Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-22-2007, 02:46 AM   #161 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Off topic but please post pictures like that as a link on this board with an attached nsfw.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Sure, when I was a child. But once I hit 23 and was not in college, I had no medical coverage until I was 27.

No I did not go to the doctor. I did not go to any hospital, I did not get any prescription drugs. Medical insurance does not cover buying Tylenol nor Nyquil. So explain to me how I would have more money in my pocket if I paid into a system that I did not want pay into? I wanted to pay my bills at that time, choosing insurance was $50 out of my paycheck every 2 weeks, $100 each month. When I was making $700 take home a month, how is paying $100 having more money in my pocket?

Again, I CHOOSE to forgo participating in the system. How is that fair to be forced to participate where I don't want to?

Edit: Sorry I forgot when I was 23 and had no insurance I was run over on Route 4 in NJ on my motorcycle. My bills were paid for by the person's insurance that hit me.
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.
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:53 AM   #162 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
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?
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 09-22-2007, 04:35 AM   #163 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
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.

Last edited by Nimetic; 09-22-2007 at 04:43 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Nimetic is offline  
Old 09-22-2007, 05:24 AM   #164 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
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.

Quote:
Spending by state governments is about one-fifth of total spending for health care in the United States. States spent $224 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $238 billion in 1999. In each of these years, state funds were 53 percent of the total; the remainder was federal matching funds and grants.

National health care expenditures are now 13 percent of the gross domestic product. Total spending for health care reached $1.1 trillion in 1998 and is projected to total $2.2 trillion by 2008, growing at an average annual rate of 7.2 percent.

Public spending for health care, by all levels of government, exceeds private-sector spending, according to a recent analysis by the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI). According to this analysis, public spending in 1998 was 58 percent of the total; considerably more than the 45.5 percent calculated by the federal Health Care Financing Administration.*
Quote:
For this report, states were asked to report direct personal health expenditures, including expenditures to cover treatment of physical health conditions as well as mental health and substance abuse services. These figures generally exclude expenditures for subsistence and personal care. Spending detailed in this report for public health-related expenditures, corrections, higher education, community-based services, and state facility–based services therefore does not represent the totality of spending in these areas but rather only the direct personal health expenditures in these categories.
Quote:
In addition, states provided totals for expenditures in other public health–related areas. Depending on the state, the amounts reported for other public health care expenditures may include money spent on the following kinds of services:

* pharmaceutical assistance for the elderly
* childhood immunization
* chronic disease hospitals and programs
* hearing aid assistance
* adult day care for persons with Alzheimer's disease
* health grants
* medically handicapped children
* Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs
* pregnancy outreach and counseling
* chronic renal disease treatment programs
* AIDS testing
* breast and cervical cancer screening
* tuberculosis (TB) programs
* emergency health services
* adult genetics programs
* Phenylketonuria (PKU) testing
* health promotion and education program
* schools for the blind
* schools for the deaf
* mental health hospitals
* facilities for the developmentally disabled
* substance abuse facilities
* veterans' homes
* rehabilitation facilities
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..
__________________
"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."


Last edited by aceventura3; 09-22-2007 at 02:26 PM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-22-2007, 07:25 AM   #165 (permalink)
Addict
 
guyy's Avatar
 
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimetic
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.
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.
guyy is offline  
Old 09-22-2007, 11:15 PM   #166 (permalink)
Upright
 
37OHSSV's Avatar
 
Location: Lesbian trapped in a man's body
After reading 80 posts of this ubiquitous debate, part one of the needed responses follow:

