Health Care -- To each his own or an entitlement?
March 27th, 2012 at 9:53:20 PM
permalink
[stirs pot]Why, in a great country, like the United States, is there such a thing as a hospital bill? [/stirring]
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 27th, 2012 at 11:15:30 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo[stirs pot]Why, in a great country, like the United States, is there such a thing as a hospital bill? [/stirring]
May I make a friendly suggestion, that if you really want to have that discussion, you start a new thread? Would suck to derail this one.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
March 28th, 2012 at 8:42:04 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo[stirs pot]Why, in a great country, like the United States, is there such a thing as a hospital bill? [/stirring]
Why do people think meical care is supposed to be free or somehow other covered?
I still remember one guy applied for a car loan. His FICO was just terrible, due to a number of medical collections. His reply was that they "were not collections." Why not? Here was his logic:
Says he: "my wife is a nurse so when we get a medical bill in excess of our coverage we ask if they will forgive it since we are in the same business. Somtimes they do. If they do not then we just do not pay it."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 28th, 2012 at 8:48:04 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy do people think meical care is supposed to be free or somehow other covered?
Let's make a separate thread for this topic. If there is one more post on the matter I will split it off myself.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 28th, 2012 at 8:52:35 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffman
Why do people think meical care is supposed to be free or somehow other covered?
Because it already is.
If you are sick, and cannot pay, you will be cared for for free (the alternative of letting you die on the streets is not seriously considered).
I think, the system we have now - people, who have money, pay for themselves and for people who do not is essentially equivalent to the system, known as a "single payer", funded by public funds, where everyone in need of medical care is able to receive it without having to beg, in all major respects, but is less efficient, less honest, more expensive and more cumbersome and embarrassing to use and administrate.
(sorry, Wizard, did not see your post earlier)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
March 28th, 2012 at 10:50:33 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanBecause it already is.
If you are sick, and cannot pay, you will be cared for for free (the alternative of letting you die on the streets is not seriously considered).
Let me preface anything I say on this topic with the fact that I don't know a lot about it. However, I have heard (heresy) that your above statement is really only true for emergency conditions. Say you have a cancerous tumor that is completely operable/treatable with chemotherapy, but you are poor and have no health insurance. In this scenario, would a hospital carry out the incredibly expensive procedures given prior knowledge of your financial state? I am not fishing for an answer here, I honestly don't know.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
March 28th, 2012 at 10:51:32 AM
permalink
Now that's it's on its own thread...
I agree with weasel's assessment. Your sickness is not tied to your wealth. The odds that you are going to get cancer are pretty much the same, whether rich or poor, whether insured or uninsured. Most people I think feel losing the health lottery should not be a reason to lose your financial health as well. That is why pretty much all western countries (besides the United States) have gone to a universal health care system that is government run.
Yes, of course, it's a form of welfare, and it's probably in many cases inefficiently run. But look at the costs of health care in the States today -- it's out of control, due to insurance not being able to keep pharmaceutical and health care prices wrong. They can do this because they can pass the costs on to the consumer and onto companies. Companies meanwhile cut back coverage and pass the costs on to families. Then something catastrophic happens that's not covered, and voila, bankruptcy.
I would surmise that a government run health care program would reduce costs for everyone, but it would also DEFINITELY reduce the quality of care for some. That's the argument against it.
I guess the most efficient way to handle health care would be to insure it and deny coverage to those who couldn't pay, up front.
I agree with weasel's assessment. Your sickness is not tied to your wealth. The odds that you are going to get cancer are pretty much the same, whether rich or poor, whether insured or uninsured. Most people I think feel losing the health lottery should not be a reason to lose your financial health as well. That is why pretty much all western countries (besides the United States) have gone to a universal health care system that is government run.
Yes, of course, it's a form of welfare, and it's probably in many cases inefficiently run. But look at the costs of health care in the States today -- it's out of control, due to insurance not being able to keep pharmaceutical and health care prices wrong. They can do this because they can pass the costs on to the consumer and onto companies. Companies meanwhile cut back coverage and pass the costs on to families. Then something catastrophic happens that's not covered, and voila, bankruptcy.
I would surmise that a government run health care program would reduce costs for everyone, but it would also DEFINITELY reduce the quality of care for some. That's the argument against it.
I guess the most efficient way to handle health care would be to insure it and deny coverage to those who couldn't pay, up front.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 11:14:31 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo[stirs pot]Why, in a great country, like the United States, is there such a thing as a hospital bill? [/stirring]
Same reason I got one from a great country called Canada :)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 28th, 2012 at 12:03:43 PM
permalink
Quote: AcesAndEightsLet me preface anything I say on this topic with the fact that I don't know a lot about it. However, I have heard (heresy) that your above statement is really only true for emergency conditions. Say you have a cancerous tumor that is completely operable/treatable with chemotherapy, but you are poor and have no health insurance. In this scenario, would a hospital carry out the incredibly expensive procedures given prior knowledge of your financial state? I am not fishing for an answer here, I honestly don't know.
If you are poor, you can get Medicaid, which is pretty much the best health insurance you can possibly have.
If you do not qualify for Medicaid (e.g., because you are an illegal immigrant), then, I believe, it depends on the state you are in, but in most, if not all, places you can get health care for free through a variety of different programs.
But for the sake of the argument, let's assume, that it was indeed the case, and any condition that was not immediately life threatening would not be treated unless you could pay for it.
First, do you believe it would be the right thing for us, as a society, to do? Would you feel comfortable, for example, hearing your neighbour's kid moaning and crying in excruciating pain because he was sick with cancer, and his parents did not have money to help him?
And second, don't you think, that it is actually cheaper to treat most conditions before they become life threatening?
