The case for Universal Healthcare

[Political Junky]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Such a deep thinker.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I see. Then how about Costa Rica. 60 years of single payer health care, third in the world in longevity. And their average income is one tenth of ours. Seems to me that the fallacy here is that we can afford to go on with the system that we have.

maybe taking care of 4 million people compared to 300 mill...might make a slight difference.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Such a deep thinker.

dont talk Junky ...we have seen some of your posts...

 

[Oddball]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Such a deep thinker.

If you want to be a ski bum, it makes a lot more sense to move to Colorado, rather than sitting in Alabama bitching about how much the gummint owes you snow.

 

[Chris]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Old Rocks just proved you wrong, so you insulted him.

You don't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

 

[Oddball]

Playing "keep up with the Jonses" doesn't prove jack shit.....Especially when you cannot check your premise with your own life on the line.

I think that's what most call "anecdotal evidence".

If you want Costa Rican medical care, pack up your ass and GTFO.

 

[Modbert]

Playing "keep up with the Jonses" doesn't prove jack shit.

If you want Costa Rican medical care, pack up your ass and GTFO.

And if you don't want Barack Obama as your president, you can pack up your ass and GTFO.

What's that? Not moving?

 

[Oddball]

Playing "keep up with the Jonses" doesn't prove jack shit.

If you want Costa Rican medical care, pack up your ass and GTFO.

And if you don't want Barack Obama as your president, you can pack up your ass and GTFO.

What's that? Not moving?

FDR has been dead for more than half a century (and I wasn't even born yet) and I'm still paying for his foolhardiness.

Please try to engage just a few brain cells before you post such pedantic nonsense.

 

[Modbert]

FDR has been dead for more than half a century (and I wasn't even born yet) and I'm still paying for his foolhardiness.

Please try to engage just a few brain cells before you post such pedantic nonsense.

I could ask the same of you. Telling somebody to leave the country simply because they're pointing out another country is doing something better than us is a deflection. We as a country should always strive to be better, not settle for average.

 

[Oddball]

FDR has been dead for more than half a century (and I wasn't even born yet) and I'm still paying for his foolhardiness.

Please try to engage just a few brain cells before you post such pedantic nonsense.

I could ask the same of you. Telling somebody to leave the country simply because they're pointing out another country is doing something better than us is a deflection. We as a country should always strive to be better, not settle for average.

It's not a deflection at all.

If American politics and bureaucracy has proved anything, it's that they can't melt ice during 100° day in Phoenix.

You want the result, go to where they're delivering what you want.

It was good enough for your European ancestors, it should be good enough for you.

 

[Oscar Wao]

FDR has been dead for more than half a century (and I wasn't even born yet) and I'm still paying for his foolhardiness.

Please try to engage just a few brain cells before you post such pedantic nonsense.

I could ask the same of you. Telling somebody to leave the country simply because they're pointing out another country is doing something better than us is a deflection. We as a country should always strive to be better, not settle for average.

Or it could be the case of "sinking down to their level."

We're AMERICA, not England, France, Costa Rica, or anywhere else. Yes, we should ALWAYS strive for progress, but not the "progress" being offered.

Too bad the "WE'RE AMERICA!" phrase has turned into some bumper sticker or Toby Keith song...cuz the phrase is actually true.

 

[Chris]

FDR has been dead for more than half a century (and I wasn't even born yet) and I'm still paying for his foolhardiness.

Please try to engage just a few brain cells before you post such pedantic nonsense.

I could ask the same of you. Telling somebody to leave the country simply because they're pointing out another country is doing something better than us is a deflection. We as a country should always strive to be better, not settle for average.

Or it could be the case of "sinking down to their level."

We're AMERICA, not England, France, Costa Rica, or anywhere else. Yes, we should ALWAYS strive for progress, but not the "progress" being offered.

Too bad the "WE'RE AMERICA!" phrase has turned into some bumper sticker or Toby Keith song...cuz the phrase is actually true.

Yes, we're America.

Where the rich have great healthcare, and the poor die, alone and uncared for.

 

[Oddball]

I could ask the same of you. Telling somebody to leave the country simply because they're pointing out another country is doing something better than us is a deflection. We as a country should always strive to be better, not settle for average.

Or it could be the case of "sinking down to their level."

We're AMERICA, not England, France, Costa Rica, or anywhere else. Yes, we should ALWAYS strive for progress, but not the "progress" being offered.

Too bad the "WE'RE AMERICA!" phrase has turned into some bumper sticker or Toby Keith song...cuz the phrase is actually true.

