To ration or not

[toomuchtime_]

Every time there's a thread regarding health care, the conversation somehow gets diverted to the belief that the current reform proposals involve single-payer, universal care. THEY DO NOT. We should be discussing the excalating cost of health care INSURANCE, which is what Congress is dealing with at the present time, and how to assure that people who NEED health care can get INSURANCE to cover it--not the health care itself.

Those who argue that the private sector has done a good job are just flat-out wrong. When more and more middle-class and even upper middle-class familities can no longer afford to maintain thousands of dollars in annual premiums and/or ridiculous deductibles, that is NOT the fault of the federal government but the fault of the free market gone nuts--because they can.

Rising Health Insurance Rates Hurting Businesses, Families and Individuals

In looking at some of the reports, the results are fairly startling. In Pennsylvania, for example, health care and health insurance premiums rose 6.4 times faster than earnings, or 86.2 percent rise in the cost of premiums versus a 13.2 percent rise in earnings. In Missouri, health insurance premiums rose 76.1 percent while earnings rose only 17.3 percent. Similar findings were seen in other states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and so on. According to Families USA, this represents an even greater burden on people as their incomes stagnate while health care costs continue to rise.

The question is, why are health insurance costs rising so quickly?

While rising health care premiums are a concern for everyone, it is not surprising that many fail to link the cost of health coverage to rising medical spending.

In economic terms, the fact of rising health insurance premiums is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator — an effect rather than a cause. Among the varying theories of why premiums are increasing, one fact remains irrefutable — rising medical costs are a primary driver of the cost of health coverage.

A recent study by RAND Health offers confirmation. This report found that 89 percent of premium growth over a five-year period was due to increased medical costs, while only 11 percent was attributable to health plan administrative costs. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health plan administrative costs and profits comprised only 4.5 percent of the nation's total health care spending ($2.1 trillion) in 2006.

Data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also illustrates how the rapid rise in medical costs is driving up the cost of coverage. According to the AHRQ data, doctors and other providers, not insurance companies, increased their charges for five common conditions between 69 and 85 percent from 2000 to 2005. Of those five conditions, treatment costs for allergic reactions increased by 69 percent, heart attack by 71 percent, a broken arm by 75 percent, kidney stones by 78 percent and congestive heart failure by 85 percent. In contrast, the national inflation rate for the same period was 16 percent.

Clearly, the solution to affordable coverage lies in our ability to manage costs while increasing access to quality care. Researchers from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Health estimate that as much as one-third of health care spending is attributable to medical errors, duplicative procedures, and unnecessary treatments and prescriptions. Perhaps the Dartmouth findings provide a clue, rather than a smokescreen, to the path toward affordable health care for all.

Blame insurance rate rise on soaring medical costs | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

In other words, higher premiums are the result of higher costs for covered services, not examples of price gouging by private insurance companies. When you are sick or injured, you are glad for the enhanced yet costly advances in medical services available to you, but if you don't want to pay for the higher costs they require, they won't be there when you need them.

The most disturbing thing about this whole debate is that the really intractable problems effecting the higher costs of health insurance, the high costs of newer diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and the aging of our population, are not being addressed at all, and many who have no answers for these real problems try to persuade voters that it is all the fault of private insurance companies. In this respect, neither Congress nor the White House had dealt with this issue responsibly.

While rising costs for tech procedures is a valid argument--in general--it doesn't address why a person must buy a one-size-fits-all policy which covers an array of procedures and is not offered one that costs less and covers less. I've never seen a health care policy application that asks the potential subscriber to list what HE wants covered. The questions only involve his existing health condition.

I can't imagine what tests and procedures you wouldn't want covered, but what you suggest involves customized underwriting which would involve separate actuarial evaluations for thousands, at least, of tests and procedures and this would add a great deal to the cost of the policy. There are insurance companies that will insure just about anything you want to insure if you can afford it, but the cost of determining the risk and the smaller sample of experience the company has to work with for exceptional policies makes the cost fairly high.

However, if such a choice were possible and there were no extra costs involved in it, it would still be a bad idea for a few reasons. First, few people have the competence to make wise decisions about what coverage to exclude. Second, young, healthy people would be tempted to exclude coverage for age related diseases, such as heart disease, many types of cancer, etc., until they are older and more likely to need this coverage, and that would mean since the potential cost of treating these diseases is spread over a smaller group of people and the risk for this group is much higher the cost of insurance for older people would go up.

Imagine a time when genetic testing is more developed and refined and its application is more widespread. Suppose you find out that you have none of the genetic markers for a particular disease; you might ask to have coverage for that disease excluded from your policy to reduce your premium. Your neighbor, SallySue, however, has found that she has the markers for that disease and she is dismayed to find her next month's premium bill has gone up. When she calls the insurance company, they tell her that since MaggieMae has dropped that coverage, there are fewer people to spread the potential costs over and therefore she must bear more of this burden.

The one size fits all plan is uniquely suited to the insurance business because it averages potential costs over those who have almost no risk as well as those who are at high risk and this makes healthcare available to almost everyone.

 

[Political Junky]

So here's what I think will happen.

Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government guarantee that ALL eligible Americans will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.

However, that bill will include a moratorium on the government carrying out such a program for X-number of years (3 to 5 would be reasonable) during which time the private sector would need to get its own act together and REFORM their own methods of delivery so that more people would be eligible for coverage, at reasonable costs.