Quote: boymimbo
I would surmise that a government run health care program would reduce costs for everyone, but it would also DEFINITELY reduce the quality of care for some. That's the argument against it.
Why does everybody keep talking about government-run health care as if it was the only option?
How about government-run health-insurance? The health care providers would still be privately run, the quality of care would not change. And you would still be able to pay cash (or get a private insurance) if you wanted and even better quality and had means to pay for it.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
March 28th, 2012 at 12:11:48 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo
I would surmise that a government run health care program would reduce costs for everyone, but it would also DEFINITELY reduce the quality of care for some. That's the argument against it.
Why on earth would you assume that the governmnet running things would reduce cost? History of government running anything shows less efficiancy and higher costs. Obamacare already is at twice what they projected just 2 years ago. Medicare is what, 10xs od more what they projected when it was passed? With no profit motive there is no motive to make it more efficient and lower costs.
I know there are those out there who equate profit with greed and think somehow that the person delivering a needed good or service (food, health care, gasoline) somehow is supposed to work for free. Sorry, that does not work. Take a look at the news lately. The Brits are trying to decide if they should exclude the overweight or elderly first since there is not enough money to go around.
Health care is just another service.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 28th, 2012 at 12:16:54 PM
permalink
My own belief is that a civilized country should have some sort of commonwealth for caring for its citizens' health. It is in the country's best interest to have it.
A falling knife has no handle.
March 28th, 2012 at 12:18:54 PM
permalink
Over time, I have come to understand one thing: there is a health care system for a country, and there will also be various types of insurance one can pay into. They are not the same thing! At least in the US, this gets confusing because people want a certain health care system to be in place and they do get a lot of it [or it is not there for them] because of the type of insurance they have.
The proper definition of insurance becomes unused. Insurance of course involves paying into a pool set up to pay when the unexpected happens. What people typically have, and they incorrectly call it insurance, covers a lot of expected expenses; for example they may have dental "insurance" that pays for cleaning their teeth.
A country nonetheless has a certain health care system, and what it should provide and to who and for what cost and for what kind of wait periods can be debated. Generally, there is going to be included some sort of care for people without means or insurance.
To show how messed up the system is in the US, drive up 95 from Richmond. As you get near Fredericksburg you will see an electronic billboard set up by a new hospital there that constantly displays the wait time for the Emergency Room! So clearly plenty of the locals get their health care by using the Emergency Rooms here and there and they need to know how long they might have to wait!
Amazing! I am not making this up!
The proper definition of insurance becomes unused. Insurance of course involves paying into a pool set up to pay when the unexpected happens. What people typically have, and they incorrectly call it insurance, covers a lot of expected expenses; for example they may have dental "insurance" that pays for cleaning their teeth.
A country nonetheless has a certain health care system, and what it should provide and to who and for what cost and for what kind of wait periods can be debated. Generally, there is going to be included some sort of care for people without means or insurance.
To show how messed up the system is in the US, drive up 95 from Richmond. As you get near Fredericksburg you will see an electronic billboard set up by a new hospital there that constantly displays the wait time for the Emergency Room! So clearly plenty of the locals get their health care by using the Emergency Rooms here and there and they need to know how long they might have to wait!
Amazing! I am not making this up!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 28th, 2012 at 12:28:41 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy on earth would you assume that the governmnet running things would reduce cost? History of government running anything shows less efficiancy and higher costs. Obamacare already is at twice what they projected just 2 years ago. Medicare is what, 10xs od more what they projected when it was passed? With no profit motive there is no motive to make it more efficient and lower costs.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also don't see how this reconciles with actual spending on medical care. Spending on medical care is pretty low on a per-capita basis in places that do have government run care, and it's pretty much the highest in the world here in the USA. It would seem that our private health care system is pretty inefficient on a cost-of-care basis, though it may be second to none on a quality-of-care basis.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
March 28th, 2012 at 12:33:20 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambit
The proper definition of insurance becomes unused. Insurance of course involves paying into a pool set up to pay when the unexpected happens. What people typically have, and they incorrectly call it insurance, covers a lot of expected expenses; for example they may have dental "insurance" that pays for cleaning their teeth.
This is exactly correct and a big part of the problem. About 15 years ago you heard much more about "HMOs" than you seem to today. (Or that I hear about lately.) The idea there was you got big discounts in return for a limit on where you could go for care. Kind of as if you get service on your BMW but have to come to the dealer. If the dealer is further than your favorite local garage, tough.
Quote:To show how messed up the system is in the US, drive up 95 from Richmond. As you get near Fredericksburg you will see an electronic billboard set up by a new hospital there that constantly displays the wait time for the Emergency Room! So clearly plenty of the locals get their health care by using the Emergency Rooms here and there and they need to know how long they might have to wait!
I believe this. Part of me thinks this is an "underclass" problem in that they think that is where you go. Same as they walk past the bank to use the check cashing service. They rent at Rent-A-Center instead of buying things at Wal-Mart or Sears. Buy a money order instead of having a checking account. I saw this when I was doing taxes. So many of them just don't know how simple this stuff is to do. Thus instead of going to a cheaper local clinic they head to the ER.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 28th, 2012 at 1:52:51 PM
permalink
Its an argument nobody wins. If everybody gets
covered, you get inferior care. If its most that are
covered, you get superior care for them and none
for the others. Problem is, everybody in life isn't
equal, and pretending they are won't make it so.
Poor people should get inferior care, it gives them
incentive to find a way out of poverty. Thats why
welfare was such a colossal failure, it took all the
incentive away to improve your life.
covered, you get inferior care. If its most that are
covered, you get superior care for them and none
for the others. Problem is, everybody in life isn't
equal, and pretending they are won't make it so.
