A Canadian MP went to California for cancer treatment because she thought it was the best place to go for the treatment she received there.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...914?hub=Health

There are many positives in our system.

I took a look at the report, I don't question the findings. However, I do wonder what portion of the $43 billion is the result for care to undocumented workers or illegal aliens. How does the Clinton plan address this problem? I don't think theses costs will go away.

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...a-premium.html

the problem with injuries to undocumented workers is a big problem and employers should be incurring this cost through workers compensation, not to mention having a means for these workers to work legitimately. I know that is another topic.

The positives are seen by 2%, ace (and everyone). For everyone else, including the 45m without any insurance, it's sub par or unattainable. That's unacceptable.

Let's say you live in Bakersfield, CA. It's boring as all hell there. There is nothing but suburbs and a highway. Let's also say that someone builds a ritzy 5 star hotel there. Indoor pools, expert massages, high end shopping, racquetball. Suddenly, the super rich are visiting to enjoy the 5 star hotel. Does that mean that Bakersfield is a fun place now? Of course not. I'd guess the average income in Bakersfield is under $25k a year. Those people living right around the corner from this hotel are SOL because they can't afford it. So while the hotel advertises that Bakersfield is the place to be, the reality is that for a vast majority of people in Bakersfield, the place is still the doldrums.

Likewise, we have incredible services available for those who are well off, but for the vast majority the services are either poor, or they are unattainable.

Look at the source cited by DC. If we agree there is 45 million without coverage and we agree that we are spending $43 billion on "uncompensated care" (a term in the report - in some cases uninsured people actually pay a portion of their bills) for those individuals that about $1,000 per person per year. Perhaps they don't get the best coverage, but I don't either. However, we all get the benefit of having the best medical system in the world, factoring in r&d, treatment options, regulations, wait times, etc.

My home town is an example of what you describe. It was in the "rustbelt". They legalized riverboat gambling. At first only a few benefited. Overtime new businesses were attracted, with an increased tax base many municipal projects were funded. The city is much nicer now that it was 25 years ago. What is it going to take to get you to believe "trickle down" actually works?

{added}

A tidbit of information:

I am not going to reconcile the numbers, but the point remains.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...1-19231302.htm

This $1000 per year number assumes equal distribution, and reliable numbers. I think the interesting thing, though, would be to ask if these uninsured people can afford $1000 a year for health insurance. I am of the opinion, based on numbers from other countries with universal healthcare (cept France), that universal healthcare will actually save money for everyone. $83 a month is a rather small bill for insurance, agreed?

And for getting the benefits of the health care, I disagree. In my own experience, I know that just because you have insurance does not mean you will get proper care, but this is also backed up in Sicko, when insurance companies promote cost cutting decisions that actually lead to deaths of people who are insured. The technology is there, for sure. The US is usually ahead in military and medical tech. That doesn't mean there's access, though, which is my point.
I'm so sorry.
What is it going to take? Results. We've had the current system for over 30 years. The trickle stops as soon as it gets into huge problems like insurance companies looking to increase profits, out of control lawsuits and insurance attached to that, high wages for doctors, and inconsistent care even for the insured.

Anytime someone tries to sell me on something, it's never what they sold me on. This is still the same point for me. I don't think that it will be $83 a month for anyone, or at least it's not going to be $83 for me, since the plan is based on percentage of income.

So let's stop pretending that I'm going to be paying less until I actually pay less.

A trillion dollars and higher taxes... that's all that I see there. You don't think that the people with $250k don't have power to lobby for less burden or tax breaks elsewhere.

I agree that we pay one way or the other. I also agree if everyone were forced to buy coverage average costs for the coverage would go down, based on the principle of adverse selection. For example a 25 year-old healthy single male may choose not to spend money on coverage because they may no perceive that the benefits outweigh the cost. Should they have that choice? In reality, forcing that person to buy coverage is like a tax. When I was 25 I had coverage because I had a wife and a child, if I had been single I would have spent the money on other things, and $83 would have been a big expense (but that was about 22 years ago).

I agree. The reason is because of our system of having third parties buy our coverage. Our employer's incentive is different than the incentive of the individual regarding coverage. If you buy your own coverage you would select the things most important to you, your employer picks a plan based on what is important to them. The insurace company, paying the bills will focus on cost savings and profits. It is up to the consumer to play an active role, or they get screwed. We can certainly make our system more consumer friendly and more efficient even without universal coverage mandated by the government.

You've never bought a coke? Sounds to me like you're being over dramatic, and you're over simplifying.
I'm sure we've all seen the chart showing the Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP and Per capita expenditure on health (USD). Just to remind everyone:
Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP
Australia: 9.5
Canada: 9.9
France: 10.1
UK: 8.0
USA: 15.2
Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Australia: $2,519
Canada: $2,669
France: $2,981
UK: $2,428
USA: $5,711

So let's stop pretending that you're going to be paying more in taxes for universal health care than is paid for the current system.
It's a shame that's all you see. The bigger picture is that we're saving trillions upon trillions that are paid per year in health care.

It looks like we spend twice as much. I guess those who advocate keeping things as they are think it is worth it. This also looks similar to our education expenditure comparisons with other countries.

Have you ever seen coke commercials? They sell the brand, lifestyle, image, etc, they sell everything other than the fact that it is flavored carbonated water.

One of the reasons we spend more on health care is because we can. You have to be careful of the conclusions drawn from this data.

If people get free coverage, why don't you think they would take full advantage of it? Hence, costs sky rocket, or service suffers. Wouldn't a percentage of the population start seeking medical care for things they normally handled themselves in the past. Why self-treat a pimple or hang nail when a doctor could do it?

