Ballsy column on health care reform by retirement planner in today's paper

[Ausm]

For every dipshit Republican that thinks I'm a left winger there's a dipshit Democrat like you who thinks I'm a right winger. It's amusing.

And the same goes for you. If you're insulted by my comment, you need to think about why you're insulted. Stop being so easily led into believing everything you hear from your party masters. Clearly you're gullible and weak willed, having been a smoker, but if try really hard maybe you can become a real person with independent thoughts.

If you think I give a flying fuck about your opinion you are severely mistaken. Oh BTW HAPPY New Year

 

[Specop 007]

I have three too. So why arnt we living in section 8 and getting free medicaid, free food? It all already exists.

I think there is some serious holes in your theory.

Maybe because we are motivated and driven to succeed to our highest levels? Why should we pay peoples rent and food not to be motivated? Why should your hard work go to some family who sits around in Sec. 8 watching TV?

 

[ProfJohn]

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_top_10_best_country_in_terms_of_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


Consider yourself educated.

I look forward for your fumbling response, NonProfJohn.

I'll respond by link number.

1. Your first link does not provide the criteria used to rate countries so it is sort of useless. BTW lower on the page it lists us as having one of the top 10 standards of living in world.

2. The WHO report is filled with some financial BS that is not actually related to the quality of healthcare you receive. And did you actually look at the list?? Saudi Arabia has a better healthcare system than the US? Dominica, Columbia and Costa Rica as well?

3. Another link that does not provide the criteria used to create its ranking. And answers.com is not exactly the definitive source on anything.

4. Life expectancy: This is probably the most over used statistic by people who favor UHC. They argue that since Americans die younger than countries with UHC that our healthcare system must have something wrong with it. However, actual studies of our healthcare system verse other healthcare system have come to the conclusion that our life expectancy issues are NOT related to our healthcare system.
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers
An University of Pennsylvania study that declares "We conclude that the low longevity
ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system."

You also have to factor in our HUGE homicide rate into our low life expectancy.
Compare the life expectancy list with the homicide list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) and notice that many of the countries with the highest life expectancy have extremely low homicide rates.

5. Infant mortality rate is another stat with problems.
From Wki: "The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality"
Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality and read up on the huge list of problems associated with infant mortality and how it is reported.

And in case you forgot here is your original claim which was about quality of life and not quality of healthcare.

You'll sing a different tune if/when you lose your job.

Explain to me why, literally, dozens of countries can insure all their citizens for less money than what we currently do. On top of that, they enjoy considerably higher quality of life in almost every measurable index. Our system is fundamentally broken, it's just that the vast majority of people don't realize it.

Only one of your links says anything about quality of life and the link itself provides no criteria so we can't even determine how they ranked countries.

Finally, there are lots of lists out there that try to rank countries based on quality of life or human development etc. Typically the countries that top these lists are very small countries with populations small than NYC. If you exclude countries with populations of less than 10 million then the US ranks in the top 5 of nearly all these lists.

 

[Specop 007]

ProfJohn just won the Intarwebz for the day. Dirty hippy Omar will have to sit in the corner for the rest of the day.

 

[ebaycj]

Breath...............

Breathe has an "e" on the end of it.. You know, like Potatoe and Tomatoe.

 

[ebaycj]

Theres a difference between those who are legitimately weaker and those who simply wait for a handout.

I have 3 kids, yes. Will I help them as they go through life? Yes. Do I expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to pay for 1 cent of their life? Nope.

So your private security force will take the place of police then? Are you also planning on building your own roads? I really hope you are not sending your kids to public schools. And you will be forgoing any/all insurance products, and self-insuring with cash, right?

 

[Pulsar]

The whole concept of living in a society means in part that every person is not solely responsible for their own share, but they depend on society as a whole to provide for their needs. Do you grow all of your own food? Make all of your electricity? Build your own roads? Fight your own house fires? The list is practically endless, and there is absolutely NO reason why healthcare should not be included as a public good. Every single other Westernized nation seems to have figured this simple concept out, but unsurprisingly "Americans" such as yourself are too selfish and self-absorbed to comprehend it.

You rail and moan about paying for "others" healthcare, but if your house catches fire I seriously doubt you'd let it burn down, you'd call someone else for help.

