[QUOTE=Voyager]
So, I think health costs will go down, and I don’t give a crap if taxes go up if we’re better off overall.
[/QUOTE]
You will not be better off, and you cannot convince me that what I pay now for health insurance will be less under any governement plan.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
… you cannot convince me that what I pay now for health insurance will be less under any governement plan.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not very sporting.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
And what about those who contribute NOTHING to society. Why do we owe them anything? WHY?
[/QUOTE]
You, a retired cop, really need to ask that?! When you were a police officer, everyone in your jurisdiction was under your protection at all times. The suspect who was shooting at you was under your protection, at least in the sense that it remained your duty to take him alive and unharmed if you could. The value of a person’s contribution to society made no difference one way or another. That’s how public services are supposed to work.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
You will not be better off, and you cannot convince me that what I pay now for health insurance will be less under any governement plan.
[/QUOTE]
I’m wondering what your thoughts are on energy deregulation.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
You will not be better off, and you cannot convince me that what I pay now for health insurance will be less under any governement plan.
[/QUOTE]
[shrug] Some will pay less for health care than they do now, and some will pay more, depending on means. That’s how public services are supposed to work.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Do you really think that millionaires, like Hillary, of all people on this Earth, gives a rats ass about you or your health care? Or is it more logical to believe that they use people like you (and by your own posts it appears that you have some illness, or “pre-existing” condition) to push huge government programs where THEY (and not you nor I) have power?
[/QUOTE]
I believe John Edwards really wants to help the poor, despite the fact that he lives in a huge house and can afford $400 haircuts. Where’s the hypocrisy? Do you have to be poor to care for the poor? We’ll be waiting a long time, if we have to wait for someone who is both poor and powerful.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will be the most powerful person in the world, regardless of whether America under her administration has universal health care or not. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that program is, in and of itself, a power play, except in the sense that it is an election tactic (but she pushed for the same thing when she was not running for any office).
[QUOTE=pkbites]
But this health care scam that the Libs are pushing is pure commie crap!!:mad:
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: The UK is not a Communist nor a socialist state. Neither is Canada. Neither are most modern industrialized states that have tax-funded universal health care. They are free and democratic capitalist societies in which the democratic process has produced what appears to the people to be a perfectly rational public-policy choice. What’s “Commie” about that?!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:rolleyes: The UK is not a Communist nor a socialist state. Neither is Canada. Neither are most modern industrialized states that have tax-funded universal health care. They are free and democratic capitalist societies in which the democratic process has produced what appears to the people to be a perfectly rational public-policy choice. What’s “Commie” about that?!
[/QUOTE]
pkbites (and others who equate communism with socialism) seems not to understand the distinction between a a governing system and an economic system.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
If my taxes go up and my insurance payments go down, I still win. In the Times this week, there were a few cites that the average overhead of a health insurance company is 20%, vs. 4% for Medicare. That won’t be helped by the Clinton plan, but if we move in that direction it might work. You probably have more choice in Medicare than a private insurance plan anyhow. So, I think health costs will go down, and I don’t give a crap if taxes go up if we’re better off overall.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I love this one. It gets trotted out all the time in these debates. Unfortunately, it’s not even close to being the whole story. It’s a misleading stat, just like Michael Moore going on and on in SICKO about how the life expectancy in Cuba and the US is now the same. Well it is-except the Cubans don’t use the same method to calculate life expectancy as we do, Cuba follows the Soviet model of not counting births under 1,000g as live births, so they don’t figure into either a) infant mortality statistics or b) lifespan. When you look at the U.S., something like 30-40 percent of infant mortality is attributable to these sorts of low birth weight preemies. Here is an article detailing some of the costs that are included in the 20% number that are excluded from the 4% figure.
Honesty,
Based upon the information that you have posted, you make under 10K/year, is that correct? If so, I would certainly say that you fall into that group of people for whom the government should be providing health care, and that is one of the areas that needs to be fixed. Have you looked into what’s available? The same census report that I referenced earlier states that 33% of that pool of 45 million uninsured are low income people who are eligible for existing benefits but they have not applied for them. There may be something out there already that can help.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
Can you give an example of this? I am not sure if I understand what you’re saying here.