Poor people should get inferior care, it gives them
incentive to find a way out of poverty. Thats why
welfare was such a colossal failure, it took all the
incentive away to improve your life.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 2:07:48 PM
permalink
Very simple if they strike it down they should also strike down Medicare. Why should one segment of society get near free health care and not the other? I agree with Evenbob get rid of medicare and let the elderly who did not take care of themselves give incentive to younger people to take care of themselves.
Anyone on Medicare who is against Health Care reform should stand up as an example and give up Medicare coverage.
Anyone on Medicare who is against Health Care reform should stand up as an example and give up Medicare coverage.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
March 28th, 2012 at 2:21:34 PM
permalink
I believe that your level of wealth shouldn't deny you from getting life-saving care and I also believe that your sickness shouldn't bankrupt you. That's why I beleive in socialized medicine -- it is, I believe, in the interest of all, rich or poor, to remain healthy and to invest in a national strategy for preventative care.
Now, I believe that government are more efficient than private companies at delivering health care. Why? First, they do negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals. There's a very good reason why all drugs are cheaper in Canada then they are in the United States. Secondly, they can drive down the prices that doctors charge for services, because there's no competition. If you want to practice medicine in the country, this is what you will get paid for this procedure -- period. Thirdly, there is no profit motive - no reason to overcharge for goods and services in order to meet a revenue target and give a dividend to your shareholders and support the 1%. Not all government workers are lazy and overpaid. Fourthly, government can dictate standards that can be nationalized, such as the ability to share medical records across a network. So, I think government can deliver a national health care program (or insurance) that can be cheaper and more efficient than what's currently offered.
What happens when you are uninsured is that you don't bother with preventative care. That can include critical vaccines that are missed that could result in outbreaks (like missed H1N1 shots), missed signs for heart disease, high cholesterol, so the care doesn't take place until the critical event has happened, making it much more expensive overall for everyone.
I would support a two-tiered system where basic care is covered by the government but insurance is covered for premium care and coverages not supplied by the government program. Basic care would cover a huge swath of treatments while the private care might do something that put you at the front of the line for treatment or provide you with treatments or drugs that government health doesn't provide.
Now, I believe that government are more efficient than private companies at delivering health care. Why? First, they do negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals. There's a very good reason why all drugs are cheaper in Canada then they are in the United States. Secondly, they can drive down the prices that doctors charge for services, because there's no competition. If you want to practice medicine in the country, this is what you will get paid for this procedure -- period. Thirdly, there is no profit motive - no reason to overcharge for goods and services in order to meet a revenue target and give a dividend to your shareholders and support the 1%. Not all government workers are lazy and overpaid. Fourthly, government can dictate standards that can be nationalized, such as the ability to share medical records across a network. So, I think government can deliver a national health care program (or insurance) that can be cheaper and more efficient than what's currently offered.
What happens when you are uninsured is that you don't bother with preventative care. That can include critical vaccines that are missed that could result in outbreaks (like missed H1N1 shots), missed signs for heart disease, high cholesterol, so the care doesn't take place until the critical event has happened, making it much more expensive overall for everyone.
I would support a two-tiered system where basic care is covered by the government but insurance is covered for premium care and coverages not supplied by the government program. Basic care would cover a huge swath of treatments while the private care might do something that put you at the front of the line for treatment or provide you with treatments or drugs that government health doesn't provide.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 2:44:22 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo
Now, I believe that government are more efficient than private companies at delivering health care. Why? First, they do negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals. There's a very good reason why all drugs are cheaper in Canada then they are in the United States. Secondly, they can drive down the prices that doctors charge for services, because there's no competition. If you want to practice medicine in the country, this is what you will get paid for this procedure -- period. Thirdly, there is no profit motive - no reason to overcharge for goods and services in order to meet a revenue target and give a dividend to your shareholders and support the 1%. Not all government workers are lazy and overpaid. Fourthly, government can dictate standards that can be nationalized, such as the ability to share medical records across a network. So, I think government can deliver a national health care program (or insurance) that can be cheaper and more efficient than what's currently offered.
*sigh* the 1% yet again, I guess nobody else owns shares in health insurers?
First flaw is that government "drives down" prices by saying, "we will pay this and no more." So what happens is that providers stop providing. This is why Canadians have to wait longer than their dogs for MRIs and other care. Right now Canada brags that Rx's are cheaper there than in the USA. The only reason that is possible is because the USA sales pay for research costs and Canada is pure "extra" for the pharma companies. If the USA fixes prices, research will grind to a halt. But hey, we are better the "greedy 1%" don't make a profit than to have a breakthru med, right?
Finally, why do you keep insisting that if a profit is earned someone is overcharged? No reason to believe this. Profit in health insurance is not all that great on a ROI basis. Profit gives an incentive to lower costs and streamline procedures. There is no such incentive in a government system. Sharing medical records can be done now if the providers want to do it. I really don't want mine online to be pulled by whoever likes to do it.
I will leave you with the fact that I have met more than one Canadian who came to the USA for care. They are typically the biggest opponents to socialized care. One said, "If I (he) relied on Canadian Care I (he) would be dead."
But it is cheaper and no profit.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 28th, 2012 at 3:17:37 PM
permalink
The reason for exchanging money for anything is because we all have different values
If I fracture my leg, I want a cast and crutches and don't need much else. Someone else might want therapy and rehab and pain killers. Though I don't value those things highly, if offered complimentary, I would grab them and anything else I could. With no medical bills, the process will always be far less efficient
The real problem with American medicine is that instead of universal healthcare we have an insurance system that interferes with the free market
If I fracture my leg, I want a cast and crutches and don't need much else. Someone else might want therapy and rehab and pain killers. Though I don't value those things highly, if offered complimentary, I would grab them and anything else I could. With no medical bills, the process will always be far less efficient
The real problem with American medicine is that instead of universal healthcare we have an insurance system that interferes with the free market
March 28th, 2012 at 3:46:23 PM
permalink
The real problem with American medicine is that instead of universal healthcare we have an insurance system that interferes with the free market
Completely agree. It's neither fish nor fowl. It's neither socialized medicine a la UK or Canada, or a free market pay-as-you-go, or full-insurance-by-user system. It's a weird hybrid that serves no-one well.
