Before Racing To National Healthcare: Listen

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, yes, I know the argument – the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition. But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

 

[Chris]

I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity. Well, except for the last Presidential election.

Sorry.

For profit healthcare is killing American industry.

 

[Chris]

Yes it is thankyouverymuch.....what you really should be getting in a sweat about is what is going to happen when the 30million illegals bring in their 90million relatives....then you will for sure see the economic doom you fear...not to mention a host of other problems....

We really don’t need to “throw them out” as you say….we need to stop any more from entering the country and adding to the existing problems….we need to require green cards of all foreign workers.....AND we need to stop giving away free heatlth care and free food stamps and free welfare and free schooling and free housing and free you name it and many of the freeloaders will just leave on their own and go back home to live in socialist Mexico...

....only when we STOP trying to absorb the Mexican poor and other foreigners and let Mexico and other countries take care of their own will we begin to see daylight in our overswamped health care system....we just plain cannot afford to take on millions of indigents from other countries....

Like the Pilgrims?

And did the Indians give the Pilgrims free health care? You bleeding heart liberals crack me up with your stupidity....

You are the one who is stupid.

We already have universal healthcare, a really bad, expensive version of it.

It's called the emergency room.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Like the Pilgrims?

And did the Indians give the Pilgrims free health care? You bleeding heart liberals crack me up with your stupidity....

You are the one who is stupid.

We already have universal healthcare, a really bad, expensive version of it.

It's called the emergency room.

Not to mention our socialistic plan called Medicare we founded years ago....which is ALSO going broke.....what makes you think MORE socialistic health care is going to be any better....when the current one is failing right before your very eyes....?

Things would improve greatly if we got rid of the illegals using our emergency rooms for their free health care.

 

[Nik]

Yes, yes, I know the argument – the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition. But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

Oy. I didn't say it would be no different, I said I didn't know. Neither do you. But as usual you are just making shit up.

 

[sealybobo]

I've never seen a bigger bunch of idiots so determined to march over the cliff of mediocrity. Well, except for the last Presidential election.

We have seen our healthcare get worse and worse over 20 years to the point it is unacceptable.

As for me, I just want the same healthcare that John McCain gets. Look at what he gets and that is what i want for every American. He doesn't seem to complain.

For every $100 that passes through the hands of the government-administered Medicare programs, between $2 and $3 is spent on administration, leaving $97 to $98 to pay for medical services and drugs. But of every $100 that flows through corporate insurance programs and HMOs, $10 to $24 sticks to corporate fingers along the way. After all, Medicare doesn't have lavish corporate headquarters, corporate jets, or pay expensive lobbying firms in Washington to work on its behalf. It doesn't "donate" millions to politicians and their parties. It doesn't pay profits in the form of dividends to its shareholders. And it doesn't compensate its top executive with over a million dollars a year, as do each of the largest of the American insurance companies. Medicare has one primary mandate: serve the public. Private corporations also have one primary mandate: generate profit.

If the Govt. only pays $2-$3 administration.....why is Medicare going broke?

Maybe because they are stealing from the funds to pay for other things?

Maybe because the rich aren't paying into the system so the treasury is empty?

Maybe because Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, yes, I know the argument – the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition. But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

Is that what the private insurers told you?

Is that why the private insurers are so afraid of single payer?

Healthcare companies make their money denying you healthcare. No matter what you say about the government, putting for profits in charge of this makes even worse sense.

Why do we have government provided K-12? **** it! Make it all private schools that you have to pay to go!!! And make them really expensive too!!!

I don't see John McCain complaining about his healthcare. I want exactly what he has.

Seniors have it. Children have it now with SCHIP. Hell, about 25% of our population is already on it. All we have to do is give people who don't have insurance the option to join. And if you lose your job, you can join too.

But if you want to keep your crappy healthcare, you can do that too.

And the government program will compete with your provider and it will force them to care about you more.

Competition is good, no?

No one is going to force you to take this insurance.

People paying $12000 a year could easily get great coverage for $6000 a month. That would put $6K more in everyones bottom line. I see no problem with that.

Are your healthcare monopolies afraid of competition?

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, yes, I know the argument – the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition. But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

Oy. I didn't say it would be no different, I said I didn't know. Neither do you. But as usual you are just making shit up.

Of course he's making shit up. He's listening to the healthcare lobbyists who are working overtime.

He also fears that his insurance is going to get worse and/or he's going to have to pay more for it.

The more they fight this, the more I know its a good idea.

I found this:

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program

Absolutely no reason to believe the private companies. They have been proven to be liars. But the right wingers on these boards like to distract us and say that politicians, specifically LIBERALS are the problem.

Whether its liberals or Republicans, corporate lobbyists are always at the root of the problem.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, yes, I know the argument – the profit motive is a good thing because it encourages competition. But among health insurers, that competition takes the form of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions and trying to slough off all high-cost insureds.

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

Oy. I didn't say it would be no different, I said I didn't know. Neither do you. But as usual you are just making shit up.

your a ******* moron Nik....your the one talking about "AFFORDABLE CHEAP DISEASES"...and you said that they PROBABLY WILL pick and choose...your no dam different then those making the rules now....if its cheap we will cover it,if not oh well.....sorry.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

Oy. I didn't say it would be no different, I said I didn't know. Neither do you. But as usual you are just making shit up.

Of course he's making shit up. He's listening to the healthcare lobbyists who are working overtime.

He also fears that his insurance is going to get worse and/or he's going to have to pay more for it.

The more they fight this, the more I know its a good idea.

I found this:

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program

Absolutely no reason to believe the private companies. They have been proven to be liars. But the right wingers on these boards like to distract us and say that politicians, specifically LIBERALS are the problem.