Also, what makes you think that everyone who is sick actually had any control over their conditions? There are many people out there suffering from incurable conditions that they have no control over. Should they be forced to live a substandard life just to be able to afford the healthcare they need to stay alive? Again, this is something that other countries have all figured out, but "Americans" such as yourself just can't get it through their thick heads.

Horrible post.

I don't grow all my own food. I purchase it - free market style, when I need it. I don't pay for other's food. I pay for my own, as I need it.

Make all my electricity? Nope. Private industry does that, with price controls. I don't pay for anyone else's electricity, and I use it as I need it. Oh, and last I checked, people who don't pay for electricity get cut off.

Build my own roads? Well, no. You got me there. I have to agree that roads ARE a public service best left to the government. Of course, last time I checked how well they were doing it was pretty bad. The roads and highways were falling into disrepair, they weren't keeping up with bridge maintenance, and the entire system was massively underfunded with respect to maintenance.

Fight my own house fires? Well, no, I don't do that either. Here's the interesting thing about that though: many areas don't really HAVE full time fire fighters. You see, once again, the burden of actually managing that has proven to be far to large. So what they have are volunteers. Those volunteers are only summoned in case of need - triage if you will. Because having a full time fire-fighting system in place is simply economically unfeasible.

Your 'list' is an inaccurate conglomeration of straw men. None of which reflect the reality of health insurance.

Health insurance is an abberation. It is not insurance when it is used to pay for every single instance of health care usage. Let's get that straight. If we moved back to a sane model - insurance for the catastrophic events but individual payers for anything non-catastrophic, that would make an enormous amount of sense.

Can you imagine if car insurance was a duplicate of health insurance? Mandatory, and used for everything from changing a headlight to replacing and windshield wiper blade? Insanity, and in the end unsupportable.

So let's be very, very clear. Health care in the US IS enormously broken. Why? Well, I make better than median wages, and I shudder to think of how much money I spend on health care for my wife and three sons. Without the so-called "insurance" to negotiate realistic prices I would be bankrupt. But why is that? Without insurance, 99% of Americans couldn't afford health care. What would happen? Prices would drop if health care providers wanted to stay in business! Imagine that! Instead, we have collusion between the health care providers and the insurance providers. Health care providers intentionally charge exhorbitant fees that no sane American would pay. Then give special prices only to the health-insurance providers so you are forced to get health insurance.

So how does congress propose to fix that? I've read the bill. All 2000+ pages of it. I can't claim to understand it fully. It's so full of legal-ease and double talk I doubt we'll understand it for another 20 years. What I DO understand is a total lack of addressing the problem. The only thing this bill really, trully does it to make sure that the people who can afford health care now will be paying for everyone in the future. By law. Which isn't really all that different that what's going on RIGHT NOW.

You want to FIX the issue? Here's how to do it.

#1 Government makes a list of conditions that can use insurance to be covered. This includes only conditions that were sudden, unexpected, non-preventable. Others, for instance heart disease when a person has over-eaten for 20 years and not taken care of themselves? Not covered. Do you think that a car-insurance company would cover the damage to your own vehicle if you intentionally took a crow-bar out and smashed it up? No? Ok then.

#2 All other treatments, including doctors visits, are now NON-INSURED. Oh NOES you say. Now I can't afford the $200+ to go to see the doctor for a normal office visit!

OH YES I say. Because if that doctor wants to stay in business, he's going to lower prices to drive people to come. The free-market at work.

Done. That's it. Affordable health care. Will everyone be covered? Nope. Should they be? Well hell, it'd be nice. But there isn't an economic model on the planet that has shown a way to make that work. It's simply to pricey. Rationed health care you say? Yep. Suppy and demand. Supply and demand.

I'm 100% against giving things away. Hunger is the greatest motivator. Want is right next to hunger. What happens when you remove the motivation to better oneself? Only a few people will actually strive to do so.

 

[Hacp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/health/policy/01grady.html?ref=policy

Read this article. This is exactly whats wrong with our health care system. We're spending millions of dollars keeping illegal immigrants on life support just so they can steal our jobs.

We have 10% unemployment, we don't need any illegals taking jobs away from us. Send all of them back and let their own country(mexico) take care of their own citizens. Maybe if we get all the illegals off our medicaid rolls we might be able to pay down our national debt(and lower state taxes).

