Hillary's Health Care Idea NSFW - Page 7 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seer666 · 10-22-2007, 03:50 PM

While the current health car system sucks. I am so totaly against this. Having dealt with "universal health care" in the military, I see what kind of service you get under this system. It's shit. for every good doctor you see, you end up seeing 10 that are fucking clueless. And then there is Tricare, the insurance provider. You find 2 kinds of doctors with Tricare. Those that don't take it, and those that stopped taking it because Tricare doesn't pay it's bills. We need to get off this universal health care bullshit, and find a third option.

37OHSSV · 10-22-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seer666

While the current health car system sucks. I am so totaly against this. Having dealt with "universal health care" in the military, I see what kind of service you get under this system. It's shit. for every good doctor you see, you end up seeing 10 that are fucking clueless. And then there is Tricare, the insurance provider. You find 2 kinds of doctors with Tricare. Those that don't take it, and those that stopped taking it because Tricare doesn't pay it's bills. We need to get off this universal health care bullshit, and find a third option.

Funny, every retiree I know is very happy with Tricare. That said, we have a large Canadian contingent on this forum that takes every opportunity to tell the US how great their single-payer system is. Ontario has even made it illegal to pay for private health care. Sounds great, doesn't it? It certainly fits the desire of the OP, i.e. someone else is tasked to pay for his health care.

Here is one man's experience with that system:

highthief · 10-23-2007, 05:49 AM

You know, this is never a debate about which system is "better" - it comes down to how one views their society.

In Canada, and in virtually every western nation, societies have made the decision that everyone will contribute via their tax dollars so that everyone receives good healthcare.

In the US, society has made the decision that if you can afford high end healthcare, you should pay for it yourself, and if those less able to afford it get lesser quality or no healthcare, so be it.

Arguing over whether one system is "better" is futile - the debate is not about the quantifiable merits of each system, it is about society as a whole.

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The free market doesn't work with healthcare. It doesn't work with the military. It doesn't work with fire or police protection. It doesn't work with prisons. Get over the propaganda your community college economics teacher instilled in you about how the free market can solve all our problems and let's actually fix this.

Actually, the free market does work with health care, we just don't happen to have it, and haven't had a free market in health care for several decades. Health care is intensely regulated, health insurance is intensely regulated. There hasn't been any thing even remotely approximating a free market for health care since Medicare was enacted back in the mid-60s, and probably even earlier, back to WW2, when the only way an employer could raise compensation in an era of price controls was to provide non-wage comp in the form of (among other things) health insurance. If anything, health care is your quintessential example of screwing everything up by getting in the way of the free market, and then keeping on tinkering to the point that it's so complicated no normal person can understand it - which just opens avenues for slick operators to take advantage.

I remain convinced that we should outlaw third party payments for routine health care. In other words, make everyone uninsured. That would bring prices down so fast it would make your head spin - people simply won't stand for the bullshit pricing structures we see now if they had to pay for it out of their own pockets. Right now there is no pricing discipline because people don't pay for their own care. And prices of pharma would go down too, for the same reason. Health insurance should be true insurance, i.e. for unforeseen/unforeseeable disasters. Routine stuff should be paid out of people's own pockets, just like their rent and phone and cable. ("Benefits" are a form of compensation, which means that if this plan was enacted, pretty much all of what your employer otherwise spends on your health insurance would end up in your pocket as wages.) I know we'd need to have some sort of co-op bulk buying program for people with chronic conditions that require regular medication. But net, net, everyone except the insurance companies would benefit. And it won't require another Rube-Goldberg-style government program, either.

A few years ago, I wanted to have my family go "naked" on health insurance - cover only catastrophic, and pay for doctor visits and medicine out of our own pockets. I had calculated that we would come out ahead by some huge amount of money. My wife wouldn't hear of it.

flstf · 10-23-2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

A few years ago, I wanted to have my family go "naked" on health insurance - cover only catastrophic, and pay for doctor visits and medicine out of our own pockets. I had calculated that we would come out ahead by some huge amount of money. My wife wouldn't hear of it.

That is what my wife and I have done. Insurance with $10,000 deductible for catastrophic with minor stuff paid with HSA account or out of pocket. This is not easy to do since price comparison is difficult for many procedures and deciding what medical care is really necessary and which is not. The system seems to be set up for people with co-pay who do not care how much things cost and how many tests, drugs, etc are provided after their deductible. I suspect that many tests, prescriptions, etc.. are not really necessary. Also the system is not set up for competitive price shopping and in an emergency or bad accident you are in no position to get quotes.

Willravel · 10-23-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Actually, the free market does work with health care, we just don't happen to have it, and haven't had a free market in health care for several decades.

I understand what you're saying, but I was speaking relatively. If one were to compare the systems of healthcare between the US and another western power, ours would relatively be very capitalist. Yes, it's regulated, but it's far less regulated than systems that seem to be doing much, much better. France is so regulated it's basically socialist, but it's considered by not only the WHO, but it's almost universally recognized as the best health care system on the planet (unless you're a millionaire, in which case the US does just fine).

