House Votes to Repeal “Job-Killing” Health Care Law 236-181 and Now This...

[Old Rocks]

Why will all the new government programs work when all the existing ones fail?

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

 

[elvis]

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

That ranking is based on availability.. not the quality of care given.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fuck healthcare companies. I hope they all go bankrupt. They are a "pox" on this country.

Healthcare companies employ no doctors, no nurses, they own no hospitals. Their management gets paid multi million dollar salaries for producing nothing. They "earn" their money by skimming the insurance policies they "sell" to middle class Americans. We should have single payer.

the only HC provider i like is kaiser, simply because the are a non profit, and the both own and operate their own hospitals and health care centers.

I had kaiser, and they sucked. I bailed as soon as I could....but you are welcome to your own opinion with non profit. I just prefer better healthcare than what they able to supply.

I have Kaiser, and it is far superior to any other system I have had.

 

[Old Rocks]

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

That ranking is based on availability.. not the quality of care given.

I see. and that is reflected in the fact that even little Costa Rica has a higher average life span than the US. And our quality of care is so high that a baby born in many relitively poor 1st and 2nd world nations have a much better chance of reaching adulthood tha a child here in the US.

 

[Old Rocks]

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

the current alternatives only provide for the poor and the elderly. that leaves the young and middle aged out to dry. without simply dismantling the entire system and starting over, the new health care law tries to incorporate the current private HC system into this.

i am more in favor of gutting the whole systems and starting over. single payer, non profit, regulated health care. everyone pays the same price, everyone gets the same care. if costs increase to provide benefits, everyone gets the same rate increase. they can look at costs every 5 years and determine what rate increase if any is required to cover costs. this is a fair and simple system. this will also eliminate many of the administration positions that drive up costs.

Then you'd better pack your bags and move to Cuba, Comrade.

What Cuba Can Teach Us About Health Care | Wired Science | Wired.com

Just a morning’s boat ride from the tip of Florida is a place where medical costs are low and doctors plentiful. It’s Cuba, and Stanford University physician Paul Drain says it’s time for the United States to pay attention to our neighbor’s shoestring success.

Despite a 50-year trade embargo by the United States and a post-Soviet collapse in international support, the impoverished nation has developed a world-class health care system. Average life expectancy is 77.5 years, compared to 78.1 years in the United States, and infant and child mortality rates match or beat our own. There’s one doctor for every 170 people, more than twice the per-capita U.S. average.

Not everything is perfect in Cuba. There are shortages of medicines, and the best care is reserved for elites. But it’s still a powerful feat. “In Cuba, a little over $300 per person is spent on health care each year. In the U.S., we’re spending over $7,000 per person,” said Drain, co-author of Caring for the World and an essay published April 29 in Science. “They’re able to achieve great health outcomes on a modest budget.”

 

[elvis]

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

That ranking is based on availability.. not the quality of care given.

I see. and that is reflected in the fact that even little Costa Rica has a higher average life span than the US. And our quality of care is so high that a baby born in many relitively poor 1st and 2nd world nations have a much better chance of reaching adulthood tha a child here in the US.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I see. and that is reflected in the fact that even little Costa Rica has a higher average life span than the US. And our quality of care is so high that a baby born in many relitively poor 1st and 2nd world nations have a much better chance of reaching adulthood tha a child here in the US.

Go ahead and keep showing us your ignorance. You're clearly proud of it.

 

[rdean]

I see. and that is reflected in the fact that even little Costa Rica has a higher average life span than the US. And our quality of care is so high that a baby born in many relitively poor 1st and 2nd world nations have a much better chance of reaching adulthood tha a child here in the US.

Go ahead and keep showing us your ignorance. You're clearly proud of it.

Umm, I would think children reaching adulthood would be at least one indicator.

 

[elvis]

I see. and that is reflected in the fact that even little Costa Rica has a higher average life span than the US. And our quality of care is so high that a baby born in many relitively poor 1st and 2nd world nations have a much better chance of reaching adulthood tha a child here in the US.

Go ahead and keep showing us your ignorance. You're clearly proud of it.

Umm, I would think children reaching adulthood would be at least one indicator.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Meister]

the only HC provider i like is kaiser, simply because the are a non profit, and the both own and operate their own hospitals and health care centers.

I had kaiser, and they sucked. I bailed as soon as I could....but you are welcome to your own opinion with non profit. I just prefer better healthcare than what they able to supply.

I have Kaiser, and it is far superior to any other system I have had.

That's because your a cheap bastard.

 

[Annie]

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Behind the Baby Count
By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted 9/24/06

We're a nation of beautiful babies. In a remarkable achievement, the loss of babies during their first year of life has plummeted by almost 70 percent since 1970. Yet the nation's infant mortality rate is used time and again as evidence of America's failed health system. Just last week, the Commonwealth Fund issued a score card that flunked U.S. health system performance with newborns. The reason? Our current infant mortality rate of 6.4 per 1,000 live births is high compared with the 3.2 to 3.6 per 1,000 estimated for the three top-scoring countries in the world-Iceland, Finland, and Japan. It's also higher than the 6 deaths per 1,000 for the European community as a whole. Before putting on the hair shirt, let's take a look behind these numbers as these comparisons have serious flaws. They also convey little about why we lose nearly 28,000 babies a year, a starting point if we want to bring universal health to our nation's cradles.