Also, read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/us/02immig.html?ref=us
These are three illegals practically shouting "deport me". If federal agents don't arrest them and send them back, I have lost all faith in the system.

 

[DaveJ]

Horrible post.

I don't grow all my own food. I purchase it - free market style, when I need it. I don't pay for other's food. I pay for my own, as I need it.

Make all my electricity? Nope. Private industry does that, with price controls. I don't pay for anyone else's electricity, and I use it as I need it. Oh, and last I checked, people who don't pay for electricity get cut off.

Build my own roads? Well, no. You got me there. I have to agree that roads ARE a public service best left to the government. Of course, last time I checked how well they were doing it was pretty bad. The roads and highways were falling into disrepair, they weren't keeping up with bridge maintenance, and the entire system was massively underfunded with respect to maintenance.

Fight my own house fires? Well, no, I don't do that either. Here's the interesting thing about that though: many areas don't really HAVE full time fire fighters. You see, once again, the burden of actually managing that has proven to be far to large. So what they have are volunteers. Those volunteers are only summoned in case of need - triage if you will. Because having a full time fire-fighting system in place is simply economically unfeasible.

Your 'list' is an inaccurate conglomeration of straw men. None of which reflect the reality of health insurance.

Health insurance is an abberation. It is not insurance when it is used to pay for every single instance of health care usage. Let's get that straight. If we moved back to a sane model - insurance for the catastrophic events but individual payers for anything non-catastrophic, that would make an enormous amount of sense.

Can you imagine if car insurance was a duplicate of health insurance? Mandatory, and used for everything from changing a headlight to replacing and windshield wiper blade? Insanity, and in the end unsupportable.

So let's be very, very clear. Health care in the US IS enormously broken. Why? Well, I make better than median wages, and I shudder to think of how much money I spend on health care for my wife and three sons. Without the so-called "insurance" to negotiate realistic prices I would be bankrupt. But why is that? Without insurance, 99% of Americans couldn't afford health care. What would happen? Prices would drop if health care providers wanted to stay in business! Imagine that! Instead, we have collusion between the health care providers and the insurance providers. Health care providers intentionally charge exhorbitant fees that no sane American would pay. Then give special prices only to the health-insurance providers so you are forced to get health insurance.

So how does congress propose to fix that? I've read the bill. All 2000+ pages of it. I can't claim to understand it fully. It's so full of legal-ease and double talk I doubt we'll understand it for another 20 years. What I DO understand is a total lack of addressing the problem. The only thing this bill really, trully does it to make sure that the people who can afford health care now will be paying for everyone in the future. By law. Which isn't really all that different that what's going on RIGHT NOW.

You want to FIX the issue? Here's how to do it.

#1 Government makes a list of conditions that can use insurance to be covered. This includes only conditions that were sudden, unexpected, non-preventable. Others, for instance heart disease when a person has over-eaten for 20 years and not taken care of themselves? Not covered. Do you think that a car-insurance company would cover the damage to your own vehicle if you intentionally took a crow-bar out and smashed it up? No? Ok then.

#2 All other treatments, including doctors visits, are now NON-INSURED. Oh NOES you say. Now I can't afford the $200+ to go to see the doctor for a normal office visit!

OH YES I say. Because if that doctor wants to stay in business, he's going to lower prices to drive people to come. The free-market at work.

Done. That's it. Affordable health care. Will everyone be covered? Nope. Should they be? Well hell, it'd be nice. But there isn't an economic model on the planet that has shown a way to make that work. It's simply to pricey. Rationed health care you say? Yep. Suppy and demand. Supply and demand.

I'm 100% against giving things away. Hunger is the greatest motivator. Want is right next to hunger. What happens when you remove the motivation to better oneself? Only a few people will actually strive to do so.

Slow down there, dude. I think we're basically on the same page. In my original post I was attempting to explain why healthcare requires catastrophic insurance, hence my examples. Speaking from extensive experience, I can say that without adequate insurance I would be perpetually bankrupt.