Completely agree. It's neither fish nor fowl. It's neither socialized medicine a la UK or Canada, or a free market pay-as-you-go, or full-insurance-by-user system. It's a weird hybrid that serves no-one well.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
March 28th, 2012 at 4:02:24 PM
permalink
I don't get into politics and don't know much about health care and even though I am not a democrat the issue of health care does seem a little off in this country. We're supposed to live in a prosperous country, right? We are allowed to utilize law enforcement and fire and rescue. But if I am sick or injured and need medical help the government doesn't care if we live or die? Why don't we get medical assistance? Yay, America!!Quote: MoscaMy own belief is that a civilized country should have some sort of commonwealth for caring for its citizens' health. It is in the country's best interest to have it.
OFFICIALLY and justifiably reclaimed my title as SuperHotBlonde!
March 28th, 2012 at 4:09:49 PM
permalink
Quote: HotBlondeI don't get into politics and don't know much about health care and even though I am not a democrat the issue of health care does seem a little off in this country. We're supposed to live in a prosperous country, right? We are allowed to utilize law enforcement and fire and rescue. But if I am sick or injured and need medical help the government doesn't care if we live or die? Why don't we get medical assistance? Yay, America!!
Why doesn't the government give everybody free food?
What about a free place to live?
And a free car to get back and forth to work.
And free gas for the car.
But you need free internet to find a job in the first place, and a computer to access that internet..........
There is medicaid if you are truly indigent.
Otherwise America was built on "freedom" not "free stuff." Though almost 40% now seem willing to give up the former for the later.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
March 28th, 2012 at 4:27:45 PM
permalink
2008 Revenue / R&D / Income / Employment figures:
Pharmaceuticals are doing nicely. R&D is about 10% - 15% of revenue overall. Lowering US prices by 20% probably wouldn't hurt them that much and research won't go anywhere as there is plenty of money to be made. I would argue that pharmaceuticals charge what they can for drugs and the US is willing to pay for it because it's in cahoots with the insurance companies and health care providers to allow it.
Meanwhile, more than 10% of folks with insurance have deductibles of 2,000 or greater in 2010, double of 2008.
Health insurance is no longer a free market. In most markets, a single company has more than 50% of market share. For example, one company, BCBS has about 89% of market share in Alabama. It is able to dictate terms to its suppliers, including how much it will pay for services, which only increases profit. The top five health insurance companies in 2009 had 12.8 billion in profits and those profits have soared in the past two years.
Meanwhile. Healthcare costs have risen to more than 16% of GDP in 2008, up more than 62% from 20 years earlier. That's staggering.
But go ahead, continue.
| Company | Revenue | R&D | Income | Employees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Pfizer USA | 67,809 | 7,599 | 19,337 | 122,200 |
| 2 Novartis Switzerland | 53,324 | 7,125 | 11,053 | 138,000 |
| 3 Merck & Co. USA | 45,987 | 4,783 | 4,434 | 74,372 |
| 4 Bayer Germany | 44,200 | 1,791 | 6,450 | 106,200 |
| 5 GlaxoSmithKline United Kingdom | 42,813 | 6,373 | 10,135 | 106,000 |
| 6 Johnson and Johnson USA | 37,020 | 5,349 | 7,202 | 102,695 |
| 7 Sanofi France | 35,645 | 5,565 | 5,033 | 100,735 |
Pharmaceuticals are doing nicely. R&D is about 10% - 15% of revenue overall. Lowering US prices by 20% probably wouldn't hurt them that much and research won't go anywhere as there is plenty of money to be made. I would argue that pharmaceuticals charge what they can for drugs and the US is willing to pay for it because it's in cahoots with the insurance companies and health care providers to allow it.
Meanwhile, more than 10% of folks with insurance have deductibles of 2,000 or greater in 2010, double of 2008.
Health insurance is no longer a free market. In most markets, a single company has more than 50% of market share. For example, one company, BCBS has about 89% of market share in Alabama. It is able to dictate terms to its suppliers, including how much it will pay for services, which only increases profit. The top five health insurance companies in 2009 had 12.8 billion in profits and those profits have soared in the past two years.
Meanwhile. Healthcare costs have risen to more than 16% of GDP in 2008, up more than 62% from 20 years earlier. That's staggering.
But go ahead, continue.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 4:29:44 PM
permalink
Quote: AZWhy doesn't the government give everybody free food?
What about a free place to live?
And a free car to get back and forth to work.
And free gas for the car.
But you need free internet to find a job in the first place, and a computer to access that internet..........
Plenty of countries "subsidize" or "give away" health care but don't give away anything else. The result -- a healthier population - on any standard.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 4:31:18 PM
permalink
Anythign the government grants a monopoly over is golden, of course. That's why UPS FedEx and DHL are on the brink of bankruptcy, while the Post Office is booming with surpluses so big, they'll double the labor fore and offer twice-daily deliveries and thrice-daily on Sunday.
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 28th, 2012 at 4:40:51 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedAnythign the government grants a monopoly over is golden, of course. That's why UPS FedEx and DHL are on the brink of bankruptcy, while the Post Office is booming with surpluses so big, they'll double the labor fore and offer twice-daily deliveries and thrice-daily on Sunday.