Speaking briefly on the subject of regulation, I've been speaking with a friend of mine who's father has been a doctor for decades and has been involved not only in medicine but administration. His complaints about the government regulation were seemingly unlimited. I asked him to show his father Sicko, but he refused calling it socialist propaganda. Heh. While the current government regulation of the medical industry may not be ultimately beneficial, it's hardly responsible for all of the problems. The government hardly asks the insurance companies to turn down people for life saving surgeries. The government doesn't make the private health care community lobby and bribe, though accepting the bribes certainly doesn't help. The government doesn't make the technology extremely expensive. The government doesn't require the drug companies to have thousand percent profit margins.

iwonder@ · 10-23-2007, 09:34 AM

[QUOTE=ASU2003]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html

But if they could give good health care coverage to every American for that much money, it sounds like a good plan. Espesicaly considering that I spend $840/year for Medicare right now, and I see nothing of that myself.

[/QUOTE

WELL here's my idea; since we are never going to see a dime of the money we are putting into Medicare, and since it is all going to a generation that is wringing the system dry without a thought to their children, other than that they hate our whole generation for not being them, I say we put that money towards the taxes for a national health-care system.

It's not like it could be anymore crooked than Medicare, and it might help people live healthier in their old age. Ah, who am I kidding. Nothing the government sticks it's hands in will ever help the average joe's quality of life. But I'd rather have the lesser of two evils, thank you! Definately not both!!!

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 10:05 AM

Willravel, I suspect there is a very big state to state difference in health care costs, and that the differences will be very closely related to the degree and kind of regulation. This isn't my area of expertise - I'm more of a well-read amateur here, so I can't get my fingers on my sources quickly - but I seem to recall that here in NY, where Local 1199 pretty much owns the Legislature, it is pretty much illegal to offer low-cost, few-featured health care policies. IIRC, the justification is that it's not right for some people to get significantly better coverage than others for something as important as health care. In other words, rather than offer choices of Chevys, Buicks, Toyotas and Audis, everyone has to drive a Mercedes or BMW whether they want to or not. Typically asinine NY law, with the result that Medicaid is now out of control, because the slack has to be picked up somewhere. I wish I could remember where I read that.

Part of the problem with the claim that we can do French-style health care here is that the US has a different culture. We are very individualistic, and all of us think we're important enough to deserve the best. There's nothing stoic or fatalistic about Americans. That means many denials of benefits will result in litigation, with the results that there will be lots of settlements, and ultimately costs will go blasting through any estimates. You'll have everyone travelling business class in no time, because no one will feel they are footing the bill themselves.

It's the convergence of a bunch of factors that makes single payer health care problematic in the US. And that's before even considering the philosophical issues, which I think you and I will probably disagree about, but which ultimately are matters of taste more than anything else.

Willravel · 10-23-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Willravel, I suspect there is a very big state to state difference in health care costs, and that the differences will be very closely related to the degree and kind of regulation. This isn't my area of expertise - I'm more of a well-read amateur here, so I can't get my fingers on my sources quickly - but I seem to recall that here in NY, where Local 1199 pretty much owns the Legislature, it is pretty much illegal to offer low-cost, few-featured health care policies. IIRC, the justification is that it's not right for some people to get significantly better coverage than others for something as important as health care. In other words, rather than offer choices of Chevys, Buicks, Toyotas and Audis, everyone has to drive a Mercedes or BMW whether they want to or not. Typically asinine NY law, with the result that Medicaid is now out of control, because the slack has to be picked up somewhere. I wish I could remember where I read that.

I suspect that a vast majority agree that the current system should not continue. It's the solution we disagree on. I'd like everyone to be able to get a Mercedes and BMW at the price of a Kia. I can't see that happening in a capitalist system not only because they're profit driven, but more specifically because there are 45 million people who have no car who would still be running the risk of not being covered under a more free market-esque system. A lot of why I'm fighting so hard for single payer has less to do with those who are covered and more to do with those who aren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Part of the problem with the claim that we can do French-style health care here is that the US has a different culture. We are very individualistic, and all of us think we're important enough to deserve the best. There's nothing stoic or fatalistic about Americans. That means many denials of benefits will result in litigation, with the results that there will be lots of settlements, and ultimately costs will go blasting through any estimates. You'll have everyone travelling business class in no time, because no one will feel they are footing the bill themselves.

I can think of 45,000,000 people alive right now and 18,000 people a year who aren't alive who may be able to look past their philosophical views on individualism in order to get what they need. It'd be nice if profit driven corporations couldn't get politicians in their back pockets, or couldn't turn down people who needed life saving treatment, but the reality is that our health is too important to risk on corporations, even the non-profits. And when you do cross the pond and take a look at the French system, they're all flying first class for less than we're paying over here and are shocked that we aren't riding first class, too.

I'm not saying it's going to be an easy transition, but if there's a reasonable chance we can have a system on par with France for every man, woman, and child in the US, isn't it worth giving a shot?

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

It's the convergence of a bunch of factors that makes single payer health care problematic in the US. And that's before even considering the philosophical issues, which I think you and I will probably disagree about, but which ultimately are matters of taste more than anything else.

I'm willing to throw my philosophy out if it has no place in reality. I'm not religious about my philosophy, after all. I only hope that other people would make the same claim.

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm willing to throw my philosophy out if it has no place in reality. I'm not religious about my philosophy, after all. I only hope that other people would make the same claim.

<br>Geez, that sounds like something I would say, to look at what works rather than what's appealing.