I agree with you completely that the current bill will do nothing to solve the problem and will most likely make it worse, and I also agree that everyone needs some form of catastrophic insurance. As for routine expenses, I mostly agree with you there as well. The consumer needs to have some skin in the game, giving away all healthcare for free just results in massive overspending on unneccessary procedures. I also don't see any reason why we can't cover everyone for catastrophic insurance at least, and then let private insurance cover the rest if you can afford it.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem with the US insurance system is not that too many people have access to the doctor's office. The vast majority of health care spending is used up during 'catastrophic' events, so to provide insurance for these and return regular care to some sort of free market idea would not solve the problem or come anywhere close.

 

[ProfJohn]

1% of our population is responsible for about 25% of spending
and
5% is responsible for over half of our spending.

 

[Patranus]

The problem with the US insurance system is not that too many people have access to the doctor's office. The vast majority of health care spending is used up during 'catastrophic' events, so to provide insurance for these and return regular care to some sort of free market idea would not solve the problem or come anywhere close.

How do you figure the free market wouldn't solve the problem?

Step 1 - Buy a catastrophic insurance plan for under $75per month
Step 2- Make the CHOICE to save money in case you need to visit the doctor
Step 3 - Invest savings to earn a return.

Problem solved.

 

[Pulsar]

1% of our population is responsible for about 25% of spending
and
5% is responsible for over half of our spending.

If you're looking for a bell-curve distribution of wealth I suspect you're in the wrong country.

In fact, I'd suggest if you want to artificially manipulate that curve through governmental laws, I think you're in the wrong place too. But how about you elaborate on your point so we don't sit here guessing?

 

[Pulsar]

The problem with the US insurance system is not that too many people have access to the doctor's office. The vast majority of health care spending is used up during 'catastrophic' events, so to provide insurance for these and return regular care to some sort of free market idea would not solve the problem or come anywhere close.

And this is.... just because you say so?

Or is there actually some reasoning behind that statement?

 

[ProfJohn]

If you're looking for a bell-curve distribution of wealth I suspect you're in the wrong country.

In fact, I'd suggest if you want to artificially manipulate that curve through governmental laws, I think you're in the wrong place too. But how about you elaborate on your point so we don't sit here guessing?

My post was in response to what eskimo had written, the data comes from Wiki.

It simply shows that a huge amount of our healthcare spending is ate up be a few people.

I don't think there is a way to solve that problem and I don't think the bill being debated by congress will make any difference on how the money is spent. About the only thing that bill does is effect how money is collected.

 

[fskimospy]

And this is.... just because you say so?

Or is there actually some reasoning behind that statement?

This is called having a brain. If you reform the area that is not driving costs you will not significantly decrease costs.

 

[fskimospy]

How do you figure the free market wouldn't solve the problem?

Step 1 - Buy a catastrophic insurance plan for under $75per month
Step 2- Make the CHOICE to save money in case you need to visit the doctor
Step 3 - Invest savings to earn a return.

Problem solved.

Nothing you wrote even addresses the problem that I mentioned in my post. Problem solved indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

My post was in response to what eskimo had written, the data comes from Wiki.

It simply shows that a huge amount of our healthcare spending is ate up be a few people.

I don't think there is a way to solve that problem and I don't think the bill being debated by congress will make any difference on how the money is spent. About the only thing that bill does is effect how money is collected.

It's easy to say that so long as you don't look at the health care systems of every other industrialized nation on earth, each one of which has 'solved' the problem to a considerably better degree than we have.

Of course you don't think there's a way to solve the problem, it's because you aren't interested in solving the problem. The solution has been staring you in the face for literally your entire life by the example set in the other OECD countries, but because it conflicts with your ideology you must rationalize a way to oppose it.

As I've asked before (and never been answered), if the US had a single payer system and you saw that every other nation on earth had a free market alternative that provided comparable care at savings anywhere from 20% to 50% over what we were spending, tell me you wouldn't be chomping at the bit for the US to adopt their way of doing things. Look at yourself honestly and see if you can say that. The results of their systems are simply undeniable, only a fool would ignore them.

 

[desy]

I don't get the ideological opposition.
Farming is subsidized so taxpayers are paying for cheap food for you.
Utilities are given lots of differeing subsidies effectively lowering energy costs.
Its how society works, if there is one thing to ruin a family plan is crippling medical bills and since EVERYONE needs services over the course of a life, averaging the costs over the population is a cost-benefited way to do it.