That's broadly put, but in my opinion, it's as far as any health care reform will go during Obama's first term. But at least ONE DOCUMENT will be out there, waiting in the wings, and another session of back-to-back draft plans muddying up the intent won't be required.

I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also. That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So here's what I think will happen.

Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government guarantee that ALL eligible Americans will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.

However, that bill will include a moratorium on the government carrying out such a program for X-number of years (3 to 5 would be reasonable) during which time the private sector would need to get its own act together and REFORM their own methods of delivery so that more people would be eligible for coverage, at reasonable costs.

That's broadly put, but in my opinion, it's as far as any health care reform will go during Obama's first term. But at least ONE DOCUMENT will be out there, waiting in the wings, and another session of back-to-back draft plans muddying up the intent won't be required.

I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also. That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

There is no reason for anyone to go to ER's for routine care, and if they do, they should be turned away. There are plenty of free clinics, US Public Health Service clinics and clinics run by medical schools and teaching hospitals, and anyone without insurance who refuses to use them should not be treated by ER's and if ER's do treat them, they should not be reimbursed.

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

free clinics in philadelphia - Google Search

 

[Meister]

So here's what I think will happen.

Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government guarantee that ALL eligible Americans will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.

However, that bill will include a moratorium on the government carrying out such a program for X-number of years (3 to 5 would be reasonable) during which time the private sector would need to get its own act together and REFORM their own methods of delivery so that more people would be eligible for coverage, at reasonable costs.

That's broadly put, but in my opinion, it's as far as any health care reform will go during Obama's first term. But at least ONE DOCUMENT will be out there, waiting in the wings, and another session of back-to-back draft plans muddying up the intent won't be required.

I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also. That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

Ya know Junkie, I get real tired of the 8 yearts of Bush bullshit. What about the 8 years under Clinton???? WTF did he do about the borders and immigration? Nothing, that's what? Why not pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and say that politicians have done nothing about it. Your post is absolutely pathetic.

 

[Political Junky]

I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also. That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

Ya know Junkie, I get real tired of the 8 yearts of Bush bullshit. What about the 8 years under Clinton???? WTF did he do about the borders and immigration? Nothing, that's what? Why not pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and say that politicians have done nothing about it. Your post is absolutely pathetic.

It seems to me that the GOP screams loudest about illegal immigration. It's one of their vote-getters along with abortion ... they also have not outlawed abortion .. nor will they.

 

[Meister]

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

Ya know Junkie, I get real tired of the 8 yearts of Bush bullshit. What about the 8 years under Clinton???? WTF did he do about the borders and immigration? Nothing, that's what? Why not pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass and say that politicians have done nothing about it. Your post is absolutely pathetic.

It seems to me that the GOP screams loudest about illegal immigration. It's one of their vote-getters along with abortion ... they also have not outlawed abortion .. nor will they.

Pathetic attempt of a deflection, Junkie.

 

[MaggieMae]

So here's what I think will happen.

Congress will develop a health care reform plan dealing strictly with some sort of government guarantee that ALL eligible Americans will be covered by health insurance. The details will be worked out over the next few months, and a final bill will be voted upon.

However, that bill will include a moratorium on the government carrying out such a program for X-number of years (3 to 5 would be reasonable) during which time the private sector would need to get its own act together and REFORM their own methods of delivery so that more people would be eligible for coverage, at reasonable costs.

That's broadly put, but in my opinion, it's as far as any health care reform will go during Obama's first term. But at least ONE DOCUMENT will be out there, waiting in the wings, and another session of back-to-back draft plans muddying up the intent won't be required.

I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also. That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.

No, it isn't and no it won't.

 

[MaggieMae]

The question is, why are health insurance costs rising so quickly?



Blame insurance rate rise on soaring medical costs | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

In other words, higher premiums are the result of higher costs for covered services, not examples of price gouging by private insurance companies. When you are sick or injured, you are glad for the enhanced yet costly advances in medical services available to you, but if you don't want to pay for the higher costs they require, they won't be there when you need them.

The most disturbing thing about this whole debate is that the really intractable problems effecting the higher costs of health insurance, the high costs of newer diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and the aging of our population, are not being addressed at all, and many who have no answers for these real problems try to persuade voters that it is all the fault of private insurance companies. In this respect, neither Congress nor the White House had dealt with this issue responsibly.

While rising costs for tech procedures is a valid argument--in general--it doesn't address why a person must buy a one-size-fits-all policy which covers an array of procedures and is not offered one that costs less and covers less. I've never seen a health care policy application that asks the potential subscriber to list what HE wants covered. The questions only involve his existing health condition.

I can't imagine what tests and procedures you wouldn't want covered, but what you suggest involves customized underwriting which would involve separate actuarial evaluations for thousands, at least, of tests and procedures and this would add a great deal to the cost of the policy. There are insurance companies that will insure just about anything you want to insure if you can afford it, but the cost of determining the risk and the smaller sample of experience the company has to work with for exceptional policies makes the cost fairly high.

However, if such a choice were possible and there were no extra costs involved in it, it would still be a bad idea for a few reasons. First, few people have the competence to make wise decisions about what coverage to exclude. Second, young, healthy people would be tempted to exclude coverage for age related diseases, such as heart disease, many types of cancer, etc., until they are older and more likely to need this coverage, and that would mean since the potential cost of treating these diseases is spread over a smaller group of people and the risk for this group is much higher the cost of insurance for older people would go up.

