Obama's Universal Healthcare Question

[rayboyusmc]

The WHO rankings are already debunked.... been posted many times before

Where and by whom? I never saw any credible debunking of them.

I worked in healthcare for 14 years. Our system is broken.

 

[jillian]

The WHO rankings are already debunked.... been posted many times before

not by anyone that I'd find credible. Sorry.

 

[rayboyusmc]

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

 

[DiamondDave]

roy

practically nobody is saying that there is noting that could not get better in terms of insurance availability etc.... there are ALWAYS things to fix... but not inherently by government takeover of any aspect of it... with more controls, bureaucracy, etc...

And the WHO is already exposed as bullshit on the rankings.... and it is done credibly and with common sense logic.... it was inherently skewed by an affinity towards socialized systems... without taking major things into account.. like we have the most advanced fucking care in the world

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

 

[johnrocks]

roy

practically nobody is saying that there is noting that could not get better in terms of insurance availability etc.... there are ALWAYS things to fix... but not inherently by government takeover of any aspect of it... with more controls, bureaucracy, etc...

And the WHO is already exposed as bullshit on the rankings.... and it is done credibly and with common sense logic.... it was inherently skewed by an affinity towards socialized systems... without taking major things into account.. like we have the most advanced fucking care in the world

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

I've long said there was more than just rankings based on life expectancy when looking at a heathcare system however prepare for it to be dismissed because it's not a study done by government, the UN or Paul Klugman.

 

[cunclusion]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your fucking body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

We already do; that's why we have the highest healthcare costs in the world.

And that is my point everyone whines that the government shouldnt pay but the government already is and anyone who has insurance is paying. So eventually the costs will be so prohibitive that people who do have insurance now will not be able to afford it in the future. But hey alot of you dont care about others that basically you dont understand we are all in this together. Everyone who doesnt have insurance dont want it because they are spending it on other things thats bull. For people to group everyone like that is basically our main issue now. For about 4 years I didnt have insurance either why didnt I have insurance I had two jobs but a roof for my kid and feeding him was more important we didnt go out to eat or to the movies even Christmas he did not get what he wanted. So some you are saying I went 4 years without insurance for a want not a need you are full of it.

 

[jillian]

roy

practically nobody is saying that there is noting that could not get better in terms of insurance availability etc.... there are ALWAYS things to fix... but not inherently by government takeover of any aspect of it... with more controls, bureaucracy, etc...

And the WHO is already exposed as bullshit on the rankings.... and it is done credibly and with common sense logic.... it was inherently skewed by an affinity towards socialized systems... without taking major things into account.. like we have the most advanced fucking care in the world

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

I haven't exactly found John Stossel to be great on the truth-telling front.

But let's look at the choice of information sources and weigh them ....

right hand... World Health Organization...

left hand... John Stossel

hmmmmmmmmm..... not a huge amount of choice there for me.

 

[DiamondDave]

can you go against anything Stossel put out there? No.... it basically exposes how this was a 'ranking' inherently skewed towards socialized systems and was not really based on how good medical facilities, quality, etc was...

Hell.. it was obvious when you looked at the WHO ranking spreadsheet... how they were really guiding the criteria

 

[johnrocks]

roy

practically nobody is saying that there is noting that could not get better in terms of insurance availability etc.... there are ALWAYS things to fix... but not inherently by government takeover of any aspect of it... with more controls, bureaucracy, etc...

And the WHO is already exposed as bullshit on the rankings.... and it is done credibly and with common sense logic.... it was inherently skewed by an affinity towards socialized systems... without taking major things into account.. like we have the most advanced fucking care in the world

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

I haven't exactly found John Stossel to be great on the truth-telling front.

But let's look at the choice of information sources and weigh them ....

right hand... World Health Organization...

left hand... John Stossel

hmmmmmmmmm..... not a huge amount of choice there for me.

Yeah, it's always best to trust an authority within the United Nations over an American citizen who investigates things like this.

