# So, what do people think about the health care address? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519 "2009-09-10T04:33:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/121 "2009-09-11T03:22:45Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Funny, they seem to be data when the subject is in favor of his country’s national health care system. As we are not only mentioning Canada, here is the data mentioned by the writer of the quote: [http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx](http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx) > [@](#): > > In a 2005 survey of sicker patients conducted in six developed countries, the United States ranked last on four measures of continuity of care and access problems reported by patients. The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery. As mentioned before Canada needs to improve their waiting times so they will be as good as other developed nations, but the second worse is the US, We should take a close look at Germany IMHO. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > They were common enough that a provincial Supreme Court in Canada ruled that exceptions can be made in the case of ridiculously long waits and that in those cases private care for conditions covered by the Canadian system (care previously outlawed) must be allowed. And I’m on record already on Mentioning that I thought that Canada was nuts for not allowing people to pay private providers if they wanted to, now that Canada is, it is a \*\*better \*\*system. And the ruling did not eliminate single payer, that still remains in Canada. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Bullshit. I don’t have to show that they want to change their system to ours or anyone else’s. All I have to show is that their system sucks and that we stand a very good chance of having the same suckage inflicted on us once we put our government in charge of our health care. And you have been a complete failure as the pit thread showed. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Demonstrated here, you claimed, misleadingly, that I continued to “keep bringing up this idiotic argument” when that cite was never produced in the pit, what it is clear is that our system is the one that sucks… [http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/07/19/price-gouging-by-doctors-and-hospitals/](http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/07/19/price-gouging-by-doctors-and-hospitals/) > **[Error #nase](https://www.nase.org/error)** …Money, jobs, freedoms, etc.. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/122 "2009-09-11T03:26:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Archer Daniels Midland loves the food stamp program So does Cargill, and General Mills. Their compassionate concern for the nutrional needs of the poor continues. This is not only silly, it has nothing to do with anything. Who cares whether they’re concerned with the needs of the poor. If they provide food and food stamps will pay for it, everyone benefits, yes, no? > [@elucidator](#): > > But anyway, the **Starving Artist Plan**. The government will pay the health care costs for the uninsured. When needed, right, none of this staying healthy stuff? Just when they are absitively posolutely gonna die sick? Rather shortsighted, don’t you think? I would if that had been my proposal. But since it wasn’t, I don’t. I’m thinking that financial need standards could be set up similar to the way people qualify for food stamps, and then, as long as they fall within those guidelines, they can get health care as needed with the bills sent to the government for payment. Let’s say you live in a double-wide in Minnesota or something and you have too much fun one night and pass out outside a bar and get frostbite. Provided that you have qualified for the program, you could go to a doctor and get it treated, with the bill being paid by the government. See how quick and easy that is? You don’t have to be dying or anything, you just need the services of a doctor. Now admittedly I’m not saying that this program should be paying for yearly physicals and such, but it would provide necessary care to those who can’t afford insurance without burdening the rest of us with a substandard government health care system we don’t want. > [@elucidator](#): > > And whats gonna keep people writing checks to the insurance industry for seven, eight, nine hundred a month? Surely not another government agency, poking its nose into people’s affairs? Nope. In the first place, they likely wouldn’t qualify as needy enough. And secondly, in return for the money they pay for their insurance they get the excellent and timely care they are getting now. After all, people who aren’t on food stamps aren’t flooding the food stamp offices trying to get free groceries are they? No, they aren’t. And why? Because their incomes allow for a much better and enjoyable diet than they would have if they relied only on food stamps. > [@elucidator](#): > > You sure you’ve thought this through, General Custer? Nope, just came up with it off the top of my head. May not be workable at all. Still, it’s an example of the type of thinking we ought to be engaging in, rather than blindly stating that the current system is hopeless and that the government option is the only correct