Take a look at Tennessee's experience with something akin to single payer, TennCare. I believe they were unable to control the costs. That's an example of why single payer won't work well in the US.

I still think getting rid of most health insurance is the most feasible, equitable and sane way to get costs under control and improve access for everyone. And for the poor, a medical care equivalent of food stamps. The rest of this huge lumbering Rube-Goldbergesque system should be put to sleep. As I said before, no one but the insurance companies will miss it.

Willravel · 10-23-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

<br>Geez, that sounds like something I would say, to look at what works rather than what's appealing.

Then I'm on the right track. Or you're on the right track.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Take a look at Tennessee's experience with something akin to single payer, TennCare. I believe they were unable to control the costs. That's an example of why single payer won't work well in the US.

I still think getting rid of most health insurance is the most feasible, equitable and sane way to get costs under control and improve access for everyone. And for the poor, a medical care equivalent of food stamps. The rest of this huge lumbering Rube-Goldbergesque system should be put to sleep. As I said before, no one but the insurance companies will miss it.

You know, I'd be willing to settle with ending insurance and instigating a "medical stamp" policy. I think the following are reasonable to want from the medical industry:
1) Affordability for a vast majority of people, at least on some level.
2) No more lobbyists, ever, ever. Get your greedy paws out of government or be run by them. Either or.
3) Something to help out those in need. Some people won't be able to afford basic medical care. They need some assistance in case of an emergency.

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 11:25 AM

Willravel: "Get your greedy paws out of government or be run by them. Either or."

See, that's the problem with govt involvement in almost anything. Your choice is either having opportunities for corruption (veiled or otherwise) or else curtailing freedom of expression. Neither one is very attractive.

Willravel · 10-23-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Willravel: "Get your greedy paws out of government or be run by them. Either or."

See, that's the problem with govt involvement in almost anything. Your choice is either having opportunities for corruption (veiled or otherwise) or else curtailing freedom of expression. Neither one is very attractive.

There shouldn't be career lobbyists or career politicians, really, as they tend to bring the authenticity out of the process, but that's another thread.

As for government involvement in medicine, I still can't get over how well it works in France compared to the US. Yes, it's not perfect, but in comparison it's absolutely breathtaking. And more importantly, it's what the people wanted, thus dealing with the curtailing of freedom issue. If we could get off our asses and do some homework, collective homework (what a concept!), I suspect this could get solved. There'd also probably be a revolution. Heh.

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 11:58 AM

Sadly, John Adams thought he could be a noncareer politician and rise above petty partisan sniping, much as George Washington did in his first term. It didn't work for Adams, and he was booted after one term in what may have been the nastiest presidential election in US history.

Willravel, like much else about ideal setups, having no career politicians just won't work. The world, and life, is what it is, and we have to make the best of it.

Willravel · 10-23-2007, 12:04 PM

Jesse "The Body" Ventura impressed a lot of people, myself included. He served one term and then left.

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 01:19 PM

yeah, but he didn't run for re-election. And I don't recall whether the reason was that he thought he probably would lose - do you recall?

That reminds me of a story. I used to have a client, Russian expat, who imported steel from mills in Russia (he has since returned to Russia and we lost touch). I took him to lunch one day during the Russian presidential election campaign between Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Zhirinovsky (whom you may remember as a xenophobic, antisemitic, right-wing Russian nationalist). The polls for a while showed Yeltsin trailing badly, and I asked the client (Sasha) about it. Sasha stopped a second, looked at me with this very level look, and said "Eef Yeltsin iz having un elekshun, eet's becawz he vill vin. Odervize dere vood be no elekshun." And Sasha was right - Yeltsin won in an amazing comeback. That was a very very interesting piece of cultural education that I learned, about what having an election means in other parts of the world. Which should give us all some appreciation for how great this country is.

Willravel · 10-23-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

yeah, but he didn't run for re-election. And I don't recall whether the reason was that he thought he probably would lose - do you recall?

He stated before running he'd only serve one term. I think it's damn near heroic to take that position on being a politician, and I wish Bush had done it when he was governor. One term representing your home, then retire.

That's an interesting story. After hearing Kasperov speak on Bill Maher this week, I feel like I've neglected Russian politics as of late.

loquitur · 10-23-2007, 04:37 PM

if Ventura did that, then good for him. Doing what one says one will do is honest, which is way too rare.

if Ventura did that, then good for him. Doing what one says one will do is honest, which is way too rare.

ASU2003 · 10-23-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

That is what my wife and I have done. Insurance with $10,000 deductible for catastrophic with minor stuff paid with HSA account or out of pocket. This is not easy to do since price comparison is difficult for many procedures and deciding what medical care is really necessary and which is not. The system seems to be set up for people with co-pay who do not care how much things cost and how many tests, drugs, etc are provided after their deductible. I suspect that many tests, prescriptions, etc.. are not really necessary. Also the system is not set up for competitive price shopping and in an emergency or bad accident you are in no position to get quotes.

I have this type of plan as well. Mainly because I am healthy.