Oh, wait.
I see your point, but didn't DHL actually file bankruptcy? I thought that was why they pulled out of the USA...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
March 28th, 2012 at 4:45:36 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboPlenty of countries "subsidize" or "give away" health care but don't give away anything else. The result -- a healthier population - on any standard.
Countries with small populations can get away
with it for awhile. Canada has a population thats
smaller than California, for instance. It would
never work in a country the size of the US. We
would all end up with the equivalent of 3rd world
health care. Like Cuba has.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 4:57:31 PM
permalink
You can look at Japan or Germany, or even South Korea. Just because it's socialized medicine doesn't make it Cuba. Actually, your life expectancy at birth is higher in Cuba than the USA.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 4:57:49 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusI see your point, but didn't DHL actually file bankruptcy? I thought that was why they pulled out of the USA...
And how much did that cost US taxpayers?
DHL is doing quite well elsewhere, including Mexico.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 28th, 2012 at 5:02:18 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy doesn't the government give everybody free food?
What about a free place to live?
And a free car to get back and forth to work.
And free gas for the car.
But you need free internet to find a job in the first place, and a computer to access that internet..........
Slippery Slope is a fallacy, not an argument.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
March 28th, 2012 at 5:12:45 PM
permalink
I would like to go on record as saying that I support health care for all Americans. The way I would like to see it done is a choice between a "public option" or subsidized private care. Much like I support private school vouchers for the cost of a public school education. I dislike the mandate approach.
I know there are conflicting studies, but the free preventative care and targeted care for small issues should show a savings in emergency room care. Our current system is pretty much leaving out the working poor, making too much for Medicaid, who are the backbone of the country. I think they are entitled to be covered too.
I know there are conflicting studies, but the free preventative care and targeted care for small issues should show a savings in emergency room care. Our current system is pretty much leaving out the working poor, making too much for Medicaid, who are the backbone of the country. I think they are entitled to be covered too.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 28th, 2012 at 5:53:22 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI would like to go on record as saying that I support health care for all Americans. .
Health care should be available to all Americans, but not paid for
by everybody else. There should be a cut rate brand that poor
people can afford. Where does it say we all deserve the same
level of something we obviously can't afford.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 6:10:35 PM
permalink
Well.. I just had a lengthy debate with a friend last night so the issue is fresh on my mind and I just had to throw in my two bits...
Healthcare constitutionally falls under the 10th amendment. Healthcare should be left to states to decide how best to administer the needs of their people, not the federal government. The only legal roles the Government has is in securing our borders, and punishing evil doers. Further... Pre-Obama Care, you either take care of your health so you don't need to pay so much for health care, or if you do not take care of yourself then you need to have insurance which the cost depends on how good of a shopper you are as well as how well you in fact are taking care of your health. Besides that... In real emergencies, which most people don't tend to see the doctor until there is one, all hospitals must accept patients through the ER regardless of ability pay. Sure... If you can't pay, it is turned into collections, perhaps charged off, your credit goes to hell, but hey you are alive. Any losses incurred by the hospital and or doctors are likely written off because I am sure that hospitals are not exempt from paying income and capital gains taxes to the government. The only people that find premiums unfair or unaffordable are those who smoke, drink, and otherwise destroy their bodies. Why should I have to help pay for a smoker to get new lungs when there are people who truly would appreciate the transplant and not destroy them with continued smoking? It would be akin to mandating universal car care... If you race down the arizona desert at 110 and blow your engine, is it really fair that we all must chip in and buy you a new one?
The heart of the matter is of course, Madoff may have made off with a lot of money and rots in jail now but Obamacare is the same kind of pyramid scheme. More people will be drawing off of it than paying into it, and those not paying into it are criminalized and will have the IRS breathing down their necks. Now, if the idea is to give everyone coverage and "BENEFIT" the poor, what is beneficial to the poor who can barely make ends meet let alone pay a yearly bill on their tax return for thousands of dollars for something they may not even need, or want, let alone afford? And should being poor really be made a crime? That's essentially what the individual mandate does. No government has any right to force anyone to purchase any good or service.
But even more than this... Suppose everyone pays the same amount in the individual mandate... Isn't that what it's all about, everyone chipping in and sharing benefits? But it is really like my example from my prospecting trip last year. I went with two friends for a week. They footed most of the bill so I agreed to splitting everything by 1/3rd that we found. The thing I would like to point out here is... There is no difference between us having kept what we ourselves found and splitting by 1/3rd if we did equal labor, it still would have worked out the same since the gravels were uniformly rich in gold. And my point here is, I don't need 300 million people each paying 1/300millionth of my costs when I could simply cover it myself. I guess what I am trying to say the money collected is the same regardless of whether we pay our own way, or everyone elses way. So.. Let me decide my own needs, and let me foot my own bill and by doing so I will find the best deal possible that fits my needs.
The reason private insurance is more cost effective boils down to this simple reasoning... Suppose you drive a new car, making payments, etc. You have full coverage, right? Because if you totalled your car you wouldn't want to have to keep paying for something you didn't have the use of let alone having to replace it too. On the other hand, if you drive an old car that cost a few hundred bucks, is it really worth paying for full coverage which would cost probably a quarter of the cars value every month? In a like manner... I am a man, I don't need insurance plans that cover seeing a gynocologist. If you only pay for the coverage you need, it reduces costs.
But I would even further like to point out that there is a coming shortage of doctors, surgeons, etc. I want to point out that both of my family doctors went into retirement and shut down their practices the very next week or two after Obamacare passed. The reason was, there were price controls on what they would earn for treating obamacare patients, and those prices simply would not allow the continued operation of their clinics to be profitable. You must bear in mind, that if it weren't for the extreme costs of malpractice insurance, the cost of education to become a doctor, all adds up in our bills. So what we will end up with is the most competent and skilled practitioners we have will go out of business, and we will end up with substandard care in the long run.
