Government Universal Health Care, from Ezekiel Emanuel

[macky82]

all people here! well said!

 

[Gurdari]

How many of you want the government to determine your "appropriate and cost effective" health care?

What's the alternative? A corporation trying to make money any way they can?

I'll opt for the more accessable, more citizen responsive, less profit-driven method of care.

Let me ask you:

How many of you want the government to determine your "appropriate and cost effective" police response?

Shouldn't you get to choose which cops repsond to your 911 call? What sort of Stalinist shit has the Nanny state forcing you to pay for a system you might never even use???

 

[Gurdari]

Inserting the government into the equation is not the answer.

Well, isn't the government essnetially YOU? The people? Representing what you decide is needed? You (like other nations) have a code/charter/bill etc. that protects certain rights, but otherwise it is up to the people of the country to make decisions through elected representatives... so it need not be 'them vs us' or think that the government is some beast over in the corner wanting to tell you how to live... it is the result of the people who use the government. If you don't bother - you won't have much say.


So, an entity that you have more access to, more control over that is bound to respond to the will of the people (somewhat) compared to private companies that need only satisfy the bottom line, or their investors, etc. Not who you would normally trust your life to... unless they stand to make a lot of money from it. The government (when it works) satisfies the needs of the people, whether it is easy or hard, profitable or not.

If the government isn't working how it should, the solution would be to figur eout why and do something about it, instead of just give up and hand the keys over to the free market...

 

[alan1]

How many of you want the government to determine your "appropriate and cost effective" health care?

What's the alternative? A corporation trying to make money any way they can?

I'll opt for the more accessable, more citizen responsive, less profit-driven method of care.

Let me ask you:

How many of you want the government to determine your "appropriate and cost effective" police response?

Shouldn't you get to choose which cops repsond to your 911 call? What sort of Stalinist shit has the Nanny state forcing you to pay for a system you might never even use???

Except now, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
There is a reason I have firearms. That reason is that the police are reactionary. They show up after the crime has been committed.

 

[alan1]

Inserting the government into the equation is not the answer.

Well, isn't the government essnetially YOU? The people? Representing what you decide is needed? You (like other nations) have a code/charter/bill etc. that protects certain rights, but otherwise it is up to the people of the country to make decisions through elected representatives... so it need not be 'them vs us' or think that the government is some beast over in the corner wanting to tell you how to live... it is the result of the people who use the government. If you don't bother - you won't have much say.


So, an entity that you have more access to, more control over that is bound to respond to the will of the people (somewhat) compared to private companies that need only satisfy the bottom line, or their investors, etc. Not who you would normally trust your life to... unless they stand to make a lot of money from it. The government (when it works) satisfies the needs of the people, whether it is easy or hard, profitable or not.

If the government isn't working how it should, the solution would be to figur eout why and do something about it, instead of just give up and hand the keys over to the free market...

I want the government to stay out of my health care decisions.
I'll take my chances with the free market.
I'm pretty confident that the government getting involved in health care decisions will be just as successful as their war on drugs and war on poverty.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is an example I thought of in response to your post.

One of the arguments against "The Fair Tax", Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation is that if the government stops taxing corporations the corporations will not pay taxes and neither will they drop their prices. Well, that argument is really preposterous in a Capitalistic society. What will happen is that if corporate taxes are reduced or eliminated then the costs to the corporation are going to go down.

Why is Walmart so cheap? One big reason is that they have purchasing power. They can buy from their suppliers at costs significantly below the cost of their competition. Let's say they can buy widgets at a dollar each. They can mark it up say 40% and sell it for $1.40. If Pop's Widget Shop can only buy widget for $1.35, then to compete with Walmart they can only mark up each widget a nickel which most likely is not enough to cover overhead and Pop Widget Shop goes bankrupt. However, the companies that can compete with Walmart will compete.

If corporate taxes go down 20% then the price of widgets can drop to $1.12 and corporations will still make the same profit. How long do you think it will take before Walmart and Target drop their prices on Widgets to steal customers from other widget dealers? How long do you think it will take for the others to follow?

The same goes with Private Healthcare. If United Healthcare does not cover a new and promising Cancer treatment; but Kaiser, Aetna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and any others do; and customers begin abandoning United because of the treatment, United will have to re-evaluate its policy very quickly or face extermination.

Put it in the government's bean counter's hands and that Cancer treatment may not be available to anyone at all.

