If the US healthcare system is the best and socialism is the worst

[Foxfyre]

The average American worker pays $3,515 annually for family coverage, according to a 2009 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust




Public expenditure on health
As a percentage of total expenditure on health
France: 77.9
Germany: 76.9
UK: 84.1
USA 47.7
Health: Key Tables from OECD - OECD iLibraryPublic expenditure on health

Now go back and examine U.S. healthcosts against those of other countries BEFORE the government started meddling and driving up prices.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when all costs are added up, Americans spend more money on health care per person with fewer people covered.

does this mean you favor less government intervention?

 

[taichiliberal]

when all costs are added up, Americans spend more money on health care per person with fewer people covered.

does this mean you favor less government intervention?

Are you referring to gov't regulation of a private health insurance system that has screwed us to the point where DESPITE more money being spent, fewer people are covered? Because that's what my previous link showed.

 

[dblack]

when all costs are added up, Americans spend more money on health care per person with fewer people covered.

does this mean you favor less government intervention?

Are you referring to gov't regulation of a private health insurance system that has screwed us to the point where DESPITE more money being spent, fewer people are covered? Because that's what my previous link showed.

This conflates two different issues. Those of us complaining about intrusive regulation aren't suggesting insurance companies should be allowed to rip people off. They should cover what they say they're going to cover and they should be held accountable for whatever promises they make. The kind of regulation that is causing problems, however, involves the state dictating specifics of policies - essentially telling customers what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy.

A good example of the kind of intervention that causes more problems than it solves are the recent efforts of the Obama administration to force all insurance plans to cover birth control. This isn't government protecting us, this is government telling us what kind of insurance coverage we can and can't buy.

 

[Vidi]

does this mean you favor less government intervention?

Are you referring to gov't regulation of a private health insurance system that has screwed us to the point where DESPITE more money being spent, fewer people are covered? Because that's what my previous link showed.

This conflates two different issues. Those of us complaining about intrusive regulation aren't suggesting insurance companies should be allowed to rip people off. They should cover what they say they're going to cover and they should be held accountable for whatever promises they make. The kind of regulation that is causing problems, however, involves the state dictating specifics of policies - essentially telling customers what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy.

A good example of the kind of intervention that causes more problems than it solves are the recent efforts of the Obama administration to force all insurance plans to cover birth control. This isn't government protecting us, this is government telling us what kind of insurance coverage we can and can't buy.

Nooooo. Its telling insurance companies what they HAVE to cover. Its not the same thing.

And they tell them they HAVE to cover these things because they STOPPED covering those things and raised their rates at the same time.

A decade ago, I hade AMAZING coverage compared to today and it was a mediocre plan at best. Today I pay as a percentage of my income over 300% more, have a deductible thats increased ten fold and recieve less overall benefits.

Decent coverage is ridiculously overpriced because health care costs are ridiculously overpriced.

NO ONE is talking about the real reason the Affordable Care Act is bad. its bad because it doesnt deal at all with Affordable Care, only with Affordable insurance. Everyones so busy arguing partisan talking points they completely missed the fact that the Affordable Care Act does nothing to deal with the issue for which it is named!

You want to bash Obama? Bash him for the shit he ACTUALLY failed on. ( and trust me, Im gonna vote for the guy because the alternative sucks worse, and theres PLENTY to bash Obama for ) Not the shit NeoCons are pretending to hate all the while taking bribes from insurance companies.

 

[rdean]

Government run VA is the best in the world. For a number of reasons. Sure, you may have a story about a dirty hospital occasionally. Things like that happen in a system so large. But they spend 94 cents of every dollar on the patient. In fact, for some countries, our VA was the model.

The Republican leadership may have convinced their ignorant base that health care is bad, but the reality is medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy.

 

[Political Junky]

Government run VA is the best in the world. For a number of reasons. Sure, you may have a story about a dirty hospital occasionally. Things like that happen in a system so large. But they spend 94 cents of every dollar on the patient. In fact, for some countries, our VA was the model.