Yes, we're America.

Where the rich have great healthcare, and the poor die, alone and uncared for.

You, sir, are a stone liar.

I just buried a friend who was one of those "poor" you so cavalierly speak of.

If you were here now, her multitude of friends and I would beat the living hell out of you for being such a callous and demagogic fucking asshole.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The problem with your 'case' is right here Chris:

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems,

The first part of it is considering it a right. First it's not in the constitution. If you want it to be in there, get campaigning and make it one. It isn't a right for a reason. Which of the rights in the constitution require taking from one to provide for another?

Secondly, NO system can GUARUNTEE ACCESS to health care. This is the point none of you lefties will own up to (I'm going to stop trying to get you to not compare us to other countries in this matter, some things are just beyond people I guess). Just because you no longer have to pay for it, or pay for it at a significantly reduced rate, or pay by a different mechanism, isn't going to guarantee when you need a new hip, you're going to get one in a timely manner.

If you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you will listen who tends to lean a bit more left than I do like Ed. We don't agree on much, but he is saying the same thing I have said time and again. Regardless of whether we agree government should get to run our health care, all of this is for naught because we know full well right now, we don't have the health care SUPPLY to achieve your goal of access.

This Classic Liberal is with you on this point, Bern. Americans don't have a 'right' to health care any more than they have a 'right' to car maintenance.

Health care, like auto maintenance is a service, not a right. The problem with both is that when you need them they're going to cost you. That is why 'Insurance' was a good idea when it was invented. Insurance is supposed to be like saving for a rainy day. That is what makes Social Security work so well. when you are young, healthy and working, you pay a little into the system each month and then if you become disabled, or when you reach retirement age, you can draw benefits against what you've put into the system.

The problem with American health insurers is that they became powerful enough to get the laws to allow them to insure only the young, healthy workers, who are then consummately dumped from the rolls once they become injured to the point of having to change jobs or they turn 65.

I would be happy with private insurance if there were rules in place to make them carry people from cradle to grave, rules in place protecting people with 'pre-existing' conditions and rules in place to end the practice of using our employers to sell us our health insurance.

I have only worked for one employer in my jack-of-all-trades life that had a choice in health insurance companies. It's big enough to have three. The rest of my employers offered a couple of options from one company..... so much for 'choice'.

Truth be told though, I would be happier with a truly public option, similar to Social Security because coverage decisions would have nothing to do with current stock price and Social Security conserves or pays out 99% of premiums collected, compared to the private bureaucracies which pay out or conserve only 75%.

-Joe

 

[editec]

If you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you will listen who tends to lean a bit more left than I do like Ed. We don't agree on much, but he is saying the same thing I have said time and again. Regardless of whether we agree government should get to run our health care, all of this is for naught because we know full well right now, we don't have the health care SUPPLY to achieve your goal of access.

That's right, Bernie.

We have demand increasing faster than supply.

The solution to that problem cannot come from changing the way we pay for HC, even though the way we pay for it right now is, in my never humble opinion, inefficient as hell.

We can make some improvements to the way we fund HC in this nation, and that will help somewhat, but the basic problem is supply and demand and as far as I can see NOBODY in either party is addressing that problem.

How would I fix this problem were I KING (note that I make myself king because anything short of an absolute tyrant could not implement my solutions)

1. Eliminate ALL BUT ONE insurance scheme...having multiple insurance companies is an inefficient system administratively. It requires a LOT of administration at the doctors office and in hospitals that is basically a duplication of effort. (Increase efficiency)

2. Put every CITIZEN on a single payer HC system...probably one that is run by a not-fro-profit, but it could just as easily be run by a for profit system, too. The point is one HC insurer is more efficient to the HC delievery system overall than multiple insurers. (Eliminating ER visits to increase efficiency)

3. Dramatically increase training programs for HC workers and offer generous scholarships to increase the number of HC workers and HC reasearchers, too. (Increasing SUPPLY)

4. Ration universal HC on a triage system. -- Yeah, that's right. If you're dying, we're not going to spend massive amounts of money keeping you alive a few more days just because we know how to do that. (Decrease DEMAND)

The largest single problem in HC is that demand is increasing for reasons outside of the HC system itself. That's why the funding schemes in and of themselves cannot solve the problem.

An aging population naturally increases demand.

Advanced medical technology ALSO increases demand AND also increases the AGING POPULATION increasing demand at the same time.

Folks we are facing the reality that there is the problem of diminishing returns for HC dollars spend in FAR TOO MANY CASES.

That's because we targe the WRONG THING in HC.