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth. ...

 

[Care4all]

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Behind the Baby Count
By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted 9/24/06

We're a nation of beautiful babies. In a remarkable achievement, the loss of babies during their first year of life has plummeted by almost 70 percent since 1970. Yet the nation's infant mortality rate is used time and again as evidence of America's failed health system. Just last week, the Commonwealth Fund issued a score card that flunked U.S. health system performance with newborns. The reason? Our current infant mortality rate of 6.4 per 1,000 live births is high compared with the 3.2 to 3.6 per 1,000 estimated for the three top-scoring countries in the world-Iceland, Finland, and Japan. It's also higher than the 6 deaths per 1,000 for the European community as a whole. Before putting on the hair shirt, let's take a look behind these numbers as these comparisons have serious flaws. They also convey little about why we lose nearly 28,000 babies a year, a starting point if we want to bring universal health to our nation's cradles.

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth. ...

i think more details are needed before we can make a sound judgment on this Annie....

for instance, how do the specific countries at the top, count their births? The some countries count this, and the some countries count that doesn't really tell us much....

Also, how many babies do we actually have born/ then died, in those categories that these top countries do not count? What percentage are they, of our total newborn deaths?

 

[Annie]

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Behind the Baby Count
By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted 9/24/06

We're a nation of beautiful babies. In a remarkable achievement, the loss of babies during their first year of life has plummeted by almost 70 percent since 1970. Yet the nation's infant mortality rate is used time and again as evidence of America's failed health system. Just last week, the Commonwealth Fund issued a score card that flunked U.S. health system performance with newborns. The reason? Our current infant mortality rate of 6.4 per 1,000 live births is high compared with the 3.2 to 3.6 per 1,000 estimated for the three top-scoring countries in the world-Iceland, Finland, and Japan. It's also higher than the 6 deaths per 1,000 for the European community as a whole. Before putting on the hair shirt, let's take a look behind these numbers as these comparisons have serious flaws. They also convey little about why we lose nearly 28,000 babies a year, a starting point if we want to bring universal health to our nation's cradles.

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth. ...

i think more details are needed before we can make a sound judgment on this Annie....

for instance, how do the specific countries at the top, count their births? The some countries count this, and the some countries count that doesn't really tell us much....

Also, how many babies do we actually have born/ then died, in those categories that these top countries do not count? What percentage are they, of our total newborn deaths?

That may be, but it seems that France and some others have not been measuring by the same yardstick as agreed upon. Seems that all countries should be held to the same standards. When it comes to saving very sick, very premature infants and having them survive successfully the US is not the basketcase that some are making out.

 

[Care4all]

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

i think more details are needed before we can make a sound judgment on this Annie....

for instance, how do the specific countries at the top, count their births? The some countries count this, and the some countries count that doesn't really tell us much....

Also, how many babies do we actually have born/ then died, in those categories that these top countries do not count? What percentage are they, of our total newborn deaths?

That may be, but it seems that France and some others have not been measuring by the same yardstick as agreed upon. Seems that all countries should be held to the same standards. When it comes to saving very sick, very premature infants and having them survive successfully the US is not the basketcase that some are making out.

i agree, the standard should be the same and THIS IS why we need more info.....we could get us all on the same scale if we had the proper numbers....to deduct out.....

 

[Sarah G]

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.
January 7, 2011

Summary
When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."

The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org

Republicans aren't serious about repealing Healthcare Reform. Their rhetorical statements are just that.

 

[Zander]

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.
January 7, 2011

Summary
When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."

The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org

Republicans aren't serious about repealing Healthcare Reform. Their rhetorical statements are just that.

You really need a dose of reality sister....

 

[code1211]

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

Come on, you don't believe that, do you? The core principle here is an economy of scale. Our problem is that we have too many people leeching the system. At least in theory, nobody is denied care for their inability to pay. If they're on Medicaid, your taxes pay it. If they're not, and they show up in the ER, the paying customers subsidize their care through higher costs, hence higher insurance premiums.

There's a couple ways to address this. One is to try to get everyone insured. Whether it's via mandate or a "Socialized" insurance program, the paying customer wins. When Joe Citizen goes to a doctor with the sniffles, a $10 Z-Pack is all he needs. If he waits and waits for fear of a bill he can't pay, he winds up in the ER with pneumonia, fearing for his life. That Z-pack has just turned into a $10,000 stay in the hospital.

Our hospitals today can literally maintain the pulse and breathing of a corpse. This is light years ahead of the care available even 40 years ago.

Your sniffles example is a good one. The model I'm thinking of is not much different from the Walk In Clinics that were on College campuses in the 70's. The Doctor was not always in. The nurse was there and the nurse acted like the surrogate Mommy for the lost and forlorn, often more homesick that real sick, patients who came in.

