Healthcare Debate

[HapSmo19]

ITS IF YOU HAVE SOME MONEY, ARE WORKING, BUT ARE NOT WEALTHY that you get screwed. THAT is the point of healthcare insurance reform. To allow all of us working people to get real insurance at set costs with gauranteed care.

Holy shit. You think this bill is the best way to achieve that goal?

There's nothing wrong with the piecemeal(or all at once with individual bills that specifically address individual issues) approach to this problem.

Nobody thinks this bill is the BEST way to achieve this. At least, in the realistic political sense. Hopefully this bill will lead to further improvements.

You think they'll turn back a cash cow like this once it's implemented? Get real.

I have a few medical issues that I should probably have looked at including one of those "suspicious moles" and I'm also currently without medical insurance. But anyway...
The way I see it, the financial meltdown/loss of millions of jobs coinciding with the push for this "healthcare" bill, is no coincidence. Put as many people as possible in a desperate situation and suddenly public support for such BS takes a nice leap(though still not what they expected, I'm sure). It's about the perfect storm of one-sided international trade agreements, anti-business government regulation and high-financial thievery to achieve support a of goal that amounts to a hostile takeover of the US healthcare industry(notice the lengths they're considering going to to achieve it) and life liberty and the persuit of happyness. I still belive in that shit, yeah. This isn't about healthcare. Never was.
If these people had done anything in the last quarter-century to the benefit of the American people, I might actually fall for this but, guess what? The bullshits' gotta stop.

[Trephining]

For those that are not well-informed on what is really in the pending health reform bills, I can post some pieces from a summary that Ernst&Young put together.

From the Senate bill, section on Employer Responsibility:

Requires an employer with more than 50 fulltime
employees that does not offer coverage
and has at least one full-time employee
receiving the premium assistance tax credit to
make a payment of $750 per full-time
employee (FTE).
An employer with more than 50 FTEs that
requires a waiting period before an employee
can enroll in health care coverage will pay
$600 for any FTE in a 60 plus day waiting
period. Prohibits 90 day or longer wait
periods.
An employer with more than 50 employees
that does offer coverage but has at least one
FTE receiving the premium assistance tax
credit will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each of
those employees receiving a tax credit or
$750 for each of their FTE total.
Exempts employers with fewer than 50
workers from penalty payments.

Obama's bill: similar to Senate bill, but changes penalty above from $3000 to $2000 and eliminates first 30 workers from determination of penalty.

Overall effect: Both bills raise the cost of employing people for employers that have 50 or more employers. That means increased unemployment.

[Trephining]

Actually, before this discussion goes a heck of a lot further, I was hoping that anybody out there who supports any of the health reform bills would mind doing the following when posting:

a) state one of the problems in the current setup in the US health care market
b) point to the specific part in one of the bills (or at least an article that says that one of the bills contains something) that would actually fix that problem, and
c) do a little thinking through some of the unintended consequences that that part of that bill would also produce

[thegreekdog]

Actually, before this discussion goes a heck of a lot further, I was hoping that anybody out there who supports any of the health reform bills would mind doing the following when posting:

a) state one of the problems in the current setup in the US health care market
b) point to the specific part in one of the bills (or at least an article that says that one of the bills contains something) that would actually fix that problem, and
c) do a little thinking through some of the unintended consequences that that part of that bill would also produce

I agree here and I've said it a number of times in other ways in other threads.

That being said, no one is actually going to do what you recommend; in fact, most reasonable posts on the subject of healthcare are ignored.

[Night Strike]

Actually, before this discussion goes a heck of a lot further, I was hoping that anybody out there who supports any of the health reform bills would mind doing the following when posting:

a) state one of the problems in the current setup in the US health care market
b) point to the specific part in one of the bills (or at least an article that says that one of the bills contains something) that would actually fix that problem, and
c) do a little thinking through some of the unintended consequences that that part of that bill would also produce

I agree here and I've said it a number of times in other ways in other threads.

That being said, no one is actually going to do what you recommend; in fact, most reasonable posts on the subject of healthcare are ignored.

