dc_dux

If you're referring to Prop 103 in Cali, auto insurance prices in California declined in the subsequent 10 years (according to the Consumer Federation of America):

Auto insurance prices in California declined 4 percent between 1989 and 1998 while jumping an average 38.9 percent nationwide, according to a new survey released by Consumer Federation of America.

....Ralph Nader and other consumer advocates credited Proposition 103, passed by the state's voters in 1988, which tightened insurance regulation.

"California stands out," said Robert Hunter, director of insurance for Consumer Federation, who prepared the study. He said Prop. 103 brought smaller rate increases, fewer uninsured drivers and more insurance companies to the state — as well as fatter profits for the companies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Autos...d=88105&page=1

I dont know if Hilary's solution is the answer, but health care reform that results in significantly lowering the number of uninsured can result in the same win-win.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Charlatan

The long and short of it.

I see healthcare as an essential service. It should be provided much in the same way that water and electricity are supplied.

They should not be privatized, they should not be for profit.

Nothing I have seen so far from the US system suggests that healthcare for profit works.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

There are Constitutional backdoors for everything, including universal healthcare. One could easily interpret "promote the general welfare" to include, but not be limited to, universal healthcare. Boom, done. Constitutional.
It's not black and white. The US isn't socialist enough, of course, but we couldn't operate in a pure socialist system (if there is such a thing). What you said above is still meaningless. Government gave the world roads. So there, boom, you're wrong.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. In other words, what you said had flawed logic. It has nothing to do with thick skin, it has to do with arguing a point that makes no sense.
Socialism is anti-class by nature. Capitalism supports a class system by nature. It's not a rule, but they each tend to be that way in theory and practice. So, actually, universal healthcare is anti-classism. And you can see that in Canada, the UK, and especially France (where everyone is treated like they're millionaires, it's nuts).
I have one of the best programs Kaiser offers. I also happen to have had a coarctation of the aorta repair done. That kind of medical condition tends to complicate things.

djtestudo

I skimmed through some of this thread, so if this was mentioned, I apologize.

Fire protection and police protection, in addition to infrastructure, are completely different from health care, because health care is generally to protect the individual, while the others serve society as a whole.

The purpose of fire protection is not to prevent the destruction of one's personal property. It is to prevent the fire from growing and destroying additional property. Anyone that has ever read descriptions of major fires and how firefighters will destroy property as a preventive measure (fireblocks, etc.) knows that.

The purpose of police protection is not to protect individuals from crime, or to punish crime on behalf of individuals, but to prevent crime throughout the society so it does not expand and destroy the society.

Even infrastructure is for the good of society, because of allowing ease of movement for many in many different situations.

Unless one is discussing infectious/contagious disease, health care is about keeping protecting the individual, and assisting in the recovery of one person.

Maybe we should be asking how the government made it possible for the costs of health care to rise to the point where government-provided health care is a serious option in a free society?

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Cynthetiq

wait really they get treated like Millionaires? I guess that's why those muslims rioting were pissed off because well they were just partying like millionaires do.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

no wonder we're in such a mess.

so there were no roads at all until the idea of government was formed? seems mighty far fetched to me.


If you think that socialism is anti-class by nature, yet rich people can fly wherever they need to for the best care while the non-rich are confined to whats in the area for their care, then how can that truly be anti-class? If it was truly anti-class, then they'd have that level of care for all people, all the time.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rekna

Cynthetiq don't forget that if there were universal health care your employer would no longer have to pay for their workers insurance. Much of that savings would likely be passed on to the employees as raises (at least at the good places to work). So well your taxes may go up so would your income. My work pays around $1800 a year for my health insurance and I pay an additional $200 and my insurance sucks big time. I would welcome an additional $2000 in my pocket and health insurance on top of that. I'm sure my taxes wouldn't go up that much. Ohh yeah I hope you realize we are paying about $400 per person per year for the Iraq war....... thats probably more than universal health insurance would cost. Why should I be paying for someone else's war?

Jenna

I'm sorry but you're not immune from this. The health care providers aren't there to protect you to the extent you deserve, they are there to give you the lowest amount of care possible. Look at the millions of American's who HAVE health insurance but are still being fucked over by these companies.

Instead of being praised for helping people, doctors and health care providers are praised for lowering the costs. How is this right? Why do you think we're #37 on the list in the world.

I don't care about all this socialist aspects, or the "I have the right to not get the service" stuff. What goes around comes around, and while maybe you don't think you should help others, they'd be helping you as well.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I just find it completely wrong that we as a country are so hung up on the government invading our lives that we can't put it aside for our own health. Why don't we lessen the government filter on the internet, books, etc. and use it to our benefit - for something like universal health care!

dc_dux

I would argue that universal health care, while different than police/fire/infrastructure, is also good for society, at several levels, the most obvious being the economic impact of far higher absenteeism (resulting in lower productivity) of uninsured workers and the higher cost of premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured (a study from Familes USA put that cost in 2005 at an average $922 higher premiums (and rising) for employer-provided family health insurance).

