’)If only the scaredy pants Democrats in congress would let them have it.
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.
There is no impediment to health care reform other than the courage of Democratic members of congress. They have the votes and a President ready and waiting to sign the bill. Most importantly they have a public out there that wants this reform. The only wind in their faces is wind from insurance companies flapping around their millions of dollars in the breeze.
There are no reasons, no excuses for making this happen.
And it is the ONLY thing that would actually represent real reform.
I am reluctantly beginning to believe that the Dems are nearly as much corporatists as Repubs. Not at all convinced that it’s missing spine as it is the power of big bucks lobbying and wavering ethical compasses.
Hmmm, I wonder why you didn’t quote the 3rd paragraph of the story. When people are generally happy with their health care situation, it’s harder to sell them thatvthere is a massive crisis that needs an astronomically costly solution that even the backers say will only fix 1/3rd of the problem … maybe.
You didn’t read this part, SF:
And still further down
“While the survey results depict a nation desperate for change, it also reveals a deep wariness of the possible consequences. Half to two-thirds of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment.”
“But an even higher number, 87 percent, said the inability of people to have the needed tests and treatments was a serious problem.”
How surprising that only those for “reform” are given a spotlight and a soapbox while those against remain nameless, faceless, and without reason.
I’m curious what amazing health insurance our conservative friends here must have.
When I was in the states my work’s plan was a shitty HMO that constantly had weird restrictions and limited choice in doctors. I’ve had family members premiums raised to the point of effectively being cancelled after they were treated for cancer. The thing about health care is that it doesn’t operate under the same free market mechanics that make other industries efficient. Customers aren’t allowed open choice because the time that you find out that you’re insurance company sucks is the exact moment that you can’t change plans. Plus as you get older pre-existing conditions begin to add up and you’re eventually locked in to a single carrier.
those against remain nameless, faceless, and without reason.
Ms. Lincoln has come out against a public plan, and her real reason is the lovely cash that the health insurance industry donates to her campaign, as documented by Digby recently.
I for one am rather fortunate that my workplace has a pretty good health insurance plan – a PPO option which doesn’t require the bogus pre-authorizations for every little thing like the HMO I used to have some years ago at another employer.
I’m happy with it – and here’s the thing – I am 100% resolute in favor of a public option being available.
Why? Because (a) I had my own problematic experiences which I alluded to in the past, but most importantly, (b) I have numerous friends not as fortunate as I who are either unemployed with no insurance or who have jobs which offer little more than “tissue paper” insurance, good for little more than prescription antibiotics. And before our resident free-marketers start saying they should “just buy the insurance they want”, how are they supposed to do that when they barely cover their monthly expenses as it is?
We have two basic directions to travel in here.
Lowering the cost or shifting the cost to someone else.
I think it unlikely that the Feds can significantly lower the cost without severely limiting the product.
That leaves tranferring the cost. So what are your thoughts on either lowing costs or transferring costs?
I think it unlikely that the Feds can significantly lower the cost
Put up or shut up. If they do manage to make health care cheaper, like every other developed nation has managed to do, what form will your public admittance of wrong prediction take?
I think it unlikely that the Feds can significantly lower the cost without severely limiting the product.
America spends twice as much per person for health care as other industrialized countries and out health statistics aren’t as good. Why do you think we need to pay more to get even less?
Basically Quaker it is because thier track record is so poor. Why do you think they might be able to do it cheaper. Do you have some examples of govt. subsidized projects that after figuring overhead are cheaper? Have you seen many govt. projects come in at budget?
An enormous part of the expense of American health-care comes in the form of multi-million dollar yearly salaries for insurance CEO’s. These people aren’t doctors, and they simply aren’t required for people to be healthy.
Although I can see how a for-profit model works in the pharmaceutical industry with regards to innovation, there’s simply no reason anybody but a doctor or a nurse should be drawing a (healthy) salary for making people better.
Want it cheaper? Cut out the middlemen — insurance companies, HMO’s, etc. You know who hates them the most? Doctors.
Single payer is the way to go.
I love how wing-nuts try to argue government can’t do anything efficiently right after they go red in the face arguing for military intervention anywhere, any time.
Snabby: Not at all convinced that it’s missing spine as it is the power of big bucks lobbying and wavering ethical compasses.
Perhaps I’m not up on my terminology, but from where I stand, ignoring the will of one’s constituents in favor of the financial largesse of corporate lobbyists is the very definition of a missing spine.
Politically speaking, that is. Not anatomically.
The advantage of a government-run health care system is obvious to me. Corporations have an obligation to stockholders to minimize their expenses and maximize their profits. The government does not have such an obligation, because its bottom line is the welfare of the public.
This is not to say that government-run entities always do act with the welfare of the public in mind; to suggest this would be naive. I’m certainly not convinced that a public option will automatically be fantastic. What does seem undeniably clear is that it will be a significant improvement over the status quo.
Do you have some examples of govt. subsidized projects that after figuring overhead are cheaper?
Veterans’ Administration. Ever hear of it?
yep,
I know many retired military, the ones that are broke go there when they have to. The ones with money never go.
Jaim,
Speaking in percentages those big ceo salaries you bitch about are chump change. And you are forgetting the cost of the new public sector bureaucrats, those guys don’t come cheap by the time every town has administrative building and infrastructure filled top heavy with chiefs and ass deep in indians.
The insurance company (i.e, domestic terrorist) CEO salaries, while exorbitant, are indeed a small part of the problem. Far bigger is the the cost of the immense amount of manpower wasted by every single doctor’s office in the country in having full time staffers struggle with different forms for every different insurance company, having to sumbit, re-submit, contest, argue, and wheedle every charge when the insurance terrorists deny them, give them the bureaucratic shuffle, etc. while trying to avoid paying for even basic tests they claim they cover. Not to mention the millions of lost work man-hours from non-medical workers taking time out of their working hours to call their employer insurance office to also do that same submission and contesting. (I have to hear this over cubicle walls on an irregular basis everywhere I’ve worked).
We have two basic directions to travel in here.
Lowering the cost or shifting the cost to someone else.
I think it unlikely that the Feds can significantly lower the cost without severely limiting the product.
That leaves transferring the cost. So what are your thoughts on either lowing costs or transferring costs?
Probably any system that works will have some measure of both. You talk about “severely limiting the product” as if that’s something bad. One of the main factors in ballooning health costs is the overuse of medical facilities and treatments. If you haven’t read this you should – and anybody should before pretending that they have any clue about this subject:
Atul Gawande: The Cost Conundrum
For any plan to work one thing has to change – the idea that the goal of health care is to maximize profits for practicioners and insurance companies. If we don’t get that straight the costs will simply soar and soar with no end in sight.
Scratch that – there will always be an end in sight. Healthcare will stop eating more and more of our GDP on the day that it makes the entire economy crash, which at the current rate will be within the lifetime of most people on this list.
Maybe if we started calling the health care crisis an “imminent threat” and the fiscal time bomb of rising health costs a “weapon of mass destruction.” Maybe then our conservative brethren will stop winging like wet-diaper sissies about all the horrible things that might happen if we try to do something about it and join us in making it happen. We can do this! We’re Americans, goddam it, and anything the canucks and brits and frogs can do we can do – and we can do it better!
Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!
tell you what. When The Won is willing to go up against the trial lawyer PAC (the single largest donor to the democratic party, by the way) then we can start to discuss health care reform. Until they get the scum sucking, bottom feeding attorneys out of health care, there ain’t going to be ANY significant cost savings or reform.
And speaking as one, there isn’t any way you are going to get doctors to work for the government without indemnifying us against frivolous lawsuits, and the constant defensive medicine that we are forced to practice.
Doctors with go all John Galt on you…
I’ve had as much experience over the last 9 months with the healthcare system as you can possibly have. I’ve fought my insurance company and spent vast amounts of my own money.
All in all I’m surprised at how well it works and I’m surprised at how much money the hospitals and doctors eat. The nurses are the ones that seem to have it good. They make damn good wages and get paid on Friday.
