Obama's Universal Healthcare Question

[WillowTree]

But the question is, how will our healthcare change if the government takes over. Will it be along the line so Brit or Canadian, where those who need it go to the US or, as many Brits do, to India?

As I see it, it is a perfect example of Liberal vs. Conservative philosophy.Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. The two sides of the issue should be carefully studied.
Listen to those in countries with socialized medicine.
Calculate who and how many would actually benefit.

.

It's cheaper per person to have universal care. It doesn't leave people out in the cold if they're poor either, and the rich get treated like the rest of us (for the most part - they can still fly to another place if they so desire, or jump the queue if they are a celebrity athlete).

For the rest of us up here - we wouldn't switch for private care.

basically what you get is a place in line to wait for a chance at some rationed healthcare! Yep!

 

[editec]

Under a Government provided Healthcare plan what is the incentive for the Government to deliver quality goods and services? Especially if there is no competition.

For arguments sake, there can and should still be plenty of competition. Doctors would remain as private practitioners, not public civil servants. The government would only handle the administrative end of the equation.

Meaning they will pay the bills.

If we look at most metropolitan areas, we have multiple hospitals that offer all the same services. They are in competition with each other yet they don't have enough patients. Most doctors work through more than one hospital. The cost of running these hospitals is astronomical, and when they are constantly duplicating services, it drives the costs even higher.

Another example of why I keep saying that market forces don't exactly work in HC as they typically do in other markets.

At the same time, many rural hospitals only offer limited services because they can't come close to affording what those in metropolitan areas do due to a lack of patients. Yet, those people should have as good of care as anyone. Or should everyone just move to the cities?

Yup. You have obviously looked deeply at this problem.

I understand the argument against government healthcare. However, the fact is that we already have government healthcare to a great extent. It just isn't run effectively. However, it is the reason we have as much choice as we do.

Agreed.

If government had zero involvement in healthcare, and doctors and hospitals had to compete strictly on people's ability to pay, we would have shit for healthcare. More than half the hospitals would be forced to close, and probably the same percentage of doctors would close shop also.

Yes, that is true. However far more than half the hospitals would close. That or Doctors would go back to the state they were once in where they made almost NO money.

Right now we have around 50 million people who don't pay for their healthcare, yet the rest of us pay for them through increased premiums and increased taxes to cover them through government run programs. If those people were forced to pay something, it would help reduce costs. Many of these uninsured are younger people who don't feel they need insurance and choose not to pay for it.

Yes, that is the argument for UNIVERSAL HC insurance. that is actually the BEST argument for that system.

The answer to reducing healthcare costs involves both government and the private sector. It's not one or the other.

This where we muyst part ways, I suspect.

The short term benefit to single payer Universal health coverage is the immediate saving we'd gain by eliminating the profit motive and administrative overhead of the for profit insurance we have not.

But the longer term effect, would be, I think, a dramatic rise in the prices of HC UNLESS the government imposed PRICE CONTROLS on the cost of HC.

And then we really would have socialized medicine pretending to be something it is not.

Now that may be the way to go. But that way will really be fully socialized medicine.

Look at it this way; we pay double what any other country does for healthcare, other than a couple exeptions. Yet we do not have double the benefit.

Yes! totally true...we pay more for less than any industrialized nation on earth. I totally agree with that. This system stinks!

Am I saying we should be able to cut costs in half? No. Countries that pay half of what we do have many issues with poor service. They should be paying more.

Do they really? Their morbity and mortality stats do not really support that claim. Perhaps their system of queuing actually is a good way to reduce waste.

At the same time, we should be able to cut costs somewhat and reduce the runaway increases.

Ah yes, but how? That is the 64 trillion dollar question.

If we do not, we will no longer be able to afford healthcare period.

Most of us won't be able to afford that end of life care, that's for damned sure.

Here is a simple fact. In 1970, 7% of GDP went to healthcare in the US. We are now around 16% of GDP, and the increase in costs continues to surpass inflation by a good margin.

Yup.