Imagine a time when genetic testing is more developed and refined and its application is more widespread. Suppose you find out that you have none of the genetic markers for a particular disease; you might ask to have coverage for that disease excluded from your policy to reduce your premium. Your neighbor, SallySue, however, has found that she has the markers for that disease and she is dismayed to find her next month's premium bill has gone up. When she calls the insurance company, they tell her that since MaggieMae has dropped that coverage, there are fewer people to spread the potential costs over and therefore she must bear more of this burden.

The one size fits all plan is uniquely suited to the insurance business because it averages potential costs over those who have almost no risk as well as those who are at high risk and this makes healthcare available to almost everyone.

Wow, if only it actually worked that way, health care reform regarding insuring everyone wouldn't even be an issue. You've used the most excellent talking point of the insurance lobby. I can turn your last paragraph on its head and ask why someone who is not at high risk needs to pay for the higher premiums because of those who are at high risk and therefore choose cadillac coverage?

Can't existing mega insurers figure out simple plans that cover preventive checkups, then have choices of add-ons to cover potential catastrophic events? Can't they write policies like Medicare which will cover a FREE health profile during the first calendar year of enrollment in Part B? Can't they write inexpensive policies that cover only preventive medicine (which most young people would opt for)?

 

[MaggieMae]

I believe that it's going to cover all illegals in this country, also. That demographic is part of the 45-50 million uninsured.

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

There is no reason for anyone to go to ER's for routine care, and if they do, they should be turned away. There are plenty of free clinics, US Public Health Service clinics and clinics run by medical schools and teaching hospitals, and anyone without insurance who refuses to use them should not be treated by ER's and if ER's do treat them, they should not be reimbursed.

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

free clinics in philadelphia - Google Search

You're forgetting that ILLEGAL immigrants do not have to reveal any personal information if they go to a hospital ER. Also, most are ignorant of any other health care facilities that might be available, so the hospital ER would be their first stop. It is what it is, because of hospital code of not turning anyone away who is in need of emergency medical assistance. I believe anyone (including illegals) ARE turned away from hospital ERs if they arrive just for basic checkups, maternity care, etc.

The problem of llegal immigrants in general is a whole 'nuther issue.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Either that or they will continue to go to emergency rooms for "free care" ... that free care costs about $1,000. per visit.
Sadly, our government under 8 years of Bush did nothing about the illegal immigrant situation, although the GOP complains of it constantly.

There is no reason for anyone to go to ER's for routine care, and if they do, they should be turned away. There are plenty of free clinics, US Public Health Service clinics and clinics run by medical schools and teaching hospitals, and anyone without insurance who refuses to use them should not be treated by ER's and if ER's do treat them, they should not be reimbursed.

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

free clinics in philadelphia - Google Search

You're forgetting that ILLEGAL immigrants do not have to reveal any personal information if they go to a hospital ER. Also, most are ignorant of any other health care facilities that might be available, so the hospital ER would be their first stop. It is what it is, because of hospital code of not turning anyone away who is in need of emergency medical assistance. I believe anyone (including illegals) ARE turned away from hospital ERs if they arrive just for basic checkups, maternity care, etc.

The problem of llegal immigrants in general is a whole 'nuther issue.

The argument I was responding to was that because illegals are not covered by health insurance they go to ER's for routine care, at $1,000 per visit, and this would not happen if they were covered by health insurance. This argument is also put forward in support of extending health insurance to those Americans who cannot afford to pay for it or otherwise choose not to have it, and it has no validity there either: there are free or inexpensive alternatives to ER's for routine care, medical and dental, for everyone in the US now.

The problem comes if you should require diagnostic or therapeutic procedures beyond simple tests or procedures that might be performed in a doctor's office. This more expensive care is still available to you if you first spend down your assets and income to a level that qualifies you for Medicaid. US Health Service clinics and most free clinics routinely help patients apply for Medicaid benefits.

However, I do agree with you that too few of the people, illegal or otherwise, who need these services know where or how to find them, and it is scandalous that those who are clamoring for trillion dollar programs to overhaul the health insurance programs in this country have made no attempt to direct these people to the facilities that already exist near them and are able to serve them now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

While rising costs for tech procedures is a valid argument--in general--it doesn't address why a person must buy a one-size-fits-all policy which covers an array of procedures and is not offered one that costs less and covers less. I've never seen a health care policy application that asks the potential subscriber to list what HE wants covered. The questions only involve his existing health condition.

I can't imagine what tests and procedures you wouldn't want covered, but what you suggest involves customized underwriting which would involve separate actuarial evaluations for thousands, at least, of tests and procedures and this would add a great deal to the cost of the policy. There are insurance companies that will insure just about anything you want to insure if you can afford it, but the cost of determining the risk and the smaller sample of experience the company has to work with for exceptional policies makes the cost fairly high.

However, if such a choice were possible and there were no extra costs involved in it, it would still be a bad idea for a few reasons. First, few people have the competence to make wise decisions about what coverage to exclude. Second, young, healthy people would be tempted to exclude coverage for age related diseases, such as heart disease, many types of cancer, etc., until they are older and more likely to need this coverage, and that would mean since the potential cost of treating these diseases is spread over a smaller group of people and the risk for this group is much higher the cost of insurance for older people would go up.

