Give 'em hell, Howard!

[saveliberty]

Of course they are ripping us off.

They are the reason that we pay more for drugs and healthcare than any country in the world.

WRONG!!!!!!!!

The costs are the same...the difference is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES....in other words TAXES on their citizens are used to subsidize the healthcare industry.

That's just silly. The percentage of GDP spent on healthcare is MUCH HIGHER in the United States than any other country in the world.

But lets get down to the nuts and bolts. How do other countries do a better job of providing healthcare to everyone and limiting costs at the same time?

They negotiate drug prices on behalf of patients. Lower costs.

They have free medical schools, so there are more doctors per capita than we have. Greater supply, lower costs.

They provide a government option to compete with the private insurance companies. More competition, lower costs.

They limit medical liability, so doctors don't have to practice defensive medicine. Lower liability, lower costs.

In the case of single payer systems like Canada, the administrative costs are much less because they don't have to pay admin costs for150 different for profit insurance companies. Less overhead, lower costs.

And lastly, because they have systems that cover everyone, people don't overuse the emergency room, which is the most expensive healthcare of all. Less emergency room visits, lower costs.

Of course none of this takes into account the horrible costs to society our system brings. Medical bankruptcies, delayed care, and the fact that our companies are less competitive in the world market, because of high healthcare costs born by employers. Our system is morally wrong and very destructive to our society.

Some wonderful ideas there Chris. The Republicans suggested several of them in their plan, but the Democrats rejected them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course it needs to die. We don't need 2000 pages to take care of the 5% of people that don't have health insurance nor do we need a damn governmnt run health care system. A very few common sense changfes in rules and regulations could save millions without the feds takingover or providing anything beyond what they already do.

Five percent? Where'd that number come from? Just last year, one in five MORE lost their health insurance coverage.

one in five lost their health care coverage - Google Search

 

[MaggieMae]

The American right is dumb as a box of rocks.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. National health insurance would be good for all of us. As usual the corporate greedheads are holding the country hostage. The greatest threat to American security are the Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

and their tax rates are astronomical...sometimes reaching 80% of their gross income...left out that little tidbit didn't you Chris...and what about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...why is it you socialists want the government to do EVERYTHING FOR YOU!!!!!......is that what your after????

Horseshit.

These are the lies repeated by the right wing nuts over and over again.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with such a system. That's why everyone else uses one.

The case for universal health care was never realistically made and the rationale was that the concept died in the Clinton Administration and would surely die 15 years later. (Probably right.) However, IF the debate had been about universal care there are hundreds of arguments to be made FOR it that would actually be cost-effective, not the least of which is the billions in tax subsidies the US government gives to employer-based insurance coverage.

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/synthesisno3policyprimer.pdf

 

[MaggieMae]

and their tax rates are astronomical...sometimes reaching 80% of their gross income...left out that little tidbit didn't you Chris...and what about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...why is it you socialists want the government to do EVERYTHING FOR YOU!!!!!......is that what your after????

Horseshit.

These are the lies repeated by the right wing nuts over and over again.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with such a system. That's why everyone else uses one.

And.... every single one of the governments of those countries would give their right arm to be able to ditch their broken systems. The US leads the world in medical advances - why do you think that is? Because of the investment that the pharmas etc are able to make. Why do people come to the US from all over the world for treatment? Because we have the best treatment. Yes, our system needs reform - what we don't need is to follow others into a system that will be worse than the one we have now. I know the British system very well - while the Brits defend it, they know it's crap - it is not what it was designed to be, it's bust and they know it.... they just can't afford to fix it.

We have the best treatment because Americans demand EVERYTHING, and the medical profession complies with that demand. The first thing that needs to be changed is the concept of payment per service, rather than payment for quality of service. I know I've said this before, but when my doctor sends me off AGAIN to a hospital 20 miles away for tests to determine a diagnosis that he's already given, Medicare has to pay for those tests and of course I have to pay the 20% difference. I do hope that when health care reform fails, again, that won't stop the Obama administration from changing that concept and getting more bang for the bucks paid out by Medicare.