In a good neighborhood clinic setting, the Doctor would never be required to be on site. Teleconferancing when needed could do the trick and in this way one doctor could support the efforts of several clinics. Not the best care, but, seriously, you get what you can afford to pay for.

The nurse in attendance could make the determination that the patient needed more serious care or not. If that determination was made, then the patient could be routed to a more complete facility.

This would create an actual low cost care system for those that cannot afford the "King of Saudi Arabia" level of care.

McDonald's does not serve lobster on china with wine in crystal goblets, but if you need a burger and fries, you probably want to use the drive through rather than make a reservation and sit down to order. We have different levels of service in all things as fits the needs and desires of the buyers.

Why is our health care system required to be a one size fits all when a various sizes fits various needs system is what is actually needed?

Again, addressing the cost of healthcare is what is needed. There must be creative solutions available. Right now the plan is to grow the costs and figure out a way to pay the increases. To my way of thinking, this is not much of a plan.

 

[code1211]

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

the current alternatives only provide for the poor and the elderly. that leaves the young and middle aged out to dry. without simply dismantling the entire system and starting over, the new health care law tries to incorporate the current private HC system into this.

i am more in favor of gutting the whole systems and starting over. single payer, non profit, regulated health care. everyone pays the same price, everyone gets the same care. if costs increase to provide benefits, everyone gets the same rate increase. they can look at costs every 5 years and determine what rate increase if any is required to cover costs. this is a fair and simple system. this will also eliminate many of the administration positions that drive up costs.

Most of the healthcare facilities and hardware and software in this country is owned by the private sector.

Are you proposing the confiscation of this property from the owners?

 

[code1211]

still avoiding the question....


please answer the following:

2011 is expected to see another 9% increase, just about the same as 2010. the difference is that in 2011 more employers are requiring the employee to pick up more of the costs. thus the out of pocket costs that employees see is rising by about 12%. (thats according to AARP) so who is to blame here for this actual increase? the insurance companies who have been increasing their rates for a decade, the employers who are making thier employees share more of the burden, or the health care law that hasnt even gone into full effect yet?

i will not continue on this argument until you can answer this questions, ill even make it multiple choice:

a - blame insurance companies
b - blame employers
c - blame the health care.

now after answering the question, can you please validate that answer with a rationale.

The American Health Care System is a Rolls Royce Care system. The problem is that the Government is trying to make this Rolls Royce available on a used Chevy budget.

The only way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

If the governemnt was serous about reducing the cost of healthcare, those are the costs they would be addressing. They are not. They are simply trying to intercept the dollars currently flowing from the insured to the insurance companies to the healthcare providers.

If they want to provide a an on the cheap system for those who cannot afford the real system, they need to stand up a paralell system that acts as the healthcare to the poor and uninsured. This system could be staffed with volunteers, med students, nurses and doctors performing pro bono and working over televised meeting type care provision.

Buildings could be any of the abandoned schools in neighborhoods around the country.

This would set up the parallel system in competition with the "real" system and therby have a separate and additional cost containment feature.

So, who do I blame? All of us. If this life boat sinks, we all get wet.

LOL. A Rolls Royce Health Care System? Ranked #37. With longevity way behind most of the industrial nations, and infant mortality right down in the third world category.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]

I've heard stats like that, and it just doesn't wash. I know that our stats are kept in a pretty reliable way. I further know that we don't keep the stats for other countries.

I'm hung up on why the King of Saudi Arabia came here instead going to any of the other 36 countries with reportedly superior healthcare when he was seriously ill and needed reliable and dependable care that would give him the best shot at recovery.

Obviously, for him, cost is not an issue. The only issue is quality. He must have his own doctor and he must have the ability to enter other countries. Whatever his condition may have been, he, his doctor and his advisors all determined that the USA Healthcare was his best shot.

Why come here when there are, according to your figures, 36 other options with superior care?

 

[code1211]

I see. and that is reflected in the fact that even little Costa Rica has a higher average life span than the US. And our quality of care is so high that a baby born in many relitively poor 1st and 2nd world nations have a much better chance of reaching adulthood tha a child here in the US.

Go ahead and keep showing us your ignorance. You're clearly proud of it.

Umm, I would think children reaching adulthood would be at least one indicator.

I would think so, too. However, if a child is born outside a hospital, is it a part of the stats? How many births outside of hospitals occur in either country?

What are the causes of death affecting the outcome used for the study? Are these treatable diseases or gunshot wounds? What is preventing people from reaching old age?

Is diet a factor? How much fast food is consumed outside of the USA compared to inside the USA? How about traffic deaths? How about military deaths? Construction deaths?

End result stats can be an indicator of something not measured, but they can only be depended on to reveal what they have measured. F'rinstance, wealth at the time of death might be an indicator of hard work and good planning, but it could also be an indicator of inheritance or lottery winnings.

As Groucho Marx said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."