Imagine a time when genetic testing is more developed and refined and its application is more widespread. Suppose you find out that you have none of the genetic markers for a particular disease; you might ask to have coverage for that disease excluded from your policy to reduce your premium. Your neighbor, SallySue, however, has found that she has the markers for that disease and she is dismayed to find her next month's premium bill has gone up. When she calls the insurance company, they tell her that since MaggieMae has dropped that coverage, there are fewer people to spread the potential costs over and therefore she must bear more of this burden.

The one size fits all plan is uniquely suited to the insurance business because it averages potential costs over those who have almost no risk as well as those who are at high risk and this makes healthcare available to almost everyone.

Wow, if only it actually worked that way, health care reform regarding insuring everyone wouldn't even be an issue. You've used the most excellent talking point of the insurance lobby. I can turn your last paragraph on its head and ask why someone who is not at high risk needs to pay for the higher premiums because of those who are at high risk and therefore choose cadillac coverage?

Can't existing mega insurers figure out simple plans that cover preventive checkups, then have choices of add-ons to cover potential catastrophic events? Can't they write policies like Medicare which will cover a FREE health profile during the first calendar year of enrollment in Part B? Can't they write inexpensive policies that cover only preventive medicine (which most young people would opt for)?

Again, if young healthy people pay only for the medical services they have a high probability of needing in the near future, then older and sicker people will have to pay much more for their insurance, effectively throwing all of them into high risk pools, and of course, as these younger people age, their insurance costs will have to rise dramatically because those younger than they now are will not be sharing the costs of insuring them.

Both Medicare and private insurance programs operate on the same principle, that young healthy people will pay much of the cost of providing medical care for older and sicker people. Indeed, a key component of the health insurance overhaul now being considered by Congress is that all insurance companies should be forced to insure people with pre existing conditions at standard rates, thus forcing healthy people to pay even more for their insurance to offset the higher costs of caring for these sick people.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is no reason for anyone to go to ER's for routine care, and if they do, they should be turned away. There are plenty of free clinics, US Public Health Service clinics and clinics run by medical schools and teaching hospitals, and anyone without insurance who refuses to use them should not be treated by ER's and if ER's do treat them, they should not be reimbursed.

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

free clinics in philadelphia - Google Search

You're forgetting that ILLEGAL immigrants do not have to reveal any personal information if they go to a hospital ER. Also, most are ignorant of any other health care facilities that might be available, so the hospital ER would be their first stop. It is what it is, because of hospital code of not turning anyone away who is in need of emergency medical assistance. I believe anyone (including illegals) ARE turned away from hospital ERs if they arrive just for basic checkups, maternity care, etc.

The problem of llegal immigrants in general is a whole 'nuther issue.

The argument I was responding to was that because illegals are not covered by health insurance they go to ER's for routine care, at $1,000 per visit, and this would not happen if they were covered by health insurance. This argument is also put forward in support of extending health insurance to those Americans who cannot afford to pay for it or otherwise choose not to have it, and it has no validity there either: there are free or inexpensive alternatives to ER's for routine care, medical and dental, for everyone in the US now.

The problem comes if you should require diagnostic or therapeutic procedures beyond simple tests or procedures that might be performed in a doctor's office. This more expensive care is still available to you if you first spend down your assets and income to a level that qualifies you for Medicaid. US Health Service clinics and most free clinics routinely help patients apply for Medicaid benefits.

However, I do agree with you that too few of the people, illegal or otherwise, who need these services know where or how to find them, and it is scandalous that those who are clamoring for trillion dollar programs to overhaul the health insurance programs in this country have made no attempt to direct these people to the facilities that already exist near them and are able to serve them now.

Well, again, I don't think anyone can generalize how "free" clinics operate anymore than they can generalize how all hospitals operate. With regard to myself, I once found myself without a car in the dead of winter but with an excruciatingly painful absessed tooth, so I walked to the clinic nearby rather than climb the hill to the hospital ER. At the time I had no insurance, but I also didn't qualify for Medicaid. So the clinic treated my tooth with antibiotics and sent me a bill. Granted, they undoubtedly treat similar situations where those bills don't get paid, but I don't believe all clinics operate with free, open-door-to-all policies, even if they are non-profit.

That same hospital charges the same outrageous sums for mundane things like aspirin, just like big city hospitals where there are many illegal immigrants. We have barely any where I live. So there's a flaw in that rationale too.

 

[MaggieMae]

The reason health care reform has historically been so difficult to achieve is that it is such a personal, inyourface issue. Everyone has a story to tell which supports his "side" of the issue. Regardless what gets passed, or not, there are also mini-issues that any health care reform has yet to even address.

One of those I've been thinking about is how family size might eventually enter into the equation. For example, maybe one reason a family may decide that two children are enough is because of the potential cost of health care for any more kids. So would a "universal" plan one day become so out of control, cost-wise, that limitations on family size would be needed unless that family could afford more children at its own expense? A cap of sorts? John & Kate should have stopped after their first set of triplets maybe?