That's because the democratic plan is an appeal to emotion. We are supposed to support this plan because our fellow countrymen are in need. Never mind that it's a horrible plan for the sustainability of our government and economy. When honest budget concerns are brought forth, they are written off as unimportant or partisan attacks. When stories of waiting lists and poor treatment are shared, they are dismissed as extremely rare examples. When there are stories of needy people being turned down for insurance coverage, they are exalted as exemplary examples of the broken system that must have a complete government overhaul to fix.

Americans have been against this plan for many months now. They have seen through the superficial emotional stories to see the fallacies presented by the politicians. They are sick of seeing the government spend an exorbitant amount of money that they don't have and in the process balloon our deficit by 12.3% in 2009, twice as much of a percentage increase as in our history. The people are tired of the government redistributing our money through entitlement programs, and this plan is the biggest move ever.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, before this discussion goes a heck of a lot further, I was hoping that anybody out there who supports any of the health reform bills would mind doing the following when posting:

a) state one of the problems in the current setup in the US health care market
b) point to the specific part in one of the bills (or at least an article that says that one of the bills contains something) that would actually fix that problem, and
c) do a little thinking through some of the unintended consequences that that part of that bill would also produce

I agree here and I've said it a number of times in other ways in other threads.

That being said, no one is actually going to do what you recommend; in fact, most reasonable posts on the subject of healthcare are ignored.

That's because the democratic plan is an appeal to emotion.

This is no more true than the claims that the Republican plan is just in the pocket of insurance companies.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, before this discussion goes a heck of a lot further, I was hoping that anybody out there who supports any of the health reform bills would mind doing the following when posting:

a) state one of the problems in the current setup in the US health care market
b) point to the specific part in one of the bills (or at least an article that says that one of the bills contains something) that would actually fix that problem, and
c) do a little thinking through some of the unintended consequences that that part of that bill would also produce

Did that. Will go over it again, but not tonight (and maybe not tommorrow).

Anyway, you start by asking the wrong questions. To work, the changes must be comprehensive, not parts and pieces. The current bill has already been ripped apart.

[Night Strike]

Actually, before this discussion goes a heck of a lot further, I was hoping that anybody out there who supports any of the health reform bills would mind doing the following when posting:

a) state one of the problems in the current setup in the US health care market
b) point to the specific part in one of the bills (or at least an article that says that one of the bills contains something) that would actually fix that problem, and
c) do a little thinking through some of the unintended consequences that that part of that bill would also produce

I agree here and I've said it a number of times in other ways in other threads.

That being said, no one is actually going to do what you recommend; in fact, most reasonable posts on the subject of healthcare are ignored.

That's because the democratic plan is an appeal to emotion.

This is no more true than the claims that the Republican plan is just in the pocket of insurance companies.

That's all that's left from the democratic side. The budget has been analyzed and shown to be a bunch of gimmicks, and a look at every other government entitlement has shown the costs to be overbudget and inefficient. Even the claim that the Republican plan is the plan of the insurance companies is exposed as a fraud when people are reminded of all the backroom deals the Democrats have gone through with both private interests and Senators.

[bradleybadly]

That's because the democratic plan is an appeal to emotion.
Americans have been against this plan for many months now. They have seen through the superficial emotional stories to see the fallacies presented by the politicians.

Not everyone

[PLAYER57832]

That's all that's left from the democratic side. The budget has been analyzed and shown to be a bunch of gimmicks, and a look at every other government entitlement has shown the costs to be overbudget and inefficient. Even the claim that the Republican plan is the plan of the insurance companies is exposed as a fraud when people are reminded of all the backroom deals the Democrats have gone through with both private interests and Senators.

Try fact checking before you post.

Both sides have definitely slanted the truth, but what you claim above is just plain garbage.

[thegreekdog]

That's all that's left from the democratic side. The budget has been analyzed and shown to be a bunch of gimmicks, and a look at every other government entitlement has shown the costs to be overbudget and inefficient. Even the claim that the Republican plan is the plan of the insurance companies is exposed as a fraud when people are reminded of all the backroom deals the Democrats have gone through with both private interests and Senators.

