniatnikov
I think Obama seriously miscalculated his message on healthcare. The assumption was that the moral argument was all that was needed to curry favor for reform. The system isn't universal, but should be. Then we realize that most Americans actually don't care that their neighbors are uninsured (for anecdotal proof, watch the booing that takes place in townhalls whenever a citizen tells their story of being uninsured).
The first and only argument should have been the one occ just pointed to - efficiency. What people can't seem to get their head around is that the cost won't really increase - it just shifts. The Franken video above includes the example of the Mayo Clinic that I think is very illuminating. Shifting the administration of health care institutions and insurance companies can reduce costs for the consumer that offsets any increase in public cost.
This plan isn't anywhere near as radical as it is being depicted by opponents. Furthermore, it isn't compulsory, which is a frequent claim. I'd challenge anyone who's actually READ the bill to explain how they could ever actually call it socialist. It's absolutely absurd that this is where the public dialogue has settled. And really quite sad. I feel we should be putting health care on the back burner for awhile to focus on civic education. Lord knows most of this country needs it.
Capitalizt
There are any number of reasons why healthcare is more expensive in America than elsewhere..and the fact that high costs have caused bankruptcies is irrelevant, because putting it under the mantle of "government" is not going to erase those costs. It is merely going to camoflauge them and spread them out to millions of taxpayers. In addition to spreading costs, any time you reduce the price of something for low income people (another main reason for the bill), demand increases tremendously..
So this bill basically forces companies to accept MORE patients needing to be covered for MORE operations and prevents any discrimination based on pre-existing conditions...prevents companies from charging more for high high risk patients that are likely to result in large losses. Do you guys realize how perverse it is to try and freeze rates and force everyone to be treated equally regardless of the risk/cost they are likely to impose?. This is one of the things Franken was bragging about in that video (Switzerland style). Do you see how much these ideas screw with the the laws of risk vs reward and supply vs demand?
Even if people can't help their medical condition, they should still be expected to pay more. Life isn't fair folks. The world is a very unfair place. Every cosmic injustice can not be remedied by legislation and only harm can come from attempting to do so. If you want to live in a free society, you need to accept some level of inequality..You need to accept that innocent people will sometimes face undeserved suffering. It sucks, yes...but putting a claim on the lives and fortunes of those who don't suffer on behalf of those who do is an even greater injustice..because it is an injustice made by CHOICE rather than chance.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I think Obama seriously miscalculated his message on healthcare. The assumption was that the moral argument was all that was needed to curry favor for reform. The system isn't universal, but should be. Then we realize that most Americans actually don't care that their neighbors are uninsured (for anecdotal proof, watch the booing that takes place in townhalls whenever a citizen tells their story of being uninsured).
The first and only argument should have been the one occ just pointed to - efficiency. What people can't seem to get their head around is that the cost won't really increase - it just shifts. The Franken video above includes the example of the Mayo Clinic that I think is very illuminating. Shifting the administration of health care institutions and insurance companies can reduce costs for the consumer that offsets any increase in public cost.
This plan isn't anywhere near as radical as it is being depicted by opponents. Furthermore, it isn't compulsory, which is a frequent claim. I'd challenge anyone who's actually READ the bill to explain how they could ever actually call it socialist. It's absolutely absurd that this is where the public dialogue has settled. And really quite sad. I feel we should be putting health care on the back burner for awhile to focus on civic education. Lord knows most of this country needs it.
I think Obama needs to get on the tube and address the nation and explain it in laymen's terms the healthcare reform and dispell the numerous lies that are out there.
vinnie97
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Indeed, when I am on the losing side of a debate, I'd rather prohibit everyone smarter than myself from participating, too.
Nothing's lost, you're just trying to throw darts at a moving target, and you missed by a wide margin.
Stimulus funds come with federal strings attached. I can understand the secession desires from the Texas candidates, though I don't necessarily think it's feasible. That was an entirely off-topic comment anyway.
Krypton, the proposed health bill doesn't kill off private plans right away but it mentions a deadline at which point grandfathered plans will expire and have to comply with some compulsory requirements as determined by the Govt. I didn't see said requirements mentioned in the bill...if they're present, I'd love to know. This is just a push for more government control in the lives of its citizenry. One needs to look no further than the proposal in the bill (or an addendum to the bill) of IRS power expansion and the granting of direct access to individual bank accounts. You may find Big Brother lovey dovey but I would rather they keep their distance.
And Capitalizt is correct, health costs that are causing personal bankruptcy would simply be spread across the population in the form of tax hikes, not to mention the base insurance one may likely be required to purchase.
Also, I get a little tired of the misdirection of the argument that "health care is a right." What's really meant is "health care insurance is a right."
It sure is nice to know that not everyone at ABC is in the Govt's pocket:
I agree 100% with the "bridge to govt run care" espoused by that video because Obama himself has been ambiguous on that point. He is just using a more staggered approach. ANIMALS have access to more expedient healthcare under private plans than humans do under the public option in Canada. If that's the end goal here, I want no part of what the maniacs on the left are selling...NONE (and I am presently self-employed and uninsured).
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by vinnie97
Stimulus funds come with federal strings attached. I can understand the secession desires from the Texas candidates, though I don't necessarily think it's feasible.