They may feature a lifestyle, but they show a beverage. It's the consumer that assumes that drinking coke will get you laid by a celebrity or something.
Well compare the US to France. They get the best healthcare in the world bar none (according to the WHO). Bar none, and they spend a little over half of what we spend... and they manage to make it available for everyone. That's the conclusion I draw.
They will, but there won't be an insurance company leeching money from the whole process, which will free up more funds. In addition to that, there are much lower instances of lawsuits against doctors in the UK, Canada, and France, which would suggest that malpractice would drop off, too. If you ask a doctor where all the money goes, he or she will tell you it's those two places. That's why universal healthcare is such a great option.

I don't see how universal healthcare would reduce lawsuits. Our legal system is suit happy, and doctors are still going to get sued whether you pay for your own healthcare or force someone else to foot the bill.

Also, I resent being FORCED to carry healthcare. I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility, and while I wouldn't protest making healthcare available to everyone, I don't want it thrust upon me.

Look at France, Canada, and the UK. They have a much lower lawsuit rate. Either universal health care prevents suits, people in the US are lawsuit crazy, or US doctors aren't as good. I can't really think of another explanation.
I'm not here to address what people resent. Honestly, I could really care less. The bottom line is that outside the 2% (and even including the 2%, after all, those doctors in the 2% won't be sued as often), this will ultimately be very beneficial.

What makes you think that universal healthcare will reduce lawsuits?

I understand that other countries have less lawsuits, but I believe it's a function of their legal, not healthcare, systems.

really? good public policy for the betterment of all, in this age of terrorism, could dictate that the 4th amendment needs to be suspended so that all suspected terrorists and terrorist sympathizers homes, papers, bank accounts, and all other personal effects could be searched to ensure public safety. The 5th and 6th could be suspended, that way we could detain indefinitely all suspected terrorists and sympathizers to ensure public safety. The 1st could be suspended to ensure that rags like the NYtimes don't reveal classified information putting us all in grave danger.

I repeat, the constitution was created to PROTECT our rights against 'public policy'. why do you want to throw it away?

This is the most foolish thing i've ever read from you. Everybody is expendable, including you. It wouldn't matter to the company if it took 3 years or 13 years to train someone new. If it increases their immediate bottom line, they will drop you like bad habit.

or it could be that participation in their health care system is done at the relinquishing of their right to sue for damages?

The reason this is phrased as a question? You don't know. You can sue your doctor in the UK, I read about one such suit last year.

yes, it was a question because I don't know.

dk....once again, you take things to the absurd in your misguided defense of the Constitution. The extreme examples you cited all have Constitutional implications. Hilary's health care plan does not.

Providing tax credits for working families is not unconstitutional

Providing tax incentives to small businesses is not unconstitutional.

Providing greater access to large health pools or the federal employees health care program is not unconstitutional.

Upgrading and modernizing the health care system is not unconstitutional.

These are among the thousands of public policy issues discussed and debated in Washington and around the country every day that have absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

Buying a coke is a simple decision wherein I'm paying for something I can see and touch. When it is finished it is complete and I get to CHOOSE again for the next time I am thirsty.

Since you rolled out the tax charts. What's the overall rest of the taxes that are paid within the country? VERY High compared to us. US pays some of the lowest amount of taxes in comparison to other western countries with socialized medicine.

I'm not pretending these are true facts that most other countries income taxes and taxes on goods and services are much higher than the US.

Again, this is about TOTAL money out of my pocket. Not just for healthcare for for ALL expenses.

Do they pay more in taxes than we pay in insurance? No. They pay less in taxes than we pay in medical insurance. That's the savings. Jeez.
Yes, TOTAL money, not just taxes.

As long as the number of uninsured continues to rise (from just over 30 million in 1987 to nearly 47 million in 2006 - census), we will all continue to have more money taken out of our pockets directly or indirectly.

Jeez. You don't get it.

If it's so universally needed, then why not include motorists? There are lots of uninsured motorists all over the nation. Everyone uses motorists in some capacity from deliveries to mail, buses to private drivers. According to the logic all the costs should go down right?

No it's not right because it takes the CHOICE away from the individual. If I choose to not own or drive a car, I pay the least amount of taxes for the infrastructure of the roads and highways. I can opt out of the system at a basic level of choosing to not participate in it even though I can opt in for some use via busses, taxis, and private car hire. I still have a choice and I wish to retain this choice and other choices.

The problem you all have is you want universal to mean everyone has to participate in paying for it even if as someone pointed out wanting to keep that $82 in their pocket as their own choice.

Again, for the sicko thread I pointed out that because I didn't pay into health care even with my motorcycle accident where I was taken to a hospital and paid my own hospital bills. I still came out ahead as more money in my pocket since I didn't pay premiums for services I never used.

Today I would never make that same choice again, but at that age, I didn't have asthma nor pancreatitis. So now I am still ahead of the game were my premiums and copays paid saved me more money that what I would have paid out of pocket over the years of me paying into the insurance game.

well as much as I'd LOVE to see a real effective heath care system in place, I'm on the fence on this one. basically, take our legal system for example. I've never really been in and out of a courtroom aside from paying speeding tickets (my car is fast, what can I say?) I guess public defenders are pretty much the bottom feeders of the legal system, no one thinks highly of them, and even though they are there for a good "ideal" cause of equal justice for all, many people just bash on them for being fairly worthless. I would assume if we halfass it into some sort of basic health care system for everyone, it would shoot the need for new basic practice doctors through the roof, and thus we'd wind up with a bunch of half-wit's misdiagnosing people and prescribing the wrong meds to people, I don't know. I just think if something like this goes in to place, it needs to go into place correctly.

this seems to tie a bit into the thread where people were discussing thier faith in police officers to resolve issues and crimes as well, another public tax paid service. pretty rough if you think about the shoddyness many of us have actually encountered with our public services.

They—Canada, the UK, and even France—pay less in taxes for health care than we pay in insurance for health care. We should concentrate on that, considering it's the entire economic case in one sentence.