 

[johnrocks]

can you go against anything Stossel put out there? No.... it basically exposes how this was a 'ranking' inherently skewed towards socialized systems and was not really based on how good medical facilities, quality, etc was...

Hell.. it was obvious when you looked at the WHO ranking spreadsheet... how they were really guiding the criteria

And it's just a coincidence that most members of WHO and the UN already are socialized countries.

 

[jillian]

Yeah, it's always best to trust an authority within the United Nations over an American citizen who investigates things like this.

I have lots to say about the UN's prejudices..... except there's no bone to pick here. Maybe the fact is that some socialization of medicine makes for better delivery of medical care. I'm not sure why you think the system we have, where 50% of bankruptcies result from unanticipated medical care is a good one.

How many more millions of people are uninsured now and taxing our medical systems than was the case when baby bush became president?

 

[johnrocks]

Yeah, it's always best to trust an authority within the United Nations over an American citizen who investigates things like this.

I have lots to say about the UN's prejudices..... except there's no bone to pick here. Maybe the fact is that some socialization of medicine makes for better delivery of medical care. I'm not sure why you think the system we have, where 50% of bankruptcies result from unanticipated medical care is a good one.

How many more millions of people are uninsured now and taxing our medical systems than was the case when baby bush became president?

I happen to think our system sucks but it's because of government, not free markets, we have not had free market health care in 60 years here. In 1960, consumers paid right at half of their health costs and healthcare costs consumed 4% of GNP, where it had been fairly constant at for years, in 1965, Medicare and by 1973, healthcare costs had nearly doubled to over 7% of GNP. In 1973, The HMO Act of 1973 was enacted which mandated HMO benefits in groups of 50 or more employers. There are also mandates in insurance policies, like here, colonscopy's MUST be in every policy and paid to men 40 and over, in California, Aculpucture MUST be in every policy, these things come with a cost. Also insurance pays doctor visits, this incentives them to charge the max allowed but in a free market, they would compete and rates would be much lower, hell, most people don't even know OR CARE how much their Doctor charges since someone else is paying. I know how much mine charges, he is a free market Physician....$50
Edit. I could not stand Bush, that dog don't hunt with me.

 

[jillian]

I happen to think our system sucks but it's because of government, not free markets, we have not had free market health care in 60 years here. In 1960, consumers paid right at half of their health costs and healthcare costs consumed 4% of GNP, where it had been fairly constant at for years, in 1965, Medicare and by 1973, healthcare costs had nearly doubled to over 7% of GNP. In 1973, The HMO Act of 1973 was enacted which mandated HMO benefits in groups of 50 or more employers. There are also mandates in insurance policies, like here, colonscopy's MUST be in every policy and paid to men 40 and over, in California, Aculpucture MUST be in every policy, these things come with a cost. Also insurance pays doctor visits, this incentives them to charge the max allowed but in a free market, they would compete and rates would be much lower, hell, most people don't even know OR CARE how much their Doctor charges since someone else is paying. I know how much mine charges, he is a free market Physician....$50
Edit. I could not stand Bush, that dog don't hunt with me.

I don't know where you live, but I can tell you that here, an insurance company paying "80% of reasonable and customary" amonts to me getting about $60 back from a $650 mammogram/sonogram bill. Thankfully, I am able to pay for that. But I go once a year instead of the twice a year I'm supposed to because of every other doctor that has to be seen throughout the year. Why wouldn't you want coverage for acupuncture. I paid hundreds of dollars for my acupuncturist when I quit smoking. How much money did I save my health care provider because I no longer smoke?

As for insurance companies and the "free market" being the way to go, I would disagree with you a THOUSAND percent. The "free market" has proven that it fails... corporations have no morality. They couldn't care less if millions of people have no health care and if we're paying for the ER care for people who have to use ER's as their primary care provider. As for Bush... well... probably his agreeing that government couldn't negotiate with pharmaceutical companies so we pay more for meds than anywhere else in the world was great for the "free market" but not so hot for Americans.

