Democrats: the more people know about government run healthcare, the less they like

[DiveCon]

You will have a choice of your private insurance or the public one.
Why do Republicans support multi-billion dollar insurance companies at the expense of their own well-being?

I see not much thought went into your post. The universal health will push out private insurance through mandates on the private sector.
Have you even taken a poll on who wants universal health coverage, and private insurance coverage with party lines? You talk like all democrats want socialized healthcare. You can't really be this stupid, or did you go to school with Chris?

Hell, private insurance should be forced to compete or close shop. What are you talking about?

thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down

 

[Chris]

I see not much thought went into your post. The universal health will push out private insurance through mandates on the private sector.
Have you even taken a poll on who wants universal health coverage, and private insurance coverage with party lines? You talk like all democrats want socialized healthcare. You can't really be this stupid, or did you go to school with Chris?

Hell, private insurance should be forced to compete or close shop. What are you talking about?

thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down

Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.

 

[DiveCon]

Hell, private insurance should be forced to compete or close shop. What are you talking about?

thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down

Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.

and everyone with the means comes HERE for healthcare


another FAIL

 

[jreeves]

Hell, private insurance should be forced to compete or close shop. What are you talking about?

thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down

Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.

You troll, they wait for treatment and their medical technology is behind the US.

 

[jreeves]

thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down

Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.

You troll, they wait for treatment and their medical technology is behind the US.

The US also leads the world in medical research, if we socialize health care, meaningful medical research breakthroughs will slow down drastically.

 

[editec]

Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.

You troll, they wait for treatment and their medical technology is behind the US.

The US also leads the world in medical research, if we socialize health care, meaningful medical research breakthroughs will slow down drastically.

Yup, likely true.

If one takes the profit motive out of medical research it will slow down.

Of course much of the so called research done right now isn't really all that much about advancing medicine, either, is it?

It's about finding a chemical/medince which is essantially the same as other chemical/medicines, but which is just chemically different enough to make it patentable so that it can replace the chemical which is losing its patent.

Still in the greater picture the complaint that removing the profit motive from medical research is still sound.

This is actually the number one problem of socializing medicine. It's not the only problem with it, but it stands as what I consider the worst outcome of it.

 

[Annie]

I'm becoming less concerned about the health care changes at least for the time being. The costs involved are becoming more apparent by the hour, even to the drones in government. If Obama & Comrades implement such, they will be raising taxes to historical levels, at the cost of his more important pledge, to not tax those under $200k.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20090611_JCTLettertoBaucus6209.pdf

 

[editec]

I'm becoming less concerned about the health care changes at least for the time being. The costs involved are becoming more apparent by the hour, even to the drones in government. If Obama & Comrades implement such, they will be raising taxes to historical levels, at the cost of his more important pledge, to not tax those under $200k.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20090611_JCTLettertoBaucus6209.pdf

ACtually I agree with you on this, Annie.

The HC system IS going to change because what we have now is rapidly becoming unsustainable.

But remember the old chessmasters' caveat:

All the mistakes are there, waiting to be made.​

If we think (as we thought when we created Medecade and Medicare) that a government payment system feeding into a capitalist market is the solution to rising HC costs, then the cost of HC is going to go through the ceiling when we put that system in place.​

It will start slowly at first because the government WILL use its power to force some HC providers to keep costs down.​

But inevitably HC establishment will petition our POLS (exactly as the PPharma and insurance companies have already done) to insure that they continue to rise costs and put the burden to pay their outrageous profits on the back of the taxpayers.​

Mark my words, folks, everytime the government decides to pay the capitalists for their services, the PRICE of stuff goes up until every NEW dollar put into the market is gone.​

Simple economics....if you increase demand (by giving everyone HC insurance) but you do not increase supply, then the cost of stuff will escalate to capture the new dollars that are circulating in that market.​

We saw that in HC and higher education already have we not?​

If you doubt this, just look at how those two things have continued to rise in costs compared to all other thing in this society.​

And why did they rise faster than everything else?​

Because the government decided to help people who couldn't afford it, get into those markets.

DAmn! I ought to go to work for the CATO insititute!