Whether its liberals or Republicans, corporate lobbyists are always at the root of the problem.

no Bobo 3-4 of your leftist buddies told me this......my ins is great,covers everything me and the wife need.....they even gave her back 10,000 dollars of 15,000 from an ins claim....she was in a car accident,the at faults party paid 15,000 to ours for the treatments given( that was all they had to pay)...total treatments including surgery 22,500.00....they gave my wife 10 grand out of the 15 paid by the guys ins co. because they said she was the one who suffered the pain in all this,and deserved the cash.... and they ate the rest.....not bad for a private dont give a dam all out for profit private ins co......yea cant wait for that national plan....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We have seen our healthcare get worse and worse over 20 years to the point it is unacceptable.

As for me, I just want the same healthcare that John McCain gets. Look at what he gets and that is what i want for every American. He doesn't seem to complain.

For every $100 that passes through the hands of the government-administered Medicare programs, between $2 and $3 is spent on administration, leaving $97 to $98 to pay for medical services and drugs. But of every $100 that flows through corporate insurance programs and HMOs, $10 to $24 sticks to corporate fingers along the way. After all, Medicare doesn't have lavish corporate headquarters, corporate jets, or pay expensive lobbying firms in Washington to work on its behalf. It doesn't "donate" millions to politicians and their parties. It doesn't pay profits in the form of dividends to its shareholders. And it doesn't compensate its top executive with over a million dollars a year, as do each of the largest of the American insurance companies. Medicare has one primary mandate: serve the public. Private corporations also have one primary mandate: generate profit.

If the Govt. only pays $2-$3 administration.....why is Medicare going broke?

Maybe because they are stealing from the funds to pay for other things?

Maybe because the rich aren't paying into the system so the treasury is empty?

Maybe because Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit?

So the government is stealing Medicare funds….wow….I can hardly wait to put my health care under their management….

The rich aren't paying?....get real…..you should know by now that the rich already pay the biggest chunk of taxes….

Bush’s fault…Bush’s fault……the same old sing-song excuse you libs have for everything….when in actuality Bush assisted you libs in your desire to add prescription drugs to the mix…which only made the financial problems worse...

The fact is..... the Govt. is already a PROVEN FLOP in the health care business…but you libs think turning your health care completely over to government control is somehow going to make things better and more “progressive”….wake up buddy and smell the coffee…

In 1965, Medicare was predicted to cost $26 billion in 2003; the actual cost that year was $245 billion. Medicare's unfunded liability currently hovers around $40 trillion.

Medicare Will Be Bankrupt by 2019
Medicare Will Be Bankrupt by 2019 - by Tom Schatz - Budget & Tax News

 

[ScreamingEagle]

5 MYTHS About Socialized Medicine:

1. A right to health care

2. Higher quality

3. More bang for the buck

4. Equal access

5. Less red tape

Read here why they are MYTHS:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

 

[Red Dawn]

here's the deal, and everyone know it.

rightwingers, deep in their black little hearts know it.

If we had government financed healthcare, it would outcompete most private plans.


Government financed healthcare offers essentially the same benefits as private insurance companies, with lower costs.

Its the reason John Boehner, Dick Cheney, and Eric Cantor love their government financed health care, and wouldn't dream in a million years of giving it up to shop for an individual policy in the free market.

 

[driveby]

you had better talk to Nik Bobo.....the National System will be no different.....you can only get the diseases on their "cheap affordable disease" list....other wise......YOUR FUCKED....

Oy. I didn't say it would be no different, I said I didn't know. Neither do you. But as usual you are just making shit up.

Of course he's making shit up. He's listening to the healthcare lobbyists who are working overtime.

He also fears that his insurance is going to get worse and/or he's going to have to pay more for it.

The more they fight this, the more I know its a good idea.

I found this:

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program

Absolutely no reason to believe the private companies. They have been proven to be liars. But the right wingers on these boards like to distract us and say that politicians, specifically LIBERALS are the problem.

Whether its liberals or Republicans, corporate lobbyists are always at the root of the problem.

You forgot the biggest lobbyist of all, GE. They will benefit HUGE from Universal Healthcare (along with other dem policies), but you, "your party" and "your boyz" over at NBC are trying to keep a lid on that fact .........

 

[Old Rocks]

Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.

 

[driveby]

Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.

Our healthcare is already better, and NO company will benefit directly like GE. Kinda explains why NBC is so pro Obama huh ?

 

[Chris]

Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.

Our healthcare is already better, and NO company will benefit directly like GE. Kinda explains why NBC is so pro Obama huh ?

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Every business will benefit from Universal Health Care. Simple fact. Puts us on a level playing field as the rest of the industrialized nations.

Our healthcare is already better, and NO company will benefit directly like GE. Kinda explains why NBC is so pro Obama huh ?

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

but that government can still say ....sorry we are not going to cover your disease...treatment is to expensive....

 

[driveby]

Our healthcare is already better, and NO company will benefit directly like GE. Kinda explains why NBC is so pro Obama huh ?

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

but that government can still say ....sorry we are not going to cover your disease...treatment is to expensive....

Yep, wouldn't want that GE stock to drop 1/100th of a point to save a few lives.....

 

[Chris]

Our healthcare is already better, and NO company will benefit directly like GE. Kinda explains why NBC is so pro Obama huh ?

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

but that government can still say ....sorry we are not going to cover your disease...treatment is to expensive....

Wrong. NO ONE CAN BE TURNED AWAY FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM.

And you know what the most expensive kind of healthcare is?

THE EMERGENCY ROOM!!!

The other Western democracies are much smarter than we are on this issue. A society that tries to make money off of sick people is totally fucked up.