 

[auditor0007]

Under a Government provided Healthcare plan what is the incentive for the Government to deliver quality goods and services? Especially if there is no competition.

For arguments sake, there can and should still be plenty of competition. Doctors would remain as private practitioners, not public civil servants. The government would only handle the administrative end of the equation.

If we look at most metropolitan areas, we have multiple hospitals that offer all the same services. They are in competition with each other yet they don't have enough patients. Most doctors work through more than one hospital. The cost of running these hospitals is astronomical, and when they are constantly duplicating services, it drives the costs even higher.

At the same time, many rural hospitals only offer limited services because they can't come close to affording what those in metropolitan areas do due to a lack of patients. Yet, those people should have as good of care as anyone. Or should everyone just move to the cities?

I understand the argument against government healthcare. However, the fact is that we already have government healthcare to a great extent. It just isn't run effectively. However, it is the reason we have as much choice as we do.

If government had zero involvement in healthcare, and doctors and hospitals had to compete strictly on people's ability to pay, we would have shit for healthcare. More than half the hospitals would be forced to close, and probably the same percentage of doctors would close shop also.

Right now we have around 50 million people who don't pay for their healthcare, yet the rest of us pay for them through increased premiums and increased taxes to cover them through government run programs. If those people were forced to pay something, it would help reduce costs. Many of these uninsured are younger people who don't feel they need insurance and choose not to pay for it.

The answer to reducing healthcare costs involves both government and the private sector. It's not one or the other. Look at it this way; we pay double what any other country does for healthcare, other than a couple exeptions. Yet we do not have double the benefit. Am I saying we should be able to cut costs in half? No. Countries that pay half of what we do have many issues with poor service. They should be paying more. At the same time, we should be able to cut costs somewhat and reduce the runaway increases. If we do not, we will no longer be able to afford healthcare period.

Here is a simple fact. In 1970, 7% of GDP went to healthcare in the US. We are now around 16% of GDP, and the increase in costs continues to surpass inflation by a good margin. If the increases don't stabilize, we will again double from 16% to 30% of GDP. If this happens, it will collapse our entire economy. Tough choices must be made, and it might even mean a slowing down of some new advancements. But the fact is, we have to be realistic as to what we can and can't afford.

Good points, except concerning the quality of health care in the nations that have universal health care. They all have longer life spans, and much lower infant mortality than we do.

The uninsured young people very seldom 'choose' to be in that position. By the time they pay rent, food, and transportation, they do not have the money to be self insured. All too many entry level jobs carry no health benefits.

The longer life span is due, in great part, to our higher infant mortality rate, which is due to a lack of prenatal care for many of our poor. The other part of that equation, however, is due to our poor eating habits and rate of obesity. And there are problems with universal healthcare in those countries. Neither system is perfect.

At one point I was dating a woman from Scotland. Her son needed to see a specialist, and it took thirteen months before they would see him. Much of those problems though, could be resolved if they paid more. In the UK, they do have the option of carrying private insurance on top of their national plan. Those who do receive care much sooner than those without.

The solution lies somewhere in the middle. A one payer system makes much more sense and would reduce administrative costs dramatically. At the same time, I don't want to see doctors becoming employees of the national system like it is in Canada.

 

[auditor0007]

And of course more competition with more groups being able to gain group rates would do nothing to help competition for some lower prices

Do not forget also that we have the most advanced and accessible health care available on this earth... we are not going to pay 3rd world prices... it just ain't gonna happen...

Accessable if you have the money. Don't give that shit about emergency room care. Indigent people have been known to die there waiting for care. And why should people have to wait until a condition is emergency room material to see a doctor? It would make far more financial sense to practice preventive care as do the other industrial nations.

Preventative care does make much more sense than treating these people in the emergency room once the problem has become critical. This costs us much more than paying for preventative care in the first place, for those who can't afford it. Of course, there are some people who think if you can't afford it, then you should just die.

 

[DiamondDave]

For arguments sake, there can and should still be plenty of competition. Doctors would remain as private practitioners, not public civil servants. The government would only handle the administrative end of the equation.