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Suggesting that one should have freedom from medical care should mean that they want freedom from police care, fire protection, disaster relief, use of public roads, and air. How about you stop paying taxes, and thus you stop using all that which the government affords you? How about the military stops protecting your family? How about you stop complaining?How about you stop being so selfish? I don't hear anyone complaining about having to pay taxes to the firemen come when there's a fire... at someone else's house!
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I think one of the biggest problems with health care is that there is little or no competition in many cases, especially hospital costs. I don't see where Hillary's or most other plans do anything to foster competition. Where there is little competition prices are naturally going to go way up.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
This is the other side of the coin. Would the government tell you which doctor to go to because they are the cheapest? Or would the government set the price that doctors can charge? I don't know how you would control prices and if the experience that doctors have, their success rates, how many patients they see, or what speciality they are would dictate how much they get paid.
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
basic health care is a fundamental human right, it seems to me.
the variable is the mode that gets us from here to there.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You still didn't address my point, seretogis. Would you opt out of police and fire protection and pay slightly less taxes? Would you opt out of paying for streets and sidewalks and stop driving or leaving your home?
Many people in smaller communities do exactly that. What is your point, and why does it involve driving and leaving your home?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
The "I did x and therefore those that didn't are lazy" is illogical and does nothing to address the real issue. The reality is that no matter what the individuals do, there will always be low paying jobs out there and the workers aren't going to get coverage.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
What we're all saying is that while you may have had that opportunity, not everyone else does. Some people are very much stuck and have zero options for getting health insurance. There's a reason 45 million Americans don't have health coverage, and I have to tell you it's not because they all just don't think they need it.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rekna
How do you know they didn't try hard in school? How do you know the school even taught them anything? How do you know they weren't helping raise 5 kids in a single parent family and thus couldn't concentrate on school? You are generalizing based on a bias that you have. Not everyone in the world has the same opportunities as you did and the reason for this isn't necessarily their fault.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
So what you're saying is that because SOME (an unknown number) of these people *might* be lazy or don't apply themselves, ALL of them don't deserve our help.
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.

Quote:
There you go with those assumptions again.
Oh, the irony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
and i don't mind spending some of your money too.
The liberal battle cry. Except most times, they DO mind spending their own money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
I now have health insurance for myself and my children, I have a decent place to live. Why? Because I have busted my ass to put myself in a better situation. I wasn't GIVEN any opportunities. I fought tooth and nail to create them. Guess what? The system doesn't owe me free healthcare, free food, free housing, or anything else. If I want it, I had best get off my dead ass and do what it takes to get it, don't expect me to provide it for you when you don't.
Good thing you didn't have some of our members around at the time, to tell you that what you did was impossible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Cynthetiq......I am trying to understand how personal tax credits to working families and tax incentives to small businesses to enable millions more workers to have access to affordable insurance will take money out of your pocket anymore than lowering the marginal rate on the top 2% of earners or cuts in the capital gains tax... not to mention the more than $100 billion in corporate tax breaks enacted in the last six years to industries as diverse as restaurants, nascar owners and importers of Chinese ceiling fans (just to mention a few who benefited from Bush corporate tax cuts)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Nothing I have seen so far from the US system suggests that healthcare for profit works.
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.
37OHSSV is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 08:25 AM   #167 (permalink)
People in masks cannot be trusted
 
Xazy's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Good article i read

Quote:
The Dark Side of Hillary Clinton's Health Care Plan

Thursday , September 20, 2007
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The public face of Hillary Clinton's new health care plan is sunny, filled with choices for consumers and bright with promises for better health care for all. But a close examination of the proposal alongside other initiatives of Sen. Clinton in the past few years reveals a dark side she wants to hide from public view until after the election is over.

In her program, she speaks of how health care is the right of every "American" — but she has a rather expansive definition of "American." In 2005, Hillary co-sponsored legislation in the United States Senate to offer free health insurance, under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. So, those who have dodged the immigration cops for five years successfully would be rewarded not only with legal status and a path to citizenship, but with immediate free health care for their children.

Indeed, when Democrats and liberals speak of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, more than one fifth of those are illegal immigrants. Thus, about one in five of the beneficiaries of her program for universal health insurance are illegal aliens. (Illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large segment of the uninsured population because legal immigrants and citizens who live in poverty are eligible for Medicaid, but illegal immigrants are not.)

Would Americans like to reward those whose only connection to our country is that they flouted our laws to come here with free health insurance for themselves and their children? Doubtless Hillary knows the answer is no, so she is determined to hide that aspect of her plan from the public.

Hillary speaks of the importance of stopping health insurance companies from raising premiums on those who are sick. But she does not mention the inevitable flip side of her proposal — to raise premiums on those who are well. On the one hand, she would cover all those with chronic conditions with low cost health insurance and, on the other, would stop insurance companies from "cherry picking" healthy and young people for their insurance plans. The net effect would be a major increase in health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans.

In effect, her plan would turn "insurance" into "subsidy." The concept of insurance is that one pays a relatively low premium to guard against catastrophic expenses that are outside of our ability to meet financially. But Hillary's program would really be nothing more than a cash transfer from the healthy to the sick, not an insurance program at all.

Hillary says that her program would provide "universal" coverage for all. In order to achieve universality, one must make the program compulsory. The bulk of the uninsured do not want to have to pay for insurance. They are healthy and don't want the added burden of health insurance. That is why about half of those who are eligible for free or low cost insurance under the State Child Health Insurance Program have not signed up. Their parents don't want to.

