Dave in SoCal is a fucking retard. Satirically speaking of course. In reality I hope he gets the care he needs for all those paint chips he’s been ingesting.

So, again, it’s the “If it can’t be perfect in all cases we should do nothing to improve it” standard. Someone is going to nto get all that they want, so no improvements should be made for anyone.

Insurance companies do have to be even slightly competitive to stay in business. The gov’t? Not one bit.

Which is why the public University of Massachusetts ran Harvard out of business ages ago, why FedEx closed down the US Post Office way back in ’77 and, most notably, why MediCare has a higher administrative cost and less satisfied customers than any other insurance company.

Except, of course, none of those are true.

This is the “EVERYONE on the left believes Obama = The One and worships him.” approach. Claim “everyone” believes something, despite the fact that clearly “everyone” does not, and then claim everyone is therefore wrong. It’s akin to saying EVERYONE on the right believes the Repubs should block every piece of legislation and never work with Dems no matter what the legislation is.

And you do it while claiming you don’t use strawmen. I can’t tell if it’s chutzpha or you really are so lacking in honesty and self-awareness that you truly don’t understand what you’re saying. Starting, reluctantly, to think it’s the latter.

First off, what exactly is “Obamacare” supposed to refer to . I’ve seen the term thrown around to refer to just about any proposed change, including proposals from different quarters that contradict each other. So what “everyone” is supposedly pushing is…. what, exactly? Second, there are numerous examples of Dems in Congress and left-leaning bloggers arguing with each other as to what should be done to reform healthcare. Single payer or no, public option must be/nust not be included, etc etc etc. So “everyone”? Hardly.

I’m all for health care reform. But let’s do it in a way that actually does (1) cover more people, (2) lower costs and (3) improve patient care.

No argument there. But, as with all things, the disagreements come not with what its to be done, but how to do it.

As I’ve noted before, here are ten common sense changes that make sense

Not too bad a list. Some reasonable proposals, some I don’t agree with, others that won’t really make much difference to the sick public at large. For example: I don’t see that the tort reform peice really solves what folks tend to say is the problem (over simplified: it’s a feast for lawyers and discourages doctors from practicing). And, as commenters have noted, the ten points don’t touch on pre-existing conditions or catastrophic illnesses.

Looking at the NHS is useful because it shows you that single payer, gov’t run universal health care isn’t the magical health care fix this country needs.

And, again, while I’m sure you can find some who’ve said we should be exactly like the NHS, reasonable folks aren’t claiming anything is a one-fix “magical” cure. The NHS isn’t looked at as a flawless example but as one which does do many things much better than our current system, so one we can look to and learn from.

Dude, you’re mixed up. You’re talking about private insurers right now. Or have you not been paying attention?

And athough I admit I have no figures to back it up, I would hazard a guess that more procedures and drugs are disallowed under a gov’t run plan (i.e. NHS) than are under private insurers. Insurance companies do have to be even slightly competitive to stay in business. The gov’t? Not one bit.

Conversely, the government does not have a profit motive, while private insurers do. If making a profit is not as important to the gov’t as to a private insurer, why would we expect to see costly procedures disallowed under a government plan? Also, the government does, in theory, have to answer to the citizenry. If things are as bad or worse under gov’t health care, then you can expect that people will let their votes tell the story of what they think. Of course, I don’t see any way that a federal health system could be worse than our current one.

Sure, until (1) they balk at the tax increases necessary to keep it going and/or (2) the system collapses under the weight of it’s own costs. I suspect they won’t be too satisfied at that point.

Hypothetical bullshit. Your whole argument is, “Just wait and see!” When the data on the ground right now tell the story that people are happy. Fact. Your assertion is a prediction, at best. I would venture to say that it’s more of a hopeful, ideologically-driven wild guess.

In fact, the CBO already looked at the ObamaCare legislation and said it wouldn’t lower costs but it would drastically increase the deficit.

I don’t think that this is true. Link?

Right up to the point where the gov’t says it isn’t cost-effective to treat THEIR particular illness. Then, not so much. And athough I admit I have no figures to back it up, I would hazard a guess that more procedures and drugs are disallowed under a gov’t run plan (i.e. NHS) than are under private insurers. Insurance companies do have to be even slightly competitive to stay in business. The gov’t? Not one bit.