Try fact checking before you post.

Both sides have definitely slanted the truth, but what you claim above is just plain garbage.

IT'S NOT GARBAGE!!! Why do you think we don't have universal government healthcare right now? Insurance companies lobbying Democrats!

C'mon Player, you're smarter than this. You're buying into stuff without really looking at it, I think.

I do agree that this cannot be done piecemeal. I think it needs to be redone as a whole; and they can do it before November.

[tzor]

I remember a good series NPR did a year ago about national health systems worldwide. The long story short was that all of these systems had major long term problems.

Funny, but what I remember from those interviews, the analysis is that while none of the systems was perfect, every one, without exception was far, better than the US system. People liked them better, they cost lest per person and served people better.

It takes more than just being “better” if you want to adopt something new; it has to be better in the long term. Let me give you an example in the tale of two railroads, the LIRR on Long Island and Metro North in Connecticut. I’ve been on both and I can say that the LIRR is far superior, the cars are newer and cleaner, more comfortable, and have automated announcements that can be understood. But on the other hand, it is massively loosing money. Major portions of the lines will be dropped with the next few years. So having Connecticut adopt the LIRR model is, to say the least stupid.

The thing is that we know why these systems all have problems; Japan’s limiting payments to doctors and hospitals has cut costs short term but has resulted in no one wanting to be doctors; which in turn creates health rationing (supply and demand). Health rationing is a major problem with the various nations within the European Union as well as Canada.

There is a difference between doing nothing, making someone else’s mistakes (even if these mistakes are not as bad as the system we have now) and doing the right thing.

One of the greatest fallacies ever invented was that the government can actually do something! This is the greatest fallacy that the progressive elites have invented.

It would be awesome to see a world where government had never existed.

That is not what I am implying. (But in an odd sense you are proving my point.)

Governments come from the people and derive all their power from the people. One of the biggest factors in a Mad Max world is that the people’s “Give a Damns” are busted; the average person there has a crappy life and doesn’t give a damn. As a result any government derived from the “doesn’t give a damn” people doesn’t dive a damn either. Only to the extent that some people gave a damn (but only partially) as in the case of the business people of Thunder Dome that something resembling government forms.

Governments do not do things; the people do things. People can do things through the government. Government cannot spend money; it doesn’t have any money to spend. The only thing a government can do is to take the money of the people of the present (taxes) or the future (bonds) and spend the people’s money. Having government take over an expense doesn’t mean that magical money somehow flows into the system; the money still has to come from the people and now there is an extra layer of bureaucracy that costs more money.

Spain Bears Brunt Of 'Health Tourism'

This is merely a problem unique to Spain because old people move there.

No this is a problem because of something else; the old people are just a good example of how this can happen. When you have an environment where costs are controlled by limiting payments, you cause negative incentives to be placed on the system. When demand naturally occurs because of outside forces (patients moving into the system one way or the other) and the negative incentives continue to creep up, the result is that the supply starts to complain (Spain is at that point) and then the supply gives up and quits. Supply demand imbalances in health care result in health rationing. A good example of a system that is past the point where Spain is now in can be seen in the United States with the Medicare system. Many doctors and some hospitals have simply given up on Medicare patients altogether. You can’t expect someone to continue to loose money over the long run forever. The article makes it clear that Spain’s complaint is the low levels and the long delays for EU reimbursement for EU member services in Spain.

[PLAYER57832]

That's all that's left from the democratic side. The budget has been analyzed and shown to be a bunch of gimmicks, and a look at every other government entitlement has shown the costs to be overbudget and inefficient. Even the claim that the Republican plan is the plan of the insurance companies is exposed as a fraud when people are reminded of all the backroom deals the Democrats have gone through with both private interests and Senators.

Try fact checking before you post.

Both sides have definitely slanted the truth, but what you claim above is just plain garbage.

IT'S NOT GARBAGE!!! Why do you think we don't have universal government healthcare right now? Insurance companies lobbying Democrats!

C'mon Player, you're smarter than this. You're buying into stuff without really looking at it, I think.

