Health Care Reform

[PFDarkside]

Originally Posted by misterwhizzy

I pay tens of thousands of dollars in federal taxes every year, and I have no idea what I get for it. I know the interstates are in decent shape, and I know our military is second to none, but is the rest of it really worth the price? I'm really just a big free market guy, and once the government takes over a segment, the competition goes away, and so does the incentive to be better than others who are competing for our business.

2009 Federal Budget. I'm posting from my phone and it resizes images, sorry if this is huge.

[beandip]

They really should've numbered that graph, instead of colors.

[PFDarkside]

It's from Wikipedia, you can see more detail at both the 2009 and proposed 2010 budget pages.

[Lazarus1140]

I am determined to read the proposed legislation. Last night I got through twenty six pages ........ mostly a table of contents and definitions of terms.

I didn't get too far into the actual bill before I saw a $5 billion (maximum yearly) budget just for administrative costs and for providing health care coverage for a very specific group of high risk applicants. The wording is very clear that this provision will not be funded by premiums.

Again, the need for health care reform can not be denied. My concern is whether the need can be addressed with the planned explosive growth in bureaucracy. Government managed health care may operate successfully in other countries, but what I'm seeing here is frightening.

[misterwhizzy]

Originally Posted by Lazarus1140

I am determined to read the proposed legislation. Last night I got through twenty six pages ........ mostly a table of contents and definitions of terms.

I didn't get too far into the actual bill before I saw a $5 billion (maximum yearly) budget just for administrative costs and for providing health care coverage for a very specific group of high risk applicants. The wording is very clear that this provision will not be funded by premiums.

Again, the need for health care reform can not be denied. My concern is whether the need can be addressed with the planned explosive growth in bureaucracy. Government managed health care may operate successfully in other countries, but what I'm seeing here is frightening.

+1.

(Who didn't see this coming from me?)

[Zerberus]

Originally Posted by beandip

They really should've numbered that graph, instead of colors.

Standard bureaucratic issue pie graph, it starts at 12:00 with Social Security and continues around clockwise

[tone?]

First of all thanks to Zerb for posting clarifications I totally agree.

I blame insurance for rising costs. And I am all for health care reform in the U.S. If I came off as being against it, I apologize. That's not my position at all. I just look at the track record of government-run systems in America, and my heart sinks. I don't think they can do it without miles of red tape, reams of paperwork, hours and hours and hours of waiting, etc. I've been to the social security office. I've been to the DPS (DMV for you Yankees). I've wasted more hours of my life there than I ever wanted to. I just don't want to waste those hours of my life when my life is on the line.

But you would rather waste your entire life savings worth???

Listen, no one is saying that these countries which have socialized healthcare do not have long waiting lists.
No system is without flaws.
But they are not that bad for what you receive.
Have you ever lived outside of the US??
I dont want to insult you bro and I am really glad that the conversation so far is so civil. I am just asking a legit question and the reason being that if you did you would see the pluses and minuses and see which is more favorable.

People in those countries DO NOT worry about having their homes taken away from them if they get sick. People get sick. It is a fact of life. Insurance works through trying to make money from those odds. It has to be the most immoral way of looking at things. Healthcare is NOT a business and should not be looked as one.

See, apart from making money in life you also must philosophize about what life is about and what drives human beings and makes us happy. This is where capitalism runs short. Capitalism is fine as long as there is regulation on corporations on how they make a buck. So where does that come from?? The either? It must come from government or some entity that represents the people. The only form of that is the government which the people vote on. That is our power.
Do you have any idea what would happen if there was absolutely NO government??
Which brings us to the idea of what a governments function is and should be.

So what is it??

Arent our public schools socialistic in essence??? And why is this??
In the end why shouldnt the military then be under corporate control??
If we want total capitalism?

Societies health is NOT some thing that should be bargained for.

think about it

[dominus]

Originally Posted by pzaxtl

Totally useless without tort reform. Don't believe me? Ask the state of Nevada where there is a dearth of OB/GYN's. Didn't use to be a problem for Nevada, but malpractice rates jumped through the roof in the mid 90's and a large percentage of OB/GYN's left the state because they couldn't handle the malpractice insurance premiums. Now, Nevada has a serious shortage of baby doctors.