I'll continue to "pay more" for my higher quality healthcare whilst you and the uninsured move to Canada. Deal? :)

but their OVERALL payments of taxes is HIGHER than what we pay in total for both taxes AND healthcare combined. You'd like to fight on the slice, but I'll state that the money comes from someplace. I don't think that a trillion dollars is just going to show up from thin air. Free money for retirement like social security? yeah sure. I didn't buy it when I was told about it as a kid, and I'm not buying it as an adult. On the same token, I'm not expecting my government to take care of me and mine. I'm improving my own live for me and my family with my own prudent choices be they good or bad choices. It is my choice and my responsibilty to accept the consequences of those choices.

Again you miss the point that it is the total amount of money out of pocket that I don't see becoming less. You may support it, I'm all for you supporting it. But nothing you say will convince me otherwise to support it myself. I can take care of myself much better than the government can.

Overall taxes? They're more socialist, so they're not just paying for healthcare. It hardly makes sense to include non-health care expenses in this discussion. When you put what we spend total on health care next to what they pay total, we pay more. When you compare individual payments between the US and France... it's still cheaper there. And they have the best health care in the world. I enjoyed reading the stories above about how people come to the US for health care, especially considering that happens to France all the time.

I'll pay less and get better care in France.

Until we can manage to control the insurance company profit machine....there will never be affordable healthcare in the U.S.

The question becomes , is it in the best interests of a capitalist country to regulate a large portion of its economy.....probably not. So, we end up with exactly what we have for better or for worse. The best care for those who can afford it, and a far lesser system for those who cannot.

The question also becomes, what does a capitalistic country do with an industry that a large percentage of the population needs where there is little or no competition?

apple and oranges. First, French women are o.k. with the natural aging of their breasts. Americans spend billions on cosmetic health treatments. Second, Joe Six Pack ( I ain't talking about abs) would not dream of walking - lifestyle in America plays a big part in how much we spend on health care. Like I said be careful of the conclusions drawn from the data on per-capita health care spending or health care spending as a percentage of GDP.

Don't forget about the AMA and their lobbing and other efforts to control the availability of people who can administer medical treatment professionally. I would suggest that medical care will never go down in price unless the supply of medical providers increases or viable alternatives are available.

Medical malpractice lawsuits are another reason why costs are so high. First there are the unfair judgements and then we have the unintended consequence of defensive medicine and doctors going from high risk areas of medicine to lower risk areas - Obstetricians are very hard to find in some communities and so are midwifes

I said health care, not cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery isn't included in medical insurance. Not only that, but there is an obesity problem in France. It may not be in the same scale as the US, but it's there. So is our obesity problem so much worse that we pay twice what they're paying and many of us don't even have coverage? Sounds pretty unreasonable to me.

In addition we have a system where the one who receives heath care service has no incentive to keep the cost of treatment down. I generally want to get to my deductable as soon as possible and after that I am good, and generally don't care what the cost of my treatment is as long as my insurance company pays the bill.

This is what you posted:

Breast implants are in those numbers. So are Viagra prescriptions. Guys who don't drink gallons of beer each week, smoke and eat glazed dough nuts by the dozen don't need Viagra.

No, they're not.

There's a seperate number for cosmetic surgery?

You have seen a breakdown of what those numbers include?

because we have a member her who had breast augmentation done albeit reduction but it was medically related if i recall correctly.

Just because a surgery is done by a cosmetic surgery specialist does not mean it's "cosmetic surgery".

Would you put a person who gets a breast implant after radical mastectomy in the same category as one who implants purely to fill out her bikini? What about reductions to prevent or reduce back problems? Are they the same as pec implants for men? How does a gastric bypass compare to liposuction?

The question is more about elective surgeries - and I don't know the answer to how the distinction is made in countries with healthcare coverage. I'd actually like to kno. However, I seriously doubt you can just put your name on the boobjob list and wait in line for a porn career.

Possibly, but this has nothing to do with plastic surgery because most plastic surgeries aren't covered by health insurance. Go in and ask for peck implants and hand them your HMO card. See what happens. BTW, breast reductions ARE NOT cosmetic.

that's exactly what my point is. my sister's facial suturing was done by a top chinese cosmetic surgeon, but it was due to her being in a car accident that prompted the usage of a cosmetic surgeon.

Then how can you say, "No, they're not." and expect me or anyone else to accept that as anything but you pulling stuff out of thin air. You don't know nor have any place to back up your claim.

I would like to see a non-profit insurance company start up, or even let anybody that wants to become covered by Medicare, regardless of their age.

I think we should try universal dental insurance first to see how it works here. Everyone has teeth, and some people have more problems than others, but healthy teeth for everyone would be a good start.

Because it's common sense. If health care won't pay for elective surgeries, then they won't be included in health care costs. It's a big bucket of duh.

Big bucket of something that smells and it's isn't bullspit.

Seriously, did you read what uber points out? Radical masectomy with breast implant or breast reconstructive surgery, is that in there? No one knows for sure.

Also you don't know that it doesn't include elective surgery a might big assumption of duh.

I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around this, but I don't know how I can make it any more clear. Healthcare is what we're talking about. If health care insurance doesn't cover elective surgeries, which it doesn't, then the numbers do not include elective surgeries. This is as crystal clear as things can be.
Health care = doesn't include elective surgeries.
http://dpss.lacounty.gov/dpss/health...anual_logo.gif
http://www.greenville.k12.sc.us/webs...esNotEqual.jpg
http://www.theworldly.org/images/Ima...icSurgery1.jpg

I think the amazing part of all of this, though, is that even in your version of the universe, we are paying a lot more (unless you're saying for every $1 we pay on non-cosmetic surgery, we pay $1 on cosmetic surgery, which really starts to make me question if you're just arguing to be stubborn).

so radical mastecotomy with breast reconstruction included or not? because as far as I can tell, they saved her life, she doesn't *need* breasts, elective right? wrong? which is it since you seem to be the one with the common sense and I'm missing it so radically you think I'm referring to Pamela Anderson.

since you seem to have the common sense knowledge and I don't apparently.

let me put it in pictures for you.

http://www.myselftogetheragain.org/process.htm

So elective process? or part of making her psychologically whole again?