Actually, I think you missed my first post to NIghtstrike. My initial comment was that his statement about Democrats was no more true than "x" statement about Republicans. That is, I was not saying the Republican slur was true, just equally false.

My last response was mostly about his statement that "the budget has been analyzed and shown to be a bunch og gimmicks"... along with his blanket statement about "entitlements" (agree there are very big issues, but the blanket statement is idiocy). The last was just his attempt (as I see it) to blur the argument with a tiny bit of truth, ignoring why I made the statement about Republicans initially.

In truth, I liked the initial bill, but now it has been basically raped by all sorts of groups on ALL sides.

I do agree that this cannot be done piecemeal. I think it needs to be redone as a whole; and they can do it before November.

We can hope...

But, the bottom line is that we need some fashion of truly universal coverage or any plan is doomed to fail.

[Snorri1234]

One of the greatest fallacies ever invented was that the government can actually do something! This is the greatest fallacy that the progressive elites have invented.

It would be awesome to see a world where government had never existed.

That is not what I am implying. (But in an odd sense you are proving my point.)

Governments come from the people and derive all their power from the people. One of the biggest factors in a Mad Max world is that the people’s “Give a Damns” are busted; the average person there has a crappy life and doesn’t give a damn. As a result any government derived from the “doesn’t give a damn” people doesn’t dive a damn either. Only to the extent that some people gave a damn (but only partially) as in the case of the business people of Thunder Dome that something resembling government forms.

Governments do not do things; the people do things. People can do things through the government. Government cannot spend money; it doesn’t have any money to spend. The only thing a government can do is to take the money of the people of the present (taxes) or the future (bonds) and spend the people’s money. Having government take over an expense doesn’t mean that magical money somehow flows into the system; the money still has to come from the people and now there is an extra layer of bureaucracy that costs more money.

Having government take over an expense saves money because governments are simply better suited for nation-wide, state-wide and city-wide projects. I like how you bring up the "extra layer of bureacracy" because you know which systems of health care consistently have lower overhead (administration) costs? The ones that aren't the US private health insurance. Americans on a per capita basis spend three times as much on medical administration as Canada.

No this is a problem because of something else; the old people are just a good example of how this can happen. When you have an environment where costs are controlled by limiting payments, you cause negative incentives to be placed on the system. When demand naturally occurs because of outside forces (patients moving into the system one way or the other) and the negative incentives continue to creep up, the result is that the supply starts to complain (Spain is at that point) and then the supply gives up and quits. Supply demand imbalances in health care result in health rationing. A good example of a system that is past the point where Spain is now in can be seen in the United States with the Medicare system. Many doctors and some hospitals have simply given up on Medicare patients altogether. You can’t expect someone to continue to loose money over the long run forever. The article makes it clear that Spain’s complaint is the low levels and the long delays for EU reimbursement for EU member services in Spain.

So the article is about the fact the EU has a problem with medical payments for those who move to other EU-countries.

How is that in any way relevant to what you just typed there?

[tzor]

Having government take over an expense saves money because governments are simply better suited for nation-wide, state-wide and city-wide projects. I like how you bring up the "extra layer of bureacracy" because you know which systems of health care consistently have lower overhead (administration) costs? The ones that aren't the US private health insurance. Americans on a per capita basis spend three times as much on medical administration as Canada.

You bring up two points ...

Point 1 - Well I don't know how to address point 1 - I think the best way is by example - The Big Dig is probably the best counter argument about the "simply better suited" position of governments.

The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006[update]), over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006[update]. A July 17, 2008 article in The Boston Globe stated, "In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038."

Point 2 - a good counter point to the question of administratice costs can be seen in the article by Ezra Klien in The Washington Post Administrative Costs in Health Care: A Primer

[tzor]

Just spotted a great article by Thomas Sowell on the GOPUSA site "Alice in Health Care - Part II" where he starts to unravel the fallacy that government run health systems (like that in Great Britian) are better than the current system in the United States.

