Boehner proposes leaving 52 Million Americans without insurance.

[theeedude]

I won't argue that. Profit is certainly a part of the cost of the current system. But is removing that profit enough to offset the inevitable waste of a government system? Also, profit is what drives improvement in the private sector. The only motive to improve in the public sector is re-election. And we've seen how well that works as a motivator over the past decade.

We have a single payer defense system. I don't think there is a lack of profits or innovation in the defense industry.

 

[ElFenix]

I think the best way to respond to your questions is to respond with another question I have for you... which would you rather have manage health care for 300+ million people, a bunch of for profit health insurance corporations, or the government?

why couldn't you have mutuals and/or nonprofits?

and it's not like our government is getting a good value out of what they already control (medicare/aid, schip, VA). the .gov already spends ~50% of medical dollars spent in the US, and yet covers about 25% of the public. governmental sources in the US spent $2,862 per capita in 2005. per capita, not per covered person. that compares with $2,465 in belgium, $2,790 in germany, $2,311 in the netherlands, and $2,668 in the UK.

in other words, our government is already spending as much per person as places that cover everyone. the existence of for-profit insurance companies themselves is not the problem.

We have a single payer defense system. I don't think there is a lack of profits or innovation in the defense industry.

i don't think the bloated defense industry is a good example of places without waste.

not to mention defense spending is one where single-payer is necessary as individual transactions don't work (heck, doing it state by state didn't work)

 

[manimal]

why couldn't you have mutuals and/or nonprofits?

and it's not like our government is getting a good value out of what they already control (medicare/aid, schip, VA). the .gov already spends ~50% of medical dollars spent in the US, and yet covers about 25% of the public. governmental sources in the US spent $2,862 per capita in 2005. per capita, not per covered person. that compares with $2,465 in belgium, $2,790 in germany, $2,311 in the netherlands, and $2,668 in the UK.

in other words, our government is already spending as much per person as places that cover everyone. the existence of for-profit insurance companies themselves is not the problem.

The elderly skews those numbers because they require more care..

 

[theeedude]

why couldn't you have mutuals and/or nonprofits?

and it's not like our government is getting a good value out of what they already control (medicare/aid, schip, VA). the .gov already spends ~50% of medical dollars spent in the US, and yet covers about 25% of the public. governmental sources in the US spent $2,862 per capita in 2005. per capita, not per covered person. that compares with $2,465 in belgium, $2,790 in germany, $2,311 in the netherlands, and $2,668 in the UK.

in other words, our government is already spending as much per person as places that cover everyone. the existence of for-profit insurance companies themselves is not the problem.

i don't think the bloated defense industry is a good example of places without waste.

not to mention defense spending is one where single-payer is necessary as individual transactions don't work (heck, doing it state by state didn't work)

Belgium - private insurance and public option. Mandatory
Germany - private insurance and public option. Mandatory
Netherlands - private insurance and public option. Mandatory
UK - universal national health service. Mandatory

 

[BoberFett]

We have a single payer defense system. I don't think there is a lack of profits or innovation in the defense industry.

Oh, so now you approve of our military spending?

 

[theeedude]

Oh, so now you approve of our military spending?

It goes to your point that you can't have profits and innovation in single payer system.

 

[SammyJr]

Maybe they should quit crying about not having insurance and get better job? Or better yet, get off unemployment and get a job... Craziest thing, most people have to work hard for what they have... Ask your parents... Quit "expecting" handouts and "privileges" just for being American..

So they should move to India or China?

There is a serious lack of jobs with benefits or jobs that pay enough to buy private insurance.

 

[xj0hnx]

So you're fine with the corrupt inside deals and politics in this country, so long as the health insurance companies continue to make a profit off of people's sufferings here? Exactly what I expected to hear from a capitalist.

But I guess doctors and hospitals that are actually the ones charging, and billing the exorbitant fees are off the hook right? Just so long as you can blame the evil corporations.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Want health insurance? Then pay for it. The people have spoken, shut the fuck up communists, we don't want what you're selling. This. Is. America!!!!

/thread

I fucking told you we were coming after people that don't work or pay taxes. We're here. We are taking the country back. Fuck Obama and anybody that believes his agenda.

How unfortunate that you are so completely utterly wrong.

Meanwhile, seniors, who represented one-sixth of voters in 2008, soared to fully 22 percent - their largest share since at least 1992. And nearly three-fifths of them backed Republican House candidates. Among white seniors, that number rose to over three-fifths.

What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 - 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.

So Americans - surprise! - want smaller government in theory, but when forced to make any hard choices on spending, balk. Taxes? Surprise! They don't want them raised either - except for those earning over $250,000 a year, but even then only by 48 - 43 margin. They also prefer the Democratic party to the Republicans - the GOP's unfavorability gap was 11, the Dems was 2 - but are going to give us the most hardline conservative House in living memory. So go figure. A bunch of adolescent whiners? More grist for the Kinsley meme that they are just "big babies"? Or just completely confused and disgruntled and lashing out?

People are deeply frustrated by the economy, but they do not take Bill O'Reilly's position that Obama owns the recession because after 18 months in office, and a stimulus decried as too much by the right and too little by the left, he still has 9.6 percent unemployment. Only 8 percent blame Obama for the current economy. 30 percent blame Bush; 22 percent blame Wall Street; 13 percent blame Congress. They're not as delusional as Fox News wants them to be.

As for future politics, Americans overwhelmingly trust the Dems on healthcare, favor the GOP on debt reduction (go figure) and split between the parties on creating jobs. But here's the critical thing: a whopping 78 percent want the Republicans to compromise with Obama rather than stick to their positions in the next two years; 76 percent want the Dems to do the same; and a slightly lower percentage, but still overwhelming, wants Obama to compromise too: 69 percent.