There are all kinds of moral questions that haven't even come into play yet, which is why I have never fully supported an all-government sponsored health CARE program. Although I do support health INSURANCE availability for everyone. I've always seen this as two separate issues.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You're forgetting that ILLEGAL immigrants do not have to reveal any personal information if they go to a hospital ER. Also, most are ignorant of any other health care facilities that might be available, so the hospital ER would be their first stop. It is what it is, because of hospital code of not turning anyone away who is in need of emergency medical assistance. I believe anyone (including illegals) ARE turned away from hospital ERs if they arrive just for basic checkups, maternity care, etc.

The problem of llegal immigrants in general is a whole 'nuther issue.

The argument I was responding to was that because illegals are not covered by health insurance they go to ER's for routine care, at $1,000 per visit, and this would not happen if they were covered by health insurance. This argument is also put forward in support of extending health insurance to those Americans who cannot afford to pay for it or otherwise choose not to have it, and it has no validity there either: there are free or inexpensive alternatives to ER's for routine care, medical and dental, for everyone in the US now.

The problem comes if you should require diagnostic or therapeutic procedures beyond simple tests or procedures that might be performed in a doctor's office. This more expensive care is still available to you if you first spend down your assets and income to a level that qualifies you for Medicaid. US Health Service clinics and most free clinics routinely help patients apply for Medicaid benefits.

However, I do agree with you that too few of the people, illegal or otherwise, who need these services know where or how to find them, and it is scandalous that those who are clamoring for trillion dollar programs to overhaul the health insurance programs in this country have made no attempt to direct these people to the facilities that already exist near them and are able to serve them now.

Well, again, I don't think anyone can generalize how "free" clinics operate anymore than they can generalize how all hospitals operate. With regard to myself, I once found myself without a car in the dead of winter but with an excruciatingly painful absessed tooth, so I walked to the clinic nearby rather than climb the hill to the hospital ER. At the time I had no insurance, but I also didn't qualify for Medicaid. So the clinic treated my tooth with antibiotics and sent me a bill. Granted, they undoubtedly treat similar situations where those bills don't get paid, but I don't believe all clinics operate with free, open-door-to-all policies, even if they are non-profit.

That same hospital charges the same outrageous sums for mundane things like aspirin, just like big city hospitals where there are many illegal immigrants. We have barely any where I live. So there's a flaw in that rationale too.

Not all clinics are free clinics, but free clinics are really free. National Health Service clinics ask you if you have insurance or the ability to pay something towards your care, and if you answer, no, they treat you for free - no documentation required. If you do a google search for free clinics in your city, you will find a number that will either treat you for free or charge you on a sliding scale basis depending on what you say your income is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sure. And why is that expected to happen when private control over health care has done the complete opposite for over 30 years?

Private control? Oh, please. The last "optional public plan" the government offered in health care was Medicare, which now holds 97% of its market share, and it and Medicaid make up a HUGE proportion of health care spending. In fact, the government is the number one payer of health care expenditures in the country. Tell me how that's "private control over health care for the last 30 years".

Every time there's a thread regarding health care, the conversation somehow gets diverted to the belief that the current reform proposals involve single-payer, universal care. THEY DO NOT. We should be discussing the excalating cost of health care INSURANCE, which is what Congress is dealing with at the present time, and how to assure that people who NEED health care can get INSURANCE to cover it--not the health care itself.

Those who argue that the private sector has done a good job are just flat-out wrong. When more and more middle-class and even upper middle-class familities can no longer afford to maintain thousands of dollars in annual premiums and/or ridiculous deductibles, that is NOT the fault of the federal government but the fault of the free market gone nuts--because they can.

Rising Health Insurance Rates Hurting Businesses, Families and Individuals

In looking at some of the reports, the results are fairly startling. In Pennsylvania, for example, health care and health insurance premiums rose 6.4 times faster than earnings, or 86.2 percent rise in the cost of premiums versus a 13.2 percent rise in earnings. In Missouri, health insurance premiums rose 76.1 percent while earnings rose only 17.3 percent. Similar findings were seen in other states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and so on. According to Families USA, this represents an even greater burden on people as their incomes stagnate while health care costs continue to rise.

I listen to leftists talk, both those in office and those in the general public who support those in office. Then I look at history, at how every single mammoth, out-of-control government program we have started out with a small, modest, limited proposal and tons of promises that it would NEVER go any farther and certainly not where it eventually went. Then I listen to you giving me the same promises that no, no, NO! We're not proposing universal, single-payer, government-run health care. GOD, no! All we're talking about is THIS little program, that only moves a LITTLE bit in that direction, but will NEVER go that far. And then I dig in my heels and say, "I'm not falling for that bullshit again", and I fight against the end of the slippery slope that I know is coming.

Give a leftist an inch, they'll take the whole damned ruler.

 

[American Horse]

If it appeared to be inevitable that there would be a single payer healthcare system - but unfortunately then it would be too late - voters should demand that congress have to be on the same plan as ordinary citizens. After all, didn't Obama say that would be a good standard during the campaign?

A public outcry for that would draw attention to how luxurious the plan of congress is, and get their attention to how much they would prefer not to be limited to the rationing, which most of them know will result when used to drive medical costs down.

They need to know that ordinary folks realize that a government "insurance plan" - their proposed entrée - will drive out all private insurance plans, because government doesn't have to compete.

But even if they accepted this ultimatum, as deceptive as we know they are, how long would it be until they exempted themselves from that lack of advantage or found a way around it as if it never existed?

So the "damning" phrase to unite behind is:
" Congress... On the same Plan "

 

[Coyote]

You're right, your position WAS retarded. I'm glad you can recognize that.