Nope, I don't believe you. Let me repeat myself from another discussion:

Republicans want to add Tort Reform to the healthcare bill.. so if the doctor screws up, you're limited to 500k damages/250k pain and suffering. Not only is that not enough if you're crippled for life, but the actual savings are MINISCULE.

According to a study, Tort Reform would save $54 Billion over 10 years. Healthcare is 2.5 TRILLION per year. Saving 5.4 billion a year is nothing. That's like going to a store, and buying a TV for $250. The Republican salesperson says "We'll knock 54 cents off if you take it with NO warranty." Are you insane?

[Lazarus1140]

Originally Posted by dominus

That's like going to a store, and buying a TV for $250. The Republican salesperson says "We'll knock 54 cents off if you take it with NO warranty." Are you insane?

We might be well advised to back the heat down a notch or two in these discussions.

Another sales approach might be to give the TV away and then mail a $500 invoice for a mandatory warranty.

[misterwhizzy]

Originally Posted by tone?

But you would rather waste your entire life savings worth???

Why are you arguing with me about something I keep agreeing with you about? Costs are the problem. Go look through my posts in this thread.

Listen, no one is saying that these countries which have socialized healthcare do not have long waiting lists.
No system is without flaws.
But they are not that bad for what you receive.
Have you ever lived outside of the US??
I dont want to insult you bro and I am really glad that the conversation so far is so civil. I am just asking a legit question and the reason being that if you did you would see the pluses and minuses and see which is more favorable.

I live in Houston, and we have one of the most respected medical centers in the world. Typically, we have patients from 90 countries being treated there on a daily basis. Why? Because we do it better than the countries they came from. Maybe it's specialized. Maybe it's the fact that they can buy their way to the top of the line. I don't know why, but the fact remains that they're getting better treatment there than they would anywhere else.

People in those countries DO NOT worry about having their homes taken away from them if they get sick. People get sick. It is a fact of life. Insurance works through trying to make money from those odds. It has to be the most immoral way of looking at things. Healthcare is NOT a business and should not be looked as one.

You're blending two different concepts for the sake of your own argument here. Health insurance is not health care. Health is not health care. I think if you asked a doctor why he got into health care in the first place, he or she would say, "To help people get better." I don't think the response would be "to make a $@*load of money." There are plenty of lawyers left for that. However, if you pose that question to an insurance employee, if you get the same response, you're listening to a liar.

See, apart from making money in life you also must philosophize about what life is about and what drives human beings and makes us happy. This is where capitalism runs short. Capitalism is fine as long as there is regulation on corporations on how they make a buck. So where does that come from?? The either? It must come from government or some entity that represents the people. The only form of that is the government which the people vote on. That is our power.
Do you have any idea what would happen if there was absolutely NO government??
Which brings us to the idea of what a governments function is and should be.

So what is it??

But the government is NOT doing what its people want. Take General Motors as an example. Its stock price dropped to below a dollar. It was facing bankruptcy. Clearly, NO ONE WANTED IT. No one thought it would work its way out of the hole it dug itself into. So what do we do? We force EVERY SINGLE TAXPAYER to shoulder the burden. You're telling me that's what Americans voted for? We have plenty of proof saying you're wrong. We're not being represented properly.

Arent our public schools socialistic in essence??? And why is this??
In the end why shouldnt the military then be under corporate control??
If we want total capitalism?

Societies health is NOT some thing that should be bargained for.

think about it

I think we're missing the balancing point here. I saw Gangs of New York. I understand the Social Contract. We give up certain freedoms in exchange for some amount of order. The public schools aren't working all that well. Look at American math and science scores as compared to Europe and Asia. They stink.

In fact, I'm glad you bring this up, because it's a perfect example. Private schools in America do FAR better per dollar per student than public schools do. And if they were to go the way of the Dodo, I think our educational system would get worse, not better.

The fact that we're doing education the same way as Europe and doing worse at it should tell you that the American government is not capable of running a system as well. That's one of many reasons I don't buy the argument that, "Other countries do it, and it works fine!"

[firebirdV]

Originally Posted by misterwhizzy

But the government is NOT doing what its people want. Take General Motors as an example. Its stock price dropped to below a dollar. It was facing bankruptcy. Clearly, NO ONE WANTED IT. No one thought it would work its way out of the hole it dug itself into. So what do we do? We force EVERY SINGLE TAXPAYER to shoulder the burden. You're telling me that's what Americans voted for? We have plenty of proof saying you're wrong. We're not being represented properly.

