Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[Bern80]

As I suspected, you can't back up your lies with some quotes or links

What is your point exactly? If you're going to say it ain't so every time someone won't cow tow to your demands while turning a blind eye to common sense, you're basically just intentionally shoving your head in the sand.

My point is that your point is a wingnut lie.

What? The point that people use relatively low life expectency of americans as evidence we need some form of UHC? Careful sangha. You're going to have an awfully difficult time proving a negative.

 

[Countryman13]

I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst. My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school). It costs her more to do so. So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system. She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment. If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months. The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that. Capitalism works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

 

[Bern80]

I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst. My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school). It costs her more to do so. So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system. She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment. If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months. The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that. Capitalism works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Correct. There are going to be horror stories with every system. If it's not having the insurance coverage for a treatment, it will be waiting too long for treatment.

IF what we all want is for as many people to have access to affordable health care as possible (and I think we can at least all agree on that) there are two components to that; affordability and access. Those two things are not the same and fixing one does not fix the other. In fact 'fixing' one in simple economic terms more likely than not makes the other component worse. Greater affordability will create less access to resources without an increase in those resources. Greater access to resources will lead to higher prices that someone will have to pay for.

 

[sangha]

What is your point exactly? If you're going to say it ain't so every time someone won't cow tow to your demands while turning a blind eye to common sense, you're basically just intentionally shoving your head in the sand.

My point is that your point is a wingnut lie.

What? The point that people use relatively low life expectency of americans as evidence we need some form of UHC? Careful sangha. You're going to have an awfully difficult time proving a negative.

Wingnut thinks I need to prove him wrong. All I need to do is show you can't prove you're right (which you still haven't done)

 

[sangha]

I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst. My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school). It costs her more to do so. So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system. She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment. If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months. The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that. Capitalism works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Well, if the anonymous girlfriend of an anonymous poster on the internet says so, then it must be true

 

[sangha]

I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst. My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school). It costs her more to do so. So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system. She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment. If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months. The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that. Capitalism works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Correct. There are going to be horror stories with every system. If it's not having the insurance coverage for a treatment, it will be waiting too long for treatment.

IF what we all want is for as many people to have access to affordable health care as possible (and I think we can at least all agree on that) there are two components to that; affordability and access. Those two things are not the same and fixing one does not fix the other. In fact 'fixing' one in simple economic terms more likely than not makes the other component worse. Greater affordability will create less access to resources without an increase in those resources. Greater access to resources will lead to higher prices that someone will have to pay for.

Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"

And most people realize that increased access lowers costs. Nations with UHC pay far less than we do and they get more and better health care in return

 

[Meister]

I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst. My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school). It costs her more to do so. So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system. She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment. If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months. The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that. Capitalism works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Correct. There are going to be horror stories with every system. If it's not having the insurance coverage for a treatment, it will be waiting too long for treatment.

IF what we all want is for as many people to have access to affordable health care as possible (and I think we can at least all agree on that) there are two components to that; affordability and access. Those two things are not the same and fixing one does not fix the other. In fact 'fixing' one in simple economic terms more likely than not makes the other component worse. Greater affordability will create less access to resources without an increase in those resources. Greater access to resources will lead to higher prices that someone will have to pay for.

Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"

And most people realize that increased access lowers costs. Nations with UHC pay far less than we do and they get more and better health care in return

Drink some more Kool-Aid, sonny.

 

[Meister]

My point is that your point is a wingnut lie.

What? The point that people use relatively low life expectency of americans as evidence we need some form of UHC? Careful sangha. You're going to have an awfully difficult time proving a negative.

Wingnut thinks I need to prove him wrong. All I need to do is show you can't prove you're right (which you still haven't done)

Which you can't prove him wrong

 

[Bern80]

My point is that your point is a wingnut lie.

What? The point that people use relatively low life expectency of americans as evidence we need some form of UHC? Careful sangha. You're going to have an awfully difficult time proving a negative.

Wingnut thinks I need to prove him wrong. All I need to do is show you can't prove you're right (which you still haven't done)

Right about what? Can't and won't are too different things. I WON'T go sifting through my board log to find posts from people that have made the argument that low life exptency is an indictment of our health care system. You CAN'T prove that no one has ever made such a claim. You should have learned this in high school debate.

 

[Bern80]

Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"

And most people realize that increased access lowers costs. Nations with UHC pay far less than we do and they get more and better health care in return

You still are looking at cost from only one perspective. The consumers. And how do you know they pay less? How do you know that between their out of pocket expenses and taxes that fund the system, that they pay less than we do?

Let's assume they do for a second. The fact that the end user PAYS less does not mean the whole system COSTS less. This is what countries like France are learnng the hard way. Doctors still need to be paid and facilities and resources still need to be paid for. Governments have learned their is an option c when it comes to paying for things; 'well we can't raise taxes to pay for this without having a mutiny and we can't lower doctors salaries enough without another mutiny so I guess we'll just borrow for it, no really were good for it, trust us'. That is called unsustainability which I've explained is the logistical issue with most UHC systems.