People in Massachusetts are pleased with their state-run health care system.

Sure, until (1) they balk at the tax increases necessary to keep it going and/or (2) the system collapses under the weight of it’s own costs. I suspect they won’t be too satisfied at that point.

And I would like to see a reputable economist go down your list of ideas and say whether it would actually work. My guess is that it wouldn’t.

I would suspect those ten changes have a higher likelihood of succeeding in providing affordable health care to more people than ObamaCare does. In fact, the CBO already looked at the ObamaCare legislation and said it wouldn’t lower costs but it would drastically increase the deficit. But for some odd reason, you seem perfectly OK with that.

Right? Isn’t that how it works?

People who have it like it. People in Massachusetts are pleased with their state-run health care system. And one anecdotal story doesn’t change that.

And I would like to see a reputable economist go down your list of ideas and say whether it would actually work. My guess is that it wouldn’t.

Are you really that dense? Oh wait. “Enlightened Liberal”. Yes you are.

No it’s not, Sean. But you do an excellent job demonstrating the real strawman… the one that Obama (and everyone else on the left) are constantly pushing with their “if you’re not 100% behind Obamacare, then you want the status quo”.

I’m all for health care reform. But let’s do it in a way that actually does (1) cover more people, (2) lower costs and (3) improve patient care. As I’ve noted before, here are ten common sense changes that make sense and actually do advance us towards affordable health care for all.

Looking at the NHS is useful because it shows you that single payer, gov’t run universal health care isn’t the magical health care fix this country needs.

The is what you’re arguing, Dave.

It’s a straw man and you should be intelligent enough to realize that.

And don’t forget the Independent Medicare Advisory Panel that Obama is pushing, which will let the gov’t decide which drugs and procedures get paid for (and more importantly, which don’t) in that brand new shiny gov’t health care system.

You’re right. Absolutely NO similarities to the NHS at all.

British Cancer Patients Denied Costly Drugs

The British health care system decided Wednesday not to cover four effective cancer drugs due to high costs, prompting a debate about the price on life.

The four kidney cancer drugs—Sutent, Avastin, Nexavar and Torisel—have been shown to extend life up to six months or longer. They are widely used in western Europe and America, and were covered in parts of England before Wednesday. Other care options for kidney cancer patients, namely interferon, are largely ineffective.
However, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), an agency that advises Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), has determined that the NHS should not cover the drugs because they are not cost-effective.
“Although these treatments are clinically effective, regrettably the cost to the NHS is such that they are not a cost-effective use of NHS resources. [They] have the potential to extend progression-free survival by five to six months, but at a cost of £20,000 to £35,000 per patient per year,” says NICE’s clinical and public health director Peter Littlejohns. “If these treatments were provided on the NHS, other patients would lose out on treatments that are both clinically and cost-effective.”

The decision has angered doctors, charities and patients. “Together these drugs are the single greatest advance for kidney cancer patients in the last 20 years, yet I and my colleagues face the prospect of being unable to offer treatment that is absolutely standard in every other western European country,” said kidney specialist Tim Eisen. “This decision will mean that the UK will have the poorest survival figures in Europe.”
Patients who want to use one of the drugs will be forced to pay out of pocket for their health care. The NHS does not allow patients to “top up” their health care coverage, meaning that patients cannot buy private insurance for unapproved drugs.

Cancer patient Andrew Crabb said that he might sell his home to pay for the drug Sutent. “I’ve only seen him cry twice over this illness—once when he was diagnosed, and then today,” said his wife.

Because a gov’t bureaucrat condemning a child cancer sufferer to death is so much more humane, noble and justified than when an evil and greedy insurance company does it.

The nerve of this 5 year old to not cure his own cancer; what a leech.

‘Getting a liberal to pick up a check – now that’s impossible!’

Yeah! How DARE his parents expect the insurance provider to honor their payments by actually offering coverage they paid into?

Just one question Rollo? How does Satan’s sphincter taste today?