one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/123 "2009-09-11T03:33:41Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Nope, just came up with it off the top of my head. May not be workable at all. Still, it’s an example of the type of thinking we ought to be engaging in, rather than blindly stating that the current system is hopeless and that the government option is the only correct one. It is hopeless because by not doing anything it will mean that we will pay for less and more expensive service in the future. [http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/10/29/health-care-expenditures-in-2040/](http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/10/29/health-care-expenditures-in-2040/) > [@](#): > > According to Health Affairs, the U.S. spent 16.0% of GDP on health expenditures in 2006. What will we be spending on health care in 2040? > > Robert Fogel takes a stab at answering this question. He claims that by 2040, the U.S. will spend 29% of GDP on health care in 2040. > [@](#): > > U.S. GDP in 2007 was $13.84 trillion. If we assume a 2.5% annual growth rate, 29% of GDP in 2040 means that the U.S. will spend $9.07 trillion on health care. > > In the future, the health care system may need a bail-out as well. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/124 "2009-09-11T03:35:33Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The only problem with that type of government is that it has failed every time it has been tried, and it requires totalitarianship and more murders than we have people dying in the streets from lack of health care by many orders of magnitude. Wow, you’re so right! Maybe that’s why the streets of the UK, Canada, and France are soaked with blood. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/125 "2009-09-11T03:40:29Z")
The U.K., Canada and France are countries in which the government controls everything? Because, I mean, you know that’s what that comment you quoted was referring to. If on the other hand you’ve taken it out of context in order to try to contest a point I never made in the first place…well, that’s what a person might charitably call disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/126 "2009-09-11T03:41:06Z")
> [@](#): > > …that’s why the streets of the UK, Canada, and France are soaked with blood Oh, there’s no problem with the street-cleaning, the street-cleaning in socialist countries is _awesome_! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/127 "2009-09-11T03:52:59Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > …Nope, just came up with it off the top of my head. May not be workable at all. Still, it’s an example of the type of thinking we ought to be engaging in, rather than blindly stating that the current system is hopeless and that the government option is the only correct one. _“You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”_ - Sundance Kid ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/128 "2009-09-11T04:07:13Z")
Yeah, you’re right…Hey! I just thought of a way to at least save your ass, Sundance! Tell ya what, I’m gonna slip out back of this little shed they’ve got us trapped in and get ‘em chasin’ me, and then you can run out the front and escape. Just give me three seconds, and then you run out the front as fast as you can. But be sure to keep your gun high and cocked in case any of 'em are still out front. Got it? Okay, here I go… ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/129 "2009-09-11T04:10:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I didn’t say things used to be cheap and are now expensive. I said new technology and equipment are expensive. But you said health care costs are rising because of new technology and equipment. If they were expensive before and are still expensive, how would that lead to a rise in costs? Look, I’m just asking you to show your work when you declared that health care costs are rising because new technology is so expensive. Find something that prices out a CAT scan (both initial purchase and operating costs over the lifetime of the instrument), then compare that price to all the wetlab work that was done in the pre-CAT scan days to measure all the things that a CAT scan does today. Or say you made it up and can’t support it. Either way. > [@](#): > > The companies you mention may have a lock on which insurance companies a person can use, but that would avail them little if they charged so much that most of their current customers had to drop them. Sure, to an extent. I mean, if a monopoly insurance company charges $10,000 a month for a premium, they’ll shed a lot of customers. But without competition, there’s no reason they can’t find the price point that maximizes profits, at the expense of consumers. Throw in competition (such as a government-run public option) and they can’t do that anymore. Instead, they have to find the price point that just undercuts their competitors, to the benefit of the consumer. > [@](#): > > And besides, since when has monopoly been justification for government takeover? Normally monopolies are broken up and forced to accomodate competition. I’ll take a crack at this if you can answer a question for me – if the government tomorrow said, “Blue Cross Blue Shield, you’re too big; break up,” what would your reaction be? My guess, based on what I know about you, is, “Man will