I honestly can’t imagine the system working anywhere as well under government control and I think you will strangle the developement of new technology. People have no idea how big this industry is. Look around your town and look at the square footage of the offices and clinics and hospitals. Those buildings are packed with expensive technology and costly systems.
I just don’t see where the feds can offer much cost control. The bureacracy it spawns will make the office help used now look cheap. Do you really want to go through the same hassle to get something approved as you do to get a building permit? Do you really think it will cut down on seeing different doctors when you have to document your need for something by getting several different opinions to use as ammunition in an appeal process while time is of the essence?
If you don’t think they will ration healthcare you haven’t taken a close look at what has already been written in the last 6 mo. You won’t get the quality of care your parents got and you will die younger. It is easy to talk about how old people use so much medical care in the last 6 months of thier life and they do. But they use a lot in the last 6 years of thier life too. How are you going to feel when your mom gets put on a waiting list when time is of the essense?
So what we are probably really talking about is a transfer of cost vs. a lowering of cost. Right now the figures being batted around are something like 50 million uninsured out of a population of 300 million. The 50 mill is probably pumped up for propaganda reasons cause that’s how this stuff works. But let’s use that bogus number. That comes out to 16%. Are we going to ruin a good thing for the sake of 16%. It would be cheaper to just give them the money rather than fuck up what we have. So if we give them the money maybe we should take away some of the other free stuff we give these same people who can’t pay for thier own insurance.
I truly beleive everyone should pay some taxes so they have a stake in what the govt. spends. If you vote you should have skin in the game.
+Here is a lenghty cut and paste from a guy who is probably smarter than 90% of the people posting here, James Lindgren. If you are sincere about caring what these new ideas about healthcare really mean, read the whole thing.
“In President Obama’s speech to the AMA, he made firm promises that I don’t think he can keep if his plan were to be enacted:
So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. . . .
If you don’t like your health coverage or don’t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we’re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. . . .
If this goes through, many employers will do little different than they are today. But if the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies — raising their employees’ share of contributions to the company plan — in order to drive some of the employees into the government exchange and the public option. Other employers may drop their plans altogether — after all, workers could buy their own coverage in the government exchange — or simply fund part of their workers’ participation in the exchange.
These changes, which would be the direct results of the implementation of the Obama plan, would make it virtually impossible for Obama to keep these promises: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
Less than 24 hours after Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner questioned the veracity of President Obama’s persistent claim that, under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it”, the White House has begun to walk the President’s claim back. Turns out he didn’t really mean it.
According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” How’s that for change you can believe in?
Depending on how the public plan is designed in Congress, millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage. By opening the public plan to all employees and using Medicare rates, the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, has said that the public plan could result in 119.1 million Americans being transitioned out of private coverage, including employer based coverage, into a public plan. With employers making the key decision, millions of Americans could lose their private coverage, regardless of their personal preferences in this matter.
In other words, if you believed something closer to the opposite of what Obama promised, that would be closer to the truth. When Obama said he “will keep this promise”:
If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.
he actually meant:
If you like your doctor, many of you will NOT be able to keep your doctor. Period.
And when Obama said he “will keep this promise”:
If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.
Obama really meant:
If you like your health care plan, many – perhaps most – of you will NOT be able to keep your health care plan. Period. Someone – perhaps your employer – may take it away. It all depends on how things work out.
What about the million of Americans who don’t have a doctor because they don’t have health insurance?
Way to miss the point yet again, AO.
The problem isn’t just CEO pay, it’s that we have an entire mega-industry (insurance and HMO’s) that has nothing to do with treating patients, not directly at least.
They need to be cut off from the trough. Medical decisions should be made between a doctor and a patient, and to hell with the bureaucrats who know nothing about medicine.
You keep saying it’d be worse to have government-run healthcare (that’s not what Obama wants, but let’s let it go for now) due to the infrastructure, but we already have a maddening, complicated, and deeply flawed bureaucracy in place, one that doesn’t make decisions based on what’s best for your health but on what’s best for your insurance company’s bottom line.
IMO, a person who spends seven years getting an advanced degree deserves to be wealthy (as long as they’re good at what they do). A person with an MBA who’s trying to fuck patients over and not allow them access to health-care simply has no place in the equation. Get them the hell out of the loop, because they don’t belong there.
This doesn’t solve all the problems, but it’s a great start. Medicine is about doctors and their patients, not about creating a new class of middle-men who fatten themselves off of the life and death issues Americans sometimes have to face.
And while I’m running at the mouth here, the argument that we’ll not be able to keep our favorite doctor is really stupid. Because is you’ve switched jobs in the past ten years you’d know that frequently HMO’s won’t work with certain doctors, even very good ones, for their own reasons. If anything, it’s the current system that keeps patients from being cared for by their favorite physician.
Felix Helix: I agree with the bulk of what you say. Regarding spinelessness, I guess I don’t see that our “representatives” want to do the right thing but the flash of money in their eyes prevents them. Rather, I see a situation in which they have accepted that their true constituency is not the voters, but the people who provide them the most cash for their coffers. It’s disgusting and corrupt, absolutely, and that’s my point. Maybe they are afraid of the lobbyists or of losing their money, but I am not convinced that many of them really want to do what’s best for the public.
Ah yes, right on cue AO rolls out the “rationed healthcare” fearmongering. So exactly what do you think they insurance companies are doing now? Or do you just not see it (in which case, you need to extract your cranium from your nether regions)
Conservatives are all for marketplace decisions as long as it doesn’t involve competition.
Here’s my suggestion, conservatives. We establish a government option, which you say will be so bad that private carriers will be much more attractive, and then we let the marketplace decide.
Problem solved!
You act as if the government can reduce costs in health care.
If so, why haven’t they done it in anything else? Or even in the health care the government currently runs?
In nations where government has reduced health care costs, access has become an issue. Government is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. It cannot allocate resources efficiently. It can’t price resources.
Now maybe this stuff is all necessary. It’s clear that we need to improve access to health care for those who don’t have it. But let’s be honest about the tradeoffs, shall we? This vision of cheap, abundant health care you guys are pushing on us is a lie. Be honest about the tradeoffs and pass the best bill you can.
AO: “I think it unlikely that the Feds can significantly lower the cost without severely limiting the product.”
And you are a fucking retard, so what you think doesn’t matter.
In Canada, we pay about 17% of our health care budget to overhead.
In the United States, you pay about 33% of your health care budget to overhead.
Switch to a Canadian system, and you will save about 12%.
Adam Herman: “You act as if the government can reduce costs in health care.”
It can.
“If so, why haven’t they done it in anything else?”
They have. Check out the rates ICBC offers compared to privately run health care costs. Or for that matter, check out the costs Xe charges compared to what the US military pays for the same services.
“Or even in the health care the government currently runs?”
Medicare and Medicaid have lower overhead than private health insurance companies.
“But let’s be honest about the tradeoffs, shall we?”
Yes. Let’s be honest. Let’s not repeat right-wing lies as if they were the truth.
AO: “I honestly can’t imagine the system working anywhere as well under government control …”
You can’t imagine much of anything, because you are a fucking retard.
Seriously, every problem you claim socialized medicine will cause is happening right now under your system. Only instead of ‘government bureaucrats’ making decisions for you, limiting access to health care, etc., it is corporate bureaucrats whose only job is to maximize profits.
At least with the phantom ‘government bureaucrats’ you are scared of, their primary goal is to maximize health outcomes, even if it means certain people will have to do without to help those who need it more.
By the way, do you know why it is so easy to get an NMRI or a CAT Scan in the United States? Because the profit margin is so high. Medically speaking, getting one or the other is fine, and getting both is a waste of resources, but if you can get someone to pay for both, wonderful.
The American health care system is designed to maximize the number of people who will pay for both, while ignoring all those who can’t afford either.
“Here is a lenghty cut and paste from a guy who is probably smarter than 90% of the people posting here, James Lindgren.”
If he’s smarter than 90% of us, then he’s a liar, because what he is saying is wrong.
You just need to look at Canada’s health care system to know that.