I did get a prescription for some allergy medicine last week, and the doctor didn't care about the cost because she thought my insurance would pay for it. I went to the pharmacy and they told me it was $154 for 30 days of pills. I picked the $5 DEA regulated allergy medicine instead. Yes, there was one different chemical between the two, and maybe one works better than the other. But, when I have to pay out of my own money versus having insurance or the government pay for it, money matters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a system like this, run by a non-profit would be best. Although, if the big insurance companies were regulated a little more, and could earn more profits when Americans were healthier, I wouldn't care too much. You give everyone an HSA account so if you really need medical care you won;t have to pay more than the $1,000 - $3,000 deducible. There should also be no fees or experation dates on a HSA account. If you don't use your money, you won't lose it. If you have the money, you can buy better healthcare. If you don't have money, you will still have access to basic healthcare. It is your choice and you can get the advice of a doctor in making your decision.

loquitur · 10-24-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I did get a prescription for some allergy medicine last week, and the doctor didn't care about the cost because she thought my insurance would pay for it. I went to the pharmacy and they told me it was $154 for 30 days of pills. I picked the $5 DEA regulated allergy medicine instead. Yes, there was one different chemical between the two, and maybe one works better than the other. But, when I have to pay out of my own money versus having insurance or the government pay for it, money matters.

This is my point exactly, and why I think we should outlaw all third-party payments other than for catastrophic events. The idea that "cost shouldn't matter" is ridiculous, because someone is always paying for it, even if not the patient, and other people's money should be respected too. If you respect your own, you should spend your own.

Cynthetiq · 10-24-2007, 05:59 AM

I agree.

I'm happy to give freely from my own pocket, just stop sticking your hands in there and taking what you want.

Willravel · 10-24-2007, 07:11 AM

ASU - Kaiser is a non-profit, that doesn't stop it from turing down life saving surgeries and overcharging. It doesn't stop it from dropping off uninsured patients on the street. It doesn't stop it from lobbying.

Cynthetiq - stop pretending like people are trying to steal from you. If you pay less under socialized medicine, as I've already demonstrated, then you're paying less. That's actually the opposite of stealing.

loquitur · 10-25-2007, 05:42 AM

Willravel, I'd be very hesitant to just assume that a government-sponsored program will yield cost benefits. FWIW, I find this post by Megan McArdle persuasive (excerpt follows):

Quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>Ezra endorses this comment by one of his readers:
<BLOCKQUOTE> Another advantage of government funding over philanthropic funding is the theoretical ability to do better macro level allocation of resources. If you have, say, 10 billion dollars in one bucket you can have a team of experts figure out the optimal allocation of those resources across a broad range of needs, whereas if that 10 billion dollars is private charitable giving the allocation will be made in chunks of hundreds, thousands, and millions of dollars by individuals who can't see the big picture. Restricted money for sexy causes is a lot easier to raise than unrestricted money for more general and less sexy purposes, and individual organizations and donors allocate funds according to their own interests. So you get things like disproportionately large amounts of money for in vitro fertilization research and disproportionately small amounts of money for free preventive medicine for the poor. Not that there's anything wrong with IVF research, but it ought to be a lower priority compared to other things. It's not the fault of the charities or the donors that this misalocation happens, but it's a problem nonetheless.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Interestingly, this is exactly the argument that was offered for why socialism would be better than capitalism. I don't find it ridiculous; indeed, in 1935, I'm sure I'd have found it incredibly compelling. It took a genius like Friedrich Hayek (and ultimately, the collapse of the Soviet Union) to show why giant national solutions rarely outperform a competitive market.

The problem, it turns out, is that the central planners with the big picture have to design one-size-fits all programs that by their nature have more error built in because they don't have good local information. Also, when the planners make mistakes, as they inevitably will, those mistakes are bigger. They are also harder to detect because again, the planners have a much poorer grade of information about what is happening on the ground than local players do. And because there's no competition, there is no one to grade your performance against, and also, much less incentive to fix mistakes--particularly since those mistakes tend to generate constituencies devoted to protecting them. (See subsidies, farm.)</BLOCKQUOTE>

My own way of putting this is slightly different: people don't stop being people, and begin being angels, just because they are in the government. As the economist James Buchanan pointed out, people and groups who work in government have incentives and agendas just like everyone else, and those may or may not coincide with the "public interest" broadly defined. I'd be very reluctant to sign over everyone's health care to the tender mercies of government programs without being damn sure about what the tradeoffs are and what we're giving up by doing it. Speculative cost benefits aren't enough.

Cynthetiq · 10-25-2007, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

ASU - Kaiser is a non-profit, that doesn't stop it from turing down life saving surgeries and overcharging. It doesn't stop it from dropping off uninsured patients on the street. It doesn't stop it from lobbying.

Cynthetiq - stop pretending like people are trying to steal from you. If you pay less under socialized medicine, as I've already demonstrated, then you're paying less. That's actually the opposite of stealing.

will, I live in a city that takes quite good care of it's own community. the local community board impacts my day and nights MORE than President Clinton or Bush could ever do. They have more impact on my quality of life because they can be concerned about the localized issues. Why should I pay for YOUR sidewalk? Why should I care about if there is a bar 200 yards from the next one in YOUR neighborhood? Why should I be paying for roads and highways (not federal roads) in YOUR neighborhood?

will, YES you are sticking your hands into MY pockets.

Will, you've only demonstrated the theory behind it. These things aren't going to appear from thin air. Taxes will be levied in some fashion, and it will be paid for. I've demonstrated that other countries that have these socialized programs have much much higher taxes to pay for such things like socialized healthcare.