The Republican leadership may have convinced their ignorant base that health care is bad, but the reality is medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy.

Yes, the VA is 100% Socialist.

 

[usmcstinger]

Government run VA is the best in the world. For a number of reasons. Sure, you may have a story about a dirty hospital occasionally. Things like that happen in a system so large. But they spend 94 cents of every dollar on the patient. In fact, for some countries, our VA was the model.

The Republican leadership may have convinced their ignorant base that health care is bad, but the reality is medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy.

Yes, the VA is 100% Socialist.

VA Health Care Benefits are earned for placing one's life on the line for Our Country.

VA Hospitals that are connected to Teaching Hospitals will more probably than not provide the beast health care. The Manhattan VA is connected to the NYU Medical Center (one of the best hospitals in the USA).

However, the waiting time for operations and other medical procedures has always been a problem. The VA many times lacks the most up to date medical equipment and Doctors who are not skilled in new medical procedures . Those VA Hospitals associated with good teaching hospitals can send patients to them rather than moving medical equipment over to the VA.

Since I am service connected disabled Vietnam Veteran, I use the VA Health Care System.

 

[dblack]

Are you referring to gov't regulation of a private health insurance system that has screwed us to the point where DESPITE more money being spent, fewer people are covered? Because that's what my previous link showed.

This conflates two different issues. Those of us complaining about intrusive regulation aren't suggesting insurance companies should be allowed to rip people off. They should cover what they say they're going to cover and they should be held accountable for whatever promises they make. The kind of regulation that is causing problems, however, involves the state dictating specifics of policies - essentially telling customers what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy.

A good example of the kind of intervention that causes more problems than it solves are the recent efforts of the Obama administration to force all insurance plans to cover birth control. This isn't government protecting us, this is government telling us what kind of insurance coverage we can and can't buy.

Nooooo. Its telling insurance companies what they HAVE to cover. Its not the same thing.

How is it not? If someone wants to buy insurance coverage that doesn't cover what the state mandates (which might be cheaper and better suit their needs) then this kind of regulation does exactly that. It regulates customers and their choices every bit as much as it does the insurance companies.

NO ONE is talking about the real reason the Affordable Care Act is bad. its bad because it doesnt deal at all with Affordable Care, only with Affordable insurance. Everyones so busy arguing partisan talking points they completely missed the fact that the Affordable Care Act does nothing to deal with the issue for which it is named!

Excellent point. In fact, much of it seems designed to do the opposite and will actually accelerate health care inflation.

You want to bash Obama? Bash him for the shit he ACTUALLY failed on. ( and trust me, Im gonna vote for the guy because the alternative sucks worse, and theres PLENTY to bash Obama for ) Not the shit NeoCons are pretending to hate all the while taking bribes from insurance companies.

I don't really want to bash Obama. At this point, I'm hoping he wins re-election*. I'm also hoping the Supreme Court strikes down ACA and the Republicans keep one side of Congress - just to keep gridlock in place.

But health care reform was one of his biggest failures. And the failure was directly attributable to his greatest failing as a leader, in my view. His idea of governance is the classic corporatist strategy of wheeling and dealing with all the 'major players' in a given setting. He sees government as a 'power broker', twisting arms, granting favors and threatening penalties to achieve it's goals. That's how we ended up with the fucked up quid-pro-quo of the ACA.

The core of the whole thing is a trade, offered up to the insurance industry by the Obama administration - "We'll give you the golden goose (mandated customers) in exchange for dropping pre-existing conditions exclusions." And lets not pretend; he HAD to get their buy-in before the bill could go forward. The insurance lobby had, and has, enough clout to stop health care reform if they didn't approve.

As irrational as the demand to drop pre-existing conditions is, Obama knew it would be very popular with idiot voters. And he figured they'd be so excited by the prospect that they'd happily submit themselves to mandated lifetime contracts with the insurance industry in exchange. It remains to be seen whether he was right.