So Hillary's program, as she freely admits, would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment. Not having health insurance would be a violation just as driving a car without automobile insurance is illegal. The resulting coercion would force millions to pay for coverage they do not want and feel they don't need. But to pay for her national program, Hillary needs everyone to be covered so she can use their revenues to subsidize the coverage of those who are ill.

But the main defect of Hillary's program is that it leaves out any attempt at cost control. With health care absorbing 16 percent of our economy, Bill Clinton's warnings of economic disaster if its share of our national income passed 12 percent back in 1993 sound almost quaint today. Cost control is a vital part of any plan for universal coverage. Indeed, without it, extending coverage just offers a blank check to patients and providers which would drive even higher the share of our economy that goes to health care.

It was Hillary herself who explained this concept to Dick in 1993. The reality has not changed. Hillary will be forced to control costs as the implicit and vital element of any health care reform. This control of costs belies her contention that she would leave the health care system untouched except to extend coverage to those who now lack it. Because she would need to limit utilization and lower costs, she would be forced to ration health care and to impose government mandated and controlled managed care on all Americans.

For the first time, the word "no" would come into our system. Do you need open heart surgery? Are you a poor risk because of smoking or diabetes or age? No longer would the bureaucrat at the other end of the phone say "we won't pay for it" or "you don't need it" or "we can't fit you in at our facility." The answer would simply be no — even if you pay for it yourself, you may not have one. It is this type of coercion that drives Canadians over the border to the U.S. in search of medical options denied them at home under their socialized medical structure. Now it would operate on both sides of the border.

Finally, Hillary seeks to finance the system by ending tax breaks for the wealthy, by which she means any household with $250,000 or more in income. Never mind that she has spent that money several times over. But why use income taxes to finance her system? Why not do what Democrats and Republicans are now pushing in Congress — to finance it by raising cigarette taxes? That way we get a double impact: higher tobacco prices cut smoking, particularly among teenagers, and reduce health costs and the revenues pay for her expansion of the system. The current Congress is passing legislation to raise cigarette taxes 61 cents per pack to pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. Why not raise them $2 per pack to raise the $110 billion Hillary says her health care proposal will need?

In selling her program, Hillary seems to imply that she was under the hypnotic control of her advisers (presumably Ira Magaziner) in 1993 when she designed her previous health care reform. Now she says she is in charge. "I'm the decision maker now," she told The New York Times. "I have a plan that is 100 percent my plan." But what was the 1993 initiative but her plan, concocted in secret and foisted in toto on a Congress which wouldn't pass it?

Now she says she would not "have approached [health care reform] in the same way" as she did in 1993. Now she will be informed by "a greater dose of humility and empathy and understanding of what it takes to get things done in our political system."

That and a determination to conceal the true implications of her proposal until after she is elected.
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.
Xazy is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 09:20 AM   #168 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
DC_Dux already confirmed my conclusion in post #145. Maybe you missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37OHSSV
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?
From DC's post:
Quote:
In general.— The term “medical care” does not include cosmetic surgery or other similar procedures, unless the surgery or procedure is necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.
(B) Cosmetic surgery defined.— For purposes of this paragraph, the term “cosmetic surgery” means any procedure which is directed at improving the patient’s appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.
That pretty much covers what would hypothetically be covered or not covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37OHSSV
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37OHSSV
Many people in smaller communities do exactly that. What is your point, and why does it involve driving and leaving your home?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37OHSSV
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 [Cynthetiq's].
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37OHSSV
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.
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 09:44 AM   #169 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.

Quote:
LINK
Almost daily we're bombarded with apocalyptic warnings about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. Senator Hillary Clinton wants to require everyone to have it, to require big companies to pay for it, and have government buy policies for the poor.

That is a move in the wrong direction.

America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it.

You have to understand something right from the start. We Americans got hooked on health insurance because the government did the insurance companies a favor during World War II. Wartime wage controls prohibited cash raises, so employers started giving noncash benefits like health insurance to attract workers. The tax code helped this along by treating employer-based health insurance more favorably than coverage you buy yourself. And state governments have made things worse by mandating coverage many people would never buy for themselves.

Competition also pushed companies to offer ever-more attractive policies, such as first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. We came to expect insurance to cover everything.