Sure, you can find a few horror stories up here, but we can find a shitload more down south of the 49th.
Case in point, roughly half of all bankruptcies in the United States involve people who have health insurance, but who are still being driven into bankruptcy by health care costs.
And you are a fucking retard, so what you think doesn’t matter.
You can’t imagine much of anything, because you are a fucking retard. – C.S. Strowbridge
Amazing how a professed liberal who fashions himself as sympathetic to all human concerns can use the the highly demeaning and insensitive pejorative “fucking retard” as frequently as he does.
Especially one relishes playing the role of the PC policeman.
What’s puzzling, though, is that none of his compatriots on the liberal side find it the least bit offensive when he does.
Let’s see, Strowbridge, do you want the “fucking retards” to get health care, too? Or, as you’ve also often expressed on here, do you want the people you so fondly call “fucking retards” to simply die.
Or maybe that’s a moot point, since you feel the stupid ones, the ‘fucking retarded’ among us, will be dying off soon off soon enough.
first i am amazed that neo liberals are so intolernt by resorting to name calling{not}.
Really the only issue is how to democrats ram a single payer system down our throats without fixing the problems or
maintaining the benefits.
We have prime examples of huge government programs{SS and medicare) and how soon the will be broke.There is no talk of revamping the rgulatory system and as businessman let the government pay,take care of medical they have retirement and disabilty programs in place.
By the way do other systems in the world are as quick with service or have a litigation system that holds someone accountable.
“severly limiting the product” and aprice tag that possible only reflects less than 50% of the true cost should be the biggest concern cuz we have a massive credit card bill(stmulas) to pay for.
I agree something has to be done but to say government is better at running a business is wrong.We will lose services,it will take longer to get,it will be less efficient,those in dire need will get “equel” access as compared to a hangnail.That is the new social mentallity.Ihave been a GM buyer for 35 years switching to anyone but them (government motors)
“go to the emergency room”-Blue Dogs
On behalf of lurkers here: this is one of the best discussions I’ve seen on ow.com. If ONLY Congress’s debate, when it hits the floor, could be this adult! But alas, we’re going to hear more cries of “socialism” and “government takeover” and “kiss your own physician goodbye” even for the weak tea the administration is going to serve up for reform.
I’m afraid Bill Maher has it right: by older perspectives, Obama is a (corporatist) Republican and the Republicans are Far-right wingnuts. This means that for real healthcare to reach those without it, we’ll need about 50 years of gradualism. Or a series wrenching trial-and-error adjustments over the same period. Or a badly designed system that, once installed, resists all attempts at change. Like attempts to reform the electoral college and campaign finance. Both of which closely relate to the bought-and-paid-for congress we’ve got right now.
It would help if Obama realizes that the opposition aren’t ready to reason like adults and should be treated accordingly, and works with committed Democrats to ram through at least the compromised plan he envisions.
Obama is opposed to a ceiling on medical lawsuits, but there may be another solution. What any reform should include is some kind of government plan to share costs of malpractice insurance or the burden of court costs. It would be easier with a single-payer system, but we’re a long, long way from that possibility…
Until they get the scum sucking, bottom feeding attorneys out of health care, there ain’t going to be ANY significant cost savings or reform.
Nice try, doctor. In fact malpractice payouts are a miniscule percentage of healthcare costs, and…
rises in malpractice insurance premiums are not due to lawsuit awards. Instead, they are due to the insurance companies grazing where the grazing’s good – in the fat wallets of the medical profession.
Texas enacted tort reform, and while it has made many doctors happier (particularly the bad ones, I imagine), it has done nothing to check spiraling health care costs.
Whatever system is enacted will be an adjustment, and that will mean some difficulties for some people. Of course it would have been better if we’d started adjusting 17 years ago when we had the chance, but our conservative friends just wouldn’t have that. Imagine how much better off we’d be now if we’d been able to get some cost-control measures started back then!
Don’t let them get away with the same lies!
We are 37th in quality of health care in the world. You guys okay with that?
We can do better.
Sorry Wilbur, but you don’t get it.
The bill I get for malpractice is only the smallest piece of the pie. What is really costing money is defensive medicine. CSS goes on one of his rants and explains that you don’t need an MRI and a CT scan (which, par for the CSS course, is completely wrong) suggesting that we get them for profit. In point of fact, the people ordering those tests don’t make a dime from them. However way too many are ordered in order to CYA the doctor.
I find myself in agreement with much of what Jaim says. However his ideas are pie in the sky. The only way a decision will be between a doctor and his patient is if the patient is paying cash. Any form of insurance, single payer or otherwise will demand that there are cost controls. And like all government programs, there will be enormous amounts of oversight to prevent the minority from gaming the system.
Of course have dodged the real issue which is lawyers feeding at the trough. Lawyers who are part owners of the democrat party via their enormous donations via their PACs.
I have yet to hear one of the liberals here explain exactly what the magical “cost control” measures are that will fix the system either. I won’t argue that the insurance companies aren’t the spawn of the devil, they are. But when has anyone seen a government program that isn’t littered with useless paperwork and red tape.
Dennis the Bigot: “Amazing how a professed liberal who fashions himself as sympathetic to all human concerns can use the the highly demeaning and insensitive pejorative “fucking retard” as frequently as he does.
Especially one relishes playing the role of the PC policeman.
What’s puzzling, though, is that none of his compatriots on the liberal side find it the least bit offensive when he does.”
Amazing how racist assholes like Dennis the Bigot get all in a tizzy when someone uses language they consider ‘un-PC’.
Sort of like when you spazzed out when I mentioned AO’s health, yet AO, J.G.Thayer, and you mention my health repeatedly.
I guess when you have nothing backing up your arguments, you have to resort to hypocrisy.
Now discuss my points, or shut the fuck up.
Your ‘Style over Substance’ fallacy won’t work with me.
OK, let’s try to take this step by step…again.
What do you think of Walmart, u.s.? You know the mega-corporation that seems to be the darling of conservatives? Always with the low prices, right? How does Walmart get those low prices?
It gets them because for many of the manufacturers whose products Walmart retails, Walmart accounts for upwards of 60% or more of all their sales. Consequently, Walmart can go to the makers of the Tupperware bowls or DVD players or ShamWows or whatever and demand a per-unit price they deem reasonable. If the manufacturer doesn’t want to supply the ShamWow at price X, Walmart replies: if you don’t give us price X, we won’t stock your item. You will therefore lose 60-70% of all your retail sales, and you will be out of business tomorrow.
Walmart gets price X.
Conservatives love this model for Shamwow and DVD players but hate hate hate it when applied to things like, say, PHARMACEUTICALS. Drug companies, medical testing labs, etc. can get away with charging the individual consumer with whatever they want because they have the consumer over a barrel: pay our exorbitant fee or you don’t get the drug or medical test you need, and you die.
With a single payer (the publicly run plan), the government plays the role of Walmart and gets to negotiate saying “We have umpty-million people who get drug Y or test Z through us, and we need you to supply it at this price”. You can be damn sure the price will be rather lower in that case!
Here endeth the lesson. Again.
As to the “useless paperwork and red tape”, there probably will be, but assuming the amount of “useless paperwork and red tape” is no different per capita than the amount currently used by your typical insurer, we will still see an N-fold reduction in paperwork because staffers will only have to deal with ONE set of red tape! As I said before, there is tremendous cost associated with having to haggle with different forms, different procedures, different requirements for all the different corporate insurers out there. With one centralized system, at least the forms and procedures would be common and centralized. This alone will cut the amount of hassle by the number of insurers replaced by the centralized system!
usualsuspect: “CSS goes on one of his rants and explains that you don’t need an MRI and a CT scan (which, par for the CSS course, is completely wrong)…”
And you can back this up? You can show stats that show getting both an NMRI and a CT scan will improve the OUTCOME OF HEALTHCARE. No you can’t. I’ve seen the stats, and I can tell you that’s not the case. In fact, you yourself seem to imply both scans are ordered not to increase positive outcomes, but for other reasons. (Covering your ass in case of lawsuits.)