 

[MaggieMae]

And.... every single one of the governments of those countries would give their right arm to be able to ditch their broken systems.

That's just not true. While I realize you live in the UK, I'm sure you also run with a crowd of your peers, and don't listen to what others living there might have to say on this issue.

War Room - Salon.com

Although Winston Churchill helped lay the groundwork for the NHS, he also warned during the 1945 campaign that the Labour Party's welfare state ideas would require “some kind of Gestapo” to administer. (Sound familiar?) But once it was written into law, messing with the NHS became political poison. Even Margaret Thatcher, at the height of her power, never dared to try.

That’s probably why [Steven] Hawking says of British healthcare, “I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.” The past few days have also seen a spike in the Twitter topic trend, #welovetheNHS, including tweets from Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah Brown. Even David Cameron, the head of the Conservative Party and leader of the opposition, has felt compelled to declare, “I support the NHS 100 percent and the Conservative Party supports the NHS 100 percent.”


Same thing in Canada:

Poll: Canadians like their health care despite grumbles | McClatchy

 

[MaggieMae]

And.... every single one of the governments of those countries would give their right arm to be able to ditch their broken systems. The US leads the world in medical advances - why do you think that is? Because of the investment that the pharmas etc are able to make. Why do people come to the US from all over the world for treatment? Because we have the best treatment. Yes, our system needs reform - what we don't need is to follow others into a system that will be worse than the one we have now. I know the British system very well - while the Brits defend it, they know it's crap - it is not what it was designed to be, it's bust and they know it.... they just can't afford to fix it.

The British system is socialized medicine where the doctors and the hospitals work for the government. That is not a good system.

What seems to work best is a combination of national health insurance and private insurance like the French have.

And as far as medical advances go, most of those come from non profit universities around the world.

Move to France...then write back and tell us how great it is to have health insurance paid for by your fucking neighbor.

Get ready for this you fucking hack....

Much of that economic malaise can be blamed on France's tax and regulation systems. France's tax burden is one of the highest in Europe -- welfare states don't come cheap. The top marginal income tax rate is 48 percent. When payroll taxes are included, the French can pay as much as 65 percent of their income in taxes. The top corporate tax rate is 34 percent. There is also a 19.6 percent value-added tax (VAT). Overall, taxes consume nearly 44 percent of France's GDP. And even this isn't enough to pay for the French welfare state. France's national debt tops 68 percent of GDP, quite aside from the unfunded liabilities of the French Social Security system -- a debt some estimate to exceed 200 percent of GDP.

Welfare Lessons from France | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...yeah...move to France asshole...we don't need your types here in America.

Your post about how much taxes they pay to support their health care system is moot, because most of them don't mind paying the tax. For them, that IS their insurance premium.

 

[MaggieMae]

You need to check your facts before shooting your mouth off Chris...you wonder why no one takes your communist rants seriously....

Everything in that post is the truth, so you attack me personally.

Too bad you have no facts to come back with.

Now......shut your fucking pie hole bitch.

Why do you need to be such a crude sonofabitch about it? You don't agree. Everyone gets that, but lacing your comments with angry profanity gets you nowhere.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Everything in that post is the truth, so you attack me personally.

Too bad you have no facts to come back with.

Now......shut your fucking pie hole bitch.

Why do you need to be such a crude sonofabitch about it? You don't agree. Everyone gets that, but lacing your comments with angry profanity gets you nowhere.

because no matter how many times you tell them the same thing over and over and over they just don't get it.

 

[MaggieMae]

how is that relevant to the united states of america?

Because our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair.

We are being ripped off by the healthcare lobbyists.

The lobbyists are ripping us off? So why not just eliminate lobbyists? Problem solved. Oh, because you made a false statement.

Ya think? Would you like to try? If so, how? Do you really think the insurance lobbyists, spending millions, haven't been responsible for gutting this by their massive TV ad campaigns, AND influence peddling?