The only appropriate way to handle the issue of health insurance, would be to let the government put together their own insurance "company", much like we have the post office (I guarantee you the few billion a year it loses is WORTH it to the tax payers, because it woudl take 10's of billions more every year out of peoples pockets to have to pay $5 to mail a letter via UPS) or amtrak... Let the government run insurance compete with the private sector if it can. Otherwise, if you destroy private healthcare, if you destroy private insurance... Eventually, we might be like Cuba where if you have a heart attack all they do is give you aspirin.
But the key to affordable health care is competition, and deregulation. Part of the reason premiums are sky high is insurance companies are not allowed to sell their plans accross state lines. This is total BS. Get rid of that, and I bet you would see premiums far better than what Obamacare will stick us for.
Healthcare constitutionally falls under the 10th amendment. Healthcare should be left to states to decide how best to administer the needs of their people, not the federal government. The only legal roles the Government has is in securing our borders, and punishing evil doers. Further... Pre-Obama Care, you either take care of your health so you don't need to pay so much for health care, or if you do not take care of yourself then you need to have insurance which the cost depends on how good of a shopper you are as well as how well you in fact are taking care of your health. Besides that... In real emergencies, which most people don't tend to see the doctor until there is one, all hospitals must accept patients through the ER regardless of ability pay. Sure... If you can't pay, it is turned into collections, perhaps charged off, your credit goes to hell, but hey you are alive. Any losses incurred by the hospital and or doctors are likely written off because I am sure that hospitals are not exempt from paying income and capital gains taxes to the government. The only people that find premiums unfair or unaffordable are those who smoke, drink, and otherwise destroy their bodies. Why should I have to help pay for a smoker to get new lungs when there are people who truly would appreciate the transplant and not destroy them with continued smoking? It would be akin to mandating universal car care... If you race down the arizona desert at 110 and blow your engine, is it really fair that we all must chip in and buy you a new one?
The heart of the matter is of course, Madoff may have made off with a lot of money and rots in jail now but Obamacare is the same kind of pyramid scheme. More people will be drawing off of it than paying into it, and those not paying into it are criminalized and will have the IRS breathing down their necks. Now, if the idea is to give everyone coverage and "BENEFIT" the poor, what is beneficial to the poor who can barely make ends meet let alone pay a yearly bill on their tax return for thousands of dollars for something they may not even need, or want, let alone afford? And should being poor really be made a crime? That's essentially what the individual mandate does. No government has any right to force anyone to purchase any good or service.
But even more than this... Suppose everyone pays the same amount in the individual mandate... Isn't that what it's all about, everyone chipping in and sharing benefits? But it is really like my example from my prospecting trip last year. I went with two friends for a week. They footed most of the bill so I agreed to splitting everything by 1/3rd that we found. The thing I would like to point out here is... There is no difference between us having kept what we ourselves found and splitting by 1/3rd if we did equal labor, it still would have worked out the same since the gravels were uniformly rich in gold. And my point here is, I don't need 300 million people each paying 1/300millionth of my costs when I could simply cover it myself. I guess what I am trying to say the money collected is the same regardless of whether we pay our own way, or everyone elses way. So.. Let me decide my own needs, and let me foot my own bill and by doing so I will find the best deal possible that fits my needs.
The reason private insurance is more cost effective boils down to this simple reasoning... Suppose you drive a new car, making payments, etc. You have full coverage, right? Because if you totalled your car you wouldn't want to have to keep paying for something you didn't have the use of let alone having to replace it too. On the other hand, if you drive an old car that cost a few hundred bucks, is it really worth paying for full coverage which would cost probably a quarter of the cars value every month? In a like manner... I am a man, I don't need insurance plans that cover seeing a gynocologist. If you only pay for the coverage you need, it reduces costs.
But I would even further like to point out that there is a coming shortage of doctors, surgeons, etc. I want to point out that both of my family doctors went into retirement and shut down their practices the very next week or two after Obamacare passed. The reason was, there were price controls on what they would earn for treating obamacare patients, and those prices simply would not allow the continued operation of their clinics to be profitable. You must bear in mind, that if it weren't for the extreme costs of malpractice insurance, the cost of education to become a doctor, all adds up in our bills. So what we will end up with is the most competent and skilled practitioners we have will go out of business, and we will end up with substandard care in the long run.
The only appropriate way to handle the issue of health insurance, would be to let the government put together their own insurance "company", much like we have the post office (I guarantee you the few billion a year it loses is WORTH it to the tax payers, because it woudl take 10's of billions more every year out of peoples pockets to have to pay $5 to mail a letter via UPS) or amtrak... Let the government run insurance compete with the private sector if it can. Otherwise, if you destroy private healthcare, if you destroy private insurance... Eventually, we might be like Cuba where if you have a heart attack all they do is give you aspirin.
But the key to affordable health care is competition, and deregulation. Part of the reason premiums are sky high is insurance companies are not allowed to sell their plans accross state lines. This is total BS. Get rid of that, and I bet you would see premiums far better than what Obamacare will stick us for.
March 28th, 2012 at 6:10:40 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo.
.
March 28th, 2012 at 6:41:54 PM
permalink
I was making as preposterous a point at EvenBob. Socializing healthcare is NOT Cuba. Yeah, I'm being labeled a liberal because I believe that everyone should have a right to basic health care in order to better the health and welfare of the entire country. Wow. What a surprise.