If the increases don't stabilize, we will again double from 16% to 30% of GDP. If this happens, it will collapse our entire economy.

Yup.

Tough choices must be made, and it might even mean a slowing down of some new advancements. But the fact is, we have to be realistic as to what we can and can't afford.

Yeah, but here's the thing...realism sounds like a terrific idea when YOUR mother id dying by inches.

But when I am dying by inches, I suspect I will be demanding that no expense is too great to save my life.

And THAT is exactly why those among us who think the market can solve this problem are confused about the HC issue.

HC does not respond to market forces in exactly the same way that most widgets do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So I assume it will be more important to keep tax payers alive then non-tax payers?

I've seen polls that claim that 82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care, and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%.

If these studies are true, what is the reason for the $600 Billion Obama Healthcare Proposal, other than socialization?

From a personal point of view, most of us look at how much we pay for our health insurance. Many with employer funded plans only spend $200 to $300 per month for their entire family. They don't see the entire cost of what they are actually paying. That employer is paying an additional $1000 per month for their coverage. On top of that, both the individual and employer pay into Medicare. On top of that, more tax money goes to Medicaid and other state run programs.

The bottom line is that we are currently spending $7200 per year per person in the US. If we charged this amount to every individual, 50% of Americans could not afford it. What does that mean? It means that the wealthier you are, the more you are paying, because you are indirectly subsidizing everyone else. Essentially, if you make a decent living, your total healthcare bill is over $10,000 per year per family member.

If we continue with our current system, it will simply implode. That is the bottom line.

My problem with the cost comparisons between our system and others is that I don't see a breakdown of how much of the total cost is due to drug prices. Every country that has a universal health insurance program sets drug prices much lower than the US price, and that means that the US is paying for nearly all the drug research of all the companies around the world. Since we can't adopt the same policy these countries have without effectively ending research, it makes no sense to compare our costs to others without first subtracting the cost of drugs from both sides.

Similarly, nearly all of the supposed cost reducing items in the Obama plan, such as electronic record keeping and preventative health procedures could be enacted or encouraged by the government now, so when comparing our current per capita costs to the projected per capita costs of the Obama plan, all these items that are not dependent on changing our health insurance system should be added back into the cost of the Obama plan. If you also add in the per capita cost of covering pre existing conditions and of subsidizing tens of millions of additional insurees, I suspect the per capita cost of the Obama plan will be higher than than our present plan.

A further consideration is the quality of health care now and what it might be under the Obama plan. If you have health insurance now in the US you have access to healthcare second to none in the world, and we would naturally expect that people with health insurance would have better health outcomes than people without health insurance. Yet advocates for the Obama plan would compare the health statistics of nations with universal health insurance to our population of both insured and uninsured people. For these statistics to give a fair comparison of the quality of health care only our insured citizens should be used in the comparison.

Put all of this together and it means that for all that has been written about the comparative costs and benefits of various health insurance systems, we really don't have honestly meaningful statistics with which to compare the costs or health outcomes of our system to other systems or to the Obama plan. What this suggests is that we should attempt to fix what we believe needs fixing in our system incrementally so that we don't lose what we value by trading it in for an ideologically biased system that cannot present unbiased statistics to support its claims.

 

[johnrocks]

If you don't like service at a government office or have a problem, try changing it in a short period of time, good luck with that. At the very least, if service at Company A is bad or I have a problem, I can immediately go to Company B. With Government, there are no quick options unless you call "tough shit" an option.

 

[editec]

I've seen polls that claim that 82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care, and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%.

If these studies are true, what is the reason for the $600 Billion Obama Healthcare Proposal, other than socialization?

I'd like to see those polls.

Yesterday you claimed that you had never seen stats that I posted along the lines of " the top 1% of wage earners have 22% of the wealth, yet pay 40% of the taxes."

I gave you the WSJ article by Laffer and Moore, and you never commented on the veracity of same.

So, for clarification, if I provide stats along the lines of "82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care", and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%," should I be anticipating a post, from you, agreeng that the Obama Healthcare Proposal is ideological more than anything else?