Six Lobbyists Per Lawmaker Work on Health Overhaul (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and their tax rates are astronomical...sometimes reaching 80% of their gross income...left out that little tidbit didn't you Chris...and what about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...why is it you socialists want the government to do EVERYTHING FOR YOU!!!!!......is that what your after????

Horseshit.

These are the lies repeated by the right wing nuts over and over again.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with such a system. That's why everyone else uses one.

The case for universal health care was never realistically made and the rationale was that the concept died in the Clinton Administration and would surely die 15 years later. (Probably right.) However, IF the debate had been about universal care there are hundreds of arguments to be made FOR it that would actually be cost-effective, not the least of which is the billions in tax subsidies the US government gives to employer-based insurance coverage.

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/synthesisno3policyprimer.pdf

and if you will see...he started it...yet you give Priss a pass....how sweet of you.

 

[MaggieMae]

Because our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair.

We are being ripped off by the healthcare lobbyists.

The lobbyists are ripping us off? So why not just eliminate lobbyists? Problem solved. Oh, because you made a false statement.

Wasn't that included in OL'BO's CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. No more lobbyists or earmarks??? Kinda sorta didn't happen doncha know??

Yep. That was pretty naive. Trying to eliminate the most corrupt faction of government is like trying to stop the bull from charging the china shop by just saying HALT!

 

[MaggieMae]

WRONG!!!!!!!!

The costs are the same...the difference is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES....in other words TAXES on their citizens are used to subsidize the healthcare industry.

That's just silly. The percentage of GDP spent on healthcare is MUCH HIGHER in the United States than any other country in the world.

But lets get down to the nuts and bolts. How do other countries do a better job of providing healthcare to everyone and limiting costs at the same time?

They negotiate drug prices on behalf of patients. Lower costs.

They have free medical schools, so there are more doctors per capita than we have. Greater supply, lower costs.

They provide a government option to compete with the private insurance companies. More competition, lower costs.

They limit medical liability, so doctors don't have to practice defensive medicine. Lower liability, lower costs.

In the case of single payer systems like Canada, the administrative costs are much less because they don't have to pay admin costs for150 different for profit insurance companies. Less overhead, lower costs.

And lastly, because they have systems that cover everyone, people don't overuse the emergency room, which is the most expensive healthcare of all. Less emergency room visits, lower costs.

Of course none of this takes into account the horrible costs to society our system brings. Medical bankruptcies, delayed care, and the fact that our companies are less competitive in the world market, because of high healthcare costs born by employers. Our system is morally wrong and very destructive to our society.

Some wonderful ideas there Chris. The Republicans suggested several of them in their plan, but the Democrats rejected them.

I'm sure you're specifically referencing tort reform for malpractice, but in fact, the cost of malpractice insurance (although it has risen right along with the rising cost of actual treatment), it still only represents under 3% of the total cost of private health care AND the malpractice insurance rates vary greatly geographically. All things being relative, however, it's high in Miami, for example, but then again the medical profession's earnings are far greater in Miami than other more rural areas.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now......shut your fucking pie hole bitch.

Why do you need to be such a crude sonofabitch about it? You don't agree. Everyone gets that, but lacing your comments with angry profanity gets you nowhere.

because no matter how many times you tell them the same thing over and over and over they just don't get it.

Everybody *gets* both sides of this debate. But Chris and anyone else has a perfect right to say why, even you. But what you say is lost in concept when all you do is attack.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

That's just silly. The percentage of GDP spent on healthcare is MUCH HIGHER in the United States than any other country in the world.

But lets get down to the nuts and bolts. How do other countries do a better job of providing healthcare to everyone and limiting costs at the same time?

They negotiate drug prices on behalf of patients. Lower costs.

They have free medical schools, so there are more doctors per capita than we have. Greater supply, lower costs.

They provide a government option to compete with the private insurance companies. More competition, lower costs.

They limit medical liability, so doctors don't have to practice defensive medicine. Lower liability, lower costs.

In the case of single payer systems like Canada, the administrative costs are much less because they don't have to pay admin costs for150 different for profit insurance companies. Less overhead, lower costs.