If we look at most metropolitan areas, we have multiple hospitals that offer all the same services. They are in competition with each other yet they don't have enough patients. Most doctors work through more than one hospital. The cost of running these hospitals is astronomical, and when they are constantly duplicating services, it drives the costs even higher.

At the same time, many rural hospitals only offer limited services because they can't come close to affording what those in metropolitan areas do due to a lack of patients. Yet, those people should have as good of care as anyone. Or should everyone just move to the cities?

I understand the argument against government healthcare. However, the fact is that we already have government healthcare to a great extent. It just isn't run effectively. However, it is the reason we have as much choice as we do.

If government had zero involvement in healthcare, and doctors and hospitals had to compete strictly on people's ability to pay, we would have shit for healthcare. More than half the hospitals would be forced to close, and probably the same percentage of doctors would close shop also.

Right now we have around 50 million people who don't pay for their healthcare, yet the rest of us pay for them through increased premiums and increased taxes to cover them through government run programs. If those people were forced to pay something, it would help reduce costs. Many of these uninsured are younger people who don't feel they need insurance and choose not to pay for it.

The answer to reducing healthcare costs involves both government and the private sector. It's not one or the other. Look at it this way; we pay double what any other country does for healthcare, other than a couple exeptions. Yet we do not have double the benefit. Am I saying we should be able to cut costs in half? No. Countries that pay half of what we do have many issues with poor service. They should be paying more. At the same time, we should be able to cut costs somewhat and reduce the runaway increases. If we do not, we will no longer be able to afford healthcare period.

Here is a simple fact. In 1970, 7% of GDP went to healthcare in the US. We are now around 16% of GDP, and the increase in costs continues to surpass inflation by a good margin. If the increases don't stabilize, we will again double from 16% to 30% of GDP. If this happens, it will collapse our entire economy. Tough choices must be made, and it might even mean a slowing down of some new advancements. But the fact is, we have to be realistic as to what we can and can't afford.

Good points, except concerning the quality of health care in the nations that have universal health care. They all have longer life spans, and much lower infant mortality than we do.

The uninsured young people very seldom 'choose' to be in that position. By the time they pay rent, food, and transportation, they do not have the money to be self insured. All too many entry level jobs carry no health benefits.

The longer life span is due, in great part, to our higher infant mortality rate, which is due to a lack of prenatal care for many of our poor. The other part of that equation, however, is due to our poor eating habits and rate of obesity. And there are problems with universal healthcare in those countries. Neither system is perfect.

At one point I was dating a woman from Scotland. Her son needed to see a specialist, and it took thirteen months before they would see him. Much of those problems though, could be resolved if they paid more. In the UK, they do have the option of carrying private insurance on top of their national plan. Those who do receive care much sooner than those without.

The solution lies somewhere in the middle. A one payer system makes much more sense and would reduce administrative costs dramatically. At the same time, I don't want to see doctors becoming employees of the national system like it is in Canada.

Don't forget that we more accurately keep our statistics.. we attempt to save more premature babies and do more things with younger and younger gestational births etc...

And a monopolized '1 place' system is never the answer for a commodity or service... competition drives lower costs and improvement... not monopoly

 

[johnrocks]

I happen to think our system sucks but it's because of government, not free markets, we have not had free market health care in 60 years here. In 1960, consumers paid right at half of their health costs and healthcare costs consumed 4% of GNP, where it had been fairly constant at for years, in 1965, Medicare and by 1973, healthcare costs had nearly doubled to over 7% of GNP. In 1973, The HMO Act of 1973 was enacted which mandated HMO benefits in groups of 50 or more employers. There are also mandates in insurance policies, like here, colonscopy's MUST be in every policy and paid to men 40 and over, in California, Aculpucture MUST be in every policy, these things come with a cost. Also insurance pays doctor visits, this incentives them to charge the max allowed but in a free market, they would compete and rates would be much lower, hell, most people don't even know OR CARE how much their Doctor charges since someone else is paying. I know how much mine charges, he is a free market Physician....$50
Edit. I could not stand Bush, that dog don't hunt with me.