[/QUOTE]
Average tenure in a job is less than 5 years:
http://www.citystaffdc.com/newsletter/summer_2004.pdf
If I pay for your gym membership, there is the risk/concern that by the time the health benefits are realized, you will jump ship on me. Again, this is why I personally think that hc has to be unbundled from employment.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
I just visited Mitt Romney’s website and I am unable to pull up his plan to address health care. He gives soundbytes about the plan he employed as Governor, but doesn’t indicate the feasibility in implementing that plan in the United States. It is inadequate (and frankly insulting to the political process) to bemoan the Hillary Clinton’s health care plan without presenting their own.
I am very eager to read any of the Republican plans to address health care in the United States. .
[/QUOTE]
The great thing about having Governors run is that you can actually see what they did while running something (unlike Senators, who never have to feel the pain of their actions). Romney enacted a healthcare plan in Massachusetts designed to cover close to everyone (some argue that Clinton’s plan closely resembles Mitt’s plan).
Google Romney Health Care Masachusetts if you want a laundry list of articles on it. Here is his own take on it:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008213
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Oh, I love this one. It gets trotted out all the time in these debates. Unfortunately, it’s not even close to being the whole story. It’s a misleading stat, just like Michael Moore going on and on in SICKO about how the life expectancy in Cuba and the US is now the same. Well it is-except the Cubans don’t use the same method to calculate life expectancy as we do, Cuba follows the Soviet model of not counting births under 1,000g as live births, so they don’t figure into either a) infant mortality statistics or b) lifespan. When you look at the U.S., something like 30-40 percent of infant mortality is attributable to these sorts of low birth weight preemies.
[/quote]
Did I mention Cuba somewhere? A fair comparison would be with other first world countries, in Europe. Rightly or wrongly Cuba has been affected by the US embargo, and health care results anywhere near ours would be pretty good. But we’re a lot more like France Germany and England than Cuba - until Bush grows a beard, starts smoking big cigars and calls Karl Che anyway.
I’d have preferred a study not funded by the health insurance companies myself. First of all, I don’t see how a 3x increase in dollars per patient causes a 10 x increase in overhead. Second, those covered by Medicare go to the doctor a lot more often than those covered by general insurance - thus I’d expect at least some tracking of overhead and dollars. Third, though it may be true that the Medicare administration isn’t covered, they probably in total cost about one or two insurance company CEOs. Fourth, it would have been nice to see some fraud numbers.
But one thing the cite has right - insurance companies do spend a lot on ensuring that people don’t get benefits.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Did I mention Cuba somewhere? A fair comparison would be with other first world countries, in Europe. Rightly or wrongly Cuba has been affected by the US embargo, and health care results anywhere near ours would be pretty good. But we’re a lot more like France Germany and England than Cuba - until Bush grows a beard, starts smoking big cigars and calls Karl Che anyway.
[/quote]
My comparison wasn’t with Cuba anyway, that was just an example of massaged statistics put forth to advance an agenda. The 4% figure tossed about so cavilerly is another example of that, it’s not the whole truth. It is meant to mislead.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’d have preferred a study not funded by the health insurance companies myself.
[/quote]
shrug The government funds studies all the time, and I’m willing to bet that you consider any such study above reproach. It’s not who funds the study that matters, it’s if they control the data. Unless you have some evidence that the Doctor who did the study was skewing his results, I don’t think where the funding comes from matters.
Seems pretty clear to me. What don’t you understand?
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
This is pure speculation on your part, obviously fueled by a personal dislike for businessmen on your part, and likely pure hokum anyway. You’re completely ignoring a whole raft of costs that aren’t included in that 4%.
All those costs, or their equivalents (which includes CEO salaries), are counted against the private sector to come up with 20% and omitted when calculating the 4%. Weather they are more or less is certainly open for discussion, but you can’t simply ignore them because you are trying to advance an agenda.