And lastly, because they have systems that cover everyone, people don't overuse the emergency room, which is the most expensive healthcare of all. Less emergency room visits, lower costs.

Of course none of this takes into account the horrible costs to society our system brings. Medical bankruptcies, delayed care, and the fact that our companies are less competitive in the world market, because of high healthcare costs born by employers. Our system is morally wrong and very destructive to our society.

Some wonderful ideas there Chris. The Republicans suggested several of them in their plan, but the Democrats rejected them.

I'm sure you're specifically referencing tort reform for malpractice, but in fact, the cost of malpractice insurance (although it has risen right along with the rising cost of actual treatment), it still only represents under 3% of the total cost of private health care AND the malpractice insurance rates vary greatly geographically. All things being relative, however, it's high in Miami, for example, but then again the medical profession's earnings are far greater in Miami than other more rural areas.

So this is an excuse to just ignore tort reform?

 

[MaggieMae]

Horseshit.

These are the lies repeated by the right wing nuts over and over again.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with such a system. That's why everyone else uses one.

The case for universal health care was never realistically made and the rationale was that the concept died in the Clinton Administration and would surely die 15 years later. (Probably right.) However, IF the debate had been about universal care there are hundreds of arguments to be made FOR it that would actually be cost-effective, not the least of which is the billions in tax subsidies the US government gives to employer-based insurance coverage.

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/synthesisno3policyprimer.pdf

and if you will see...he started it...yet you give Priss a pass....how sweet of you.

Saying horseshit is like using an exclamation point. But everything you post has to contain some incoherent rant, and of course being labeled a "socialist" has the same connotation as profanity lately.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some wonderful ideas there Chris. The Republicans suggested several of them in their plan, but the Democrats rejected them.

I'm sure you're specifically referencing tort reform for malpractice, but in fact, the cost of malpractice insurance (although it has risen right along with the rising cost of actual treatment), it still only represents under 3% of the total cost of private health care AND the malpractice insurance rates vary greatly geographically. All things being relative, however, it's high in Miami, for example, but then again the medical profession's earnings are far greater in Miami than other more rural areas.

So this is an excuse to just ignore tort reform?

Some sort of cap does need to be included. But to listen to the RWNM, you'd think the lawyers were the sole reason for the high cost of health care. Not true.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm sure you're specifically referencing tort reform for malpractice, but in fact, the cost of malpractice insurance (although it has risen right along with the rising cost of actual treatment), it still only represents under 3% of the total cost of private health care AND the malpractice insurance rates vary greatly geographically. All things being relative, however, it's high in Miami, for example, but then again the medical profession's earnings are far greater in Miami than other more rural areas.

So this is an excuse to just ignore tort reform?

Some sort of cap does need to be included. But to listen to the RWNM, you'd think the lawyers were the sole reason for the high cost of health care. Not true.

It isn't included. I didn't say it was the sole reason or even a big part now did I?

 

[Darkwind]

Horseshit.

These are the lies repeated by the right wing nuts over and over again.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with such a system. That's why everyone else uses one.

And.... every single one of the governments of those countries would give their right arm to be able to ditch their broken systems. The US leads the world in medical advances - why do you think that is? Because of the investment that the pharmas etc are able to make. Why do people come to the US from all over the world for treatment? Because we have the best treatment. Yes, our system needs reform - what we don't need is to follow others into a system that will be worse than the one we have now. I know the British system very well - while the Brits defend it, they know it's crap - it is not what it was designed to be, it's bust and they know it.... they just can't afford to fix it.

We have the best treatment because Americans demand EVERYTHING, and the medical profession complies with that demand. The first thing that needs to be changed is the concept of payment per service, rather than payment for quality of service. I know I've said this before, but when my doctor sends me off AGAIN to a hospital 20 miles away for tests to determine a diagnosis that he's already given, Medicare has to pay for those tests and of course I have to pay the 20% difference. I do hope that when health care reform fails, again, that won't stop the Obama administration from changing that concept and getting more bang for the bucks paid out by Medicare.

That is quite easy to solve.