Immie

It does make sense but what is missing out othis equation is that most people take out their health Insurance with their employer and usually only one, 2 at the most, insurance company plans are offered for you to take and both from the same company...

There is no shopping around for the "better" policy available to us Immie...at least for the most part.

The person doing the shopping for all 100 employees of the company is the one doing the shopping and usually the cheapest policy possible is the end call on what company the corp or company decides to go with....

And also, there will be some employees that could want "these" benefits avail and others that want "those" benefits available...in other words, there will always be employees that do not have the plan of their own personal needs yet they are locked in to the health plan they are in, because it is the only one available to them, if they want the 50% to 80% that the Company usually contributes to the employee's plan.

They "system" is still screwed up and we are still "strapped" in our own individual health care needs...

HOWEVER, I still believe it is better than going in to a single payer Universal Health Care Plan, as you do....

Only, it sickens me to say such...because the 33% of our healthcare costs that goes simply to the people that push the paperwork, the Insurance companies is a disgrace and a pure waste of money....which could actually be used to physically get us medical care, or more costly procedures or technology or better benefits overall...you would think....?

Even if there is no single payer, universal plan instituted, our health care structure in this country in the private sector needs reform....costs going up double digits every single year is unsustainable, for the individual and for these companies offering health care as a benefit.

Care

You are correct Care, but, in my experience the person who is "shopping around" for company provided healthcare is a) looking out for the good of the company and/or the best fit for employees, b) looking out for the best policy that fits their own needs. Hey, HR people can be selfish too!

Either way, they are looking out for the best for the employees not the best for the government. Regardless, the insurance companies do have to compete for our business and to compete they need to offer services that are more cost effective than what their competition offers. If they don't, they won't succeed.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct that our system needs reform. The only question is how best to go about that.

Immie

Look, you are all re-inventing the wheel. Here is where you can do a bit of research on this subject;
FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

 

[Old Rocks]

Inserting the government into the equation is not the answer.

Well, isn't the government essnetially YOU? The people? Representing what you decide is needed? You (like other nations) have a code/charter/bill etc. that protects certain rights, but otherwise it is up to the people of the country to make decisions through elected representatives... so it need not be 'them vs us' or think that the government is some beast over in the corner wanting to tell you how to live... it is the result of the people who use the government. If you don't bother - you won't have much say.


So, an entity that you have more access to, more control over that is bound to respond to the will of the people (somewhat) compared to private companies that need only satisfy the bottom line, or their investors, etc. Not who you would normally trust your life to... unless they stand to make a lot of money from it. The government (when it works) satisfies the needs of the people, whether it is easy or hard, profitable or not.

If the government isn't working how it should, the solution would be to figur eout why and do something about it, instead of just give up and hand the keys over to the free market...

I want the government to stay out of my health care decisions.
I'll take my chances with the free market.
I'm pretty confident that the government getting involved in health care decisions will be just as successful as their war on drugs and war on poverty.

The European nations have universal health care plans. As does Japan and Taiwan. Their people live longer, have healthier old ages, and their infant mortality is way lower than ours. They have many ways of approaching the problems of health care. Here are how Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan do it;

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Their costs are about 1/2 per capita of what ours are.

 

[Gurdari]

Except now, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
There is a reason I have firearms. That reason is that the police are reactionary. They show up after the crime has been committed.

Let's try apples and apples then... FUNDING and ADMINISTRATION of a servive, provided to everyone, by the government, funded by everyone through taxation.

Are you for private-free market policing, or nanny-state commie policing?

Whichever you choose, or if you have a third idea - would you choose the same for firefighting?

Education?

Health care?


yes/no?

 

[Gurdari]

I want the government to stay out of my health care decisions.
I'll take my chances with the free market.
I'm pretty confident that the government getting involved in health care decisions will be just as successful as their war on drugs and war on poverty.

What if your particuular needs are not well-served by the market?

Why are you confident of that? The war on drugs is a cash grab with no hope of the stated results ever coming true... would the private sector be better placed to wage this 'war'?

To treat all the citizens you need a certain amount of personnel, equipment, space, etc. Regardless of your funding/admin model. The difference is in a private, for-profit system you still have to pay the people, rent the space, whatever etc. to keep it all running, but then the ownership has to generate a profit on top of that... what happens when the service levels and the ownership's profit have to compete?

 

[Gurdari]

The European nations have universal health care plans. As does Japan and Taiwan. Their people live longer, have healthier old ages, and their infant mortality is way lower than ours. They have many ways of approaching the problems of health care. Here are how Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan do it;

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Their costs are about 1/2 per capita of what ours are.