Also, I never said the doctors who order them are the ones making money (although I’m sure some are). The private clinics that run them are making a huge amount of money. That’s why there are so many of them, and why the waits to get into them are so long.
This is not a good thing, as it is incredibly inefficient.
“I have yet to hear one of the liberals here explain exactly what the magical “cost control” measures are that will fix the system either.”
Three major sources of cost savings…
1.) Advertising. You no longer have to advertise, because there is no competition. You no longer try and convince someone to choose between Insurance Company A and Insurance Company A. (I’ve heard that one in four dollars spend trying to recruit people into the US military is used by the various forces to convince someone who has already decided to join the military to join the Army vs. the Navy vs. the Air Force etc. This is a waste of money.) The government will still advertise, but mainly to explain how the system works, which can be done with low cost methods like direct mail, which is one government agency paying another.
2.) Overhead. Private insurance is for profit, so the best way for them to make money is to collect premiums, but not pay out. Private insurance companies hire people to investigate claimants to see if there is a reason to deny claims and cancel policies of people who are no longer profitable. In fact, there are entire levels of bureaucracy set up to deal with this. Turn this over the government, and this level of bureaucracy is eliminated. This bureaucracy is part of the reason why overhead sucks up one in three dollars spent on health care in the United States, but only one in six in Canada.
3.) Profit. If you don’t need to earn a profit, you don’t need to charge as much.
There’s also another source of savings, but this will be harder to implement.
4.) Preventative health care. You don’t make a huge amount of money advertising to get people to eat less and exercise more. However, you will save a lot of money on health care costs if you do so. There’s no profit incentive for private corporations to spend millions on such programs, but if the government took over health insurance, there certainly would be incentive for them to do so.
This also good for the country as a whole, as healthy people will not suck up as much resources either now or later in life. (Healthy people tend to die suddenly, while unhealthy people tend to die younger, but suck up health care dollars for a longer period of time before they go.)
Also, if government takes over health care, there will be incentives to drop subsidies on crops like sugar and corn. (Most of the corn goes to make high-fructose corn syrup, which is practically as close to a toxin as a food product can get. Only artificial transfats are worse, as far as I know.) Some of this will be savings, others will be transferred to subsidies on healthier crops, like heritage crops. Or hell, paying people to turn part of their lawn into hobby gardens.
How’s that sound? Is that detailed enough description of “cost control” for you?
If not, ask a reasonable question, and you will get a reasonable answer.
anotherbozo: “I’m afraid Bill Maher has it right…”
Bill Maher is right about a lot of things. Not everything, but if he was one of the presidents chief advisers, the country would be in a much better shape.
Then again, as long as the president’s chief advisers are not corporate whores, the same would be true.
Sort of like when you spazzed out when I mentioned AO’s health, yet AO, J.G.Thayer, and you mention my health repeatedly. CSS
I never mentioned your health and don’t know what your health is like, other than your mental health. I ’spazzed out’ because you wished the guy dead, Strowbridge, and you do that often with other people too.
It’s hardly ‘Style vs. Substance’ either, but people tend not to read whatever substance you claim was in your counterpoint when your style is to start out by calling someone a “fucking retard”. It’s just human nature.
The bill I get for malpractice is only the smallest piece of the pie. What is really costing money is defensive medicine. CSS goes on one of his rants and explains that you don’t need an MRI and a CT scan (which, par for the CSS course, is completely wrong) suggesting that we get them for profit. In point of fact, the people ordering those tests don’t make a dime from them. However way too many are ordered in order to CYA the doctor.
I’m sure that’s true in some cases, and maybe in yours, doctor, but it doesn’t come close to explaining the bulk of the superfluous “defensive medicine” that pumps up health care. See the article I referenced above by Dr. Gawande and you’ll see that one of the worst cases is in McAllen, TX, where you have tort controls in place. The excesses result not from “defensive medicine”, but a culture of health care that puts profits above patients.
I have yet to hear one of the liberals here explain exactly what the magical “cost control” measures are that will fix the system either.
I have yet to hear one of the conservatives here or anywhere explain why other developed countries can spend half what we do on health care and get -as study after study shows- equal if not better health care results.
Reinhard, can you really not see the difference between Walmart and the Federal Government demanding concessions? Walmart can’t retalliate by
… raising income taxes
… passing onerous rules/restrictions as to make business unbearable/impossible
… make your life hell through constant visits by OSHA, DOJ, DOI, FDA, Health Inspectors, etc.
… throwing your ass in jail
There’s plenty of recourse if you don’t like what Walmart offers. The only recourse if you don’t like what the Feds are doing is to move your operation to the Caymans. And if Obama has his way, that too will be illegal soon enough.
Corporate-Medical-Industry expenses:
Marketing & Advertising Costs.
Lobbying costs.
Paying ‘economic hit men’ to rescind the coverage you paid for costs.
Marketing and advertising costs directly take money out of corporate-medical-industry are HUGE.
Every time you watch a commercial advertising for a corporate-medical industry or advertising for a corporate-insurance company, someone went with a little less coverage or had to pay a little more for their healthcare to pay for that commercial.
Lobbying costs include both direct payments to politicians, direct payments to lobbyists to lobby the politician, and marketing and advertising payments (such as the infamous “Harry and Louise” anti-healthcare commercials in the 1990’s).
RESCISSION is when some corporate bureaucrat looks at your healthcare expenses and figures out a way to cut you out of the healthcare insurance you’ve been faithfully paying.
Corporate-medical-insurance companies actually pay bonuses to employees who can take away the most healthcare from their ‘customers’.
It costs money to pay employees to pour over your healthcare records and take away the coverage you faithfully paid for. But the corporate-medical-industry profits more if they can keep from giving you the health care you paid for.
Government health care plans would not need to pay for marketing, advertising, lobbying, or economic hit men
Also, it’s not just corporate-medical-industry CEO’s that are ripping off consumer with obscene pay packages, it’s an entire industry of non-healthcare looters that are ripping off the system.
The ENTIRE corporate-medical-insurance-industry provide NO medical advice other than: ‘We will not pay for that’ or ‘we will pay for that (if you immediately return this form in triplicate before the week is out or else we won’t).
That’s not just the CEO, but all of the salespeople, all of the managers (lower, middle, and upper management), as well as the army of “rescinders” whose job it is to not pay your coverage.
And of course the corporate-medical-insurance-industries have an entire legal department that backs up the “rescinders” and that loots HUGE bucks out of the systme.
I’ll take a government bureaucracy where I can talk to my elected Representative or Senator (or work to get them unelected) over the faceless bureaucracy of a corporate-looting-medical-industry any day.
We are 37th in quality of health care in the world. You guys okay with that?
We’re thirty seventh!
We’re thirty seventh!
We’re thirty seventh!
We’re thirty seventh!
We’re thirty seventh!
We’re thirty seventh!
Yay us!
Reinhard, can you really not see the difference between Walmart and the Federal Government demanding concessions? Walmart can’t retalliate by
… raising income taxes SaveFarris
I thought the same thing when he inexplicably used Walmart as an example when my first thought was who had the access to cheap financing and the bigger risk of going broke. That and the fact that Walmart is now applying that same model he described to their $4 Prescriptions Program.
We’re thirty seventh!
Yay us!
Just behind – BEHIND – Morocco.
AO, re: VA–
I know many retired military, the ones that are broke go there when they have to. The ones with money never go.
But wait. I thought having a “public option” would force all the private choices out of the market. Now you’re insisting the opposite?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,3508020,full.story
I would want every cent of my money back. Plus every cent of my employer’s money back to him.
Dennis the Bigot: “I never mentioned your health and don’t know what your health is like, other than your mental health.”
You mentioned how being stressed out is bad for my health, so you are a fucking liar here.
“I ’spazzed out’ because you wished the guy dead, Strowbridge,”
Never happened, you illiterate little shit.
“It’s hardly ‘Style vs. Substance’ either…”
Do you even know what those words mean? You’ve shown you are stupid, so your opinions are complicate matters such as words you find in the dictionary is rather useless.