Pass a law, probably be only 3 pages, that states that if your doctor does not order those tests and he misses something because he did not order those tests, you have no right to sue him for it.

Think he'll then just start relying upon his skills instead of covering his ass from the lawyers?

 

[MaggieMae]

And.... every single one of the governments of those countries would give their right arm to be able to ditch their broken systems. The US leads the world in medical advances - why do you think that is? Because of the investment that the pharmas etc are able to make. Why do people come to the US from all over the world for treatment? Because we have the best treatment. Yes, our system needs reform - what we don't need is to follow others into a system that will be worse than the one we have now. I know the British system very well - while the Brits defend it, they know it's crap - it is not what it was designed to be, it's bust and they know it.... they just can't afford to fix it.

We have the best treatment because Americans demand EVERYTHING, and the medical profession complies with that demand. The first thing that needs to be changed is the concept of payment per service, rather than payment for quality of service. I know I've said this before, but when my doctor sends me off AGAIN to a hospital 20 miles away for tests to determine a diagnosis that he's already given, Medicare has to pay for those tests and of course I have to pay the 20% difference. I do hope that when health care reform fails, again, that won't stop the Obama administration from changing that concept and getting more bang for the bucks paid out by Medicare.

That is quite easy to solve.

Pass a law, probably be only 3 pages, that states that if your doctor does not order those tests and he misses something because he did not order those tests, you have no right to sue him for it.

Think he'll then just start relying upon his skills instead of covering his ass from the lawyers?

When a person first visits a doctor, you need to sign a bunch of forms, one of which clearly releases the doctor from liability for anything other than gross neglect (like cutting off the wrong leg). But apparently the courts continue to allow frivolous lawsuits, although they are not overwhelming in number.

Frankly, we patients need to take more responsibility for exactly WHAT a doctor is ordering up. Getting back to my own experiences, when I was told the nurse would be taking more blood (when I had already had blood drawn the previous month for 3 profiles, and they drew 6 tubes at that time, I first asked the doctor what he was looking for this time, and then I asked whether the lab could use those extra three samples already taken a month ago. He checked, and the answer was yes--for what he was ordering--although the lab had only 2 left because one of them went into the blood bank with only my type ID'd for someone else's use.

Also, don't be afraid to have the clerk at the front desk automatically send you a copy of what goes into your chart, and if you don't get it, call and ask for it. You have a right to know your doctor's diagnoses, even though most of them are reluctant to give you too much information. And why is that? Because it takes up too much time, should you have more questions than your scheduled appointment will allow. If you don't understand some of the medical lingo in your chart, look up the definitions on the Internet. You'll find even the abbreviations they like to use.

 

[Chris]

WRONG!!!!!!!!

The costs are the same...the difference is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES....in other words TAXES on their citizens are used to subsidize the healthcare industry.

That's just silly. The percentage of GDP spent on healthcare is MUCH HIGHER in the United States than any other country in the world.

But lets get down to the nuts and bolts. How do other countries do a better job of providing healthcare to everyone and limiting costs at the same time?

They negotiate drug prices on behalf of patients. Lower costs.

They have free medical schools, so there are more doctors per capita than we have. Greater supply, lower costs.

They provide a government option to compete with the private insurance companies. More competition, lower costs.

They limit medical liability, so doctors don't have to practice defensive medicine. Lower liability, lower costs.

In the case of single payer systems like Canada, the administrative costs are much less because they don't have to pay admin costs for150 different for profit insurance companies. Less overhead, lower costs.

And lastly, because they have systems that cover everyone, people don't overuse the emergency room, which is the most expensive healthcare of all. Less emergency room visits, lower costs.

Of course none of this takes into account the horrible costs to society our system brings. Medical bankruptcies, delayed care, and the fact that our companies are less competitive in the world market, because of high healthcare costs born by employers. Our system is morally wrong and very destructive to our society.

Some wonderful ideas there Chris. The Republicans suggested several of them in their plan, but the Democrats rejected them.

And the Democrats suggested several of them in their plan, but the Republicans rejected them.