And dk, every public policy discussion does not have to rest on constitutionality. There are times when its just good public policy.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Canada, UK, France. No messes.
Do some homework. Please.
They are moving to a different system. He came here because the top 2% here get exceptional care. That care is slightly better than the average care in the UK (supposedly, I've not seen any evidence besides the trip to confirm this). Also, you don't seem to understand how anti-class works. Anti-class is equality; the foundation upon which socialism is built.

ASU2003

And they need to make as much profit as they can. So they lower their costs and the claims they pay out, but will want you to see this other doctor and take this new drug.

They all have schemes that try to limit the amount of stuff the insurance company has to pay for.

And private insurance companies are more inefficient than government if you view profits and bonuses as loses. In a non-profit, that money wouldn't need to be collected. Private insurance might cover more stuff, but I really don't need insurance coverage for a lot of those things. It is the $25,000 bill I worry about. Not the $1,000 one. I would at least like to see government insurance for everyone if your bill is over $10,000 or $20,000. And people who are working and paying taxes should get preferential treatment, but it doesn't mean that the uninsured shouldn't be able to get catastrophic treatment without paying taxes

I'm not saying the government would get it right at first, but it can't be any worse than the messed up system we have today.

Willravel

You're absolutely right, and when you take this sentiment and combine it with the reasonable successes in Canada, the UK, and France... this is kinda turning into a broken record. Either you realize it works (as we see in other countries) or you don't.

seretogis

Is the United States Canada, the UK, or France? No.

Has the divine right of kings been replaced with the divine right of those without jobs?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Sun Tzu

Im just curious how many posters in this thread that are in favor of a plan like Clintons work in health care?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Cynthetiq

yes, I am.

And I didn't get any benefit from it. I move in 1991 while they were still fighting it out in court. And if they didn't fuck you in the ass with the insurance, they sure did with the electricity.... so no. It overall wasn't a better experience in my eyes to spend 4% less then the national average and then pay up the ass and have rolling blackouts for electricity. Still MORE money out of my pockets at the end of the day. It isn't the nickel and dime here and there it is ultimately how much at the end of the day stays in my pockets.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dc_dux

Not to belabor the point since it is a bit off topic, but I think you are confusing the issues here; prop 103 had nothing to do with the cost of electricity. It did have a positive impact on auto insurance rates.

I stand by my conclusion that national health care reform that can significantly lower the number of uninsured can result in the same win-win.

Please take a look at the study from Families USA (link) that makes a pretty strong case that less money "stays in your pockets" and you (and/or your employer) are paying higher premiums as a result of the costs for the uninsured.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

I'm not confusing how much money comes out of my pockets. At the end of the day it isn't how much less I spent on insurance. It is OVERALL how much money I get to keep versus all these other people who insist that it's better for me to give up my money "so that other people will benefit and thus I will benefit."

Strange because in 2005 I don't recall anything close to paying another $955 more for my health coverage because of these findings. My insurance premiums went up, some benefits changed such as formulary prescriptions. But no another $955 didn't come out of my pockets. If it did, I would have been screaming about that as well.

I don't want to pay that $400 either. I didn't want to before and I still don't.

But you must be seriously delusional to think that the $1800 savings your company makes per head would be given to the employee in some fashion. No it goes to the profits of the company because the company didn't incur the expenses. You think magically that any business owner would suddenly give that money away? The only change that I see would happen is that the $200 you no longer pay would go into your left pocket and taxes would go up and that would take it right back out and then some.

Again, it still equals more money out of my pocket.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Oh wow. So because we.... what... different countries, that means that things will be completely different here?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14478117

Actually, it looks pretty good. Not only that, but as the front runner, it actually stand a chance of being implemented.

Rekna

Actually I would just tell my boss, either you pay me that $1800 or I will find someone who does. If my boss says no then they are screwed when I leave because it would take 3 years to train someone into my job., Unions would demand it or there would be a strike, most people in educated jobs could demand that increase.

wanderer nico

Sorry if this has already been posted, I could only make it halfway through this thread. This is straight from the horse's mouth, the British National Health Service. Promising that by December 2008, no patient will have to wait longer than 18 WEEKS for treatment.

Do YOU want to wait 4 friggin months for treatment????

http://www.oxfordradcliffe.nhs.uk/fo...s/18weeks.aspx

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

aceventura3

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

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

Cynthetiq

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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

flstf

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.

aceventura3

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?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

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.

Slims

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.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Willravel

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.

Slims

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.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

dksuddeth

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?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

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.

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

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.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

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.

dc_dux

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.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire