What the Left Isn't Telling You About US Healthcare

[PeterS]

you don't like the mail service then you can go to Fed-x and as far as the military should that be privately run too?

Nah, I just saw how much it would cost to Fed-Ex a letter. Turns out I like USPS just fine...

 

[Jay Canuck]

New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit
by Bill Maher
Link Excerpt:
It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are. Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves ­-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors. Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too.

 

[KittenKoder]

You really are living in a fantasy world.

Poor people have almost no access to healthcare outside of the emergency room, especially if you have a chronic condition.

You are a stone liar.

And, unlike you, I can back up my accusation, asshole.

Considering I was there, I had a regular doctor and meds. I was homeless about two years ago, living in a shelter for many years, now I'm just poor (by choice oddly, I'm lazy) and I still have a regular doctor and meds.

 

[PeterS]

you don't like the mail service then you can go to Fed-x and as far as the military should that be privately run too?

Many people do use Fed-Ex and UPS....So what?

What would be wrong with a privately run military arm?...In fact, wouldn't that be the "well regulated militia"??

So you are suggesting we regulate private enterprise. My, my how liberal of you...

 

[KittenKoder]

New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit
by Bill Maher
Link Excerpt:
It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are. Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves *-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors. Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too.

This is just plain stupid. How do you propose we survive as a nation without and economy?

 

[Oddball]

New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit
by Bill Maher

blablablablablablabla.....

If Bill Maher's swill didn't make a profit for someone, who would hear it?

 

[Jay Canuck]

New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit
by Bill Maher

blablablablablablabla.....

If Bill Maher's swill didn't make a profit for someone, who would hear it?

I think we know why your swill doesn't turn a profit and you have to post here.

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[KittenKoder]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuhznM0pFEc]YouTube - Jet Airliner[/ame]

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[Cecilie1200]

You were mistaken in thinking that this was a pithy, clever addition to the other thread. You are even more mistaken in thinking it is needed or wanted in this one. If you have nothing substantive or insightful to say on the specific issues and points raised here, begone and stop cluttering up the place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

except they don't. Holland and other European nations do not have single payer systems.

France, which seems to be Chris's latest hard-on subject, has a hybrid system, and the most serious problems it has have been addressed by adding more free market options, not by adding more government control.

You should elaborate because the only thing I could find is that France is starting to more heavily means test. How is this a 'more' free-market system? Health care in France is unchanged...it's just the wealthy are now expected to pay for their own plus pay taxes to pay for ever one elses. I always thought that was communism not free-market.

Yeah, those Frenchies are really seeing the light aren't they...

I don't know if I'm more surprised that you don't know the basics of how France's system works, or that you still have the hubris to comment on it and assume that it supports your worldview.

From the Cato Institute:

Although the French system is facing looming budgetary pressures, it does provide at least some level of universal coverage and manages to avoid many of the problems that afflict other national health care systems. However, it does so in large part by adopting market-oriented approaches, including consumer cost sharing. Other aspects of the system appear to reflect French customs and political attitudes in such a way that would make it difficult to import the system to the United States.

France provides a basic level of universal health insurance through a series of mandatory, largely occupation-based, health insurance funds. These funds are ostensibly private entities but are heavily regulated and supervised by the French government. Premiums (funded primarily through payroll taxes), benefits, and provider reimbursement rates are all set by the government. In these ways the funds are similar to public utilities in the United States.

The French health care system is the world’s third most expensive, costing roughly 11 percent of GDP, behind only the United States (17 percent) and Switzerland (11.5 percent). Payroll taxes provide the largest source of funding. Employers must pay 12.8 percent of wages for every employee, while employees contribute an additional 0.75 percent of wages, for a total payroll tax of 13.55 percent. In addition, there is a 5.25 general social contribution tax on income (reduced to 3.95 percent on pension income and unemployment benefits). Thus, most French workers are effectively paying 18.8 percent of their income for health insurance. Finally, dedicated taxes are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.

In theory, the system should be supported by these dedicated revenues. In reality, they have not been sufficient to keep the program’s finances balanced. The National Health Authority sets a global budget for national health care spending, but actual spending has consistently exceeded those targets.