We should be targeting keeping people healthy, but we do not spend muych money doing that.

Instead we target keeping people alive, and we spend most of the HC dollars doing that on people who are going to die anyway.

People are going to die.

Let's just stop pretending that we can keep them alive indefinitely, shall we?

I for example, have been smoking for decades.

Should you be aslked to spend millions of dollars keeping me alive for another few months just because we know how to do that?

I don't think we should.

I think when my prognosis is TERMINAL, then the point of all my HC from that point should be to keep me comfortable while I am dying.

Do you folks have any idea how much money we spend ion that last year of DYING?!

50% of all HC dollars is wasted, folks.

9% of our gross domestic product is wasted!


Let me repeat that .

9% of our GDP is spend on the last year of our population's lives.

 

[johnrocks]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Old Rocks just proved you wrong, so you insulted him.

You don't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

It can be done but please consider what size Costa Rico is and also,they have NO military, if we did that, we could provide healthcare,we might be speaking Chinese but we could do it I suppose.

 

[ba1614]

The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money.

Seems you have fallen for what is commonly known as a "Logical Fallacy". Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because A happened, then B happened, that doesn't mean that A caused B.

I see. Then how about Costa Rica. 60 years of single payer health care, third in the world in longevity. And their average income is one tenth of ours. Seems to me that the fallacy here is that we can afford to go on with the system that we have.

And where the fuck do you propose Costa Rica got the funds to build their healthcare system from?
Going from nothing, to having someone else flipping the bill to setup a system for 4 million people, is a totally different proposition than trying to pay for 300million people yourself.

 

[johnrocks]

Seems you have fallen for what is commonly known as a "Logical Fallacy". Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because A happened, then B happened, that doesn't mean that A caused B.

I see. Then how about Costa Rica. 60 years of single payer health care, third in the world in longevity. And their average income is one tenth of ours. Seems to me that the fallacy here is that we can afford to go on with the system that we have.

And where the fuck do you propose Costa Rica got the funds to build their healthcare system from?
Going from nothing, to having someone else flipping the bill to setup a system for 4 million people, is a totally different proposition than trying to pay for 300million people yourself.

Pretty ironic that about the time Costa Rico did this,they abolished the military I don't think the vast majority would support that here,even the more die hard liberals I don't think would,would they?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Then STFU and move to Costa Rica.

Old Rocks just proved you wrong, so you insulted him.

You don't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

you dont have the stones either Chris....i have seen many of your posts shot down repeatedly....yet you keep droning on....

 

[Bern80]

1. Eliminate ALL BUT ONE insurance scheme...having multiple insurance companies is an inefficient system administratively. It requires a LOT of administration at the doctors office and in hospitals that is basically a duplication of effort. (Increase efficiency)

2. Put every CITIZEN on a single payer HC system...probably one that is run by a not-fro-profit, but it could just as easily be run by a for profit system, too. The point is one HC insurer is more efficient to the HC delievery system overall than multiple insurers. (Eliminating ER visits to increase efficiency)

First what is meant by scheme? Secondly this sounds and awful like a monopoly and last I checked those werent good.

3. Dramatically increase training programs for HC workers and offer generous scholarships to increase the number of HC workers and HC reasearchers, too. (Increasing SUPPLY)

This gets to the more specifics of where the supply problem is. Is there a shortage because despite plenty of people being able meet the requirement, there are not enough educators/trainers? Or is it because there is a finite amount of people abe to meet the high standards of becoming a doctor?

4. Ration universal HC on a triage system. -- Yeah, that's right. If you're dying, we're not going to spend massive amounts of money keeping you alive a few more days just because we know how to do that. (Decrease DEMAND)

This argument brings up why I have a problem with the way the left is framing this debate. it is being couched under the notion that their will be less suffering. Clearly you think there won't be or should be. All that will change (without increasing supply) is how pain is prioritized. The worst (that can actually be saved) will treated first. I fail to see where the cost savings that Obama whines about not getting credit for are if we are going to have even less time to take preventative measures.

Also, I don't entirley agree with this set up. Personally I think you should get to live as long as you want to live. It also can get to be a slippery slope in determing what treatments arent' worth the effort.

The largest single problem in HC is that demand is increasing for reasons outside of the HC system itself. That's why the funding schemes in and of themselves cannot solve the problem.

An aging population naturally increases demand.

This again points out the ridiculousness of Chris attributing life expectancy to a health care system. It doesn't play even a large role in that. It shoudln't take much more than looking at the diet, exercise, and general health habits of the avg American to see why we might not live quite as long as your average chinaman.