“…but people tend not to read whatever substance you claim was in your counterpoint when your style is to start out by calling someone a “fucking retard”. It’s just human nature.”
So you claim it wasn’t a “Style vs. Substance” fallacy, and then justify your “Style vs. Substance” fallacy.
Simply amazing.
Now, care to get back to the points I raised? Or would you rather lie about what I said?
I can win either debate, so I’m flexible on the matter.
SaveFarris: “Reinhard, can you really not see the difference between Walmart and the Federal Government demanding concessions? Walmart can’t retalliate by
… raising income taxes
… passing onerous rules/restrictions as to make business unbearable/impossible
… make your life hell through constant visits by OSHA, DOJ, DOI, FDA, Health Inspectors, etc.
… throwing your ass in jail”
And you have proof that this is happening?
The government can do this now with any business they want. So are they?
Or are you just another conservative freaking out over what might happen, while ignoring the horrors that are happening?
Roughly half of all bankruptcies in the United States are brought on by people with health insurance who can’t pay their bills.
Something needs to be done.
Quaker,
That’s pretty much a false equivilence you’ve set up. The VA is free in the sense your premiums are already paid. Only the desperate will use it because anyone with better options will gladly pay good money to stay away from the VA. You need a better example than the VA for your arguement to hold water.
CS,
We question your mental health because of the irrational tirades that are your trademark. Your recent confession that you can rant and rave without any overt signs of anger goes a long way towards diagnosing your mental disorder.
Durablend,
Instead of blaming me for rolling out the rationing fear card I suggest you actually read what the Obama team has committed to paper on this subject.
You ‘win’ no debates here, Strowbridge.
Anyone can do what you do and just keep typing.
Shorter Farris: we shouldn’t do X because of a bunch of imaginary bad stuff I just made up would be bad.
Well two can play this game. If we don’t go to single payer, insurance companies could collude and price fix even more than they already do and add “buy insurance CEO a Ferrari” a mandatory copay on all premiums!!
NOT FOR THE MANUFACTURER. (Tell this to Rubbermaid…)
I’m pretty sure this was obvious to everyone who read what I wrote honestly, but it’s pretty obvious that that isn’t Farris objective in this discussion.
the US has a higher infant mortality rate than 44 other countries this year!
We’re number 45!
The US has a shorter life expectancy than 49 other countries this year!
We’re number 50!
(And thanks, “Duros”, for that citation on the corporate-medical-industries practice of rescission: taking away healthcare to people who paid for it.)
What is really costing money is defensive medicine.
It’s not costing you, Pedro, what do you care?
The only recourse if you don’t like what the Feds are doing is to move your operation to the Caymans. And if Obama has his way, that too will be illegal soon enough.
What a frikkin’ patriot you are.
Roughly half of all bankruptcies in the United States are brought on by people with health insurance who can’t pay their bills.
63%, last I heard.
Right wing “Amused ‘Lying’ Observer”: “Only the desperate will use it [the VA] because anyone with better options will gladly pay good money to stay away from the VA.”
Nonsense. The VA (medical healthcare for veterans provided by the government) has had it’s problems but it improved dramatically under the better management provided by Democratic President Clinton.
It’s true that Republicans abandoned Veterans and underfunded Veteran medical services, but that doesn’t reflect badly on the VA, it reflects badly on Republican’s betrayal of Veterans.
Many Veterans choose the VA FIRST because their corporate-medical-insurance is a worse and more expensive option.
Only the desperate will use it because anyone with better options will gladly pay good money to stay away from the VA.
So a public option doesn’t force out private insurers. We agree on that.
And I assume you can provide us with better evidence than “a guy I know” can’t you?
“Quaker in a Basement” asks right winger “Amused Observer”: “And I assume you can provide us with better evidence than “a guy I know” can’t you?”
Of course he can, he can list the three guys he makes up.
“Medical bills tied to 60 percent of bankruptcies: Most families had health insurance, but still overwhelmed by health debt.”
There is a much cheaper, more effective alternative:
1) Find people who are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare and sign them up — in their homes, if necessary.
2) Ease up on the eligibility requirements, and the documentation required to prove eligibility. Eliminate the “resource” aspect of eligibility, so you can own a home and a car, and still get Medicaid or Medicare.
3) Once someone in a household is eligible, sign up every child and senior citizen in the household automatically.
4) Reduce the Medicaid spend down, and the cost of Medicare B, for people with chronic illnesses
5) Eliminate co-payments on prescribed generic medicine
6) Require a FREE physical examination after Certification and re – Certification
7) Require every child 11 years of age to have a Physical Examination to be provided FREE if the family cannot afford it
This would get health care for millions, and it is unlikely to cost more than a few billion dollars – a far cry from more than $1 trillion.
“78 Percent Of Bankruptcy Filers Burdened By Healthcare Expenses Had Health Insurance.”
Right wing extremist “Frank DiSalle” cites the $100 billion a year healthcare estimate and than multiples it by 10, which would take it into the year 2019.
Glad to see you’re on board, Frankie.
Quaker,
There is a big difference between the benefit for veterans of healthcare often for combat related injuries and what we are talking about. As you well know. Your choice of the VA as an example of govt. run healthcare was a poor one since it is notorious for the service it provides. You are a clever chap at dodging bullets and moving goal posts but your efforts will go farther with a better choice to defend.
Your example of the VA as a plan that won’t force out private coverage is not a serious attempt to deal with the problem. It does suggest some of the problems that govt. healthcare may cause.
Amused Observer : VA Health Care is fine because it is targeted, and the population it serves is well – represented . It is only “notoriously poor” in the eyes of those who believe that “more money leads to improvement”
A better example would be the Walk In Clinic near my home with a 90 – 95 % Medicaid /Medicare population.
Left wing fabricator “News” “Observer” apparently thinks a few billion dollars times ten is the same as $100 billion times ten …
Duros: You can’t go wrong supplying people with healthcare who can’t avoid it – between work losses, caretakers dying young, and controlling contagious diseases, there is a ton of money being spent because illnesses go untreated.
No one is opposed to health care — the issue is how to either maintain it at less cost or improve it for the same cost.
supplying people with healthcare who can’t afford it -
Right wing liar “Amused Observer”: “[The VA] is notorious for the service it provides.”
Nonsense. That’s the myth pushed by right wingers.
The VA has it’s problems but improved dramatically under Democratic management.
REPUBLICANS NEGLECT THE VA JUST AS REPUBLICANS NEGLECT VETERANS.
See the US military hospital Walter Reed, Republicans politicians running the government turned their back on American Veterans and then blame the government.
Republican’s betrayal of American troops is offensive and contemptible.
Frank,
I base my opinion of the VA on the experience of the retired military I know. Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy, dating in service from the Korean War through Nam.
Only those in the direst financial straits use the VA.
I can’t really speak intelligently to your point about a targeted population, but for quality of service and customer satisfaction the VA is not competeing well in the eyes of the users and potential users it is set up to serve.
Right wing liar “Amused Observer”: “I can’t really speak intelligently….”
Agreed, especially if you make stuff up.
You are claiming that people that don’t use the VA say they don’t like the VA. Based on what? Some right wing falsehoods? If they don’t use it they can’t judge it. And if they are in “direst financial straits” isn’t free care better than no care?
Republican’s betrayal of America’s military veterans underfunded the VA. Many of the problems of the VA were the result of Republican President’s Reagan and Bush 1’s betrayal of American Vets.
Despite Republican’s obstruction and indifference, most of the problems of the VA were addressed, fixed, and improved under Democratic leadership.
Under Democratic leadership, the Veteran’s Administration government run healthcare became superior to private healthcare plans. That’s just the facts.
And then Republican President Bush got into office and Republican’s turned their backs on Veterans again. But to Republicans, giving TRILLIONS to their crony friends was more important than investing in America and America’s veterans.
There is a big difference between the benefit for veterans of healthcare often for combat related injuries and what we are talking about.
Well straighten me out then. What is the “big difference”? Instead of meandering off to complain about goalpost moving and bullet dodging, stick to the point and tell us.