Most services require substantial copayments, ranging from 10 to 40 percent of the cost. As a result, French consumers pay for roughly 13 percent of health care out of pocket, roughly the same percentage as U.S. consumers. Moreover, because many health care services are not covered, and because many of the best providers refuse to accept the fee schedules imposed by the insurance funds, more than 92 percent of French residents purchase complementary private insurance. In fact, private insurance now makes up roughly 12.7 percent of all health care spending in France, a percentage exceeded only by the Netherlands (15.2 percent) and the United States (35 percent) among industrialized countries.

The private insurance market in France is in many ways less regulated than the U.S. market. For example, while 20 U.S. states require some form of community rating or put limits on health insurance premiums, private health insurance in France is largely experience rated. No regulations specify what benefits must be included in coverage or mandate “guaranteed issue”; and pre-existing conditions may be excluded. The only significant restriction requires “guaranteed renewability” after two years of coverage. More than 118 carriers currently offer some form of private health insurance coverage.

A 2004 poll showed that the French had the highest level of satisfaction with their health care system among all European countries. This is partly because their hybrid system has avoided many of the biggest problems of other national health care systems. Yet it also stems from French social character. For example, by a three-to-one margin, the French believe the quality of care they receive is less important than everyone having equal access to that care. This means the French experience may not be easily transferable to the United States, which has a far less egalitarian ethic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."

Once again, if you have no original comments to make on the actual thread topic, but are merely here to repeat the same three or four posts in every single health care thread on the board, consider yourself cordially invited to leave and stop wasting space.

 

[mskafka]

France, which seems to be Chris's latest hard-on subject, has a hybrid system, and the most serious problems it has have been addressed by adding more free market options, not by adding more government control.

You should elaborate because the only thing I could find is that France is starting to more heavily means test. How is this a 'more' free-market system? Health care in France is unchanged...it's just the wealthy are now expected to pay for their own plus pay taxes to pay for ever one elses. I always thought that was communism not free-market.

Yeah, those Frenchies are really seeing the light aren't they...

I don't know if I'm more surprised that you don't know the basics of how France's system works, or that you still have the hubris to comment on it and assume that it supports your worldview.

From the Cato Institute:

Although the French system is facing looming budgetary pressures, it does provide at least some level of universal coverage and manages to avoid many of the problems that afflict other national health care systems. However, it does so in large part by adopting market-oriented approaches, including consumer cost sharing. Other aspects of the system appear to reflect French customs and political attitudes in such a way that would make it difficult to import the system to the United States.

France provides a basic level of universal health insurance through a series of mandatory, largely occupation-based, health insurance funds. These funds are ostensibly private entities but are heavily regulated and supervised by the French government. Premiums (funded primarily through payroll taxes), benefits, and provider reimbursement rates are all set by the government. In these ways the funds are similar to public utilities in the United States.

The French health care system is the world’s third most expensive, costing roughly 11 percent of GDP, behind only the United States (17 percent) and Switzerland (11.5 percent). Payroll taxes provide the largest source of funding. Employers must pay 12.8 percent of wages for every employee, while employees contribute an additional 0.75 percent of wages, for a total payroll tax of 13.55 percent. In addition, there is a 5.25 general social contribution tax on income (reduced to 3.95 percent on pension income and unemployment benefits). Thus, most French workers are effectively paying 18.8 percent of their income for health insurance. Finally, dedicated taxes are assessed on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues.

In theory, the system should be supported by these dedicated revenues. In reality, they have not been sufficient to keep the program’s finances balanced. The National Health Authority sets a global budget for national health care spending, but actual spending has consistently exceeded those targets.

Most services require substantial copayments, ranging from 10 to 40 percent of the cost. As a result, French consumers pay for roughly 13 percent of health care out of pocket, roughly the same percentage as U.S. consumers. Moreover, because many health care services are not covered, and because many of the best providers refuse to accept the fee schedules imposed by the insurance funds, more than 92 percent of French residents purchase complementary private insurance. In fact, private insurance now makes up roughly 12.7 percent of all health care spending in France, a percentage exceeded only by the Netherlands (15.2 percent) and the United States (35 percent) among industrialized countries.

The private insurance market in France is in many ways less regulated than the U.S. market. For example, while 20 U.S. states require some form of community rating or put limits on health insurance premiums, private health insurance in France is largely experience rated. No regulations specify what benefits must be included in coverage or mandate “guaranteed issue”; and pre-existing conditions may be excluded. The only significant restriction requires “guaranteed renewability” after two years of coverage. More than 118 carriers currently offer some form of private health insurance coverage.

A 2004 poll showed that the French had the highest level of satisfaction with their health care system among all European countries. This is partly because their hybrid system has avoided many of the biggest problems of other national health care systems. Yet it also stems from French social character. For example, by a three-to-one margin, the French believe the quality of care they receive is less important than everyone having equal access to that care. This means the French experience may not be easily transferable to the United States, which has a far less egalitarian ethic.

The Cato Institute has very strong right leanings, in my opinion. Like most think tanks, they are going to publish, research, advocate, etc.., what they themselves personally believe to be accurate. The Cato website just screams: "Let them eat cake!".

If you are going to dispute the merit of everyone else's sources, then you also need to be a little more neutral in your choice of references. That is, unless you enjoy insulting people. Don't miss your bus.

 

[Luissa]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

it rewards those that prepare and punishes those that do not. Some day it will punish you.

that is a bunch of bullshit and you know it. You can prepare all you want but the cost of health care is rising. If you need to live in a nursing home with total care it can cost you over $7,000 a month.
The rights answer is to say Obama just wants to forget about elderly and let them die when in reality we need to re evalute how we treat them. A lady with cogestive heart failure and end stage dementia doesn't need to total hip replacement especially when she dies a week after she recieves that hip replacement. A women with end stage dementia also doesn't need to be recieving chemo therapy for breast cancer.
The elderly are over treated and over prescribed because are health care system is based on gaining a profit rather then providing what care is actually needed.
The reason other industrialized nationals spend less on health care is because they do not have inflated prices, people do not have to go to the emergency room everytime they need medical care, and they don't put off seeking medical attention until care becomes even more costly. It cost more to amputate a foot from gang than it is to treat a small skin ulcer.

 

[eagleseven]

Have you passed high-school mathematics? Do you have ANY concept of how an economy functions?


This might shock you, but companies pay their employees from profits. Companies make profit when they sell goods and services to consumers who want those goods and services. That CEO is not stealing from anybody. He is paid as much as he is because customers like Cigna insurance. If they didn't like Cigna insurance, they could purchase their insurance at any of the other 200 HMOs.


The Government, on the other hand, makes no profit.

If I don't like the CEO of Cigna, I can stop paying his salary by purchasing healthcare from one of the other 200 HMOs.

If I don't like the President of the United States, I cannot stop paying him his salary or I'll be thrown in jail. The President is, in essence, stealing from me at gunpoint. A deal I can't refuse.

You want him to control my wallet AND my health?

 

[DiveCon]

New Rule: Everything In America doesn't have to Make a Profit
by Bill Maher
Link Excerpt:
It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are. Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves ­-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors. Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too.

change the name on the briefcase to Obamacare and it would be more accurate

 

[DiveCon]

damn, that is dishonest
the bluedogs werent even a factor till after the 2006 election

 

[eagleseven]

Somehow, 200 HMOs are ALL conspiring to screw us?




That's one hell of a conspiracy...who exactly is the mastermind behind these 200 evil companies?


And somehow, replacing these 200 HMOs with 1 government program will INCREASE patient choice?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankrupts: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18175

* The personal bankruptcy rate was actually higher in Canada in 2006 and 2007 (0.30 percent for both years) than in the United States (0.20 percent and .27 percent).

* Medical spending was only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies -- medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.

* Medical reasons were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

* Non-medical expenditures comprise the majority of debt among bankrupt consumers in both Canada and the United States; the inability to earn sufficient income to cover these costs -- not exposure to uninsured medical costs -- is the real explanation for almost all bankruptcies in either country.

Thus, bankruptcy statistics do not support arguments for a government-run, single-payer, socialized health insurance system, says Fraser.