That's just commie BS ...when the people end up collectively contributing to their own well being. Go read some Ayn Rand, she'll set you straight.

 

[Old Rocks]

The European nations have universal health care plans. As does Japan and Taiwan. Their people live longer, have healthier old ages, and their infant mortality is way lower than ours. They have many ways of approaching the problems of health care. Here are how Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan do it;

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Their costs are about 1/2 per capita of what ours are.

That's just commie BS ...when the people end up collectively contributing to their own well being. Go read some Ayn Rand, she'll set you straight.

Ya sure, Vilson

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many of you watned the beancounters in the private insurance companies to interfere with you and your doctors' decisions about your health care?

None of you right?

Only that's exactly what's going on right now, too.

This complaint about socialized medicines is entirely specious, folks, because what you fear from socialized medicine is ALREADY happening to you all with PRIVATE HC insurance, right now.

You may recall that in the past, I have pointed out to you that over 80% of Americans are happy with their particular healthcare, thus "None of you right" is far from true.

Here is the face of nationalized healthcare:

"A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.
Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.
The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.
"I can't believe that at 61 I'm too old for this operation," she said.

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery | Mail Online

 

[Care4all]

How many of you watned the beancounters in the private insurance companies to interfere with you and your doctors' decisions about your health care?

None of you right?

Only that's exactly what's going on right now, too.

This complaint about socialized medicines is entirely specious, folks, because what you fear from socialized medicine is ALREADY happening to you all with PRIVATE HC insurance, right now.

You may recall that in the past, I have pointed out to you that over 80% of Americans are happy with their particular healthcare, thus "None of you right" is far from true.

Here is the face of nationalized healthcare:

"A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.
Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.
The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.
"I can't believe that at 61 I'm too old for this operation," she said.

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery | Mail Online

from the article you linked:

However late yesterday, following media interest in Mrs Simpson's plight, the PCT backed down and agreed to fund her treatment.

Medical director Dr David Geddes apologised to Mrs Simpson for the "distress" caused by the delay.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many of you watned the beancounters in the private insurance companies to interfere with you and your doctors' decisions about your health care?

None of you right?

Only that's exactly what's going on right now, too.

This complaint about socialized medicines is entirely specious, folks, because what you fear from socialized medicine is ALREADY happening to you all with PRIVATE HC insurance, right now.

You may recall that in the past, I have pointed out to you that over 80% of Americans are happy with their particular healthcare, thus "None of you right" is far from true.

Here is the face of nationalized healthcare:

"A woman of 61 was refused a routine heart operation by a hard-up NHS trust for being too old.
Dorothy Simpson suffers from an irregular heartbeat and is at increased risk of a stroke. But health chiefs refused to allow the procedure which was recommended by her specialist.
The school secretary was stunned by the ruling.
"I can't believe that at 61 I'm too old for this operation," she said.

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery | Mail Online

from the article you linked:

However late yesterday, following media interest in Mrs Simpson's plight, the PCT backed down and agreed to fund her treatment.

Medical director Dr David Geddes apologised to Mrs Simpson for the "distress" caused by the delay.

So, you're agreeing that the event took place, but feel that the fact that pressure changed the NHS opinion obviates the point? Why? Do you think every case is settled satisfactorily?

Like these:
"Britain's top cancer consultants have accused the government’s drugs rationing body of ignoring the plight of patients forced to sell their cars and remortgage their houses to pay for cancer treatments freely available in Europe. "
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing

 

[Care4all]

no PC, just very releived that she was given the A-OK...

I am not googoogahgah over a single payer universal health care plan nor a government run system paying private insurance companies....or even just a private insurance alone system here in the USA with no government assistance...

Our entire healthcare system is broken imo and needs major reforms, but I lean towards wiser, regulations of the industry, in some cases more regulation, but in other instances deregulation is needed....and perhaps only a non-profit system for hospitals being allowed, and major reforms in the PHARMA arena, allowing free market purchasing from other respectable countries and allowing the negotiation for Bulk Discounts for the major medicare drug purchases by our governent, and a simplification of billing can be looked at for savings among just some of the things to reduce these uncontrollable rises in our health care costs, I am also for each state to buy their own insurance for their medicaid recipients/ and/or indigents, that have been using the costly emergency room for their normal health care....buying these recipients a private insurance policy could be much cheaper than paying the bill once they make it to the emergency room...