Agree completely
That’s not true-or at least it’s put in an offensive manner. An insurance policy is a legal contract. It is against the law for an insurance company to refuse to pay for covered services. If they do, you file a complaint with the proper regulatory agency (your state’s insurance commissioner) and it’s investigated. If the insurance company has failed to pay a legitimate claim, then they are made to pay it and may be penalized on top of that. What insurance companies DO spend a lot of time on is making sure that they are not being asked to pay for spurious or extraneous claims. That’s called quality control and it’s a good thing, it keeps costs down. That allows the company to profit (which is not a dirty word, no matter what the Marxists try to tell you) and also means that the consumer pays less for their insurance.
At its heart, this is a debate about the proper role of government. If people are hungry, do you take dollars from my pocket to feed them? If people are sick, do you take dollars form my pocket to help cure them?
Obviously, the strict libertarian says no. The ardent leftist says yes.
Somewhere in between those views are the vast majority of voters.
I find myself more in sympathy with the libertarian here. I think that our health care system is better in ways that are important. A Canadian with a broken leg or a case of the sniffles undoubtedly appreciates the relative ease and lack of expense they experience getting medical care.
But when the issue is more important: referral to a specialist, or for highly technical procedures like CT’s or MRI’s, the picture changes. According to Canada’s Frasier Institute the the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment was 17.7 weeks in 2003, and was on the rise from previous years.
I would prefer our system to Canada’s waiting list.
But what about those that can’t afford care under our system? Aren’t they entitled to decent health care too, regardless of their ability to pay?
No. Health care is not a human right, it’s not a legal right, and if you can’t pay for it, you’re not entitled to it.
I love how “the tyranny of the majority” is inveighed against when the issue, is, for example, same-sex marriage. “The majority opinion isn’t what matters! Those people are stupid bigots!”
Now, for an issue when it appears the majority may favor the plan, the peoples’ opinion is suddenly sacrosant.
Missed my edit window, but a disclaimer: the Frasier Institute’s web page says, “Competitive Market Solutions for Public Policy Problems,” so I infer they are not a neutral party. But that does not mean their wait times stats are lies, of course.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
At its heart, this is a debate about the proper role of government. If people are hungry, do you take dollars from my pocket to feed them? If people are sick, do you take dollars form my pocket to help cure them?
… clipped a well stated argument …
I love how “the tyranny of the majority” is inveighed against when the issue, is, for example, same-sex marriage. “The majority opinion isn’t what matters! Those people are stupid bigots!”
Now, for an issue when it appears the majority may favor the plan, the peoples’ opinion is suddenly sacrosant.
[/QUOTE]
I do agree “the tyranny of the majority” is a legit concern here. Voting for universal health care appears to be a case of “Bread and Circuses”.
I have always had good medical care; I tend to vote Republican when the name is not George W. Bush & Dick Cheney. Despite this, I always look at our current insurance system as hurting American business’ ability to compete. For mid-size companies, insurance is a huge burden and often one that cannot be planned well. For small business, it makes it much tougher to get and retain good employees as they currently have a hard time getting competitive rates of insurance with large and medium companies and when deciding on employment many if not most good and skilled workers factor insurance in heavily in evaluating job offers. Our current system provides less care then most developed nations and yet eats up a larger share of our GNP if I am not mistaken.
If the Government took it over and ran it as poorly as Medicaid is rumored to run it would still remove a huge burden off companies. It would increase preventative care, which in theory would reduce the burden of Hospitals and especially their ERs. Hospital struggle to not turn away the uninsured. The poor and destitute are forced to use ERs for basic care, as they cannot afford a family doctor and the high cost of drugs.
A hard working middle class citizen without good medical coverage from their job is one major medical incident away from being destitute. This is especially true of the working poor and lower middle class.
Anyway, increased medical care is not only a “nice” thing to do, it is a step towards and environment that would favor most American businesses except the Insurance companies.