On one hand, you insist that providing a public health insurance option for those who can’t afford private health insurance will drive private insurers out of business. At the very same time, you describe a public option with a very long history as the care provider of last resort.
Go ahead and square that up, willya?
A O : A “targeted population” means that each person who enters is screened for eligibility, and receives only such care as they are entitled to. Their Emergency Services are minimal.
Most veterans who receive any extended care end up represented by savvy Service Officers from the DAV , the Legion, or the Red Cross, and other organizations.
Take it from someone who has been going to VA hospitals, clinics and Medical Centers since 1970 – for their size, they do a great job.
As for the chronically incorrect “News” “Reference”, no political party mistreats Veterans.
The myth that Republicans start wars and mistreat veterans is of a piece with the oft told lie that anti – abortion advocates don’t care about children after they are born. Who do you think runs homes for unwed mothers? Planned Parenthood?
Who do you think organized Operation Birthright? NARAL?
If anyone doesn’t care about children after they born , OR young girls after they have abortions, it is those two hell – spawned organizations.
Republican’s betrayal of American troops is offensive and contemptible.
And easily forgotten, apparently.
you insist that providing a public health insurance option for those who can’t afford private health insurance will drive private insurers out of business.
God, I fucking hope so. We need to break the back of the insurance-big pharma racketeering syndicate.
Take it from someone who has been going to VA hospitals, clinics and Medical Centers since 1970
Frakkin’ Socialist.
Funny, Duros — try 40% Service – connected Disabled Veteran .
And the war you were in ?
I respect your service, “Frank DiSalle”.
For that, thank you.
2006 July 17 BusinessWeek article:
“The Best Medical Care In The U.S.: How Veterans Affairs transformed itself — and what it means for the rest of us.”
I should amend my earlier statement: There are objective measures to healthcare.
The VA rates very highly on both objective measures (outcomes) as well as subjective measures (user satisfaction).
The whole article is worth a read. I haven’t read it since the article came out in the print publication, I had to dig through old papers to find and was delighted to see it online.
The article refutes, with evidence, many of the false assertions made about the VA (while conceding that it has been awful in the past).
The article points out that the VA is superior to most private healthcare corps on multiple dimensions (my print publication includes a couple of handy graphs).
The VA (or VHA: Veterans Health Administration) is superior in quality of care, patient satisfaction, technology use, and cost efficiency.
Frank,
I will defer to your experience in this matter. As I said before the VA is not held in high regard by the people I know eligble to participate. The VA has received some bad press lately, a year or so back on general conditions and just recently regarding shoddy treatment. Do you think the problems highlighted in The Atlantic are isolated incidents, perhaps being publicised for purposes of propaganda?
I did not the Atlantic article.. I do know that the VAMC in Kingsbridge (the Bronx) had a terrible reputation. When I first went there , I expected a cross between the Snake Pit and Chancellorsville .
It was neither .
In the last thirty years , I have seen the hospital grow bigger and bigger, and become more and more modern, as time went on.
The worst complaint I have heard about VA medical centers and hospitals is a bumbling bureaucracy — the natural outcome of hiring people “for life” who can never be fired, or demoted.
Which reminds me , during this time of crisis, when we blithely question the performance of Doctors, Hospitals and “Big Pharma”, when do we get to question the performance of “Big Gov”?
I just saw that Pres Obama wants to “cut” Medicaid / Medicare by $313 billion dollars. My question is : Will anyone be fired, laid off, forced into early retirement, downgraded, or even transferred?
I doubt it.
“News” “Observer” : Nice of you to ‘respect my service’, but I wasn’t a bellhop. I’d rather hear , “Welcome home!”
“There are no reasons, no excuses for making this happen.”
I can think of 14 TRILLION reasons that this shouldn’t happen –
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/calculating-the-total-bailout-costs/
We don’t have the friggin’ money!
That would mean something if all nations followed the same guidelines for recording infant mortality.
LOL,
So what’s your point SFC B, That there are lies, damn lies, and statistics?
No, actually it means I forgot to close a tag.
We do have the best 5 year cancer survival rates in the world.
We do have the best 5 year cancer survival rates in the world.
Only if we don’t count those who can’t afford treatment. If we count them the survival rate plummets.
Right winger “SFC B” disingenuously suggests that it is because the US has a higher population than many of the countries that it gets beat on health scores.
If that’s true than why does the EU (the European Union) which has 491,582,852 million have a higher life expectancy rate than US?
We only have 307 million, the EU has 491 million.
The US comes in at 50, the EU, at rank 41, beats US.
The EU also has lower infant mortality rates than US.
Right wingers throwing old people to the wolves is bad enough, but right wingers throwing infants to the wolves is reprehensible.
Why do right wingers hate American infants and American grandparents?
On the theoretical tip:
And yet, Congress is competent enough to tell us who we can and cannot marry. Got it.
Frank, you know nobody will force you into the public insurance option? Or are you still buying that tripe from the insurance company-owned ‘Lewin Group?’
Ahem… what I meant was, insurance company-owned Lewin Group.
No one is going to force me into anything … I am already receiving government paid health care… I recently had to get approval to go to a dentist with a toothache …
Also, recently, my “Health Care Provided” decided I was no longer covered one year to the date after my re-certification date , even thought it was 7 months before my medical coverage was activated. Last year, I was told I might have to wait a month for rabies shots, because they can only change my Doctor on the first of the month.
I look forward to the day when everyone in America is covered with usual government efficiency – imagine going to the DMV or the Post Office, while bleeding from the carotid artery …
I suggested no such thing. I suggested that comparing the US to a British refueling station in the middle of the Atlantic or to three small French-held islands in the the South Pacific, or to a nation of 30,000 people in the middle of Italy is like comparing apples to telephones. The point I am trying to make is that we’re looking at the right hand side of the life expectancy bell curve. The difference in life expectancy between the US at number 50, and Canada at 8 is a little over 3 years, or about 4%. Is a couple hundred billion dollar program going to actually close that 4% gap? Is it worth a couple hundred billion dollars to close that gap? Is it worth a couple hundred billion dollars of money we don’t have to close that gap? Is it worth a couple hundred billion dollars we don’t have to close a gap that is far more likely to be attributable to lifestyle choices than to health care or access to health care?
Because the US has far more traffic fatalities than the EU does since the US has a far higher rate of car ownership and use.
The infant mortality rate in the US is 6.26/1000 children. The EU is 5.72/1000. Of course, to die a child must be born. So what is the flip side to this? Birth rate! The EU’s birth rate is 9.9 births per 1000 people. The US’s birth rate is 13.82 per 1000 people. Stands to reason that having more children will increase the chances that more children die during child birth.
Oh, and since more than children die, the US actually has a lower death rate than the EU. Go figure.
“All of that universal access to healthcare for all citizens has resulted in a population which can expect to live a whopping six months longer than Americans.”
I think you’ll care when it comes to your six months.
“The infant mortality rate in the US is 6.26/1000 children. The EU is 5.72/1000. Of course, to die a child must be born. So what is the flip side to this? Birth rate! The EU’s birth rate is 9.9 births per 1000 people. The US’s birth rate is 13.82 per 1000 people. Stands to reason that having more children will increase the chances that more children die during child birth.”
No. No it doesn’t stand to reason this would happen. Not on a per capita basis. Or do you not know what these numbers means?
Oh dear god! You don’t know what that means. You think the per 1000 infant mortality refers to the same 1000 in the birth rate.
Fucking hell. You guys really are retarded.
I’ll give you a hint…
A.) The 1000 in the per 1000 infant mortality refers to 1000 children who were born.
B.) The 1000 in the per 1000 birth rate refers to the population at large.
If they referred to the same 1000, then in the United States, then 6.26 out of every 13.82 children would not live past their first birthday. Not even you are dumb enough to believe that.
“Oh, and since more than children die, the US actually has a lower death rate than the EU. Go figure.”
Average age is higher in Europe. More people are dying, because they have a larger percentage of people who are in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and up.
Go figure.