The issue with ObamaCare is that it's an agreement that really favors nobody. America is the greatest country on earth, but man, with the way Congress is working, nothing is getting done to satisfaction.
I look at airport security as a prime example. 9/11 was over 10 years ago. Money has been poured into technology to make airports safer. You would think that, after 10 years, there would be a great simpliification of airport security so that we aren't waiting in security, forced to remove our shoes, belts, put our suitcase through, pull out your laptop, no liquids over 3 ounces, etc. Technology should be there so that we should just be able to walk through the scanner and instantly alert TSA when there's an issue. It sucks.
So does Obama care. With the buying power and legislative branches of the government, you could easily enact a meaningful two tiered health care system with a basic, free (paid by taxation or employer contributions or both) system and a private system.
The issue with ObamaCare is that it's an agreement that really favors nobody. America is the greatest country on earth, but man, with the way Congress is working, nothing is getting done to satisfaction.
I look at airport security as a prime example. 9/11 was over 10 years ago. Money has been poured into technology to make airports safer. You would think that, after 10 years, there would be a great simpliification of airport security so that we aren't waiting in security, forced to remove our shoes, belts, put our suitcase through, pull out your laptop, no liquids over 3 ounces, etc. Technology should be there so that we should just be able to walk through the scanner and instantly alert TSA when there's an issue. It sucks.
So does Obama care. With the buying power and legislative branches of the government, you could easily enact a meaningful two tiered health care system with a basic, free (paid by taxation or employer contributions or both) system and a private system.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 6:56:51 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboyou could easily enact a meaningful two tiered health care system with a basic, free (paid by taxation or employer contributions or both) system and a private system.
You can enact anything, doesn't mean it'll work.
Attach the word 'free' to anything and everybody will
want it, rightly so. Everybody should pay and get
the kind of care they can afford. Why should the
guy living in the ghetto get the same care as Bill
Gates?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 7:19:43 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAttach the word 'free' to anything and everybody will want it, rightly so
You can attach the word "free" to anything. Yet everything still has a cost
Quote: EvenBobEverybody should pay and get the kind of care they can afford
I am strongly in favor of that. Which is the reason I strongly support heathcare reform is in the US
March 28th, 2012 at 7:22:35 PM
permalink
Quote: TomG
I am strongly in favor of that. Which is the reason I strongly support heathcare reform is in the US
Just so the gov't stays out of it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 8:06:58 PM
permalink
Quote: evenbobWhy should the guy living in the ghetto get the same care as Bill Gates?
You know, I thiink Bill Gates would disagree with you. Bill Gates spends much of his fortune making sure those who are not as fortunate as he is are healthy (through free polio vaccinations, ending malaria and AIDs in Africa).
I think it's because everyone should be entitled to be healthy. You see, Bill Gates probably sees his doctor every six months or perhaps whenever he feels sick. He sees the doctor, and the doctor determines that Bill Gates has the flu and tells Bill to go lay down for awhile and stay away from people. So, he sits at home and runs his business from a laptop, as he should.
The guy in the ghetto feels sick but can't afford the money to pay a doctor. Hell, he has a cheap paying job. He works at your local casino part time as a dealer and makes minimum wage. Or maybe he lives in New Jersey and pumps your gas. Or maybe she works as a waitress in your local restaurant. So, he goes to work. He too has the flu. He probably thinks it's a cold or maybe even an allergy, but he makes everyone else sick. Your burger is contaminated. He makes you sick when he hands back the receipt to get signed. He handles your casino chips. You get sick, except you're old. So you get admitted into a hospital, catch a superbug and die. Why? Because the guy in the ghetto couldn't afford to see a doctor.
Or perhaps, even to illustate a better point, you do live in the ghetto, you're a jobless bum and you're an intravenous IV user. You have HIV and you don't know it because you can't afford to get checkups by a doctor. The guy buys a drink in a bar and strikes up a conversation with your girlfriend. The girlfriend has unprotected sex with the guy with HIV who can't afford a doctor. The girlfriend has HIV. You have sex with your girlfriend. You have HIV. Your employer deductible is $5,000. You lose your job because you're sick. Two years pass. Your COBRA coverage expires. You can't afford the medication. You die.
In general, subsidized health care in general benefits everyone. Give people access to cheap or free healthcare that's shared by everyone, and everyone will benefit.
If Bill Gates wants to pay extra to inoculate himself against everything possible, then by all means, pay for it. However, I think even he would believe that everyone should have access to cheap, affordable, health care. His actions show that.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 8:17:04 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI think it's because everyone should be entitled to be healthy.
How do you figure that? Are you quoting the Communist
Manifesto? Nobody is entitled to ANYTHING, period. You're
entitled to what you earn, thats it. If everybody's 'entitled'
to be healthy, everybody's 'entitled' to a new car every 2
years and perfect teeth. Where does the entitlement mentality
end.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 8:22:15 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboYou know, I thiink Bill Gates would disagree with you. Bill Gates spends much of his fortune making sure those who are not as fortunate as he is are healthy (through free polio vaccinations, ending malaria and AIDs in Africa).
I think it's because everyone should be entitled to be healthy. You see, Bill Gates probably sees his doctor every six months or perhaps whenever he feels sick. He sees the doctor, and the doctor determines that Bill Gates has the flu and tells Bill to go lay down for awhile and stay away from people. So, he sits at home and runs his business from a laptop, as he should.
The guy in the ghetto feels sick but can't afford the money to pay a doctor. Hell, he has a cheap paying job. He works at your local casino part time as a dealer and makes minimum wage. Or maybe he lives in New Jersey and pumps your gas. Or maybe she works as a waitress in your local restaurant. So, he goes to work. He too has the flu. He probably thinks it's a cold or maybe even an allergy, but he makes everyone else sick. Your burger is contaminated. He makes you sick when he hands back the receipt to get signed. He handles your casino chips. You get sick, except you're old. So you get admitted into a hospital, catch a superbug and die. Why? Because the guy in the ghetto couldn't afford to see a doctor.