Work on your reading comprehension a bit more....I know the curve is steep, but you can do it - I have faith in you.

And given that that "one particular subject" involves an ENORMOUS segment of our economy being taken over by the government, I'd call that pretty sweeping all on its own.

...and I'd call that pretty retarded, but, if that is the only way you can debate, then what the hell - who am I to deny you the short bus? It doesn't matter if it's a large segment - there are lots of other segments of the economy that are as important, not to mention your premise is faulty. I'm not arguing a one payer system. No one is (at this point). You're assuming a slippery-slope based on some government programs but ignoring others - for example education. You are arguing a "worst case scenario" rather than anything currently being proposed.

Every time you automatically jumped to "It has to be done, that means the government will do it." You did it in at least two places that I can recall off the top of my head.

You stated: Clearly not, since you believe that the GOVERNMENT shall be the bearer of all good things.

Again, that is not what I said. Learn to read instead of inserting your words into what I said. I said some necessary services are not profitable and can not be made profitable - those are the services better done by the government. Does that mean all things are better done by the government? No.

But, the irony is....contracting out in some areas has been shown to cost us - the taxpayers more then when the government does it. Go figure.

Okay. Any time I'm dealing with your pie-in-the-sky "Benevolent Government" bullshit, I'm not dealing with reality. There's your heads-up. Make a note of it somewhere.

Who's talking about "Benevolent Government"? Or...is this kind of like your "benevolent hand of the market"? In other words ideological bullshit instead of real world?

When that's relevant to the topic, we'll talk about it. At the moment, we are not talking about something that requires charitable intervention. We're talking about government-run control of health care.Try to focus, please, and quit trying to dance off down tangents with no other purpose than distracting from issues you can't address.

Uh...no. You don't seem to have a grasp on the topic. We're not talking about government-run control of health care. We are talking about a proposed public plan alongside the private plans (kind of like public schools and private schools.) Not that I expect you to grasp the distinction (thus far you haven't) but at least try to keep up.

First of all, schools are not relevant to health care. Second, if I had wanted to be treated to yet another of your "the government must handle things!" rants, I'd have asked. But I do thank you for giving us all another demonstration of the mindset you said I was "imagining" because I "don't know you". Yeah, I don't have your number at all.

Schools are another government program that is a mixture of public and private thus a good example to use - better then your nefarious and vague "Big Bad Government" boogie man. If you can't handle that....I can try to dumb it down for you.

That's it? That's your whole answer? "I don't want to hear your sob story, so it's dismissed?" All righty, then. I don't want to hear YOUR fricking sob story about how some people have it so hard, so I and others like me need to pay their doctor bills. To paraphrase you, "Oh, not that old and tired liberal whine again! " And it seems that you think that closes a subject, so I guess we won't be hearing from you again.

Um....I've re-read my posts and, sweetcheeks...no where have I said a word about "how some people have it so hard, so I and others like me need to pay their doctor bills.". Now, are you going to stick to reality hon, or are we going to go around and around arguing about what I haven't said yet?

Ideological rants get tiresome - whether liberal, libertarian, or conservative. They seldom bear edible fruit in real world settings.

And because you pay for community services, you figure everything under the sun should be viewed as a community service and also covered by taxpayer dollars? Or is it that you think welfare has done such a good job that everyone should be on it?

Is gross hyperbole normal for you?

In case you haven't guessed it - and your statements seem to indicate that - I tend to favor a mixture of public and private. Do I think welfare has done a great job? I think it's better then the situation before welfare but needs improving.

Oops - damn...you've just led me down a tangent. Didn't you say something earlier about dancing on tangents?

You don't have a problem with your tax dollars going to these things? Fine. Call the IRS and arrange a personal donation. I'm not talking about your tax dollars. I'm talking about MINE.

When you cease making use of all tax dollar funded enterprises, I'll take you more seriously. Until then....

request denied.

You mean like the refreshing originality of your "people are in need and the government must step in and handle it" approach? That's not stale, old ideological talking points at ALL.

Where did I say that? Or...is this more ASSuming on your part?

I wasn't even aware you had turned it on. I was thinking all this "your arguments are so stupid, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about" bullshit was a prelude to your argument. I didn't realize it WAS the argument. So you're going on the record with "You're a mean, stupid poophead" as your position, then?

Take your fingers out of your nose, stand up straight and tell me - what in the hell are you talking about because you aren't making much sense here sparky.

Is it possible for you to answer any of them with anything other than "Can you say something else?" I won't be saying something else until 1) it stops being true and 2) you stop being such a cowardly fluffbrain and actually RESPOND. Before those two things happen, I have no reason to say anything else, and every reason to keep repeating it until you either get it drilled through your thick skull or the typical liberal five-minute attention span kicks in and you wander off to play with your Barbies.

Done flinging monkey poo? Don't forget to wash your hands.

No, Mensa Girl. Do you have a problem with situational awareness? You came on this board and jumped into a discussion thread with no idea what's actually going on in the national debate on the topic? Why are you wasting everyone's time with your delusions?

Maybe you ought to get off of your emotional roller coaster umh...grow up a little? The topic is actually whether to ration health care or not. It's gone off on tangents. You don't even participate until page 5 then you go off on assuming it's a one-payer system and you refuse to debate anything but a one payer system.

Too bad.