That's the root of our problem. No one wants to pay for his own medical care. "Let the insurance company pay for it." But since companies pay, they demand a say in what treatments are—and are not—permitted. Who can blame them?

Then who can blame people for feeling frustrated that they aren't in control of their medical care? Maybe we need to rethink how we pay for less-than-catastrophic illnesses so people can regain control. The system creates perverse incentives for everyone. Government mandates are good at doing things like that.

Steering people to buy lots of health insurance is bad policy. Insurance is a necessary evil. We need it to protect us from the big risks--things most of us can't afford to pay for, like a serious illness, a major car accident, or a house fire.

But insurance is a lousy way to pay for things. You premiums go not just to pay for medical care, but also for fraud, paperwork, and insurance company employee salaries. This is bad for you, and bad for doctors.

The average American doctor now spends 14 percent of his income on insurance paperwork. A North Carolina doctor we interviewed had to hire four people just to fill out forms. He wishes he could spend that money on caring for patients.

The paperwork is part of insurance companies' attempt to protect themselves against fraud. That's understandable. Many people do cheat — lie about their history, demand money for unnecessary care or care that never even happened.

So there's lots of waste in insurance, lost money and time.

Imagine if your car insurance covered oil changes and gasoline. You wouldn't care how much gas you used, and you wouldn't care what it cost. Mechanics would sell you $100 oil changes. Prices would skyrocket.

That's how it works in health care. Patients don't ask how much a test or treatment will cost. They ask if their insurance covers it. They don't compare prices from different doctors and hospitals. (Prices do vary.) Why should they? They're not paying. (Although they do in hidden, indirect ways.)

In the end, we all pay more because no one seems to pay anything. It's why health insurance is not a good idea for anything but serious illnesses and accidents that could bankrupt you. For the rest, we should pay out of our savings.

Next week we'll look at alternatives to this crazy system.
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 11:23 AM   #170 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
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.
__________________
"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."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 11:32 AM   #171 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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"."
And how do you know that?
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 12:27 PM   #172 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
__________________
"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."


Last edited by aceventura3; 09-23-2007 at 12:30 PM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 12:41 PM   #173 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 03:40 AM   #174 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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?
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.
__________________
"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."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 04:22 AM   #175 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
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/
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 05:46 AM   #176 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 08:26 AM   #177 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 09-24-2007 at 08:28 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 08:30 AM   #178 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it.
I'm amazed that with 250 million with insurance that the costs are still so high.
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 09:26 AM   #179 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 09:33 AM   #180 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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 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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 09:54 AM   #181 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
sure what what you are talking about is racketerring and conspiracy, something that has been busted before.
I dare this sentence to make less sense.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:10 AM   #182 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:26 AM   #183 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
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.
Wait... so you're agreeing with me? I.. I'm shocked!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
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.
All 45 million of them have spinners and pinewoods?
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:37 AM   #184 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Wait... so you're agreeing with me? I.. I'm shocked!

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.
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:48 AM   #185 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
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

Quote:
"I am at the head of a state that is in a position of bankruptcy," he said.
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.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:53 AM   #186 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
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.
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:14 AM   #187 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Fuck this place.

I'm moving to Canada.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:33 AM   #188 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
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 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.
flstf is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 12:03 PM   #189 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
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?
__________________
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 12:05 PM   #190 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I dont give a fuck about comparing GDPs.
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?

Quote:
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.
No one has disputed that.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
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.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
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.
__________________
"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."


Last edited by aceventura3; 09-24-2007 at 12:15 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 05:15 PM   #191 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: South Louisiana
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.
Digbudro is offline  
Old 10-05-2007, 07:38 PM   #192 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
You Don't Need To Capitalize Every Word. FYI. Also, where's this "60%" thing coming from?
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-08-2007, 04:49 AM   #193 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
"There's no place like home. There's no place like home."

(Clicks heels three times and goes back to Canada)
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 10-08-2007, 08:43 PM   #194 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: way out west
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?
fastom is offline  
Old 10-08-2007, 08:46 PM   #195 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Post #141.
Willravel is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 03:47 AM   #196 (permalink)
Psycho
 
DJ Happy's Avatar
 
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.
DJ Happy is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 05:42 AM   #197 (permalink)
Psycho
 
connyosis's Avatar
 
Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned
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.
__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
connyosis is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 06:07 AM   #198 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by connyosis
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.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 06:29 AM   #199 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 10-10-2007, 06:47 AM   #200 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
 

Tags
care, health, hillary, idea, nsfw


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:55 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62