 

[sangha]

Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"

And most people realize that increased access lowers costs. Nations with UHC pay far less than we do and they get more and better health care in return

You still are looking at cost from only one perspective. The consumers. And how do you know they pay less? How do you know that between their out of pocket expenses and taxes that fund the system, that they pay less than we do?

Let's assume they do for a second. The fact that the end user PAYS less does not mean the whole system COSTS less. This is what countries like France are learnng the hard way. Doctors still need to be paid and facilities and resources still need to be paid for. Governments have learned their is an option c when it comes to paying for things; 'well we can't raise taxes to pay for this without having a mutiny and we can't lower doctors salaries enough without another mutiny so I guess we'll just borrow for it, no really were good for it, trust us'. That is called unsustainability which I've explained is the logistical issue with most UHC systems.

"You still are looking at cost from only one perspective. The consumers"

Another lie. The studies include all costs, including the money spent by govt.

"how do you know they pay less?"

I can read

"How do you know that between their out of pocket expenses and taxes that fund the system, that they pay less than we do? "

Because they added up ALL of the costs. Is this too much for your little wingnut mind to handle?

"The fact that the end user PAYS less does not mean the whole system COSTS less. This is what countries like France are learnng the hard way. "

Umm, the costs in France are at least 33% lower (per capita) that in the US

IOW, the whole system in the US costs more than the whole system in France

"Doctors still need to be paid and facilities and resources still need to be paid for. Governments have learned their is an option c when it comes to paying for things; 'well we can't raise taxes to pay for this without having a mutiny and we can't lower doctors salaries enough without another mutiny so I guess we'll just borrow for it, no really were good for it, trust us'. That is called unsustainability which I've explained is the logistical issue with most UHC systems."

I guess you're so deluded you think the French don't pay for the healthcare they receive. The money for it just materializes out of thin air

In the real world, France has a sustainable UHC system that provides care that is better and less expensive than the care given in the US

 

[healthphreak]

I don't understand why health insurance costs so much right now. How did we get to the system we currently have and not to single-payer or universal health care anyway?

 

[Bern80]

Another lie. The studies include all costs, including the money spent by govt.
I can read

Because they added up ALL of the costs. Is this too much for your little wingnut mind to handle?

Umm, the costs in France are at least 33% lower (per capita) that in the US

All of these statements prove you STILL aren't listening. I'm not arguing over what it costs per capita. Of course it costs more here. That makes perfect sense considering how poorly most americans take care of their health.

I guess you're so deluded you think the French don't pay for the healthcare they receive. The money for it just materializes out of thin air

In the real world, France has a sustainable UHC system that provides care that is better and less expensive than the care given in the US

No. They don't.......
Health Care Lessons From France : NPR

Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. Although it is a smaller deficit than in previous years, it forced the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy to start charging patients more for some drugs, ambulance costs and other services. Debates over cost-cutting have become an expected part of the national dialogue on health care.

And THAT is my point. Not the accessibility, not cost per capita. The point is who pays for it if you shift the cost off of the consumer? France's health care system cost x dollars last year and they came up 9 billion short. That is the very DEFINTION of not sustainable.

 

[Bern80]

I don't understand why health insurance costs so much right now. How did we get to the system we currently have and not to single-payer or universal health care anyway?

What I don't understand are posts like this. Why don't you just substitute the word single payer for monopoly. When have those ever been good for the consumer?

What is it you don't understand about the cost of premiums? I don't ask why. I ask why not? We have probably the most self induced health problems of any industrial nation. That is contributing to the cost. Government heavily regulates what insurance companies must cover, leading to less choice and less competition which increases costs. The concept of insurance in of itself is going to make health care cost more because you've essentially added a middleman between you and care providers. Just a few reasons.

 

[sangha]

Another lie. The studies include all costs, including the money spent by govt.
I can read

Because they added up ALL of the costs. Is this too much for your little wingnut mind to handle?

Umm, the costs in France are at least 33% lower (per capita) that in the US

All of these statements prove you STILL aren't listening. I'm not arguing over what it costs per capita. Of course it costs more here. That makes perfect sense considering how poorly most americans take care of their health.

I guess you're so deluded you think the French don't pay for the healthcare they receive. The money for it just materializes out of thin air

In the real world, France has a sustainable UHC system that provides care that is better and less expensive than the care given in the US

No. They don't.......
Health Care Lessons From France : NPR

Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. Although it is a smaller deficit than in previous years, it forced the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy to start charging patients more for some drugs, ambulance costs and other services. Debates over cost-cutting have become an expected part of the national dialogue on health care.

And THAT is my point. Not the accessibility, not cost per capita. The point is who pays for it if you shift the cost off of the consumer? France's health care system cost x dollars last year and they came up 9 billion short. That is the very DEFINTION of not sustainable.

Huh?

The quote you just posted makes clear that the costs all end up on the consumer. Your claim that the consumer (ie taxpayer) isn't paying is just another of your lies.