I answered that post, yesterday, PC.

I even went so far as to apolgise for misreading it.

 

[DiamondDave]

And again it comes down to being YOUR body... not society's body... not the government's body.... not the neighborhood's body

And if you want to be a health freak, or if you want to go on the all butter diet.... whatever floats your boat.... and if you want to go see a doctor every day, or you never want to see one... whatever floats your boat.... and if you want to pay for the best insurance and medical care, or if you want to go to a shack in the woods for some country surgery with rattlesnake venom for a procedure... whatever floats your boat.... but it is your responsibility to take care of yourself as you see fit and by your ability to do so.... it is not everyone else's responsibility to pay in to a system for you to have a prostate exam or a ******* VD shot... it is not the job of government to act as an insurance company for you, just as it is not the job of government to tell you you can't eat anything but refined sugar if you think that is what you want to do

You want more insurance coverage? Pay for it,.... get a second job... do what it takes to get promoted to a position that offers company sponsored health benefits... choose the position that is $5 less an hour but offers benefits... research into health care that you pay for that best fits your needs...

Yes... there are things that need improvement in health coverage... but that does not mean the government is to provide that for you... hell, have the government open it up so that any local group can gather members to apply for group rate insurance.. whether that group be an Elks club, a neighborhood community, a chess club, a local chapter on Mensa, whatever... more availability and competition and options of where to get your insurance will drive price and availability... more choices in your hands, not government takeover, manipulation, and bureaucracy

 

[rayboyusmc]

The government doesn't deliver the healthcare. The doctor does.

It works under Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your ******* body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

 

[KMAN]

But the question is, how will our healthcare change if the government takes over. Will it be along the line so Brit or Canadian, where those who need it go to the US or, as many Brits do, to India?

As I see it, it is a perfect example of Liberal vs. Conservative philosophy.Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. The two sides of the issue should be carefully studied.
Listen to those in countries with socialized medicine.
Calculate who and how many would actually benefit.

.

It's cheaper per person to have universal care. It doesn't leave people out in the cold if they're poor either, and the rich get treated like the rest of us (for the most part - they can still fly to another place if they so desire, or jump the queue if they are a celebrity athlete).

For the rest of us up here - we wouldn't switch for private care.

How would it be cheaper? Can you elaborate?

 

[KMAN]

The government doesn't deliver the healthcare. The doctor does.

It works under Medicare and Medicaid.

Who pays for Medicare and Medicaid? I thought it was the government... or in other words tax payers...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd like to see those polls.

Yesterday you claimed that you had never seen stats that I posted along the lines of " the top 1% of wage earners have 22% of the wealth, yet pay 40% of the taxes."

I gave you the WSJ article by Laffer and Moore, and you never commented on the veracity of same.

So, for clarification, if I provide stats along the lines of "82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care", and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%," should I be anticipating a post, from you, agreeng that the Obama Healthcare Proposal is ideological more than anything else?

I answered that post, yesterday, PC.

I even went so far as to apolgise for misreading it.

I must have missed it. My apology.

 

[Chris]

Under a Government provided Healthcare plan what is the incentive for the Government to deliver quality goods and services? Especially if there is no competition.

The same incentive to provide good policing, firefighting, etc. The government is people.
And is more accountable than private enterprise - when people are engaged in democracy - as private for-profit entities care about profit... and if they don't need yours, they don't need you.

Exactly.

But the real issue is that a single payer healthcare plan is more efficient and more fair. People will still have to pay a co-pay for doctor visits etc..., and doctors will still own their practices. We will just have one insurance company.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd like to see those polls.