Now you're objecting to your own parameters? It's okay to talk vaguely about people doing without life insurance, but when it comes to people opting out of having health insurance, that requires specific numbers? It doesn't matter how many or who they are. It's not a matter of debate whether or not people choose not to carry health insurance.

If I make a claim, and you want numbers, I'll get numbers to back my claims or fess up to nada. If you make claims with vague "lots of" or "many" - expect to be challenged and don't whine about it.

So I take it you don't have numbers?

As for "many of them abuse emergency services" and driving costs up: if that's true (and talk about your vague parameters. "Lots of people" is bad, but "many of them" is spiffy?), do you think POSSIBLY there's any chance they'd also abuse taxpayer-funded health coverage and drive costs up even more?

If you look at health care costs in other countries where there are public plans, the emphasis is on preventative measures and their health care costs are lower then ours.

The U.S. spends more per person on health care then any comparable country: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif yet it ranks 11th in terms of overall health. The top ten countries - Japan, Switzerland, San Marino, Sweden, Australian, France, Monaco, Iceland, Austria, Italy. Most of those countries are in the top ten for longevity in addition to Germany, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK - all of which exceed the U.S. Same with infant mortality, another health indicator. Virtually all of those countries have some form of public health care in place and lower health care costs then the U.S. They don't seem to have a problem with people "abusing" the system and driving up costs.

That's even assuming you have any idea what you're talking about, which I doubt. You start out not even knowing anything about people who opt out of having health insurance, and segue to being an expert on what they do afterward? How about you show me some stats on people who could get health insurance, choose not to, and then become a pubic burden, and exactly how that happens?

You make a lot of ASSumptions but provide very little real information.

You mean like the one you're living in, where politicians and bureaucrats are moral and righteous and caring, and medical care suddenly costs nothing to provide so the government can just hand it out at will to 300 million + people?

Again: you make a lot of ASSumptions but provide very little real information.

Oh, WELL, if it happens in YOUR state, that must mean it's reality for EVERYONE.

Or perhaps you could stick to REAL reality, where the whole fucking world doesn't live in your state and revolve around the way YOUR life works. In my state, you purchase auto insurance or you just don't drive. The fact that you apparently live in a liberal utopia with a Nanny Government that feels the need to keep bad drivers on the road tells me a lot about why you default to thinking the government is the only way to get something done.

As for health insurance, it's already been stated a dozen times that there are programs already in effect to help those in dire straits. Even if there weren't, it does not require any of the wild-assed schemes suggested by the Democrats to remedy that problem. You are not going to be able to hide this government takeover behind the skirts of the hard cases.

You just pretty much contradicted yourself.

Which is it?

As for health insurance, it's already been stated a dozen times that there are programs already in effect to help those in dire straits.

OR

Even if there weren't, it does not require any of the wild-assed schemes suggested by the Democrats to remedy that problem.

So, basically what you saying is that in your world everyone who needed health insurance could get it so there isn't any problem?

Since you have yet to exhibit the stones to actually answer any points, I have no reason to say anything else. And none of my questions are rhetorical. You're just too chickenshit to respond.

You really haven't made any points. You've pretty much been on a one person rant.

Done yet?

Yeah, it's funny, but when I say "hands off", I actually mean "with your fucking hands not on it in any way". In this case, however, your attempt to jump around and topic-hop "The government has been SOOOO hands off . . . oh, but you want sweatshops!" isn't even amusing, let alone incisive.

I never said the market can do no wrong. I said it's better than the government, which - sorry to shock you out of your Presidential kneepads - has to struggle to do anything RIGHT.

Oh you didn't? Well pardon me - I was just playing by your rules...you know...where you tell me what I said....


Are you done now?

 

[Coyote]

If it appeared to be inevitable that there would be a single payer healthcare system - but unfortunately then it would be too late - voters should demand that congress have to be on the same plan as ordinary citizens. After all, didn't Obama say that would be a good standard during the campaign?

A public outcry for that would draw attention to how luxurious the plan of congress is, and get their attention to how much they would prefer not to be limited to the rationing, which most of them know will result when used to drive medical costs down.

They need to know that ordinary folks realize that a government "insurance plan" - their proposed entrée - will drive out all private insurance plans, because government doesn't have to compete.

But even if they accepted this ultimatum, as deceptive as we know they are, how long would it be until they exempted themselves from that lack of advantage or found a way around it as if it never existed?

So the "damning" phrase to unite behind is:
" Congress... On the same Plan "

I really don't see us as going to a single payer system. Our country is very individualistic and pro-market in comparison with others. We have a powerful special interest group in the insurance industries. I don't see that changing. I think a more realistic example is a comparison with public schools - those who can afford it can choose private, those who can't or don't want to choose the public option.

 

[Meister]

If it appeared to be inevitable that there would be a single payer healthcare system - but unfortunately then it would be too late - voters should demand that congress have to be on the same plan as ordinary citizens. After all, didn't Obama say that would be a good standard during the campaign?

A public outcry for that would draw attention to how luxurious the plan of congress is, and get their attention to how much they would prefer not to be limited to the rationing, which most of them know will result when used to drive medical costs down.

They need to know that ordinary folks realize that a government "insurance plan" - their proposed entrée - will drive out all private insurance plans, because government doesn't have to compete.