I'm not an Obama hater. I don't think he has ill intent. But he's pushing us toward a type of government I believe is very dangerous, one that people who do have ill intent will be happy to use in the future. By abandoning the rule of law and embracing the corporatist regulatory regime we're laying the groundwork for government we will no longer be able to control democratically.

*(actually I'm hoping voters wake the **** up and realize they don't have to vote for Republocrats, but ...)

 

[taichiliberal]

Are you referring to gov't regulation of a private health insurance system that has screwed us to the point where DESPITE more money being spent, fewer people are covered? Because that's what my previous link showed.

This conflates two different issues. Those of us complaining about intrusive regulation aren't suggesting insurance companies should be allowed to rip people off. They should cover what they say they're going to cover and they should be held accountable for whatever promises they make. The kind of regulation that is causing problems, however, involves the state dictating specifics of policies - essentially telling customers what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy.

A good example of the kind of intervention that causes more problems than it solves are the recent efforts of the Obama administration to force all insurance plans to cover birth control. This isn't government protecting us, this is government telling us what kind of insurance coverage we can and can't buy.

Nooooo. Its telling insurance companies what they HAVE to cover. Its not the same thing.

And they tell them they HAVE to cover these things because they STOPPED covering those things and raised their rates at the same time.

A decade ago, I hade AMAZING coverage compared to today and it was a mediocre plan at best. Today I pay as a percentage of my income over 300% more, have a deductible thats increased ten fold and recieve less overall benefits.

Decent coverage is ridiculously overpriced because health care costs are ridiculously overpriced.

NO ONE is talking about the real reason the Affordable Care Act is bad. its bad because it doesnt deal at all with Affordable Care, only with Affordable insurance. Everyones so busy arguing partisan talking points they completely missed the fact that the Affordable Care Act does nothing to deal with the issue for which it is named!

You want to bash Obama? Bash him for the shit he ACTUALLY failed on. ( and trust me, Im gonna vote for the guy because the alternative sucks worse, and theres PLENTY to bash Obama for ) Not the shit NeoCons are pretending to hate all the while taking bribes from insurance companies.

I have dblack on IA because I just got tired of yet another neocon/teabagger parrot squawking the SOS with the usual.

What you say has a grain of truth in it, though. I'm interested in just how affordable the gov't alternative to private insurance companies is.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Affordable Care Act actually has some acceptable things in it. . . IF. . . .it came from the State and not the Federal level. But the ACA is bad because:

1. It was never intended to make insurance affordable. If that had been the goal, Obama would have addressed ways to get the federal government out of it, to encourage and endorse tort reform, to break up the insurance monopolies within the states and promote and encourage a competitive free market system.

2. It was never intended to insure the uninsured. If that had been the goal, all they had to do is establish a government fund to provide insurance to the few million temporarily uninsured and encourage doctors and hospitals and other medical providers to require up front payment for services from those who choose not to buy insurance or arrange a payment schedule with all who can't pay for the service they get at the time they get it.

3. It was never intended to bring down healthcare costs as all the experts who explained that it would not do that were ignored.

4. It was intended as a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and destroy the private healthcare system and eventually achieve a government owned single payer system while putting unprecedented control and power into the hands of the President and the bureaucracy that he administers. It was intended to create dozens/hundreds of new bureaucracies to administer it and legions of new IRS agents to enforce it.

It was an important step in the total socialization of the USA. If he achieves this step, the next one will almost certainly be a federal takeover of education and making federal public education mandatory for every student.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Affordable Care Act actually has some acceptable things in it. . . IF. . . .it came from the State and not the Federal level.

And yet states are the heart of the ACA. They're the ones designing and customizing the structures in the ACA (e.g. Maryland just put the finishing touches on the legislative phase of exchange design in the state this week).

1. It was never intended to make insurance affordable. If that had been the goal, Obama would have addressed ways to get the federal government out of it, to encourage and endorse tort reform, to break up the insurance monopolies within the states and promote and encourage a competitive free market system.