More people have moved to the U.S. over the last seven years than during any other seven year period in history. Nationwide, 49% of the uninsured have been in the country less than 6 years.
'More Uninsured Are Among Ranks of the Employed' - July 9, 2008 - The New York Sun

Crisis of the Uninsured: 2006*Update - Brief Analysis #568
• More than 84 percent (247.3 million) of the 293 million U.S. residents were privately insured or enrolled in a government health program, such as Medicare, Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP).
• An additional 10 million to 14 million adults and children qualified for government programs but have not enrolled, experts estimate.
• Another 17 million live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 and could likely afford health insurance


"...82% are satisfied with the healthcare they themselves receive..." Gallup:
The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 2000 - Google Book Search

"82% satisfied, and 92% of those who have suffered serious illness..."
http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf


"But that isn’t the only problem with the numbers being used to stir up support for socialized medicine. There are also roughly 17 million people who can afford their own insurance – they make $50,000 or more a year. Journalists and politicians also frequently neglect to mention that 45 percent of the uninsured will be insured again within four months, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
The '40 Million Uninsured' Myth | NewsBusters.org

Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less. (about 7.6%)
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

 

[cunclusion]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your ******* body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your ******* body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

No.. maybe thick headed liberals should get it thru their skulls that WE ARE THE ONLY ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL CARE... and that the person going to the hospital or the doctor is the one who should ******* pay for it by whatever way they have to... whether that be thru an insurance benefit, cash, loans, or whatever else... and if you want the security of insurance, then you do what is necessary to either earn enough to purchase it or to have skills that are in demand enough to warrant the insurance in a benefits package

You wanna go to the doctor for the sniffles, or a ******* sex change, or to x-ray your ass from you falling on it... YOU have the responsibility... not me... not government.. not your neighbors.. not your county... not your neighborhood.. and not Joe Poopypants on a farm in Iowa.. you gotta get a second job or a third job or whatever... so be it.. but you pay for your own care and upkeep

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your ******* body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

"The biggest fallacy of the Obama healthcare plan is that it would cover every America. It wouldn’t. It would provide the option of health care, but it would still cost money and I suspect that lots of those uninsured adults between 18-34 would still rather spend the money on something else. It wouldn’t do any more to insure children than is already being done independently of his plan.

At the end of the day it would be the individual’s choice to obtain coverage for themselves, and short of becoming a true socialist nation there is nothing America can do to make sure that happens."
The Myth of the Uninsured American : Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 - Conservative News & Politics

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your ******* body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

"The biggest fallacy of the Obama healthcare plan is that it would cover every America. It wouldn’t. It would provide the option of health care, but it would still cost money and I suspect that lots of those uninsured adults between 18-34 would still rather spend the money on something else. It wouldn’t do any more to insure children than is already being done independently of his plan.

At the end of the day it would be the individual’s choice to obtain coverage for themselves, and short of becoming a true socialist nation there is nothing America can do to make sure that happens."
The Myth of the Uninsured American : Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 - Conservative News & Politics

I don't remember reading anything like

We the people, in order to form a more perfect insurance company....

It's not the job of government to be an insurance company.. whether it be the only one or 1 competing with the private companies and "assisting" people to pay for their benefits at taxpayer expense...

 

[Jon]

If the government doesn't keep us healthy and alive, how will they collect our tax money?

Inheritance taxes, of course.

Which sunsets in 2010.

 

[Meister]

Under a Government provided Healthcare plan what is the incentive for the Government to deliver quality goods and services? Especially if there is no competition.

The same incentive to provide good policing, firefighting, etc. The government is people.
And is more accountable than private enterprise - when people are engaged in democracy - as private for-profit entities care about profit... and if they don't need yours, they don't need you.

Exactly.

But the real issue is that a single payer healthcare plan is more efficient and more fair. People will still have to pay a co-pay for doctor visits etc..., and doctors will still own their practices. We will just have one insurance company.

Kind of like a monopoly huh?

 

[Jon]

Exactly.

But the real issue is that a single payer healthcare plan is more efficient and more fair. People will still have to pay a co-pay for doctor visits etc..., and doctors will still own their practices. We will just have one insurance company.

The problem is...given the way the government runs its current programs, I would prefer the insurance company I have now over them. At least I expect my insurance company to cheat me, but when the government does it, who can I complain to?