One of the statistics they spin endlessly is that life expectancy in some countries with government-controlled medical care is higher than in the United States. What they don't tell you is that, in some of these countries, all the infants that die are not included in infant mortality statistics, as they are in the United States.

More important, both political and media supporters of government-controlled medical care consistently confuse medical care with health care.

Much, if not most, of health care depends on what individuals do in the way they live their own lives-- including eating habits, alcohol intake, exercise, narcotics and homicide. A study some years ago found that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. But nobody believes that Mormons' doctors are that much better than other doctors. When you don't do a lot of things that shorten your life, you live longer. That is not rocket science.

[Snorri1234]

Having government take over an expense saves money because governments are simply better suited for nation-wide, state-wide and city-wide projects. I like how you bring up the "extra layer of bureacracy" because you know which systems of health care consistently have lower overhead (administration) costs? The ones that aren't the US private health insurance. Americans on a per capita basis spend three times as much on medical administration as Canada.

You bring up two points ...

Point 1 - Well I don't know how to address point 1 - I think the best way is by example - The Big Dig is probably the best counter argument about the "simply better suited" position of governments.

The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006[update]), over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006[update]. A July 17, 2008 article in The Boston Globe stated, "In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038."

Except that it is not a counter. f*ck ups occur all the time, whether it's private bussines or the government. They are not evidence of anything but that people are people and so make mistakes. The government is made out of people so of course they make mistakes. in fact, the worst way to counter my point would be by example because I'm not referring to the capabilities but to what a government is.

What I'm talking about is that the government has an unique position. By definition it is in a better position to do things for society as a whole because that's the specific purpose we attach to it. That shit has been the case since humankind has lived in tribes.

Point 2 - a good counter point to the question of administratice costs can be seen in the article by Ezra Klien in The Washington Post Administrative Costs in Health Care: A Primer

Again not a counter in any way. You talk about "an extra layer of bureaucracy" and I point out that it doesn't seem to be the case when comparing figures.

The fact that the administrative costs aren't the most important thing is completely irrelevant.

[PLAYER57832]

EDIT-- looks like I deleted the rest of this post instead of copying and pasting into a new post. But, I think I am quoted below anyway.

Point 2 - a good counter point to the question of administratice costs can be seen in the article by Ezra Klien in The Washington Post Administrative Costs in Health Care: A Primer

I am reading it now.

Read it. Basically all he really says is that the issue is confusing. He makes references to various vague totals, comparing US companies to US Medicare, and a little on Canada. He does not discuss other countries in any real fashion at all.

The real truth is that we pay more, per person, for our medical care than any other country on earth. And we don't get better care, on average for that money.

[tzor]

It is "the best argument" only if you ignore the extreme waste in companies like AIG, etc.

Idiocy abounds. However, I would far rather have a government agency, to whom I can complain, etc. than a private company that doesn't have any real obligation to answer to me at all. We know of this idiocy because it was a public effort. AND, note that this was not a direct government program, it was a contractor program and equating government contracts with government is idiocy. They take the worst of government AND the worst of private industry to screw us all, with only very, very few exceptions.

Monopoly, especially TBTF monopoly is also not a good thing. I should point out that AIG existed and failed in part because of regulation on the federal level that only went half way, leaving gaps that were begging to be exploited and those gaps were created by congress just so they could be exploited.

But the notion that you have redress to the federal government where you do not have redress to a private company … please hold as I crank up the Google Machine … “Medicare complaints draw little response from officials”

I am not equating contracts with the one who oversees the contracts. It is the job of the one who hires the contractors to see that things come in budget and to spec. If they can’t handle construction crews, how in hell are they going to be able to handle hospitals, clinics and doctors? Like the Big Dig they just go on autopilot and insist that the only way to solve anything is MORE MONEY. When they do decide to make cuts they have no clue whatsoever in how to make them and as a result everything gets worse not better.

In case you haven’t noticed the Healthcare system is almost completely private facilities. No one is suggesting that the government buy out every hospital in the nation, every abortion clinic run by Planned Parenthood, every walk in clinic, every doctor’s office, every medical lab facility, every supplier of medical equipment and drug manufacturers. (And I’m really glad they are not doing that!)