I don't see it as any different than fixing a person's face after a car accident. It's about curing them. But this is so far beside the point we've gone into stupid territory. Cynth, how much is spent on rebuilding breasts after cancer each year? Do you think it's the same amount that's paid total for health care? No? The it's moot. We pay more than the French who get better treatment. That's it.

I don't know how much it is, but since you declared "No, they don't" you've obviously stated it with some authority postion of knowledge.

and again, I don't know how much "WE" pay for healthcare. I know how much *I* pay for healthcare. I'm comfortable with that amount and find it fair coverage.

Semantics aren't arbitrary. Health care is what it is.

Since you dodged the implication of my question, I'll be more direct. You're asserting that France and the US actually pay the same, except that we have more cosmetic surgery. That cosmetic surgery makes up for the large different in what we pay according to the WHO. Do you have any evidence to suggest that 5.1% of our GDP and $2,730.00 per capita is taken up by cosmetic surgery? If not, then it is in fact you who has arbitrarily ruled. It would seem, lacking any figures, that you're pulling that assumption from thin air.

Just for the record, I think most insurance companies and HMOs use the Medicare/Medicaid definition of "medical care" and "cosmetic surgery":
But that detracts from the larger issue.

Cynthetiq, how do you propose we deal with the rising cost of medical care for the insured ...health insurance premiums are rising annually at 2-3 times the cost of living (either you are paying that much more or your employer is or both).

And the cost to society of the uninsured....$40+ billion/year, a large portion of which you (or your employer absorb)

Thank you very much, DC. I was having trouble locating that information.

I wont send you a bill and take more money out of your pockets.

But I would like to see some reasonable response to the health care crisis (yes, IMO, it is a crisis) from those who are opposed to meaningful health care reform that includes affordable access to all citizens.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong cynth, but I think you're saying that because you're happy with the system, you aren't interested in fixing it.

That sentiment may be quite common.

No I'm not. YOU are.

I'm stating that I'm comfortable with the cost versus value I have for my medical health benefits. I don't want it to cost more than it does than it has to rise as all costs do rise over time. Thus my need to continue to earn more to meet the cost of living increases required.

I don't give a crap how much it costs in France. You do. You're the one comparing it. I'm not. I'm stating simply I don't give a crap about those poor souls who don't have insurance. Too bad for them. Life sucks, it's shitty if you don't have choices, but that is called L I F E.

Yes. That is correct.

That's, um. Are you sure you want to go with that wording? I mean it just reminds me of "I'm rubber and you're glue"... "no you are!"
As I've demonstrated, it's cheaper when it's universal. You'd be paying less. You want to pay less for better care, right?
This isn't about your callous nature, this is about solving a national problem. That's what the thread is about. This isn't the "Do you give two shits about poor people?" thread. It's about universal health care, specifically Hillary Clinton's plan (which I linked a while back). It's actually quite good. It's about what's good for the country, not just Cynth. I hope that's clear.

I assert that there is a percentage of the population that doesn't care to support more social programs or services at ADDITIONAL costs.

Everytime someone has told me it will cost me less, I have never seen it cost me less. I have seen me get less services or goods for the same $1. But I have never seen it cost me $.80 when it used to cost me $1.

Again, I assert that I can take care of myself and my own family better than any government social program or government can. NGO notwithstanding since they are generally NPO and try to help social systems where none exists. I live in a community of hundreds of NPOs.

Then we have nothing to worry about. They stop paying tons for their insurance, and pay a bit to the government.
That's fallacious reasoning. The precedents aren't connected at all.
You're not your own doctor, and the doctors that would be under universal healthcare would be the same doctors that are paid via insurance and copay now. They don't import universal doctors. Unless you're saying you are your own doctor. Is that what you mean when you say you can take care of yourself?

guess how much I paid for my health care last year? $0.00. Thats right. I paid zero dollars for health care last year, and I think the year before that. Why should I be forced to pay for everyone else to see a doctor?

If this plan were to actually be implemented, I think you'd see that it's going to only be good for the insurance companies and the politicians who pushed for it. Medical care quality will drop substantially.

You're former military, right? You've already used socialized medicine. Congrats.

BTW, if you mean you don't have medical insurance, then you're a burden to those paying waiting to happen.
Medical insurance companies will disappear. They aren't used in a socialized medicine system.

So i guess the main argument against universal health care is "tough shit, life ain't fair" This is a great argument because it can be applied everywhere.

Like, say for instance you don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, regardless of whether of not we will all be bettor off in some, possibly intangible way. All a proponent of universal health care would need to do is say, "Tough shit, life ain't fair." QED, i guess.

If you already know that life isn't fair, why are you complaining about how unfair it is for you to have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Off topic but please post pictures like that as a link on this board with an attached nsfw.

not even remotely accurate.

how is that? IF I ever have to use a medical service, i'm sure i'll end up with the bill....and pay it.

:eek: Is THAT why health insurance companies are forking over billions to politicians? so they can be run out of business? come on will, you know better than that.

Truly and completely accurate, actually. I hope you're not frustrated you've used a system that you now decry.
http://www.ha.osd.mil/
And if that bill is $120,000? My coarctation of the aorta repair was around that. I'd be surprised if you could drop $120k at a moment's notice.
They're trying to prevent universal healthcare with their donations. They even got Hillary to shut up about it for 10 years.

Maybe you can show me how, in universal healthcare systems currently operating, insurance companies are making money.

it's no use debating this with you anymore if you are going to twist and blur everything completely out of context to redefine things.

Did you pay for military health care? No. Was it paid for by taxpayers? Yes. That's universal health care. You used universal health care, as a soldier.

You may be a bit stubborn at times, but you're not dense. I know you realize this, too. I've been wrong before. It's best to just confront it.