Encourage and endorse tort reform by offering states funding to develop, implement, and evaluate tort reform? Break up monopolies by providing start-up loans to new nonprofit, consumer-run insurers in every state, and by requiring that multiple multi-state insurance plans be introduced in all state insurance markets? Encourage a competitive free market system by creating new marketplaces in every state that will allow consumers to make easy side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparisons of plan offerings, all while viewing cost and quality ratings of insurance plans?

2. It was never intended to insure the uninsured. If that had been the goal, all they had to do is establish a government fund to provide insurance to the few million temporarily uninsured and encourage doctors and hospitals and other medical providers to require up front payment for services from those who choose not to buy insurance or arrange a payment schedule with all who can't pay for the service they get at the time they get it.

Establish a government fund like some kind of "pre-existing condition insurance plan" that quickly shows, through relatively low enrollment and high per-enrollee spending, why dedicated high-risk pools are so poorly equipped to accomplish this goal? Encourage upfront payment from the uninsured by scaling back the federal DSH payments that compensate providers for losses on the uninsured?

3. It was never intended to bring down healthcare costs as all the experts who explained that it would not do that were ignored.

Forgive me if by this point I'm beginning to question your familiarity with 1) the contents of the ACA, and 2) what "experts" think.

One hopes that any reform law would be chock full of the payment and delivery system reforms that actual experts across the ideological spectrum have suggested are necessary for addressing health spending growth and achieving value in health spending.

4. It was intended as a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and destroy the private healthcare system and eventually achieve a government owned single payer system while putting unprecedented control and power into the hands of the President and the bureaucracy that he administers. It was intended to create dozens/hundreds of new bureaucracies to administer it and legions of new IRS agents to enforce it.

A pity, the post started so promising but ended up firmly in wingnut territory.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A pity, the post started so promising but ended up firmly in wingnut territory.

Do you want BO to control all industries the way he wants to control health care? Do you want to deregulate like China just did to save 30 million from from slow liberal starvation? Or does the liberal believe the next king or dictator or benevolent liberal dictator will create a well regulated society that won't be killing 10's of millions?

 

[taichiliberal]

The Affordable Care Act actually has some acceptable things in it. . . IF. . . .it came from the State and not the Federal level. But the ACA is bad because:


States and the Federal gov't CONSISTENTLY negotiate laws and regulations. What you propose here would be an insane noise from State to state, which would essentially need some type of REGULATION between the states....at the same time the insurance companies would STILL be needed to keep them from screwing their clients over on pre-existing conditions, etc.
1. It was never intended to make insurance affordable. If that had been the goal, Obama would have addressed ways to get the federal government out of it, to encourage and endorse tort reform, to break up the insurance monopolies within the states and promote and encourage a competitive free market system.

Remember, single payer died a horrible death via GOP blockage and Democrat wishy-washy attitude.
2. It was never intended to insure the uninsured. If that had been the goal, all they had to do is establish a government fund to provide insurance to the few million temporarily uninsured and encourage doctors and hospitals and other medical providers to require up front payment for services from those who choose not to buy insurance or arrange a payment schedule with all who can't pay for the service they get at the time they get it.

Good point....but that is why you have that stipulation that those who refuse to buy health insurance pay a tax, to help cover those that use the emergency room and can't pay or default. It's better than nothing. But what you proposed was NOT going to get any support in Congress to the point where it had a chance.
3. It was never intended to bring down healthcare costs as all the experts who explained that it would not do that were ignored.

That is your OPINION, NOT a fact.
4. It was intended as a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and destroy the private healthcare system and eventually achieve a government owned single payer system while putting unprecedented control and power into the hands of the President and the bureaucracy that he administers. It was intended to create dozens/hundreds of new bureaucracies to administer it and legions of new IRS agents to enforce it.

You've just contradicted your previous points...you can't have it both ways. Remember Single payer can co-exist with private insurance agencies (non-profit status). Essentially, you're echoing here the fantastic supposition and conjecture that can be found in the broadcasts of Limbaugh or the writings of Krauthhamer.