Part of the reason why government is the problem is that by design government is a monopoly. The free market requires interaction and competition in order to work; monopolies rarely work for long because of this problem.

[thegreekdog]

I love tzor.

Seriously.

[PLAYER57832]

It is "the best argument" only if you ignore the extreme waste in companies like AIG, etc.

Idiocy abounds. However, I would far rather have a government agency, to whom I can complain, etc. than a private company that doesn't have any real obligation to answer to me at all. We know of this idiocy because it was a public effort. AND, note that this was not a direct government program, it was a contractor program and equating government contracts with government is idiocy. They take the worst of government AND the worst of private industry to screw us all, with only very, very few exceptions.

Monopoly, especially TBTF monopoly is also not a good thing. I should point out that AIG existed and failed in part because of regulation on the federal level that only went half way, leaving gaps that were begging to be exploited and those gaps were created by congress just so they could be exploited.

I love it. You admit that AIG was due to too little regulation, then you go on to insist that all government is bad.

[PLAYER57832]

But the notion that you have redress to the federal government where you do not have redress to a private company … please hold as I crank up the Google Machine … “Medicare complaints draw little response from officials”

That makes news.

The fact that Blue Cross routinely denies claims, gives people general undeserved grief just isn't even news any longer. They only reach the headlines when the abuses are far more serious.

And I suspect you did not even read the article, because this was just a complaint about one hotline number. In fact, the article even gave several other avenues. And it was not actualy about a costomer complaint, it was about a potential fraud by a medical company.

So, ironically enough ... "case in MY point."

[Snorri1234]

Just spotted a great article by Thomas Sowell on the GOPUSA site "Alice in Health Care - Part II" where he starts to unravel the fallacy that government run health systems (like that in Great Britian) are better than the current system in the United States.

One of the statistics they spin endlessly is that life expectancy in some countries with government-controlled medical care is higher than in the United States. What they don't tell you is that, in some of these countries, all the infants that die are not included in infant mortality statistics, as they are in the United States.

More important, both political and media supporters of government-controlled medical care consistently confuse medical care with health care.

Much, if not most, of health care depends on what individuals do in the way they live their own lives-- including eating habits, alcohol intake, exercise, narcotics and homicide. A study some years ago found that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. But nobody believes that Mormons' doctors are that much better than other doctors. When you don't do a lot of things that shorten your life, you live longer. That is not rocket science.

That's not a great article, that's a ridiculously stupid article.

The reason we don't take into account personal habits when looking at statistics is for some very good reason. A. It's incredibly difficult to do and B. It probably isn't significant anyway.


The fact that mormons live longer isn't going to be significant because there are so few of them compared to the HUGE amount of people that are simply average folks. We assume for sake of convenience that every country has these flukes in some degree or another. Averages are rarely impacted by small flukes.


It's also incredibly dishonest to act like 5-year survival rates for cancer prove the superiority of your system. Advanced medical science tells you nothing about how the health care is for average citizens. Not only that, but better medical science is expected government-controlled or not because the US is just so much bigger. For the same reason you have to go to a city-hospital instead of your local small town's hospital to get treatments for rarer diseases, the bigger country is expected to have better facilities for rarer diseases than the smaller one.

(Then again, this dude just acted like waitinglists affect the survival-rate for cancer, which is silly.)

[tzor]

And I suspect you did not even read the article, because this was just a complaint about one hotline number.

And I suspect that you did not read the article, because the article was not about the denial of a claim, the article was about hostility against someone reporting potential fraud.

[tzor]

That's not a great article, that's a ridiculously stupid article.

Written like the true rose colored, polarized, blinder attached glasses wearing progressive that you are. You know, if the tables were reversed, and you were the conservative and I was the progressive, this would be the point where I play the "race" card, you ignorant bigot.

But I don't think Thomas would approve.

Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930), is an American economist, social and political commentator, and author of dozens of books. He often writes as an advocate of laissez-faire economics. He is currently a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In 1990, he won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science. In 2003, he was awarded the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement.