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.
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.
And you have been a complete failure as the pit thread showed.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 thesesites for information about one prominent conservative’s feelings about your plan.
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).
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.
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.