Sorry, using the hide bbcode isn't something I remember to do all the time. I tend to forget when I'm doing too many things. I was trying to look it up and then forgot to do that. Thanks for the reminder.

will talk about stubborn.

$120,000 surgery. No one has that kind of cash sitting about. It doesn't mean one doesn't still pay for it. Hospital billing departments all the time work out payment plans. Otherwise what's the point of saving someone's life it you're just going to eventually put them out on the street.

Also, it isn't the extreme cases which you love to banter about as though it's the everyday occurrance to everyone. It isn't. We're talking about the regular day to day as well.

Again as I stated in the sicko thread, my lack of paying premiums versus how much healthcare services I used I came out ahead:

Sicko thread
Even if I was to have paid for those injuries myself, which amounted to $2,500. I still came out ahead with more money in my pocket. Being forced to pay for something equals less money in my pocket.

Was a time in China....when you paid the doctor of the village when you were healthy, and he paid you when you were not. Actually makes a certain amount of sense. What if we all paid for wellness, and prevention...and the doctors/insurance/whatever paid for getting sick?

Or...is that what we are already doing?

Anti-freedom?

So those of us with government healthcare are slaves yes?

Some things to consider is how much you already pay for the military, for the police, for the prisons, and for the roads. All things that you pay for but which everybody uses.

The other is.... how long will your health-care cover you for if you got seriously sick and stopped working.

You provide data. You don't know what the basis of the data is, yet you draw conclusions from the data. I suggest that you be careful with those conclusions and now you take the position that I am totally out in left field. Generally health care expenditures will fall under a very broad definition to even include things like licensing boards, regulatory oversight, health care promotions/advertising, schools for the blind/disabled, drug rehab, vocational rehab, certain types retirement homes, etc, etc, etc. When data is collected from a hospital or surgical center, they report raw numbers, administrators don't care if the payments they recieve are from a person in a room receiving cosmetic surgery compared to a person with cancer. In some cases the aggregate reports won't break that data down and the higher up the data goes the less precise it is. When a prescription is given for pain, how does an economist know if it was for cosmetic surgery or a broken arm?

Again, all I say is be careful of the conclusions you draw from the data you post. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to read the foot notes as well.

{added}

Here is some data that describes state level government expenditures on health care. T he link is helpful because it gives more detail in what is included in their numbers and the approach taken.

http://www.milbank.org/1998shcer/index.html#total

Certainly State governments are generally not providing elective health care treatments like plastic surgery. But people in the private sector certainly spend billions on this form of health care, and they are included in the numbers you reported, as well as some other things you might not expect..

Hear, hear.

I'd like to see all you freedom lovin' libertarians off the roads. Roads are (generally) built and run by the gummint, and we all know how slippery those slopes down to stalinist work camps are. No, people, railroads are not an option, what with all those gummint subsidies and gosh-durned regulations and red-tape and -- shudder -- uppity workers. Clearly the only Freedom-Lovin' option is for you all to negotiate deals with all Private Property owners on your various routes to work and theMarket entrepots. Remember to stay off the freedom-destroying, gummint mandated sidewalks, too. Enjoy your Freedom-enhancing, Private Property-Respectin' travels! Keep on Truckin'!

What people generally refuse to admit is that they pay for Other People's Stuff all the time already. That's capitalism, which can be understood as a system of partial socialisations. Don't like sports on TV? Don't like TV? or TV publicity? Too bad, you pay for all of it already every time you buy a six-pack of Swill. And since the makers of more tasty beverages consider the price of Swill when setting their own prices, the price of Swill does matter even to those who don't buy it. It works much the same way with health care; we pay for others' health care when we buy the products they produce. So burn your Benz, trash your BMW & Toyotas, smash your Honda and Chevy, they all represent molly-coddling & freedom-hatin' & payin' for other people's stuff.

We also pay for people NOT to have health care, in the shoddiness of the products they make. Their products are shoddy either because the people actually are sick or afraid of becoming so, or because they return the bare-minimum or, as is often the case, below-minimum investment in their social reproduction with a bare-minimum or below-minimum investment in their work.

After reading 80 posts of this ubiquitous debate, part one of the needed responses follow:

A police officer either helps you or he doesn't. (One of the problems is that he isn't required to help you.) A fire is either extinguished or it isn't. Health care is much more nebulous--does everyone in the country have a basic human right to wart removal? Circumcision? Accutane?

In other words, your comparison is very inappropriate, but your personal attack, proclaiming that anyone who disagrees is a selfish complainer is noted. And discarded.


The health care industry is saturated with competition. If you make the effort to determine whether your doctor or hospital takes your insurance, you will find that Blue Cross has limited the payment for their services, as have MetLife, Aetna, and everyone else. Especially Medicare, which frequently pays less than the cost of providing the service, and essentially has the power to shut down many hospitals if they refuse to accept it. Thus, Medicare is simply another hidden tax. Who pays it? Those poor souls who arrive at a hospital with a job, but without insurance. A procedure that has been contracted with Blue Cross at $600 costs $8,000 if you don't have insurance. Hospitals are also required by the government not to turn anyone away from their emergency rooms. Therefore, a wise course of action if you need to make an uninsured visit to the ER is to speak Spanish. Everything is free if you do.


They already do the above. In fact, in Canada, people are denied procedures on the basis of their age. "You're 70?" No cataract surgery for you--you're about to die."

QFT. Is it your responsibility, or is it everyone else's responsibility to take care of you, regardless of your efforts in your own behalf? Is it my responsibility to pay for anti-AIDS drugs for a prostitute? Is it my responsibility to pay for a special bed for someone who weighs 400 pounds?

Some here would say "yes." I say no.


Many people in smaller communities do exactly that. What is your point, and why does it involve driving and leaving your home?


The additional reality is that there will always be people who forego paying for health insurance in order to have the latest 42" plasma TV, or pipe full of crack. It makes the industries who provide a living for us much less competitive in the global economy to carry such a dead weight burden.