And if you think a deficit is a sign of non-sustainabilty, the you must think that every company that has gone over budget just once is "unsustainable". But of course you don't think that. You're just lying again, this time about the definiton of "unsustainable"

 

[Bern80]

The quote you just posted makes clear that the costs all end up on the consumer. Your claim that the consumer (ie taxpayer) isn't paying is just another of your lies.

Where did I EVER say the consumer pays nothing? I claimed quite specifically that the cost burden is shifted from the consumer to someone else. Stop with the intellectual dishonesty.

And if you think a deficit is a sign of non-sustainabilty, the you must think that every company that has gone over budget just once is "unsustainable". But of course you don't think that. You're just lying again, this time about the definiton of "unsustainable"

The only thing happening here is that your another lib who is intellectually dishonest. Lieing about the definiton of unsustainable? An unsustainable program is one that you can not pay for. This is math, not politics. Man up and make a bet with me that France's health care program will run a 9 billion dollar surplus next year. And last year wasn't the first year it ran at a defecit either. It has run at a deficit for many years and is only projected to get worse.

http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-france/

And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.

http://www.consumersunion.org/health/0122exec.htm

Over 20 percent of families headed by people 55 to 64 and more than half of the families headed by people over 65 pay over 10 percent of their income on health care, when out-of-pocket costs and premiums they pay directly are included.

About 27 million families, one out of every three nonelderly families, spent more than 10 percent of their income on health care when using the most inclusive definition of health care costs, including out-of-pocket costs, premiums they pay directly, and premiums they pay indirectly as lower wages when their employer pays the insurance premium.

Families with income between $30,000 and $40,000 (families at median income) spend on average about $1,500 (4.5 percent of their income) on premiums (themselves) and out-of-pocket

Now you may be too dense to get this but what is spent per capita is different than the percentage of income one pays for health care. Now I ask are you really going to care that less money is spent on you per capita than people in some other country if at the end of the day you have to spend a greater percentage of your income on health care than they do?

 

[sangha]

The quote you just posted makes clear that the costs all end up on the consumer. Your claim that the consumer (ie taxpayer) isn't paying is just another of your lies.

Where did I EVER say the consumer pays nothing? I claimed quite specifically that the cost burden is shifted from the consumer to someone else. Stop with the intellectual dishonesty.

When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty

And if you think a deficit is a sign of non-sustainabilty, the you must think that every company that has gone over budget just once is "unsustainable". But of course you don't think that. You're just lying again, this time about the definiton of "unsustainable"

The only thing happening here is that your another lib who is intellectually dishonest. Lieing about the definiton of unsustainable? An unsustainable program is one that you can not pay for. This is math, not politics. Man up and make a bet with me that France's health care program will run a 9 billion dollar surplus next year. And last year wasn't the first year it ran at a defecit either. It has run at a deficit for many years and is only projected to get worse.

" An unsustainable program is one that you can not pay for."

Another lie. France pays for its health care, and your definition is a made up one

BigGovHealth | Case Study: France

And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.

The Growing Burden of Health Care Costs: Executive Summary

Health care is cheaper in France, but you keep playing with statistics until you find something you can use.

Now you may be too dense to get this but what is spent per capita is different than the percentage of income one pays for health care. Now I ask are you really going to care that less money is spent on you per capita than people in some other country if at the end of the day you have to spend a greater percentage of your income on health care than they do?

Yes.

 

[sangha]

BTW, you lied about France paying a higher % of GDP on health care. We pay 12.9%. The French pay 9.4%


http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/35/1913396.pdf

 

[Bern80]

When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty

I see the problem. You have a fundamental reading disability. Somehow you thing shifting cost burden equals NO burden. Not true. When are you going to see that all of your rebuttals rely on faulty assumptions? Since when does a shft in burden HAVE to mean all or none. Why can't go from 50-50 to 30-70 or something like that? That's what I mean

A

Another lie. France pays for its health care, and your definition is a made up one

I guess you don't understand the concept of a defecit either. Really? I'm lieing that France's health care system consistantly runs at a deficit. I bet you have reall credit card problems too. Because you probably think that when you swipe that peice of plastic through the machine YOU paid for it. Newsflash you idiot. YOU didn't pay for it. Mastercard paid for it and now you owe them instead, WITH interest. Of course France still pays for it.........by BORROWING. The providers still get their money. The government just owes someone else. When you borrow money you still have to pay it back at some point. What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back?

Unbelievable that the baics of financial transactions need to be explained to you like you're a fucking 10 year old.

Health care is cheaper in France, but you keep playing with statistics until you find something you can use.

By what defintion of cheaper? Cheaper for who?

Yes.

Then you are the only liar here my friend. Thanks again for showing you are void of any intellectual integrity.

 

[Bern80]

BTW, you lied about France paying a higher % of GDP on health care. We pay 12.9%. The French pay 9.4%


http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/35/1913396.pdf

When did I ever bring up GDP? I said percentage of income.

YOU LIED right their you fucking moron. If you're too stupid to understand the difference in statsitics this really is a pointless conversation.