Willravel · 10-25-2007, 07:15 AM

Liquitur - If you look at socialized programs, they do yield cost benefits. They all pay way less per person than we do because the administrative, malpractice, and insurance costs virtually disappear. So if we model our system on one of the other systems, hopefully France, we should see prices drop for everyone. Even Cynth.

Cynth - if you want to live in a city state, that's your call. We have federal issues here in the USA. We have state issues here in the USA. That's how it works here. When you pay taxes, you're paying for sidewalk that *gasp* someone else will walk on, and it may not even be in your community. I know it pains you greatly to pay for something someone else will use, but you do.

You open your pockets by being a citizen. You do, no one else. If you don't want to pay for things like sidewalks or police, then there are plenty of desert islands in international waters that you could inhabit.

Cynthetiq · 10-25-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Liquitur - If you look at socialized programs, they do yield cost benefits. They all pay way less per person than we do because the administrative, malpractice, and insurance costs virtually disappear. So if we model our system on one of the other systems, hopefully France, we should see prices drop for everyone. Even Cynth.

Cynth - if you want to live in a city state, that's your call. We have federal issues here in the USA. We have state issues here in the USA. That's how it works here. When you pay taxes, you're paying for sidewalk that *gasp* someone else will walk on, and it may not even be in your community. I know it pains you greatly to pay for something someone else will use, but you do.

You open your pockets by being a citizen. You do, no one else. If you don't want to pay for things like sidewalks or police, then there are plenty of desert islands in international waters that you could inhabit.

You don't recall that YOU stated you don't differentiate the differences between local and federal government. You lump them all together.

Again, I do open my wallet as needed, but there's no need for me to pay for someone's police force in San Jose. It's not relevant to my life nor is it any consequence for you to pay for the New York City Housing that's just a few blocks from where I live. Now if you'd like to do that with all things, hey that's your perogative. I don't like paying more taxes. You may not like and loathe the monies you earn, I don't.

If I recall you have stated you have a daughter. I don't want to pay for your daughter's education. I'm stuck paying for basic education, but when it comes to higher education? No. I'm not interested in that. You choose to have a child, not me. YOU pay for her higher education.

Or should it be another one of your socialized programs because everyone should have higher education?

Willravel · 10-25-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You don't recall that YOU stated you don't differentiate the differences between local and federal government. You lump them all together.

It would be convenient for you if this was even close to true. The reality, of course, is that I call the whole government the US government, the state governments the state government, the county, etc. I was using a descriptive term for the whole government when you misunderstood me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Again, I do open my wallet as needed

You need to pay for medical care for people in your neighborhood and they you. Collectively, you'll get better care and you all end up paying less per person in taxes than you are currently in insurance. Sounds like a no brainer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

If I recall you have stated you have a daughter. I don't want to pay for your daughter's education. I'm stuck paying for basic education, but when it comes to higher education? No. I'm not interested in that. You choose to have a child, not me. YOU pay for her higher education.-

I wasn't aware it took tax dollars to pay for home schooling. I hope to get my checks soon. I hope we can fix the public school system so that it caters to creativity and education instead of assembly line useless fact cramming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Or should it be another one of your socialized programs because everyone should have higher education?

In 20 years when almost all of the decent jobs in the US are gone and the dollar has dropped below the peso, I suspect people may look back and wish that we ad the foresight to make better educations more available to everyone.

Cynthetiq · 10-25-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It would be convenient for you if this was even close to true. The reality, of course, is that I call the whole government the US government, the state governments the state government, the county, etc. I was using a descriptive term for the whole government when you misunderstood me.

:sniff: :sniff:

I seem to have stepped in some bullshit. You may recall we were talking about STATE government.
LINK

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So, in your mind, when someone says "US government", they always mean "federal government". Interesting. Did you know that states, counties, and even cities have government? So when I say "US government", I could mean federal, state, county, or city.

Ustwo · 10-25-2007, 07:58 AM

Am I the only one that gets a chuckle out of the unintended humor in the NSFW tag in the title?

loquitur · 10-25-2007, 08:27 AM

Willravel, I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits you're touting are likely to materialize (the French system runs deficits, for example), particularly outside the very short term. But even assuming that in terms of cash outlays, there will be some reduction of overall cost, at a certain point the rigidity built into the system will almost certainly affect it negatively, as it does almost every single government program ever invented - and severely degrade it after a relatively short adjustment period (certainly less than 10 years). Govt bureaucracies simply are not flexible, not adaptable, and highly resistant to being made so. Ever has it been so, ever will it be - which was the point of my post up above in #263.

Willravel · 10-25-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Am I the only one that gets a chuckle out of the unintended humor in the NSFW tag in the title?

I do, but then I remember why it's nsfw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Willravel, I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits you're touting are likely to materialize (the French system runs deficits, for example), particularly outside the very short term. But even assuming that in terms of cash outlays, there will be some reduction of overall cost, at a certain point the rigidity built into the system will almost certainly affect it negatively, as it does almost every single government program ever invented - and severely degrade it after a relatively short adjustment period (certainly less than 10 years). Govt bureaucracies simply are not flexible, not adaptable, and highly resistant to being made so. Ever has it been so, ever will it be - which was the point of my post up above in #263.