Oops, one more thing, is there anything at all in HRC’s plan that would limit our access to advanced medical care at this point, or is your protest more along the lines of the slippery slope? I realize that if she succeeds in her plan, that eventually we will move closer to socialize health care, so it is a legit question and not a challenge.
Jim
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I would prefer our system to Canada’s waiting list.
[/quote]
Yeah, it’s a good thing such a phenomenon is unheard of in our system.
Definitely. I’m the type of person who thinks the American people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard, as Mencken would say. But judging by the demographics and opinion polls, this issue of homosexuality will be moot soon. But another example of such an issue you could use is creationism. An overwhelming number of the American people want it taught in schools alongside evolution, something like 60-70% depending on how you word the question. That’s pretty horrifying to me, but there it is. The only reason it hasn’t happened, as far as I can tell, involves some lucky court trials.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nevertheless, those are necessary functions of any modern national government worthy of the name.
[/QUOTE]
I would agree with this statement if you removed “national” from it. I’d prefer government functions be performed at the lowest practical level.
Education, for example, should be controlled at the local level. The community should have complete say over how their children are educated. Only when the local government fails in its duties (poor standards, discrimination, or inadequate resources) should higher levels of government be involved.
I see no reason why welfare and health care shouldn’t be done at the community level as well. Let each city/county/whatever set up its own welfare and health care systems. The state can insure adequate funding and standards. No need for the feds to get involved.
Any reason you think these things need to be nationalized? In terms of government size, U.S. states are not that different from European nations. The E.U. handles health care at the national level rather than the union level, correct?
(I apologize if you’ve answered this earlier; my eyes glazed over a lot of this thread.)
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
I see no reason why welfare and health care shouldn’t be done at the community level as well. Let each city/county/whatever set up its own welfare and health care systems. The state can insure adequate funding and standards. No need for the feds to get involved.
[/QUOTE]
Canada’s single-payer health care system is administered and funded by the provincial governments (and was, in fact, originally enacted in one province at a time), but under national legislation that sets minimal standards, so public health coverage is more or less uniform from one province to another. That could work here, I think.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
I would agree with this statement if you removed “national” from it. I’d prefer government functions be performed at the lowest practical level.
Education, for example, should be controlled at the local level. The community should have complete say over how their children are educated. Only when the local government fails in its duties (poor standards, discrimination, or inadequate resources) should higher levels of government be involved.
I see no reason why welfare and health care shouldn’t be done at the community level as well. Let each city/county/whatever set up its own welfare and health care systems. The state can insure adequate funding and standards. No need for the feds to get involved.
Any reason you think these things need to be nationalized? In terms of government size, U.S. states are not that different from European nations. The E.U. handles health care at the national level rather than the union level, correct?
(I apologize if you’ve answered this earlier; my eyes glazed over a lot of this thread.)
[/QUOTE]
Dealing with pharmaceuticals companies works better the larger the plan is. Additionally how can a poor town in a poor state support adequate health care for its residents?
It seems this is an area that is better suited to a National Program than a Regional. France, Germany and the UK have populations far in excess of any of our states, even California and NY. California is #1 at 33,871,648, Texas is #2 at 23,507,783.
UK has 61,100,835
France has 59,765,983
Germany has 83,251,851
Italia has 58,751,711
etc.
The US states are not quite on par with the European Nations. Of course Wyoming only has 515,004 people and a really low population density.
Jim
I don’t have a problem with funding coming from higher levels, as long as the control is at the lower level. The organization of Canada’s health care would probably be acceptable to me. I was mainly wondering how important BG’s use of “national” was to his point.
Yes, the biggest European nations are larger than the biggest U.S. state, but there are smaller one as well. I didn’t intend a direct comparison of population, anyway, but rather a more fuzzy “complexity” level. Thinking in terms of population, area, economy, degree of sovereignty, etc. If the Netherlands and Luxembourg can handle their own health care, than so can Ohio and Delaware.
Smaller states might need state-wide systems, but larger ones would do better with regional or county-level plans. I’d be surprised if even the poorest states could not handle their own health care plans.