Or perhaps, even to illustate a better point, you do live in the ghetto, you're a jobless bum and you're an intravenous IV user. You have HIV and you don't know it because you can't afford to get checkups by a doctor. The guy buys a drink in a bar and strikes up a conversation with your girlfriend. The girlfriend has unprotected sex with the guy with HIV who can't afford a doctor. The girlfriend has HIV. You have sex with your girlfriend. You have HIV. Your employer deductible is $5,000. You lose your job because you're sick. Two years pass. Your COBRA coverage expires. You can't afford the medication. You die.
In general, subsidized health care in general benefits everyone. Give people access to cheap or free healthcare that's shared by everyone, and everyone will benefit.
If Bill Gates wants to pay extra to inoculate himself against everything possible, then by all means, pay for it. However, I think even he would believe that everyone should have access to cheap, affordable, health care. His actions show that.
Well said, boymimbo, and as someone else that lives in a country with universal health care I can totally understand where your arguments and excellent points are coming from.
March 28th, 2012 at 8:25:53 PM
permalink
Quote: mickpkWell said, boymimbo, and as someone else that lives in a country with universal health care I can totally understand where your arguments and excellent points are coming from.
I don't know where you live but I guarantee
it has a postage stamp size population compared
to the US.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 28th, 2012 at 8:54:44 PM
permalink
You know, where would Bill Gates be without the communal Mother's club at his school who bought computer time through a rummage sale. The computing time was meant for everyone -- Bill used the communal resources. He then used computers at the University of Washington to hone his craft (he stole computing time). These computers were subsidized with public money.
So, I ask, without a helping hand, where would Bill Gates be today? And Bill Gates was a "rich kid".
The people who have (and I'm not talking about the 1% - I'm talking about the middle class) have selective memory of how they became that way. University and College is highly subsidized. Your parents and grandparents likely have much more money in their pockets because they have MediCare benefits and can afford health care, not because they are paying for medicine out of their pockets. No one argues against that benefit.
And who paid for your public school? Why should that be subsidized? Why is kindegarten an entitlement? Pay your way. I only have one kid! I'm paying school tax my entire life.
What about the roadway outside of your house? Did you pay for that road? Why should you pay for that road if you don't drive on it?
So, I will maintain that health care should be in the same bucket as say, education, or roads.
So, I ask, without a helping hand, where would Bill Gates be today? And Bill Gates was a "rich kid".
The people who have (and I'm not talking about the 1% - I'm talking about the middle class) have selective memory of how they became that way. University and College is highly subsidized. Your parents and grandparents likely have much more money in their pockets because they have MediCare benefits and can afford health care, not because they are paying for medicine out of their pockets. No one argues against that benefit.
And who paid for your public school? Why should that be subsidized? Why is kindegarten an entitlement? Pay your way. I only have one kid! I'm paying school tax my entire life.
What about the roadway outside of your house? Did you pay for that road? Why should you pay for that road if you don't drive on it?
So, I will maintain that health care should be in the same bucket as say, education, or roads.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 9:23:22 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI don't know where you live but I guarantee
it has a postage stamp size population compared
to the US.
It's irrelevant. I know you guys are pretty good at providing government-run national defence (world's best and most powerful military by a long shot). The size of your population doesn't seem to hamper you. I am quite certain that American ingenuity and enterprise would be quite competent at providing universal health care. Many nations, of varying sizes, around the world provide it, many much larger than us so whether it's 20 million, 50 million, 100 million or 300 million, it's always possible.
Otherwise, what are you saying; that if you were ten separate nations of 30 million each it would be possible but one nation of 300 million and it's not possible? You may not want to do it, but I fail to believe that you can't do it.
March 28th, 2012 at 9:29:01 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWhere does the entitlement mentality
end.
Glad to hear that you've decided to stop accepting your social security payments...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
March 28th, 2012 at 9:33:33 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI don't know where you live but I guarantee
it has a postage stamp size population compared
to the US.
More people means both more total tax revenues collected from the population and more health care locations to support the population. You're very hung up on total population, but I really don't see why it'd matter. I guess density *might* matter for things like wait times in cities or distance-to-care in rural areas, but government run health care works in Canada (less dense than the US) and in Western Europe (more dense than the US).
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
March 28th, 2012 at 9:48:04 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusGlad to hear that you've decided to stop accepting your social security payments...
You are forgetting the socialized health care that he gets free from the government.
Sadly the majority of people against universal coverage are already on the dole for free health care.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
March 28th, 2012 at 9:53:38 PM
permalink
Unfortunately because the health insurance and health care industry is worth 10s of billions of dollars with a gigantic lobbying group you will never ever see any form of health care for america that is better than it is today, and that includes Obamacare, which was a gigantic shitty comprimise.
Add to that the fact that government spending needs to come down and it will be a long time before you'll see something akin to what's going on in the rest of the world.
Add to that the fact that government spending needs to come down and it will be a long time before you'll see something akin to what's going on in the rest of the world.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 28th, 2012 at 9:57:56 PM
permalink
Quote: mickpkIt's irrelevant. I know you guys are pretty good at providing government-run national defence
Defense deals with the sue of force. Such things are, and should be, a government monopoly. You can't have each person defend his own parcel of land against armed attackers, can you? It would be chaos if you did.
But there's no need to make use of government force in medicine.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 28th, 2012 at 10:03:31 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI don't know where you live but I guarantee
it has a postage stamp size population compared
to the US.
Population has nothing to do with it.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