I sound exactly like they do as it regards this issue.

​

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah I know its a wonder, I have medical insurance provided through my employer.

If you change jobs you might be faced with finding other insurance .. what happens if you or a child gets sick then?
Even though insured, a bureaucrat in the industry can refuse a treatment that your doctor deems necessary.

again, you repeat that lie
the Insurance companies only say if it is something you are covered for in your policy
nothing more
if you dont have coverage for it, then you either have to look for an alternative treatment, or pay for it yourself

and if you dont think the government run healthcare would be the same damn thing(or much much worse) then you are too naive

Aside from the fact that you are an ignorant ****...allow me to ask what your point is in general. Without getting too personal...what is your health care situation? I'm honestly curious why you are so adament about neglecting and rejecting the health of others.

What do you have now that you think you will lose?

 

[Yukon]

Why dont you just give your pay cheque to the HMO and let them look after everyting for you? hahahahahahahahahaha.......you people are so sad, so pathetic, so gullible, so passe.

 

[Political Junky]

thats what most conservatives have been saying
competition will bring the price down

Every other Western country has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

For profit healthcare makes it more expensive.

and everyone with the means comes HERE for healthcare


another FAIL

No, everyone with means does not come here for treatment. Not everyone wants to live in the US either ... I know this goes against every conservative talking point.

 

[DiveCon]

If you change jobs you might be faced with finding other insurance .. what happens if you or a child gets sick then?
Even though insured, a bureaucrat in the industry can refuse a treatment that your doctor deems necessary.

again, you repeat that lie
the Insurance companies only say if it is something you are covered for in your policy
nothing more
if you dont have coverage for it, then you either have to look for an alternative treatment, or pay for it yourself

and if you dont think the government run healthcare would be the same damn thing(or much much worse) then you are too naive

Aside from the fact that you are an ignorant ****...allow me to ask what your point is in general. Without getting too personal...what is your health care situation? I'm honestly curious why you are so adament about neglecting and rejecting the health of others.

What do you have now that you think you will lose?

you are nothing but a moronic troll
**** off

 

[HUGGY]

again, you repeat that lie
the Insurance companies only say if it is something you are covered for in your policy
nothing more
if you dont have coverage for it, then you either have to look for an alternative treatment, or pay for it yourself

and if you dont think the government run healthcare would be the same damn thing(or much much worse) then you are too naive

Aside from the fact that you are an ignorant ****...allow me to ask what your point is in general. Without getting too personal...what is your health care situation? I'm honestly curious why you are so adament about neglecting and rejecting the health of others.

What do you have now that you think you will lose?

you are nothing but a moronic troll
**** off

Thats all you ever offer. What a pathetic loser. I bet you still sleep with the light on.

 

[Navy1960]

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So here is a thought , everyone agree's that the costs in healthcare makes access to healthcare insurance unaffordable for some who wish to obtain it as a general rule ? It follows then if the Federal Govt. is responsible for 45% of this healthcare, is not the Federal Govt. at least partially responsible for 45% of the rising costs of healthcare in this country? So why then would you wish the Federal govt. to have an even bigger role if they have failed to manage their share in keeping costs down? Here is another thought, perhaps, the Federal Govt. could find way's through it's Federal programs , grants, tax incentives to promote competetion and establish healthcare co-ops that will offer low costs health insurance that is backed by the Federal Govt. much like the FDIC? just a thought? I think the difference here is actually quite simple, many here see healthcare as a "right" well so be it, use our form of Govt. call for a constitutional amendment and make it one. Otherwise, work within the framework of our existing system, starting with the Federal Govt. who is responsible for 45% of it.

 

[DiveCon]

Aside from the fact that you are an ignorant ****...allow me to ask what your point is in general. Without getting too personal...what is your health care situation? I'm honestly curious why you are so adament about neglecting and rejecting the health of others.