What others are saying is that out of 45 million people, many of them choose to spend funds frivolously, instead of making sacrifices such as Cynthetique's.

How do you know they didn't buy a new car every two years? How do you know they didn't skip school to surf all day? How do you know their parents aren't capable of paying their insurance? Not everyone in the world is a destitute, ragged paragon of virtue who went broke paying for his mother's cancer operation.

So what you're saying (assuming) is that ALL of the people who have no insurance are incapable of paying for it themselves. Read Cynthetique's post again.

Oh, the irony.

The liberal battle cry. Except most times, they DO mind spending their own money.


Good thing you didn't have some of our members around at the time, to tell you that what you did was impossible.


I am trying to understand how you give tax credits to people who already don't pay any taxes. And without those tax cuts, there would be a great deal fewer workers to provide the tax dollars that big government enthusiasts are so fond of.

Practically everything I have seen suggests that Canada's healthcare system is despicable. A year for an MRI? Six months for lab tests? However, if I'm wrong, many of us would be happy to refer 10-15 million illegal immigrants to Canada for their health care needs.

Good article i read

No offense why should I pay for illegal immigrants for their health insurance? And I do love how they explain how it is really a subsidy versus an insurance, because the more I read on her plan the more I realize that is what it is.

Needless to say Hillary representing me in NY, and the idea of her representing the US just scares me.

DC_Dux already confirmed my conclusion in post #145. Maybe you missed it.
From DC's post:
That pretty much covers what would hypothetically be covered or not covered.
You disregarding my point (that people who don't care about the uninsured are acting selfishly) doesn't make me wrong. It just means you don't have an argument against it, and you're trying to be condescending. I don't care to be condescended to and I would appreciate if you wouldn't do it anymore. Remember, "Disagreement can take place without rudeness or disrespect."

BTW, my comparison is just fine. Police only are going to respond to specific law enforcement situations just as universal health care will only cover specific conditions. Just as a police officer won't come to your home if someone eats your sandwich, universal health care wouldn't cover wanting to have your breasts augmented.
Roads, sidewalks, police, fire, all paid for by taxes and regulated by the state: they are socialized. And people are fine using them. I've never heard a Libertarian make the claim that privatizing road building would be beneficial or that private police to whom you pay insurance would be cheaper and better than what we have now. The reality is that the "it's wrong because it's socialized" argument doesn't always work, and since we have already seen that it can work elsewhere, and work better than what we have currently, it's definitely worth a shot.
How many? 5%? 45%? Unless it's 100%, which it's not as has been shown through documentaries like Sicko (and common sense), people out there aren't able to help themselves to a basic human need that basically all other western countries have. Not only that, but we're all paying too much anyway to an industry that need not exist: health care insurance.
Wrong. I'm not assuming that at all. I'm stating the fact that not all uninsured are so by choice. You're assuming all of them are capable of paying for it themselves, but just don't. That just isn't so.

Conversely there are some companies that insure people automatically. There are special forms to be filled out to waive that right. This is sometimes problematic for those that don't read the fine print when starting a new job, once they hit the 30 day mark they are opted in automatically. They cannot change their elections until next open period.

There are choices that people need to be able to make on their own without compulsory decisions about how much money is going to be in their wallets to pay their bills.

I'm all for paying for a majority of my own healthcare. I already do to some degree, cold medicines, aches, pains. Gastric problems are no longer something you need to see the doctor for but can get over the counter acid reflux items. I can easily manage my own asthma meds if the costs were driven down substantially which such as alburterol has.

I am more than happy to drop this issue, but you insist on trying to confuse the issue. Health care expenditures in the data you cited are more inclusive than "the Medicare/Medicaid definition of "medical care" and "cosmetic surgery"." Also, why is it so difficult to admit that you don't know what makes up the data you have drawn conclusions from. Seems to me if one looks at the foundational premise of an argument and finds faults, it is difficult if not impossible to go to a higher level discussion on the issue. So, you believe health care in France is better than in the US, and you want us to move to that model, but the basis of your belief is flawed. To bad you don't see it and seemingly will never see it.

And how do you know that?

On one level I just thought about it. Second, since I was not able to find any source documentation supporting the numbers you posted, I looked at some other sources to see how they handled measuring "health care" expenditures. I posted a link:

http://www.milbank.org/1998shcer/index.html#total

Third, cosmetic surgery isn't really the point. Countries will have a variety of reasons why per capita and % of GDP health care spending may be higher or lower than other nations. Again, all I am saying is to be careful of the conclusions drawn, for example a nation with a higher percentage of senior citizens will have that demographic issue to deal with, a nation like China may have millions of people who will simply die without any modern medical treatment if they get sick, or the biggest factor may be lifestyle.

Fourth, when do we get to a point of saying how can the US be spending more as a % of GDP on everything? If I simply looked at headlines, I would think we spend more on health care as a % of GDP, more on defense as a % of GDP, more on education as a % GDP, more on food as a % of GDP, more on oil as a % of GDP, more on prisons, etc, etc, etc, than every other nation on the planet. If we are inefficient at some things, I can accept that, but we can't be more inefficient at everything. So the people who continually bash the US, our systems, our way of life, have a credibility problem.

I do see what you're saying, and I'll readily admit I don't have access to the raw data of the study, but the discrepancy isn't small. We're not off by 1%, which is a lot considering the US GDP is $13,130,000,000,000. I don't think that one can simply say, "there is a margin of error to explain the difference between health care costs in the US and France", do you? Where the US spends 15.2 % of our GDP, France spends only 10.1%. If we, in the US, were able to shave 5.1% of our GDP worth in medical care, which btw is a massive $669,630,000,000, we, the people of the US, would have that $669b to spend elsewhere. That's a whole Iraq War up to this point, plus $215b.

I've seen nothing to contradict the WHO study, and I've never heard of anyone saying it's wrong.