I would love to know what is going through your diseased mind when you argue against something that will save money, save lives, and build a stronger nation. (A healthy population is a production population. Productivity is the key to economic strength for a developed nation such as the United States.)
What is it?
I’m not arguing against something that will save money, save lives, or build a strong nation. I’m arguing that it will do none of that because I’m yet to see anyone make an evidence-based case that those things will happen as a result of the US government getting even more involved as a provider for health care. The US has an extremely effective health care system, one of the best in the world, even the best by some measurements. What drives the perception of it down is that its cost is more visible to its people.
I’d probably avoid the ad hominem in the same paragraph where you make an even bigger blunder than anyone else had.
There he goes again.
“It is… axiomatic that we should all think of ourselves as being more sensitive than other people because, when we are insensitive in our dealings with others, we cannot be aware of it at the time: conscious insensitivity is a self-contradiction.” –W.H. Auden
Strowbridge cannot fathom that when he pretends that he and he alone is the sensitive one and those disagreeing with him are retarded and uncaring for anyone but their own misguided interests, that he is being a complete ass by making fun of the very people he professes to care so much about.
Perhaps if we thought universal health care would help him and his mental illness, we might be more in favor of it, but unfortunately, as U.S. citizens we can do little to nothing to improve the Canadian health care system.
LOL CS. makes a good point;
“I think you’ll care when it comes to your six months. ”
There is every indication that if this plan goes through it will be at the expense of the elderly, who take up way more than thier “fair” share of health care. So yes CS those last 6 months may indeed be something you would care about, too bad we are saving money by limiting your access to health care when statistically you need it the most.
But CS I am curious, in which country could I get the fastest respose for a medical problem? We hear you have a longer waiting period for appointments, tests, etc. Any truth to that?
Sorry I don’t think Obamacare covers mental illnesses. Last night on ABC he said there will be tough choices to make and I think the old, and the mentally ill will be the first to go.
SFC B: “I’m not arguing against something that will save money, save lives, or build a strong nation. I’m arguing that it will do none of that because I’m yet to see anyone make an evidence-based case that those things will happen as a result of the US government getting even more involved as a provider for health care.”
Really? You haven’t seen the evidence? Are you blind or stupid? I ask because it has been given, in this very thread.
Private, for profit health care has additional level of bureaucracy that is not needed in universal or ’socialized’ health care. This partially explains why 17% of every dollar spent in Canada goes to overhead while in the United States that figure is 33%.
To provide $100 of health care, Canadians spend $120.
To provide $100 of health care, Americans spend $149.
That’s less money. A lot less money. So switching to a Canadian system saves money.
Canadians also live longer than Americans, despite having nearly identical rates of obesity, smoking, etc. Now, you could argue this was true despite the differences in health care systems, and not because of, but you would have to provide some real concrete evidence to back that up. I can’t even imagine what that evidence would be. (Much higher murder rate?)
“The US has an extremely effective health care system, one of the best in the world, even the best by some measurements.”
Got any proof of that? I’m sure if you compare the United States to all 195 or so countries in the world, it is in the top 20%, which sounds pretty good. But compared to 33 highly industrialized nations (those that score 0.900 or better on the Human Development Index) it’s not so good.
“What drives the perception of it down is that its cost is more visible to its people.”
No. The United States leads the world in its own perception of its health care system.
It’s true.
It’s weird, but it’s true.
Me: “If they referred to the same 1000, then in the United States, then 6.26 out of every 13.82 children would not live past their first birthday. Not even you are dumb enough to believe that.”
SFC B: “I’d probably avoid the ad hominem in the same paragraph where you make an even bigger blunder than anyone else had.”
And what blunder is that?
I pointed out exactly where you might have made the mistake. Having more kids would not result in a higher percentage of them dying before the age of one. There’s no logical reason for that.
So what blunder did I make?
AO: “There is every indication that if this plan goes through it will be at the expense of the elderly…”
Really? And where’s your evidence of that? Personally, I think you are just passing along a right-wing lie.
“But CS I am curious, in which country could I get the fastest respose for a medical problem?”
Depends on what you are looking at. Cancer treatments in Canada are faster. Getting a sprained knee looked at would be faster in the States.
“We hear you have a longer waiting period for appointments, tests, etc. Any truth to that?”
Not really. Last time I needed an appointment I called at 3:00 p.m. and was able to get an appointment for 9:00 a.m. the next day.
Dennis the Bigot: “Perhaps if we thought universal health care would help him and his mental illness, we might be more in favor of it, but unfortunately, as U.S. citizens we can do little to nothing to improve the Canadian health care system.”
Actually, you can. If you adopted a Canadian-like system, Americans would stop coming north of the border to buy cheaper prescription drugs, which is putting a strain on our system.
Then again, I don’t have any health problems I need to deal with, as I’m healthier than I’ve been in years. What about you?
How much of that increase in costs comes from greater and faster access to more services? How much of it is related to the fact that Americans have a higher income level than Canadians and thus can afford higher prices? If my spending 20% more gets me seen and treated sooner, or with a health care provider of my choice, that’s a premium I’d be willing to pay.
But it’s a savings which comes at the cost of availibity and access to treatment options. The Canadian system saves that money by simply not providing services as quickly as they are provided in the US.
Off the top of my head I’d guess at least one major factor would be the rate of car ownership and use, which is a possibility I’d brought up before. Americans drive more, a lot more, than Canadians and far more traffic fatalities and injuries as a result.
Actually you can do the research yourself by checking the stats from the WHO.
I played around with it a bit, there’s just a crap-ton of data in it, and when you factor out the things related to subjective determinations like the nebulous “cost fairness” the US falls smack in the middle of other industrialized nations. And is among the leaders in areas which have received tons of money for research like cancer treatment.
I don’t know why you’d think that’s weird. It also doesn’t mean that the perception of US health care within the US can’t be driven down by the context-less ranting about it’s cost and how national health care will be better.
I can’t see where anything says that treatments for cancer in Canada are obtained faster, but I do see that Canadians have to wait longer to have their cancers diagnosed which delays them beginning their treatment.
But hey, it’s “free”.
“How much of that increase in costs comes from greater and faster access to more services? ”
None, you fucking idiot. It’s OVERHEAD. It’s paper work. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING HEALTH CARE.
Jesus, are you really this fucking stupid?
“But it’s a savings which comes at the cost of availibity and access to treatment options.”
I guess you really are this stupid.
You are repeating a right-wing lie. I have better availability and more options for health care than you do. This is true, because my insurance provider is never going to say, ‘I’m sorry, you forgot to mention you had acne in high school and went to a dermatologist. So we are not going to pay for your pancreatic cancer.’
“Off the top of my head I’d guess at least one major factor would be the rate of car ownership and use, which is a possibility I’d brought up before. Americans drive more, a lot more, than Canadians and far more traffic fatalities and injuries as a result.”
2005 = 2,923 deaths in Canada out of 32,623,490 people
2005 = 39,252 death in United States out of 288.4 million
Therefore, there were 0.46 more driving fatalities per 10,000 in the United States in 2005 than there were in Canada.
Wow. That totally explains the massive difference in Health Care costs and outcomes.
Fucking idiot.
By the way, did you think I was just going to take your word on it? Is that why you made a statement of fact without any statistics to back it up?
“Actually you can do the research yourself by checking the stats from the WHO.”
Your claim. You do the fucking research.
Me: “The United States leads the world in its own perception of its health care system.
It’s true.
It’s weird, but it’s true.”
SFC B: “I don’t know why you’d think that’s weird.”
Because it sucks in terms of outcomes.
“I can’t see where anything says that treatments for cancer in Canada are obtained faster, but I do see that Canadians have to wait longer to have their cancers diagnosed which delays them beginning their treatment.”
And I trust your ‘facts’ on this matter exactly zero.
Since a massive amount of Americans simply can’t afford to be diagnosed, I doubt what you say is true.
“2005 = 2,923 deaths in Canada out of 32,623,490 people
2005 = 39,252 death in United States out of 288.4 million”
Oops. Looks like I goofed here. Found a source that said the population in the United States was 296,410,404 in 2005. That would make the difference even less.