It was an important step in the total socialization of the USA. If he achieves this step, the next one will almost certainly be a federal takeover of education and making federal public education mandatory for every student.

More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense. Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense. Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.

real Republicans and libertarians want capitalistic health care to lower costs and raise quality. Here's how it works, people spend their own money so they don't waste it, providers must compete with each other on the basis of price and quality? This why for example a computer costs less and does 10 times more than it did 10 years ago?

Is that really over a liberal's head? See why we are so positive a liberal will be very very slow?

 

[Vidi]

More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense. Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.

real Republicans and libertarians want capitalistic health care to lower costs and raise quality. Here's how it works, people spend their own money so they don't waste it, providers must compete with each other on the basis of price and quality? This why for example a computer costs less and does 10 times more than it did 10 years ago?

Is that really over a liberal's head? See why we are so positive a liberal will be very very slow?

As soon as that capitalist ideal kicks in and actually lowers costs, Ill happily support it. But as its been fairly elusive in pretty much every aspect of the marketplace from gas prices, to food prices to health care, I think maybe we ought to step in and see why the hell its not working.

Is that really over YOUR head?


( See how I didnt condemn ALL conservatives at the end there, just you? )

 

[taichiliberal]

More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense. Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.

real Republicans and libertarians want capitalistic health care to lower costs and raise quality. Here's how it works, people spend their own money so they don't waste it, providers must compete with each other on the basis of price and quality? This why for example a computer costs less and does 10 times more than it did 10 years ago?

Is that really over a liberal's head? See why we are so positive a liberal will be very very slow?

Seems that "real" republicans and libertarians are spewing the same old mypoic BS that has supported the reaganomics for the past 30....and subsequently screwed this country into the ground financially.

Here's how it works: Corporations hire lobbyist to essentially buy our politicians...who in turn DEREGULATE industry oversight while at the same time giving serious tax breaks to rich folks and corporations. The results....let's focus on healthcare insurance...are that private industries and corporations maximize profit while minimizing services to the very entities that support them....THE CONSUMERS. So you have people paying into health insurance companies for DECADES, only to be unscrupiously dumped for the most shady of "reasons' (just ask Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter, for starters) or have their rates inflated for no decent reason.

So the healthcare reform that the Obama administration passed essentially puts some restrictions on the insurance industry, as well as giving the populace some alternatives while NOT taking away anyone's ability to choose the insurance they want....and the status quo healthcare insurance companies don't like it. TFB.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense. Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.

real Republicans and libertarians want capitalistic health care to lower costs and raise quality. Here's how it works, people spend their own money so they don't waste it, providers must compete with each other on the basis of price and quality? This why for example a computer costs less and does 10 times more than it did 10 years ago?

Is that really over a liberal's head? See why we are so positive a liberal will be very very slow?

Seems that "real" republicans and libertarians are spewing the same old mypoic BS that has supported the reaganomics for the past 30....and subsequently screwed this country into the ground financially.

Here's how it works: Corporations hire lobbyist to essentially buy our politicians...who in turn DEREGULATE industry oversight while at the same time giving serious tax breaks to rich folks and corporations. The results....let's focus on healthcare insurance...are that private industries and corporations maximize profit while minimizing services to the very entities that support them....THE CONSUMERS. So you have people paying into health insurance companies for DECADES, only to be unscrupiously dumped for the most shady of "reasons' (just ask Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter, for starters) or have their rates inflated for no decent reason.

So the healthcare reform that the Obama administration passed essentially puts some restrictions on the insurance industry, as well as giving the populace some alternatives while NOT taking away anyone's ability to choose the insurance they want....and the status quo healthcare insurance companies don't like it. TFB.

Corporations hire lobbyist to essentially buy our politicians...who in turn DEREGULATE industry oversight

Or they lobby government to get them to include their service as required in insurance coverage. That's why you can't buy a policy that excludes chiropractic services. And dozens of others you don't want and won't use. Every one added adds to the cost of your coverage. And you can't buy a plan from a different state that doesn't require these services.

Yeah, our problem is too little government interference with insurance.