As for the other GDP related studies, I can't speak to them.

I don't know if it is or if it is not, simply a margin of error. I would need to see what was used to arrive at their numbers. You could be 100% correct in your conclusion, all I have stated is that we need to be careful using those numbers until we understand them. If we make major policy decisions based on faulty analysis our policy decisions will be faulty. Here is a link to demographic data on France, the same link can lead you to the same type of data on the US:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...7jmSjuYxm4ecYF

The US has a higher birth rate per 1000.
The US has a higher immigration rate per 1000 ( by a factor of 5)
The US has a lower death rate per 1000, France has a higher average age.
The US has more males to females than France.
The US population growth rate is 3 times higher than France.
21% of the US population is 14 or less compared to 18% in France. A higher percentage of working people means more people paying taxes to support the French medical insurance system today, what going to happen in the long-term, given a low birth rate, aging population and low immigration?
France has a better infant mortality rate but the US has a higher birth rate. (It would be interesting to see what those numbers would be adjusting for immigration)
The US has a 50% higher ratio of people with HIV/AIDS.

Even with the above data we are just touching the tip of the iceberg and all of these factors may have an impact on per capita health care spending and spending as a % of GDP, yet you and others make judgments without questions or any real analysis.

I dont give a fuck about comparing GDPs.

The facts are clear that health care costs in the US have been rising at twice or three times the rate of inflation or cost of living for many consumers.

And the facts are clear that the health care costs of the growing number of uninsured are partly responsible for higher premiums for the insured.

I think health care reform will be the top domestic issue on the mind of many voters in the 08 election and I want to see how the candidates will address the issue. Bitching about Hilary's plan is not a solution.

Many of the candidates will be participating in webcasts sponsored by the Federation of American Hospitals and Families USA where each will have an opportunity to explain their position on health care reform in more depth. I'll be tuning on, starting with John Edwards today.


http://presidentialforums.health08.org/

I too don't care about the GDP comparisons. I care about what chips away at my disposable income and savings.

I'm of the opinion that a good portion of the uninsured that are causing the spike are illegals. I'd like to start there before addressing the rest of it.

Illegals or undocumented workers absolutely contribute to the rising costs, but they dont represent the most signficant portion of the problem.

Census probably has the best figures on "People With or Without Health Insurance Coverage".

Consider the numbers: Of the nearly 47 million without insurance in 2006: 36+ million are native born or naturalized citizens and more than half worked (mostly full-time, but some partt-ime) during the year.

To ignore the larger issue is to let the costs to all Americans keep rising at more than twice the rate of inflation or cost of living.

I'm amazed that with 250 million with insurance that the costs are still so high.

Don't forget that capitalism only works when it's pure competition. If competitors come together and agree to raise prices, or if their suppliers all raise prices, then you don't see the drive down in prices like one might expect when businesses are competing over customers.

sure what what you are talking about is racketerring and conspiracy, something that has been busted before.

but still another competitor can still get into the game and go against all the rest of the price increases. if done right can drive down the costs.

I dare this sentence to make less sense.

Companies have been caught colluding and conspiring before, most recently the memory chip makers for price fixing memory.

Anti-trust suits brought AT&T into smaller more competitive companies, supposedly to bring down the price of telecommunications. Yet still I pay more for my POTS line than ever before.

Businesses are and should be allowed to price as they see fit. If they collude together to price fix then that is problematic by itself. Just because I want a 2 liter bottle of coke to be $.99 doesn't make it so when it sells fo $1.89 normally and occassionally it is on sale at varioious other places for $.99. It doesn't mean that because all the local stores are charging $1.89 that price fixing is afoot or even that the manufacturer is trying to rip people off. On the contrary it is again about choices.

I'd also like to see just how these 45M Americans that seem to be those that don't have insurance but have 20" rims on their cars (not necessarily new) with booming stereos. Again, I state that they choose to not spend that money on healthcare but instead on new rims, car stereos, latest cellphones, newest ipods and large screen TVs.

Wait... so you're agreeing with me? I.. I'm shocked! :thumbsup:
I understand that, but I think it's more like "Let's all charge as much as possible without making our customers leave the country to get health care" then "Let's charge a bit more by ourselves". We're not talking about just Pepsi being expensive. We're talking about Pepsi, Coke, Shasta, and every other brand of soda being very expensive, all at once. Only we're not talking about soda, we're talking about health care.
All 45 million of them have spinners and pinewoods?

Again, I'd be quite happy to see some sort of anti-trust suit brought up if that's what you are stating that healthcare industry is scamming the citizens.

As person who's mother has worked in the healthcare industry for 40 years, I've followed it since I could read. She's working in many aspects of the industry and neither of us find any kind of collusion but just costs of current technology and competition driving up the prices.

and no not all 45 million. I'm stating that of that 45 million there is a good portion that doesn't bother to spend their money on things that they NEED as opposed to things that they WANT.

I'd be happy to agree with everything being said if people were not impoverished and barely even able to feed themselves. Those on WIC/Welfare seem to have healthcare coverage.

There's a young lady I work with here, she states she isn't interested in working full time because it puts a damper on her spirit and creativity. Yet she puts in full time hours for many years now, but doesn't get any health care benefits because she is considered part time. Again, she CHOOSES to not have healthcare.

You know, I've decided to not bother in much national health care debate, but I did happen to click this thread and saw someone mention France as a good example?

This France?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...24/wfra124.xml

One thing most people don't know is that when something is 'free' its used a lot more, and for frivolous things. Thats why you will often find co-pays on insurance even for a very small amount because it keeps people who act like 'free' means 'free to abuse like a open buffet' from over taxing the system.

I now leave you to the usual socialist/realist debate.

What's a good portion, though? Until I see figures that tell me a vast majority (over 99%) simply don't care, I see a massive problem. Even if just 1% simply can't afford it, that's still 450,000 people out there that need help. That's half the population of San Jose. Imagine if it's 75%. That's 33.75m people.