What do you have now that you think you will lose?

you are nothing but a moronic troll
**** off

Thats all you ever offer. What a pathetic loser. I bet you still sleep with the light on.

projecting again

 

[HUGGY]

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So here is a thought , everyone agree's that the costs in healthcare makes access to healthcare insurance unaffordable for some who wish to obtain it as a general rule ? It follows then if the Federal Govt. is responsible for 45% of this healthcare, is not the Federal Govt. at least partially responsible for 45% of the rising costs of healthcare in this country? So why then would you wish the Federal govt. to have an even bigger role if they have failed to manage their share in keeping costs down? Here is another thought, perhaps, the Federal Govt. could find way's through it's Federal programs , grants, tax incentives to promote competetion and establish healthcare co-ops that will offer low costs health insurance that is backed by the Federal Govt. much like the FDIC? just a thought? I think the difference here is actually quite simple, many here see healthcare as a "right" well so be it, use our form of Govt. call for a constitutional amendment and make it one. Otherwise, work within the framework of our existing system, starting with the Federal Govt. who is responsible for 45% of it.

Those dots do not connect. Medicare cost 1-3% administatively.

The hmo's, malpractice ins and emergency visits that could have been prevented with coverage for the poor is where the rising costs come from.

 

[Meister]

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So here is a thought , everyone agree's that the costs in healthcare makes access to healthcare insurance unaffordable for some who wish to obtain it as a general rule ? It follows then if the Federal Govt. is responsible for 45% of this healthcare, is not the Federal Govt. at least partially responsible for 45% of the rising costs of healthcare in this country? So why then would you wish the Federal govt. to have an even bigger role if they have failed to manage their share in keeping costs down? Here is another thought, perhaps, the Federal Govt. could find way's through it's Federal programs , grants, tax incentives to promote competetion and establish healthcare co-ops that will offer low costs health insurance that is backed by the Federal Govt. much like the FDIC? just a thought? I think the difference here is actually quite simple, many here see healthcare as a "right" well so be it, use our form of Govt. call for a constitutional amendment and make it one. Otherwise, work within the framework of our existing system, starting with the Federal Govt. who is responsible for 45% of it.

Those dots do not connect. Medicare cost 1-3% administatively.

The hmo's, malpractice ins and emergency visits that could have been prevented with coverage for the poor is where the rising costs come from.

1-3 % and they still are screwed up finacially. Well Huggy, there is our government in action.

 

[Navy1960]

One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health
care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs,
while private insurance companies’ administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent
range.
It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costs
with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector
insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s
administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic
reporting and tracking systems used by the government.
This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds
that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are
included.
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

Huggy, while I tend to agree that healthcare costs are a result of several factors, among them are ones mentioned in previous posts. My feelings are that Govt. intervention into the healthcare insurance business is not the right solution to bring down costs and will further erode healthcare. The Federal Govt. has a role in containing costs they simply need to address the issues that effect costs and and promote and environment that makes healthcare more affordable and accessable to those who wish it.

 

[DiveCon]

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[34] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]
Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So here is a thought , everyone agree's that the costs in healthcare makes access to healthcare insurance unaffordable for some who wish to obtain it as a general rule ? It follows then if the Federal Govt. is responsible for 45% of this healthcare, is not the Federal Govt. at least partially responsible for 45% of the rising costs of healthcare in this country? So why then would you wish the Federal govt. to have an even bigger role if they have failed to manage their share in keeping costs down? Here is another thought, perhaps, the Federal Govt. could find way's through it's Federal programs , grants, tax incentives to promote competetion and establish healthcare co-ops that will offer low costs health insurance that is backed by the Federal Govt. much like the FDIC? just a thought? I think the difference here is actually quite simple, many here see healthcare as a "right" well so be it, use our form of Govt. call for a constitutional amendment and make it one. Otherwise, work within the framework of our existing system, starting with the Federal Govt. who is responsible for 45% of it.

Those dots do not connect. Medicare cost 1-3% administatively.

The hmo's, malpractice ins and emergency visits that could have been prevented with coverage for the poor is where the rising costs come from.

1-3 % and they still are screwed up finacially. Well Huggy, there is our government in action.

he's lying, because that doesnt take into account the costs covered by the private insurance most people buy to supplement medicare

 

[Yukon]

I wonder if AIG could effectively eliver health care benefits to ALL Americans - even Negros and Latinos.