government please just BUTT OUT!” That is to say, I don’t think there’s an answer on this point that will satisfy you, but feel free to correct me. > [@](#): > > Insurance companies don’t try to keep their rates down out of benevolence, they do it because of competition and other financial pressures. And despite your portrayal of “government” as some moustache-twirling villain, politicians are held accountable, too. If Obama gets his way but his plan ends up sucking, then the Democrats will suffer a huge defeat and the Republicans will benefit. Circle of life. > [@](#): > > And again, the vast majority of those people aren’t in desperate need of medical care, they just don’t have coverage. And I’m not willing to sacrifice the excellent coverage that 70 to 80% of our citizens have already to a substandard system whose only strong point is that is offers insurance to a huge group of people who aren’t currently in need of it. I honestly can’t wrap my head around your logic, and I’ve read this paragraph a half dozen times. Are you saying that ~50 million (or 60-90 million) people don’t have health insurance by choice? I just don’t understand what you mean when you say “…people who aren’t currently in need of it.” This might sound like a tautology, but no one needs health insurance until they… need it. I’m healthy right now, this very minute. Do I need health insurance? If I break my arm tomorrow, then the answer is yes; if not, then no. I don’t understand how you plan for something like whether you “need” insurance. (Unless you’re a bull rider or a NASCAR driver or something, then you are pretty much guaranteed to need it.) > [@](#): > > …I’m suggesting the government pay for their [poor people – q78] care outright just like they do with food stamps when people are in such dire straights that they afford to buy food… This is something I just came up with off the top of my head though and it may not be workable, but it shows that alternatives exist that should be explored rather than just turning everything over to the government to administer and pay for. You’re not the idiot savant you seem to think you are. You’re describing what’s known as a single-payer system, and we already have it in this country in the form of Medicare. Feel free to peruse any of [these](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=%22ronald+reagan%22+medicare+1961&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=1db3655b1bbc91d8)sites for information about one prominent conservative’s feelings about your plan. > [@](#): > > When Iraqi war spending continues to balloon over the next eighty years or so like Social Security has, then get back to me. Don’t say it couldn’t happen. I wasn’t alive then, but I imagine there wasn’t a whole lot of forthrightness back in the 1950s about how we’d have troops in Korea for over 50 years (and counting). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/130 "2009-09-11T04:28:14Z")
That was different! The Korean people loved us! Syngman Rhee told us they loved us. Syngman Rhee made damned _sure_ the Korean people loved us! ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/131 "2009-09-11T07:21:31Z")
Well we’ll see what actually happens in congress. But humoring the idea that the final bill resembles what Obama proposed, I mostly like it. I’d rather have UHC like other countries, but his plan seems like a reasonable proposal. I don’t see how anyone except Insurance lobbyists could argue against the purely reformatory parts (what current insurers aren’t allowed to do anymore to screw over people). The only thing I have a strong opposition to is the idea that insurance be mandatory for everyone. How the hell is that going to be enforced? I don’t see any way for that to work unless it’s a paycheck tax like social security. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519/132 "2009-09-11T18:04:13Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > As a conservative, I had a reasonably good response to the speech. This guy is up there with Reagan as a “great communicator”. As usual, the devil is in the details… > > Yet a lot of promises were made, and little evidence was given to back them up. Eliminate fraud and waste? Why haven’t they done that already? Reducing costs? Since when has that been accomplished by the federal government? > > At least the guy can speak in complete sentences… 😉 Its not necessarily waste but there are inefficiencies in the current system andd we can squeeze out a LOT of savings. Medicare has significantly lower overhead than most insurance companies (insurance companies use about 20% of premiums for overhead, medicare uses about 3%). Medicare Advantage (you get your insurance through a private insurance company and medicare pays the premiums, AKA medicare part C) costs about 12% more than what medicare pays for the people it insures directly. Medicare Part D prohibits Medicare from negotiating for drug prices and consequently pays significantly more for the same drugs than the VA. Medicare pays significantly more for medical devices than the VA (they pay about 3 times as much for bottled oxygen). There are unproven savings in reduced emergency room care from better preventative care. The list goes on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-do-people-think-about-the-health-care-address/509519.md?page=6)