Do you actually think that the politicians wanted to bail out GM? They did it to keep our economy from tanking, it's practically political suicide to say hey lets bail out a huge corporation that failed, but they weren't willing to risk not bailing it out.
Saying that we should have let them tank because it's their fault is kind of like saying 'well joe stabbed me in the leg, and I'm not going to stop the bleeding because he's the one who's at fault'.

Originally Posted by misterwhizzy

The fact that we're doing education the same way as Europe and doing worse at it should tell you that the American government is not capable of running a system as well. That's one of many reasons I don't buy the argument that, "Other countries do it, and it works fine!"

We aren't doing education the same way Europeans or Asians are, otherwise I suspect we would have better test scores and more opportunities for students who don't plan on going to college.

[Arkitkt]

Originally Posted by misterwhizzy

Why are you arguing with me about something I keep agreeing with you about? Costs are the problem. Go look through my posts in this thread.

Like this one??

Originally Posted by misterwhizzy

...The reason we shouldn't do what everyone else is doing is because our beat up, crappy old system works better.

You're contradicting yourself here.

...I think if you asked a doctor why he got into health care in the first place, he or she would say, "To help people get better." I don't think the response would be "to make a $@*load of money." There are plenty of lawyers left for that. However, if you pose that question to an insurance employee, if you get the same response, you're listening to a liar.

Of course the Dr. wouldn't admit that he's in it for the money, and of course there are lots of wonderful, dedicated physicians out there. But there are just as many hacks out there who are clearly in it for the $$. I met both types.

I pretty much disagree with everything you said in the rest of your post, but debating these points clearly violates the rules (that we're tip-toeing around here anyway), so I won't get into that.

[misterwhizzy]

Originally Posted by firebirdV

Do you actually think that the politicians wanted to bail out GM? They did it to keep our economy from tanking, it's practically political suicide to say hey lets bail out a huge corporation that failed, but they weren't willing to risk not bailing it out.
Saying that we should have let them tank because it's their fault is kind of like saying 'well joe stabbed me in the leg, and I'm not going to stop the bleeding because he's the one who's at fault'.

Well, Joe didn't stab GM in the leg. GM stabbed GM in the leg.

Or maybe it was the majority of Americans. After all, we didn't buy the cars they were selling, right? Or maybe it was the fact that they were totally uncompetitive in the biggest segment of the market. They've got nothing for middle America that has the reputation of an Accord, a Camry, or an Altima. They didn't produce a competitive product. But maybe you're right, maybe that's my fault.

And your solution to a big problem is to prop up an even bigger one. My dad owns a company with fewer than a dozen employees. If he went out of business, no one would care. If someone came along and did what he does better, no one would even know, except the couple dozen people competing. If there are companies so big that the entire economy depends on them, that's a serious problem. Keeping that in place is just a band-aid until GM screws up again.

[ratherdashing]

In a government insurance system, the taxpayers pay for health care.

In a private insurance system, the insurance companies pay for health care. Employers and private citizens pay insurance companies. If employers have to pay high premiums for staff benefit plans, their ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace is hampered. This leads to outsourcing, layoffs, and pay cuts, which all impact private citizens in a negative way. It also leads to employers canceling health benefits, which means more private citizens pay for insurance themselves. So, in other words, taxpayers are paying for health care (via several levels of indirection).

Good health care costs a lot of money regardless of who the insurer is, and at the end of the day it's the private citizen who's writing the check no matter what system you end up with.

Both systems have their flaws, but only one system guarantees access to care for all. Only one system guarantees you will never have to sell your house or declare bankruptcy if you get sick. Only one system has no profit motive driving insurance premiums up and denying care to avoid paying claims.

It's really a simple choice: either everyone pays the cost of health care and everyone gets it, or everyone pays the cost of health care and a few people get it.

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Originally Posted by ratherdashing

In a government insurance system, the taxpayers pay for health care.

In a private insurance system, the insurance companies pay for health care. Employers and private citizens pay insurance companies. If employers have to pay high premiums for staff benefit plans, their ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace is hampered. This leads to outsourcing, layoffs, and pay cuts, which all impact private citizens in a negative way. It also leads to employers canceling health benefits, which means more private citizens pay for insurance themselves. So, in other words, taxpayers are paying for health care (via several levels of indirection).