Also, states restrict the insurers allowed in their states. for whatever reasons and this needs to be slacked to let other individual health insurance companies permission to opperate within their own states so that competition can increase....

So much can be done and has to be done....even if a Universal plan came in to effect, single payer or with our private health insurance companies....to reduce the costs of these other things, before they take on paying the bill...imo.

Care

 

[Old Rocks]

Are there cases where the countries that have single payer systems mess up? Damned right there are, the system, after all, is ran by humans. Do their systems do better than ours. Damned right they do. Proof is simple. Longer life spans, healthier old people, and a much lower infant mortality rate. And no one going bankrupt and losing their homes due to medical bills. These are the facts. Undeniable, and very real. And they do all of this at a cost about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost per capita of our health system.

 

[Old Rocks]

Single Payer Health Care Gains Support, Affordable Health Insurance

Single payer health care, paying doctors and hospitals out of one fund managed by the government, and paid to health care providers by either a government agency or insurance company, is gaining support. Single payer health care groups are pushing for streamlined payments that would result from single payer health care. This is another way of delivering universal health insurance, which aims to make the coverage more affordable.

Head of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus seems to be moving Congress toward single payer health care, something President Obama has said simply will not happen. At this point, Baucus told reporters at the National Press Club, that single payer health care is "on the table", saying there are many ways to accomplish the goal of health care reform.

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) claims, “private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans”. The PNHP says that private insurers waste health care dollars and that single payer health care is one of the only ways to stop that waste. (1)

 

[Old Rocks]

The Real News Network - Single-payer advocates protest Senate hearing

Doctors Protest Exclusion of Single-Payer at Senate Finance Committee
WASHINGTON - May 5 - Doctors and other advocates of a national single-payer health system – also known as an improved Medicare for All – directly confronted senators at a Senate Finance Committee “roundtable” on health reform today.

One-by-one, eight single-payer advocates in the audience stood up during the opening comments of the hearing and asked why single-payer experts were being excluded from the proceedings. They each spoke out in turn until they were removed from the committee hearing room, one-by-one, by U.S. Capitol police.

The doctors and others said that a publicly funded, privately delivered single-payer system is the only solution to the crisis plaguing our nation’s non-system of health care, noting that single-payer national health insurance would guarantee coverage for everyone and contains costs.

Despite polling that shows a clear majority of public and physician support for a single-payer system, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has stated on multiple occasions that single payer is “off the table” of health reform.

Today’s round table, the second of three, consisted of 15 witnesses with no single-payer advocates among them. By contrast, several witnesses have direct ties to the for-profit, private health insurance industry.

The doctors and activists were dressed in black, which they said was in memory of the 22,000 people who die every year due to lack of health insurance. They represented a coalition of single-payer advocacy organizations including Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Healthcare-NOW, Single Payer Action, Private Health Insurance Must Go, the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics, Prosperity Agenda, and Health Care for the Homeless.

“Health insurance administrators are practicing medicine without a medical license,” said Dr. Margaret Flowers, co-chair of Maryland chapter of PNHP. “The result is the suffering and death of thousands of patients for the sake of private profit. The private health insurance industry has a solid grip on patients, providers and legislators. It is time to stand up and declare that health care is a human right.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Healthcare-NOW!

May 30: National Day of Action
Events Being Planned Nationwide

The majority of Americans and physicians agree: We need a national, single-payer healthcare system.

Yet, Single-Payer healthcare is largely ignored as a viable option.

So, on May 30th, we're organizing a Nationwide Day of Action. Join thousands of single-payer activists to say, "Healthcare, yes; Insurance companies, no," and to show solidarity with demonstrations at the AHIP (American Health Insurance Plans, a private health insurance lobby) conference in San Diego.

For more information, or to see if there's an event being planned in your community, visit our May 30th Page.

 

[alan1]

Are there cases where the countries that have single payer systems mess up? Damned right there are, the system, after all, is ran by humans. Do their systems do better than ours. Damned right they do. Proof is simple. Longer life spans, healthier old people, and a much lower infant mortality rate. And no one going bankrupt and losing their homes due to medical bills. These are the facts. Undeniable, and very real. And they do all of this at a cost about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost per capita of our health system.

Are 50% of the people in those nations overweight?
Because I'm telling you, all the fat ass obese people in the US are still going to be fat ass obese people regardless of government health care.
Same goes with smokers, alcoholics and drug addicts.