But even if they accepted this ultimatum, as deceptive as we know they are, how long would it be until they exempted themselves from that lack of advantage or found a way around it as if it never existed?

So the "damning" phrase to unite behind is:
" Congress... On the same Plan "

I really don't see us as going to a single payer system. Our country is very individualistic and pro-market in comparison with others. We have a powerful special interest group in the insurance industries. I don't see that changing. I think a more realistic example is a comparison with public schools - those who can afford it can choose private, those who can't or don't want to choose the public option.

Coyote, I am all for everyone who wants healthcare to have it. My problem is I'm afraid that the government will eventally squeeze out the private sector through regulations, and mandates leaving no other options. I'm also concerned on the cost for me if I want my own private insurance. I will pay for it, and it's not cheap, but then I will be pay more taxes for the government run insurance...and that's not going to be cheap.
There has to be a way with tax credits for both the insurance companies to supply the insurance to the people who need it, and tax credits for the people who need it. This could be done without the government taking control. I don't think that would be a good thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Work on your reading comprehension a bit more....I know the curve is steep, but you can do it - I have faith in you.



...and I'd call that pretty retarded, but, if that is the only way you can debate, then what the hell - who am I to deny you the short bus? It doesn't matter if it's a large segment - there are lots of other segments of the economy that are as important, not to mention your premise is faulty. I'm not arguing a one payer system. No one is (at this point). You're assuming a slippery-slope based on some government programs but ignoring others - for example education. You are arguing a "worst case scenario" rather than anything currently being proposed.



You stated: Clearly not, since you believe that the GOVERNMENT shall be the bearer of all good things.

Again, that is not what I said. Learn to read instead of inserting your words into what I said. I said some necessary services are not profitable and can not be made profitable - those are the services better done by the government. Does that mean all things are better done by the government? No.

But, the irony is....contracting out in some areas has been shown to cost us - the taxpayers more then when the government does it. Go figure.



Who's talking about "Benevolent Government"? Or...is this kind of like your "benevolent hand of the market"? In other words ideological bullshit instead of real world?



Uh...no. You don't seem to have a grasp on the topic. We're not talking about government-run control of health care. We are talking about a proposed public plan alongside the private plans (kind of like public schools and private schools.) Not that I expect you to grasp the distinction (thus far you haven't) but at least try to keep up.



Schools are another government program that is a mixture of public and private thus a good example to use - better then your nefarious and vague "Big Bad Government" boogie man. If you can't handle that....I can try to dumb it down for you.



Um....I've re-read my posts and, sweetcheeks...no where have I said a word about "how some people have it so hard, so I and others like me need to pay their doctor bills.". Now, are you going to stick to reality hon, or are we going to go around and around arguing about what I haven't said yet?

Ideological rants get tiresome - whether liberal, libertarian, or conservative. They seldom bear edible fruit in real world settings.



Is gross hyperbole normal for you?

In case you haven't guessed it - and your statements seem to indicate that - I tend to favor a mixture of public and private. Do I think welfare has done a great job? I think it's better then the situation before welfare but needs improving.

Oops - damn...you've just led me down a tangent. Didn't you say something earlier about dancing on tangents?



When you cease making use of all tax dollar funded enterprises, I'll take you more seriously. Until then....

request denied.



Where did I say that? Or...is this more ASSuming on your part?



Take your fingers out of your nose, stand up straight and tell me - what in the hell are you talking about because you aren't making much sense here sparky.



Done flinging monkey poo? Don't forget to wash your hands.



Maybe you ought to get off of your emotional roller coaster umh...grow up a little? The topic is actually whether to ration health care or not. It's gone off on tangents. You don't even participate until page 5 then you go off on assuming it's a one-payer system and you refuse to debate anything but a one payer system.

Too bad.



If I make a claim, and you want numbers, I'll get numbers to back my claims or fess up to nada. If you make claims with vague "lots of" or "many" - expect to be challenged and don't whine about it.

So I take it you don't have numbers?



If you look at health care costs in other countries where there are public plans, the emphasis is on preventative measures and their health care costs are lower then ours.

The U.S. spends more per person on health care then any comparable country: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif yet it ranks 11th in terms of overall health. The top ten countries - Japan, Switzerland, San Marino, Sweden, Australian, France, Monaco, Iceland, Austria, Italy. Most of those countries are in the top ten for longevity in addition to Germany, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK - all of which exceed the U.S. Same with infant mortality, another health indicator. Virtually all of those countries have some form of public health care in place and lower health care costs then the U.S. They don't seem to have a problem with people "abusing" the system and driving up costs.



You make a lot of ASSumptions but provide very little real information.



Again: you make a lot of ASSumptions but provide very little real information.











You just pretty much contradicted yourself.

Which is it?

As for health insurance, it's already been stated a dozen times that there are programs already in effect to help those in dire straits.

OR

Even if there weren't, it does not require any of the wild-assed schemes suggested by the Democrats to remedy that problem.

So, basically what you saying is that in your world everyone who needed health insurance could get it so there isn't any problem?



You really haven't made any points. You've pretty much been on a one person rant.

Done yet?




Oh you didn't? Well pardon me - I was just playing by your rules...you know...where you tell me what I said....


Are you done now?

Yes. You may pull your fingers out of your ears and stop humming. You are no longer in danger of hearing any inconvenient facts that might stimulate your brain into actually thinking.

Run along and stop wasting my time.