You might not want to say that in public. People judge you for saying things like that.
quote:
Krypton, the proposed health bill doesn't kill off private plans right away but it mentions a deadline at which point grandfathered plans will expire and have to comply with some compulsory requirements as determined by the Govt. I didn't see said requirements mentioned in the bill...if they're present, I'd love to know. This is just a push for more government control in the lives of its citizenry.
Here's where I ask if you've read the bill or simply gotten talking points from conservative op-eds and blogs.
quote:
… And when you do, scroll down to subsection C, which states that “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.” In other words, after the bill becomes law, all new health insurance plans would have to be purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, which, according to a House committee summary, is a “marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.” The provision Investor’s Business Daily latched onto in is, in reality, all about increasing choice and competition in the marketplace between both public and private health insurance options, not limiting choice.
One needs to look no further than the proposal in the bill (or an addendum to the bill) of IRS power expansion and the granting of direct access to individual bank accounts. You may find Big Brother lovey dovey but I would rather they keep their distance.
Also wrong.
quote:
… in other words, this section of the actual bill does not do what Limbaugh and Rep. Shadegg and others claim. They are demonstrably wrong (see above). It is simply a check on the status of an individual’s insurance coverage, one that already happens today and would be required under any possible system built on individual health insurance.
A few lines down, another section of the bill has been targeted as the part that would supposedly provide the government with private financial information.
One line of the section attempt to standardize electronic administrative transactions, such as electronic fund transfers that occur between insurance companies and health care providers for the purpose of administrative simplification. Another line would enable electronics funds transactions to allow “automated reconciliation” of health care costs. This would basically amount to nothing more than an automatic online bill-pay system for people to pay their premiums every month.
There is no language in H.R. 3200 that would make it legal for the government to have “direct, real-time access to individual bank accounts.” The bill even includes basic requirements that all personal data that is collected under the provisions is used in a matter that meets privacy and security laws, and it restricts “inappropriate” uses, “including use of such data in determinations of eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans.”
Also, I get a little tired of the misdirection of the argument that "health care is a right." What's really meant is "health care insurance is a right."
No, you've misunderstood that argument too. Realistic access to health care is the right. But as I mentioned above, we're past that now. Pro-reform people have been wanting to discuss the details of this thing for over a month, but anti-reform people like yourself continue to wave discredited arguments in everybody's face.
quote:
ANIMALS have access to more expedient healthcare under private plans than humans do under the public option in Canada.
Again, these are the kinds of comments best left unsaid. We're judging.
Krypton
Lebez pretty much addressed your argument but I'll address some bits.
quote:
Originally posted by vinnie97
Krypton, the proposed health bill doesn't kill off private plans right away but it mentions a deadline at which point grandfathered plans will expire and have to comply with some compulsory requirements as determined by the Govt.
Point me to where it says that. As the word reform may imply, the rules are going to change such as no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. That shouldn't be a surprise to you. It's reform.
quote:
I didn't see said requirements mentioned in the bill...if they're present, I'd love to know.
I would too because you'r making arguments based on something you'v admitted you haven't read.
quote:
This is just a push for more government control in the lives of its citizenry. One needs to look no further than the proposal in the bill (or an addendum to the bill) of IRS power expansion and the granting of direct access to individual bank accounts. You may find Big Brother lovey dovey but I would rather they keep their distance.
Point me where in the bill it's giving more power to the IRS. Every law is a push for more government control. This is healthcare for 's sake. Nobody is advocating police breaking down your door in the middle of the night and making you disappear. I'd really love it if the anti-healthcare reform crowd would stop their black and white blanket statements which really do sound ridiculous.
quote:
And Capitalizt is correct, health costs that are causing personal bankruptcy would simply be spread across the population in the form of tax hikes, not to mention the base insurance one may likely be required to purchase.
Look, people paying insurance premiums now would now either pay that premium, or if the public option is available, that premium would be in the form of taxes. This wouldn't be premium + tax on one person. They either pay a premium or pay a healthcare tax just like Medicare. As economist Paul Krugman pointed out, the administrative savings would amount to something like $200 billion because the public/cooperative option won't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing algorithms for what to charge people for a million different factors, one being pre-existing conditions.
quote:
Also, I get a little tired of the misdirection of the argument that "health care is a right." What's really meant is "health care insurance is a right."
Access to healthcare is a right and health insurance is how to pay for it. You have two options. The current system which makes insured persons pay for the insured with higher and higher insurance premiums. OR. The reformed system which gets everyone insured, everyone paying something into the system, and the cost load shared by everyone.
quote:
I agree 100% with the "bridge to govt run care" espoused by that video because Obama himself has been ambiguous on that point. He is just using a more staggered approach. ANIMALS have access to more expedient healthcare under private plans than humans do under the public option in Canada.
Only an idiot would buy pet health insurance. And vet costs are no where near that of human costs because when pets get a serious illness, usually, they'r just euthanized. I find it ridiculous to even compare human healthcare to that of animals. :rolleyes:
quote:
If that's the end goal here, I want no part of what the maniacs on the left are selling...NONE
Of course you want no part in it. You believe the government is trying to take control of your life which could not be further from the truth. Healthcare is costing too much for too little. The only means by which this piece of system (;)) is going to change for the better is by government action. None of your freedoms are being infringed upon.
quote:
(and I am presently self-employed and uninsured).
So you'r just one serious illness away from bankruptcy, and yet, you seem to not even care.