 

[xj0hnx]

Blame the inside contractor deals, corrupt politics. Senator awards contracts to their brother-in-law who gouges the fuck out of the government, the American way.

It isn't as simple as that, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, or admit it if you did.

 

[OutHouse]

Bahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. No, seriously, what are you smoking? Have you ever BEEN in the military? It's institutionalized inefficiency at it's best. $250 crutches? How about a $3000 paper shredder? It won't even shred CDs. Only paper.

shredders that are certified for classified documents are expensive and are not meant for plastic.

 

[ElFenix]

The elderly skews those numbers because they require more care..

the UK doesn't have elderly? because that's the only way the number could be skewed. it would be skewed if i compared US expenditures on just the covered people, which are mostly elderly. but i didn't. that's per capita. not per covered person.

for what we spend to cover 1/4 of our population, the UK is covering practically everyone.

Belgium - private insurance and public option. Mandatory
Germany - private insurance and public option. Mandatory
Netherlands - private insurance and public option. Mandatory
UK - universal national health service. Mandatory

proves my point. the existence of private companies doesn't necessarily increase the cost radically. it certainly doesn't explain why we're spending double per capita. and it doesn't explain why .gov sources here are already spending more than the NHS.

 

[Carmen813]

We have a single payer defense system. I don't think there is a lack of profits or innovation in the defense industry.

Well, the defense industry is also basically a giant black hole for money, so I'm guessing that isn't the analogy you really want to use...though I see your point.

Providers would still compete for patients in a single payer system, profit is not the only motivator in the world. In fact it's almost sad that people think the only thing that motivates innovation is a desire to make money...it's not, and that is a value reflected by a relatively small portion of our society.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well, the defense industry is also basically a giant black hole for money, so I'm guessing that isn't the analogy you really want to use...though I see your point.

Providers would still compete for patients in a single payer system, profit is not the only motivator in the world. In fact it's almost sad that people think the only thing that motivates innovation is a desire to make money...it's not, and that is a value reflected by a relatively small portion of our society.

Well by law a corporation must only think of profits for the share holders. If they can make more profit by giving good will to everyone then thats what they will do but if they give anything instead of giving pure profit to a shareholder they are breaking the law. Isn't it wonderful?

 

[Zebo]

It's hard to compare military HC system to civilian. They only take healthy people. Doctors prob and prod you like crazy in meps to make sure you're of excellent health. Make sure you maintain healthiness under contract and when you factor in VA HC costs, i.e. older people, it's not so cheap after all. Then military does negotiate, they only pay docs about 80-150K, even specialists. Do negotiate drug pricing and will give a lot of generic. Totally different world.

 

[nobodyknows]

Maybe they should quit crying about not having insurance and get better job? Or better yet, get off unemployment and get a job... Craziest thing, most people have to work hard for what they have... Ask your parents... Quit "expecting" handouts and "privileges" just for being American..

So they should move to India or China?

There is a serious lack of jobs with benefits or jobs that pay enough to buy private insurance.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe health care providers will lower their prices.

 

[piasabird]

Who wants to spend money to take care of illegals? Let them leave if they dont have coverage.

 

[JSt0rm]

Who wants to spend money to take care of illegals? Let them leave if they dont have coverage.

Look how dumb you are.

 

[Carmen813]

Well by law a corporation must only think of profits for the share holders. If they can make more profit by giving good will to everyone then thats what they will do but if they give anything instead of giving pure profit to a shareholder they are breaking the law. Isn't it wonderful?

I've never heard of this, but then again I've never really looked. Can you tell me more about this law?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, the defense industry is also basically a giant black hole for money, so I'm guessing that isn't the analogy you really want to use...though I see your point.

Providers would still compete for patients in a single payer system, profit is not the only motivator in the world. In fact it's almost sad that people think the only thing that motivates innovation is a desire to make money...it's not, and that is a value reflected by a relatively small portion of our society.

Can you tell me how a single payer system would make you a better provider? What is it about it that makes your paperwork go away, or increased intercommunication between providers? When you see someone with dementia how does it make you think differently about diagnosis or treatment? How does it facilitate improved outcomes?

The problem is that we shouldn't even be having this discussion yet. We don't know what the relative merits of private vs government systems are. What needs to be done now to prepare for the influx of elderly? Are the systems we are discussing even appropriate for our economy?

Who asked these questions? What options were discussed? How can better care be provided?

Where is all this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well by law a corporation must only think of profits for the share holders. If they can make more profit by giving good will to everyone then thats what they will do but if they give anything instead of giving pure profit to a shareholder they are breaking the law. Isn't it wonderful?

Yes show us that law, like oh, now.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

There is a ton of research out there already.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is a ton of research out there already.

Really? Show me. In the context of what would truly be health care reform, what has been done to make it better? What in the current bill makes a physician better able to diagnose and treat? What gives him more time per patient to get a better initial workup?

 

[JSt0rm]

I've never heard of this, but then again I've never really looked. Can you tell me more about this law?

These are the really broad basics of shareholder rights

"The state where the company is incorporated (it appears on the face of the certificate) also gives investors certain rights. Most states provide that shareholders have the right to: (1) vote on questions affecting the company as a whole; (2) hold a proportionate ownership in the assets of the company; (3) transfer ownership of their shares; (4) receive dividends when declared by the board of directors; (5) inspect the corporate books and records; (6) sue the corporation for wrongful acts; and (7) share in the proceeds of a corporate liquidation."