I don't know where you live, but I can tell you that here, an insurance company paying "80% of reasonable and customary" amonts to me getting about $60 back from a $650 mammogram/sonogram bill. Thankfully, I am able to pay for that. But I go once a year instead of the twice a year I'm supposed to because of every other doctor that has to be seen throughout the year. Why wouldn't you want coverage for acupuncture. I paid hundreds of dollars for my acupuncturist when I quit smoking. How much money did I save my health care provider because I no longer smoke?

As for insurance companies and the "free market" being the way to go, I would disagree with you a THOUSAND percent. The "free market" has proven that it fails... corporations have no morality. They couldn't care less if millions of people have no health care and if we're paying for the ER care for people who have to use ER's as their primary care provider. As for Bush... well... probably his agreeing that government couldn't negotiate with pharmaceutical companies so we pay more for meds than anywhere else in the world was great for the "free market" but not so hot for Americans.

Why shouldn't you pay for your own mammogram? Why should someone else pay for you taking care of YOUR life? That mammogram could be a third of that if it were paid 100% by consumers in 100% of situations. Look at elective surgeries where the consumer pays such as corrective vision surgery, costs have actually gone DOWN, vision and dental is not nearly as expensive as it would be if insurance paid for this yet has still gone up significally in past 20 years because insurance mandates are now in place for dental and vision in a lot of states.

You still don't "get it", this isn't free market, it's EXACTLY what you just said, corporatism, but what created this beast...government intervention. Screw Bush, he was in bed with Corporations but so is Obama.

 

[johnrocks]

Those mandates really help the acupuncturist business however EVERY policy has this which is a cost shoved up ALL our asses because YOU choose to smoke.

 

[auditor0007]

And of course more competition with more groups being able to gain group rates would do nothing to help competition for some lower prices

Do not forget also that we have the most advanced and accessible health care available on this earth... we are not going to pay 3rd world prices... it just ain't gonna happen...

Accessable if you have the money. Don't give that shit about emergency room care. Indigent people have been known to die there waiting for care. And why should people have to wait until a condition is emergency room material to see a doctor? It would make far more financial sense to practice preventive care as do the other industrial nations.

And why should others have to pay for your care of your private domain body? And you and every other person out there is quite capable of obtaining insurance if you want it... Turn off the direct TV and don't go out to eat and stop buying $60 tennis shoes... and zing, that goes a long way to paying the normal price for basic health insurance... hell, I'm interviewing for a contract position without benefits and researching my other options for insurance coverage... and looking at about $350 a month

It makes more financial sense for you to pay for the things you feel you need for your own personal upkeep... not for the government or anyone else to provide it for you or discount it for you at someone else's expense

And hospitals and other facilities DO have clinics available... not just emergency rooms... but nice try... not to mention the charitable help that is there to keep those things low cost... you know, CHARITY, the voluntary things people wish to do.. not the forced way of government redistribution

The part you seem to keep missing Dave, is that you pay for it in the end anyway, through higher insurance premiums. It isn't free, but it is too those who can't afford it. Under a national type plan, everyone pays at least something, which helps reduce your costs. And private insurance could be part of the equation for those who choose it. If we had a dual system, private insurance would be much cheaper and would only kick in when the government program didn't provide the service the policy holder wanted. Your overall costs would be reduced, or at minimum, stabilized, and everyone would have some type of coverage.

You're already paying for it now, you just don't seem to realize it. And the way your paying for it now is driving costs through the roof as there are no controls whatsoever, not to mention the system is a hodgepodge of programs that add to the cost.

 

[jillian]

Those mandates really help the acupuncturist business however EVERY policy has this which is a cost shoved up ALL our asses because YOU choose to smoke.

and if you choose to be fat or not exercise or marry someone with terrible genes for certain illnesses, then *I* pay for it.

That's life.

you simply aren't getting it.