Good health care costs a lot of money regardless of who the insurer is, and at the end of the day it's the private citizen who's writing the check no matter what system you end up with.

Both systems have their flaws, but only one system guarantees access to care for all. Only one system guarantees you will never have to sell your house or declare bankruptcy if you get sick. Only one system has no profit motive driving insurance premiums up and denying care to avoid paying claims.

It's really a simple choice: either everyone pays the cost of health care and everyone gets it, or everyone pays the cost of health care and a few people get it.

thread/

[misterwhizzy]

Originally Posted by ratherdashing

In a government insurance system, the taxpayers pay for health care.

In a private insurance system, the insurance companies pay for health care. Employers and private citizens pay insurance companies. If employers have to pay high premiums for staff benefit plans, their ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace is hampered. This leads to outsourcing, layoffs, and pay cuts, which all impact private citizens in a negative way. It also leads to employers canceling health benefits, which means more private citizens pay for insurance themselves. So, in other words, taxpayers are paying for health care (via several levels of indirection).

Good health care costs a lot of money regardless of who the insurer is, and at the end of the day it's the private citizen who's writing the check no matter what system you end up with.

Both systems have their flaws, but only one system guarantees access to care for all. Only one system guarantees you will never have to sell your house or declare bankruptcy if you get sick. Only one system has no profit motive driving insurance premiums up and denying care to avoid paying claims.

It's really a simple choice: either everyone pays the cost of health care and everyone gets it, or everyone pays the cost of health care and a few people get it.

There are a couple of omissions here, although I think the post is probably the best thought-out of the thread, my own included.

First of all, we have an inefficiency in insurance, where the motive has become profit over spreading risk. The idea was to pay the big chunks of money when people needed in exchange for small chunks of money continuously over time. Clearly, that's not what's happening anymore.

Secondly, Medicare, or the American version of socialized medicine for retirees, is bleeding red ink. In other words, we can't do socialized medicine, because we can't figure out a way to make it fiscally sound. I don't know why. It's just the way it is. Maybe it's because the elderly require more care.

Now the question becomes this. Does the solution solve the problems?

Does it cut costs? I would argue it would not, because nothing has been done to solve the underlying problems. Add to that government inefficiencies and the removal of what little competition remains, and you've got a whole lot more dollars going into the same problem.

Does it cover everyone? Irrelevant, since this is exactly the stated purpose of Medicaid? If people aren't getting coverage, then Medicaid isn't working.

Finally, the idea of health benefits being tied to your job is a little bit silly. Why is there a waiting period between being hired and benefits kicking in? Why don't you get a choice to keep your plan when you change jobs? Why is your employer making decisions for you about your health care? These could be separate and cheaper if companies actually had to compete for an individual's business, rather than your employer's.

Here's my real problem with socialized medicine. The American government has shown an inability to operate any social program efficiently. I don't care about Europe or Canada. We've tried over and over again, and we've failed. Social Security and Medicare are shining examples (thank you very much PFDarkside). Call me cynical, but history tends to repeat itself.

[misterwhizzy]

By the way, RD's last post is the thing constructive debate is made of. It addressed with specific cause and effect why he believes socialized medicine is a better system. I prefer power in the hands of the people, but it appears as though we don't have that anyway.

In what form does that power come back to us? In order from right to left... Do we go back to paying doctors and hospitals directly? Do we have a government competing with the private health care system? Do we all share the burden of healthcare regardless of how healthy each of us is? And what is the fallout from each choice?

P.S. I'm anxiously awaiting the next installment of the next Text Adventure Game.

[glassman]

Off topic thought that just fell out of my head...

I wonder what the US would be like if our elected official's incomes were capped at the average income of thier constituencies?

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Originally Posted by glassman

Off topic thought that just fell out of my head...

I wonder what the US would be like if our elected official's incomes were capped at the average income of thier constituencies?

Nobody would want the job.

[glassman]

Originally Posted by innerdreamrecords.co

Nobody would want the job.

Really? Under the Articles of Confederation, it was a volunteer position and it attracted people that had a passion for this country. I'd bet that people like that still exist. I would think that most would serve only a single term though.

Think of the problems that would solve...wow!