I demonstrated through verifiable sources that we pay more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country. I believe it was the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that held the study on health care expenses of the industrialized nations including the US. The amount of GDP that is spent on healthcare in the US is staggering, dwarfing even France who has the best health care in the world according to the massive WHO study released a few years back (and nothing has changed since then).

Cynthetiq · 10-25-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Willravel, I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits you're touting are likely to materialize (the French system runs deficits, for example), particularly outside the very short term. But even assuming that in terms of cash outlays, there will be some reduction of overall cost, at a certain point the rigidity built into the system will almost certainly affect it negatively, as it does almost every single government program ever invented - and severely degrade it after a relatively short adjustment period (certainly less than 10 years). Govt bureaucracies simply are not flexible, not adaptable, and highly resistant to being made so. Ever has it been so, ever will it be - which was the point of my post up above in #263.

exactly well stated and pointed out in my own post about Icelandic healthcare #230

Quote:

Sigursteinn Másson, chairman of the Organization of Handicapped in Iceland (OHI), agrees. “I know many employees within the health sector feel bad about charging high sums to people who often have little money,” Másson said. That’s why hospital staff often recommends unnecessary hospitalization, he explained.

One can easily look at the shiny exterior of the program, but peel away the veneer and you'll see it's just as mechanical, complex, and expensive as any other.

loquitur · 10-25-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I demonstrated through verifiable sources that we pay more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country. I believe it was the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that held the study on health care expenses of the industrialized nations including the US. The amount of GDP that is spent on healthcare in the US is staggering, dwarfing even France who has the best health care in the world according to the massive WHO study released a few years back (and nothing has changed since then).

We do spend more. Ever asked why? As I said up above, it's cultural.

Quote:

Consider this quote from <A HREF="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/10/maggie_mahar_vs.html#more">Maggie Mahar, quoted by Arnold Kling</A>, with Kling's comments:<BLOCKQUOTE>Mahar starts out her post with an interesting poll

Dr. Steven Schroeder, former head of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Distinguished Professor of Health and Health Care at the University of California, San Francisco, told a provocative story about a poll that asked patients in the U.S. `Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K the following question:

“If your personal doctor told you that you had an incurable and fatal disease, would you accept that diagnosis or seek a second opinion?"

* In the U.S., 91 percent of patients said they would seek a second opinion.
* In Canada, 80 percent
* In Australia , 71 percent
* In New Zealand, 51 percent
* In the U.K., 28 percent

My line is that America's health care system reflects American values. One of our key values is, "Don't give up!" Suppose you have, say, a problem with your shoulder, and your doctor says that you should just live with it and take a pain reliever every now and then. If you tell twenty of your friends and colleagues about this recommendation, you will come away with the names of 25 doctors you should see. Even if individual doctors want to avoid unnecessary procedures, society is working against them.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Any program to be enacted in America has to fit Americans. I'm sure health care would be quite cheap in, say, Guinea-Bissau, but programs appropriate for that culture wouldn't be appropriate for the US. And that's one of the several clear places where your argument breaks down. You're assuming it's purely attributable to there being some (restricted) scope for the operation of market in the US. Not so. It's at least equally attributable to the distortions of the market by poorly conceived regulation and through the separation of use from payment through insurance and benefits. Throw in the cultural aspects of how Americans use the health care system, and you'll see that your argument breaks down fairly drastically. That's why I think we have to eliminate third-party payment as the most equitable solution.

Willravel · 10-25-2007, 11:40 AM

I wish he had asked the french the same question. But here's something, the Canadians pay less and get higher rated care. They're only 11% less likely to get a second opinion?

BTW, did they ask uninsured people if they'd get a second opinion? I mean that's 1/6 the population of the US or about 15%. It's hard to say that their vote doesn't count on the issue, if we're going to use those statistics as a part of a discussion about universal health care.

loquitur · 10-25-2007, 07:49 PM

Canadians who don't like it have the option of crossing the border to get what they want. And many do.

Willravel · 10-25-2007, 08:06 PM

How many Canadians cross the border for health care vs. how many Americans cross the border for Canadian health care?

loquitur · 10-28-2007, 09:18 AM

I don't have the numbers, though there have been plenty of stories about Canadians suing to get reimbursed for the cost of going to Buffalo to get treated, after their requests for domestic treatment got buried in the health care bureaucracy. There also was a Quebec Supreme Court decision a few years ago holding that it's a violation of basic human rights for the provincial government to make it illegal to get private medical care. I assume the numbers are get-able, and will consist mainly of people who need non-routine things but have been put on intolerably (to them) long waiting lists to get them.

I don't know of Americans who cross the border to get medical care, though it certainly is possible. The main Canadian health-care import is price-regulated drugs, which are cheaper north of the border, for a congeries of reasons I won't go into here.

Cynthetiq · 10-31-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

National Hospital’s Overdue Debts Discussed
Minister of Health Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson was harshly criticized at the Althingi parliament yesterday for not paying the National Hospital’s overdue debts and thus throwing tens of ISK millions (ISK 10 million = USD 165,000, EUR 115,000) out the window in penal interests.

Chairman of the Progressive Party Valgerdur Sverrisdóttir raised the subject, claiming the overdue debts of the National Hospital currently add up to ISK 1.1 billion (USD 18 million, EUR 13 million), ruv.is reports.

Sverrisdóttir added that the health care service in the capital region is also heavily in debt and that no one seemed to be making an effort to make down payments on that front either.

Sverrisdóttir continued by criticizing the government and the Minister of Health for poor performance. Thórdarson said that he thought her criticism was undeserved but said he would look into the matter.

I continue to follow the Icelandic Health Care system since it is a socialized system and I have a keen interest in living in Iceland at some point in time.

So if the system is paying for itself and the costs are cheaper, why do they carry an $18M debt?

Unfortunately I cannot get more information since the other papers are written in Icelandic.

dc_dux · 10-31-2007, 02:04 PM

As interesting as the Icelandic health care system might be, I would rather compare Hillary's plan against, say a Bush plan?

Wait....Bush has never sent any comprehensive health care plan to Congress in the last 6 years.

How about a plan from the Repubs in Congress when they had control for 6 years?

Nope....cant find any plans there either.

The Republican candidates for President?

Nothing as detailed as Hillary's, Obama's, or Edwards' respective plans.

Help!!! Has any Republican proposed anything comprehensive (not just talking points)?

ASU2003 · 10-31-2007, 05:00 PM

The only way I would support a universal system is if it could never get into debt.

Meaning that either taxes would get raised if more people got sick or would fall if less people used health serviices.

I don't think anyone has come up with the right way to fix healthcare, even if it can be fixed at all.

10-22-2007, 03:50 PM	#241 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	While the current health car system sucks. I am so totaly against this. Having dealt with "universal health care" in the military, I see what kind of service you get under this system. It's shit. for every good doctor you see, you end up seeing 10 that are fucking clueless. And then there is Tricare, the insurance provider. You find 2 kinds of doctors with Tricare. Those that don't take it, and those that stopped taking it because Tricare doesn't pay it's bills. We need to get off this universal health care bullshit, and find a third option. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

10-23-2007, 05:49 AM	#243 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	You know, this is never a debate about which system is "better" - it comes down to how one views their society. In Canada, and in virtually every western nation, societies have made the decision that everyone will contribute via their tax dollars so that everyone receives good healthcare. In the US, society has made the decision that if you can afford high end healthcare, you should pay for it yourself, and if those less able to afford it get lesser quality or no healthcare, so be it. Arguing over whether one system is "better" is futile - the debate is not about the quantifiable merits of each system, it is about society as a whole. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-23-2007, 04:37 PM	#258 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	if Ventura did that, then good for him. Doing what one says one will do is honest, which is way too rare. if Ventura did that, then good for him. Doing what one says one will do is honest, which is way too rare. Last edited by loquitur; 10-23-2007 at 04:46 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

10-24-2007, 05:59 AM	#261 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I agree. I'm happy to give freely from my own pocket, just stop sticking your hands in there and taking what you want. __________________ 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. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-25-2007, 07:58 AM	#269 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Am I the only one that gets a chuckle out of the unintended humor in the NSFW tag in the title? __________________ 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.

10-23-2007, 09:34 AM	#247 (permalink)
iwonder@ Upright	[QUOTE=ASU2003]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html But if they could give good health care coverage to every American for that much money, it sounds like a good plan. Espesicaly considering that I spend $840/year for Medicare right now, and I see nothing of that myself. [/QUOTE WELL here's my idea; since we are never going to see a dime of the money we are putting into Medicare, and since it is all going to a generation that is wringing the system dry without a thought to their children, other than that they hate our whole generation for not being them, I say we put that money towards the taxes for a national health-care system. It's not like it could be anymore crooked than Medicare, and it might help people live healthier in their old age. Ah, who am I kidding. Nothing the government sticks it's hands in will ever help the average joe's quality of life. But I'd rather have the lesser of two evils, thank you! Definately not both!!!

10-23-2007, 10:05 AM	#248 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Willravel, I suspect there is a very big state to state difference in health care costs, and that the differences will be very closely related to the degree and kind of regulation. This isn't my area of expertise - I'm more of a well-read amateur here, so I can't get my fingers on my sources quickly - but I seem to recall that here in NY, where Local 1199 pretty much owns the Legislature, it is pretty much illegal to offer low-cost, few-featured health care policies. IIRC, the justification is that it's not right for some people to get significantly better coverage than others for something as important as health care. In other words, rather than offer choices of Chevys, Buicks, Toyotas and Audis, everyone has to drive a Mercedes or BMW whether they want to or not. Typically asinine NY law, with the result that Medicaid is now out of control, because the slack has to be picked up somewhere. I wish I could remember where I read that. Part of the problem with the claim that we can do French-style health care here is that the US has a different culture. We are very individualistic, and all of us think we're important enough to deserve the best. There's nothing stoic or fatalistic about Americans. That means many denials of benefits will result in litigation, with the results that there will be lots of settlements, and ultimately costs will go blasting through any estimates. You'll have everyone travelling business class in no time, because no one will feel they are footing the bill themselves. It's the convergence of a bunch of factors that makes single payer health care problematic in the US. And that's before even considering the philosophical issues, which I think you and I will probably disagree about, but which ultimately are matters of taste more than anything else.

10-23-2007, 11:25 AM	#252 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Willravel: "Get your greedy paws out of government or be run by them. Either or." See, that's the problem with govt involvement in almost anything. Your choice is either having opportunities for corruption (veiled or otherwise) or else curtailing freedom of expression. Neither one is very attractive.

10-23-2007, 11:58 AM	#254 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Sadly, John Adams thought he could be a noncareer politician and rise above petty partisan sniping, much as George Washington did in his first term. It didn't work for Adams, and he was booted after one term in what may have been the nastiest presidential election in US history. Willravel, like much else about ideal setups, having no career politicians just won't work. The world, and life, is what it is, and we have to make the best of it.

10-23-2007, 12:04 PM	#255 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Jesse "The Body" Ventura impressed a lot of people, myself included. He served one term and then left.

10-23-2007, 01:19 PM	#256 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	yeah, but he didn't run for re-election. And I don't recall whether the reason was that he thought he probably would lose - do you recall? That reminds me of a story. I used to have a client, Russian expat, who imported steel from mills in Russia (he has since returned to Russia and we lost touch). I took him to lunch one day during the Russian presidential election campaign between Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Zhirinovsky (whom you may remember as a xenophobic, antisemitic, right-wing Russian nationalist). The polls for a while showed Yeltsin trailing badly, and I asked the client (Sasha) about it. Sasha stopped a second, looked at me with this very level look, and said "Eef Yeltsin iz having un elekshun, eet's becawz he vill vin. Odervize dere vood be no elekshun." And Sasha was right - Yeltsin won in an amazing comeback. That was a very very interesting piece of cultural education that I learned, about what having an election means in other parts of the world. Which should give us all some appreciation for how great this country is.

10-24-2007, 07:11 AM	#262 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	ASU - Kaiser is a non-profit, that doesn't stop it from turing down life saving surgeries and overcharging. It doesn't stop it from dropping off uninsured patients on the street. It doesn't stop it from lobbying. Cynthetiq - stop pretending like people are trying to steal from you. If you pay less under socialized medicine, as I've already demonstrated, then you're paying less. That's actually the opposite of stealing.

10-25-2007, 07:15 AM	#265 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Liquitur - If you look at socialized programs, they do yield cost benefits. They all pay way less per person than we do because the administrative, malpractice, and insurance costs virtually disappear. So if we model our system on one of the other systems, hopefully France, we should see prices drop for everyone. Even Cynth. Cynth - if you want to live in a city state, that's your call. We have federal issues here in the USA. We have state issues here in the USA. That's how it works here. When you pay taxes, you're paying for sidewalk that gasp someone else will walk on, and it may not even be in your community. I know it pains you greatly to pay for something someone else will use, but you do. You open your pockets by being a citizen. You do, no one else. If you don't want to pay for things like sidewalks or police, then there are plenty of desert islands in international waters that you could inhabit.

10-25-2007, 08:27 AM	#270 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Willravel, I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits you're touting are likely to materialize (the French system runs deficits, for example), particularly outside the very short term. But even assuming that in terms of cash outlays, there will be some reduction of overall cost, at a certain point the rigidity built into the system will almost certainly affect it negatively, as it does almost every single government program ever invented - and severely degrade it after a relatively short adjustment period (certainly less than 10 years). Govt bureaucracies simply are not flexible, not adaptable, and highly resistant to being made so. Ever has it been so, ever will it be - which was the point of my post up above in #263.

10-25-2007, 11:40 AM	#274 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I wish he had asked the french the same question. But here's something, the Canadians pay less and get higher rated care. They're only 11% less likely to get a second opinion? BTW, did they ask uninsured people if they'd get a second opinion? I mean that's 1/6 the population of the US or about 15%. It's hard to say that their vote doesn't count on the issue, if we're going to use those statistics as a part of a discussion about universal health care.

10-25-2007, 07:49 PM	#275 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Canadians who don't like it have the option of crossing the border to get what they want. And many do.

10-25-2007, 08:06 PM	#276 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How many Canadians cross the border for health care vs. how many Americans cross the border for Canadian health care?

10-28-2007, 09:18 AM	#277 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I don't have the numbers, though there have been plenty of stories about Canadians suing to get reimbursed for the cost of going to Buffalo to get treated, after their requests for domestic treatment got buried in the health care bureaucracy. There also was a Quebec Supreme Court decision a few years ago holding that it's a violation of basic human rights for the provincial government to make it illegal to get private medical care. I assume the numbers are get-able, and will consist mainly of people who need non-routine things but have been put on intolerably (to them) long waiting lists to get them. I don't know of Americans who cross the border to get medical care, though it certainly is possible. The main Canadian health-care import is price-regulated drugs, which are cheaper north of the border, for a congeries of reasons I won't go into here.

10-31-2007, 02:04 PM	#279 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	As interesting as the Icelandic health care system might be, I would rather compare Hillary's plan against, say a Bush plan? Wait....Bush has never sent any comprehensive health care plan to Congress in the last 6 years. How about a plan from the Repubs in Congress when they had control for 6 years? Nope....cant find any plans there either. The Republican candidates for President? Nothing as detailed as Hillary's, Obama's, or Edwards' respective plans. Help!!! Has any Republican proposed anything comprehensive (not just talking points)? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-31-2007 at 02:06 PM..

10-31-2007, 05:00 PM	#280 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	The only way I would support a universal system is if it could never get into debt. Meaning that either taxes would get raised if more people got sick or would fall if less people used health serviices. I don't think anyone has come up with the right way to fix healthcare, even if it can be fixed at all.