I guarantee you that you’re wrong there.
Actually it was 43,443 in 2005.
And in the WHO reports, when comparing industrialized nations, those halves of a percent make huge differences when comparing between nations.
You asked for what non-health care factors between the US and Canada which would account for the difference in the results from health care. I provided you a source which is totally unrelated to the health care system which results in .46% more Americans dying than the Canadians. Other factors like our US’s obscene incarceration rate cause issues which lower the results from health care but are out of the control of health care.
I did. Total pain in the ass and WHO doesn’t make it easy to present results of custom searches onto the web. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can do it yourself. If you don’t want to fine, can’t say I blame you. Not going to hurt my feelings either way. Simple fact though is the US, according to the WHO, gets some of the best results in the world from its health care system. Thanks to people who are a combination of too lazy to actually see what things like the WHO rankings mean, and who benefit from misrepresenting them, the US gets slammed. Because the US gets slammed its current presidential administration wants to replace it with a system that will deliver poorer results, but rank higher because of a subjective assumption about “fairness”.
“Amused Observer”: “But CS I am curious, in which country could I get the fastest respose [sic] for a medical problem?”
Cuba?
That dmn communist decided to invest in human capital and trained so many Doctors, last I heard, Cuba was exporting Doctors.
It’s still an authoritarian, undemocratic, repressive regime, but it does have good enough Doctors so you don’t have to sit in a emergency room with a crowd full of people all waiting in line like you do in America.
And Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than US.
Crazy.
But we beat them in life expectancy, but “SFC B” would be contemptuous and dismissive by how little.
Me: “I have better availability and more options for health care than you do.”
SFC B: “I guarantee you that you’re wrong there.”
You are a military man, aren’t you. That’s right. You have excellent access to GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE.
Me: “39,252 (traffic) deaths…”
SFC B: “Actually it was 43,443 in 2005.”
Dueling sources. And it’s less than than 5k difference.
“I provided you a source which is totally unrelated to the health care system which results in .46% more Americans dying than the Canadians.”
No, no, no.
0.46 people per 10,000, or 0.0046%.
This is beyond tiny.
“Other factors like our US’s obscene incarceration rate cause issues which lower the results from health care but are out of the control of health care.”
Okay. I’ll back you up there. The United States needs to stop jailing people who small amounts of pot. HOWEVER, while the incarceration rate in Canada is 5.6 times smaller.
5.6 fucking times smaller! Either Canadians are vastly superior to Americans when it comes to obeying the law, or there’s something fucking wrong with your justice system. You need to stop outsourcing the justice system to for profit companies, which have zero incentive to cut recidivism rates.
… End rant.
While the rates are much smaller in Canada than they are in the United States, we are still talking about a very small percentage of the population. Less than 1% of the population is in Jail right now, and that includes people who are not going to be adversely affected by their stay. I doubt being in a minimum security, white-collar jail is going to shave much time off your lifespan.
“I did. Total pain in the ass and WHO doesn’t make it easy to present results of custom searches onto the web.”
Give me a link. It can’t be that hard to cut and paste a URL. Or even a URL plus some search terms.
LOL,
While it is generally a fool’s mission to even pay attention to News I note with amusement that in his most recent diatribe he unknowingly echos sentiments remarkebly similar to something SFC B posted earlier. Despite being a brutally repressive Commie community, in thier own way Cuba has applied free market principles to health care. By creating so many doctors, increasing the supply, they are able to serve thier community quite well at a competitive prices, satisfying the demand.
As SFC B pointed out much earlier increasing our supply of providers by letting less qualified people handle the simpler aspects of medical care we would be able to help satisfy the demand at more competitve prices. Well done News, you’re an advocate of market based solutions!
Amused Observer: “LOL”
Laughing simpleton.
“Despite being a brutally repressive Commie community, in thier own way Cuba has applied free market principles to health care.”
You are a fucking retard.
You are so fucking retarded, that you should be locked away in a mental institute.
I’m just glad that idiots like you are among the minority and are losing political power.
Hell, idiots like you are among the minority OF FUCKING REPUBLICANS.
What is the bitter Canadian in an uproar about at the moment? Oh yes I see, the idea that supply and demand have a symbiotic link and increasing supply leads to more competitive conditions and falling prices. CS, such language, it appears you are trying to hurt my feelings. Is that anyway for a tolerant progressive, multiculture worshiping, pro diversity lefty to act? Where’s that respect for forign culture and relativism?
Your little fits of rage don’t always seem appropriate to the moment. It must have been tough adapting on the playground. It’s so much better now that you don’t have to do that anymore, isn’t it? CS, the king of all he surveys, sitting in front of the screen rating dvds. Giving the thumbs up or thumbs down. Such power, such prestige.
Of course your parents are besides themselves with worry. Guilt too, “What did we do wrong for the boy to turn out such as he is?”
AO: “What is the bitter Canadian in an uproar about at the moment?”
What’s the racist asshole whining about now?
“Oh yes I see, the idea that supply and demand have a symbiotic link and increasing supply leads to more competitive conditions and falling prices.”
Are you talking about the American system that costs more and have worse outcomes? Really impressive display of supply and demand in action.
“CS, such language…”
Style over substance is still a logical fallacy.
“…it appears you are trying to hurt my feelings.”
Projection.
“Your little fits of rage…”
Again, this is projection. I can call you a fucking ‘tard and not be in a fit of rage. Who the fuck uses an apostrophe in a fit of rage, by the way. Or for that matter, semi-colons and ellipses? I take the time to use grammatical devices that most people don’t bother with under the best of circumstances.
Do you really think I’m capable of this while under a fit of rage? Good lord, I wish I had that kind of control.
You want to see me under a fit of rage. You should have been here when the Canucks were eliminated from the play-offs. The neighbors could hear me swearing after each goal.
“Giving the thumbs up or thumbs down. Such power, such prestige.”
You are such a fucking jealous prick.
My job rocks, while your job must suck ass.
It must suck so much ass to constantly bring up my occupation over and over and over again.
And seriously, why do you bother?
Do you really think you are scoring points by saying, in essence, ‘You are a published author who receives thousands of dollars of free DVDs and Blu-rays every year.’ Because this is the reality of the situation.
Ooohhh! Your verbal barbs sting so. Please, please make it stop.
(That was sarcasm. Just in case you didn’t figure it out.)
By the way, how’s your health?
Ha ha ha!
Oh yes CS so jealous. Are you going to use some more swear words? Your mother doesn’t like that you know. I feel much better about my health being under the American health umbrella. Of course the future looks a bit shakey, real shakey if we emulate the Canadian model. It’s funny, I live in a border state and we actually see Canadians down here getting treated, you know when it is bigger than a sliver or a broken arm. When it is tough and dangerous the people that can want state of the art technology. Of course your care is to die for. Call at 3 appointment at 9 the next morning. Perhaps it’s because you are so important! unlike the more normal Canadians I’ve talked to.
There are a lot of Americans that go to both Canada and Mexico to buy their prescription drugs because they can’t afford them here in America.
But right winger “Amused Observer” comes from the right wing’s “I’ve got mine! F’ everyone else” philosophy.
As for Cuba exporting Doctors, it’s the kind of thing America used to do during the Cold War to show how our system was superior.
Cuba’s exportation of Doctors to Latin America is essentially a political investment as much as it is an investment in human capital.
While we’ve got policies that often hurt the average Latin American (or policies that can easily be depicted that way), Cuba is sending those same countries Healers.
It’s an extremely sophisticated way of reaching out to those countries and has the added benefit of potentially bringing in money (remittances) from those Doctors back to Cuba.
Meanwhile, things like America’s PeaceCorps are often ridiculed by right wingers who have often preferred the method of arming right wing thugs in Latin America or have used the muscle of the IMF (ala ‘economic hitmen’ style) to achieve their objectives.
It’s extremely ironic that our system is getting beat by Cuban investment in both human capital and diplomatic marketing in Latin America.
(The right wing’s persistent attacks on Hispanics don’t help America’s image down South, either.)