I don't see any studies being done on those without health care, so it's really difficult to say. We both live in relatively high income areas (SF Bay Area and NYC, two of the highest in the country), so I'm sure we're not exposed to some of the more impoverished people out there who wouldn't be able to afford hundreds of dollars a month for health care.

Fuck this place.

I'm moving to Canada.

I agree, but I don't think co-pays do much to encourage people to shop around for better prices. I believe many people treat insurance paid health care much like an open buffet because after the co-pay they do not care about the total cost.

There must be a better way to reduce costs other than having the insurance companies dictate/negotiate prices to providers. It seems like there should be a lot of money to be saved by getting the insurance industry out of the loop.

Unfortunately or fortunately, I pick my doctors based on location and comfort. Cost never comes into the picture. If that was a criteria I'd have to include I'd be happy to do so, but I can say that my copay does stop me from going more often than not. I decide that $20 is too much to pay when I just don't feel well and think maybe that the doctor can tell me differently. I'd rather put that $20 to over th counter meds which isn't covered by insurance and only recently covered by FSA but that's my money anyways.

If the insurance companies were like they were before when it was 80/20 I think that more people would be shopping around by cost. Or would they not also because they would want to hit that deductible as quickly as possible so that then it's all on the insurance co?

If we are to understand how to best allocate national resources, given legitimate models in other nations for comparisons, how can it be avoided? Or do you simply have a special interest or political agenda that is your top priority?

No one has disputed that.

You and Will have a pattern of sometimes talking about health care insurance and what is covered by insurance vs. health care costs and seem to interchange the two as if they are the same. If you are talking heath care insurance, insurance premiums are high for a number of reasons, some not related to the uninsured.

Personally I have not "bitched" about her plan. In fact you won't find any post where I have even commented on her plan. For the record there are some good points to her plan in my opinion.

Should be interesting to see if Edwards addresses medical malpractice and medical related litigation and how he would plan on controlling those run away costs in our system.

What percentage of those people make over $50,000 per year and could actually buy medical insurance but don't want to? Or is that question to, "GDPish" for you? Or is that me "redirecting" the discussion? Or, me bashing Clinton? Or, me cherry picking data? Can't wait for being told what my problem is today.

Who is ignoring the "larger issue"? Are we not allowed to ask questions? Are we not allowed to express concerns?

What?!? You almost never find "pure competition", in this country or anywhere else with high levels of government regulation. this nation has done pretty well with our form of capitalism. Makes me wonder when I read statements like the one you make here.

If The Govt. Were To Supply The Health Care..........then We Would End Up With Taxes Like Canada & England Over 60% Then Still Have Lousy Medical Service. We Have Charity Hospitals, Medicare & Medicaid, Wic For Unwed Mothers All Govt. Programs. At The Expense Of The Tax Payers.

You Don't Need To Capitalize Every Word. FYI. Also, where's this "60%" thing coming from?

"There's no place like home. There's no place like home."

(Clicks heels three times and goes back to Canada)

I am just curious why this thread is listed as NSFW, did i miss something or would somebody get fired for mentioning their company health plan?

Post #141.

I've never understood people (and by people I have to say, specifically some Americans, as they are the only ones I've ever encountered who think this way) who complain about a proposed system of universal, state-sponsored healthcare, whether it be for everyone or just children, as being "me paying for other people's problems." It is a ridiculous attitude that has been spoon-fed to them by medical insurance companies and their government puppets. Two things for you to consider:

1. What exactly do you think medical insurance is? Are you under the impression that your premiums only go towards paying your own medical bills? Do you think that if you pay more in premiums than you claim in coverage that you're going to get a refund? Is it written anywhere in your insurance agreement that if the cost of your healthcare exceeds the amount of your premiums that you will have to pay the difference yourself? The very basis of any kind of insurance is that the group contributions cover the group needs, which is also, by the way, the basis of state-sponsored universal healthcare.

2. Seeing as it seems you are already "paying for other people's problems" through your insurance, wouldn’t you rather pay less for more benefits? State-sponsored universal healthcare is cheaper and more effective than private medical insurance as it is generally not run by people with hefty stock options they need to inflate, with a gaggle of share-holders all clamouring at them and demanding massive profits. Its only goal is to make everyone healthy, not to make a tiny minority obscenely wealthy.

Well see, socialized medicine means that people will have to wait a minimum of 68 months to see a doctor, and by doctor I mean a drunk veterinarian that falls asleep during the exam.

Once the exam is done, 50% of the time the doctor/vet tells you that you're not worth spending money on since it would be in the best interest of society as a whole if sick people just died.
The other 50% of the time the doctor will have no clue what's wrong with you. He isn't a private practitioner after all, and thus knows less.

So, if you're lucky enough not to get shot on orders of the doctor, he'll wing it and give you some pills he ordered online from some third world country. Taking these pills there are three possible outcomes:
1: The pills kill you
2: The pills have no effect and your illness kills you
3: You win the lottery and can go to the US to get some proper health care.

Right, I forgot to mention that socialized medicine means a 93% tax rate and that you're a commie.

I for one welcome our socialized health care overlords. Can't we just declare a 'war on sickness' already and let the government fix everything just like the war on drugs and poverty.

I guess its easier and more satisfying for some to demagogue Hillary rather than take the time to read and understand her plan, which builds heavily on (and provides the means to expand) employer-based health care.

Socialized medicine? Hardly.

Would her plan allow me to opt out and receive my full paycheck instead of having part of it going to a heathcare slush fund? I would rather have the pay increase and handle my own health how I see fit. Why isn't that acceptable to you? Why do you force me to participate in the farce that is 'healthcare'.

Would you be mad if the government forced you to go to church every Sunday and pay the dues? That's is how I feel about healthcare.

I suspect opting out isn't an option, so you can sugar coat it however you want but it's government mandating healthcare payments. Whether it comes directly from citizens or employers is missing the point.