In Canada though I'd change some things too, we've gone to far IMO of free services and no we aren't all free. 30% is paid either out of pocket or by insurance, my wife works for a insurance company. Quite true is our inability to purchase a service if we have the money , although that's changing, and coverage of many treatments should be de-listed. I'll also add some of the leading edge techniques aren't adopted as fast which if there was some pay for service would.
These are changes that can be made its not like any system is carved in stone.

 

[werepossum]

Here's an interesting story - a union official (typically a pretty liberal tribe) suffers a heart attack in Windsor, Canada. After being revived twice at Windsor Regional Hospital he is not treated in this beautiful city of over 200,000, nor is he rushed for surgery further into the glorious workers' paradise of Canada, where health care is supposedly done right. Rather he is rushed into Detroit, sickly carbuncle of America where health care is supposedly done wrong, for emergency surgery. Interestingly this is only news because the ambulance was stopped at the border.
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=c310ab03-fd74-41d2-aac4-001d5c38e36f&k=79211

 

[Genx87]

Here's an interesting story - a union official (typically a pretty liberal tribe) suffers a heart attack in Windsor, Canada. After being revived twice at Windsor Regional Hospital he is not treated in this beautiful city of over 200,000, nor is he rushed for surgery further into the glorious workers' paradise of Canada, where health care is supposedly done right. Rather he is rushed into Detroit, sickly carbuncle of America where health care is supposedly done wrong, for emergency surgery. Interestingly this is only news because the ambulance was stopped at the border.
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=c310ab03-fd74-41d2-aac4-001d5c38e36f&k=79211

Heh 2nd biggest losers in a bastardized single payer system will be people from Canada lol

 

[child of wonder]

How do you figure the free market wouldn't solve the problem?

Step 1 - Buy a catastrophic insurance plan for under $75per month
Step 2- Make the CHOICE to save money in case you need to visit the doctor
Step 3 - Invest savings to earn a return.

Problem solved.

My family of 4 currently pays about $300 per month out of pocket for health insurance.

Let's say your 3 steps are implemented.

Now we have an additional $225 per month to save for Dr. visits.

Let's also assume a standard Dr. visit drops in price to $100 from about $150 currently. Prescription drug costs must come into play as well. We currently spend about $40 per month on prescriptions. Let's say that increases to $100 per month since we don't have insurance to cover it.

That means, after increased prescription costs, we have $165 per month to save.

How is $165 per month going to be enough money to pay for all Dr. visits and subsequent additional prescriptions (anti-biotics, etc.) for my wife and I and our 7 and 5 year old? A simple Dr. visit with a blood draw and WC will already exceed my $165. What if someone needs an X-ray (non-emergency)?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Then you know the main problem is that billing is all a jumble. What ICD9 code goes where? I'd think that if insurance (any kind you care to name) got it's act together and made the process straightforward it would be a big help. I'm sure you realize that any government program is just as bad.

It's entirely frustrating.

Have you ever stoped to think about why the paperwork jungle is such a nightmare? Who benifiets from endless laborious red tape? When the paperwork is screwed up or the code isn't right, guess what, the insurance co doesn't write a check. Some give up and never get paid, some fight through the jungle and eventually get paid, but in all cases the payout is saved or delayed profiting the insurance company. What makes you think they will ever "get their act together" when it would be unprofitable to do so?

A government program would at least have the advantage of being able to stadardize payment procedures across all caregivers and wouldn't be incentivized to deny or delay payment

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Have you ever stoped to think about why the paperwork jungle is such a nightmare? Who benifiets from endless laborious red tape? When the paperwork is screwed up or the code isn't right, guess what, the insurance co doesn't write a check. Some give up and never get paid, some fight through the jungle and eventually get paid, but in all cases the payout is saved or delayed profiting the insurance company. What makes you think they will ever "get their act together" when it would be unprofitable to do so?

A government program would at least have the advantage of being able to stadardize payment procedures across all caregivers and wouldn't be incentivized to deny or delay payment

You do know that the government plans are the most egregious, right?

Precisely why haven't they even attempted to address this over the last few decades, but NOW it's an issue? A 20 year response time?

Yeah, the private insurance prior auths are a bitch, but government has created more mess, not less. Their track record has nothing to recommend it.