Healthcare bill debate passed

[Praxis1452]

There are generally multiple solutions to problems, some being better than others. By restricting state laws on healthcare and allowing hospitals and all facilities to deny treatment based on lack of healthcare insurance I think that competition can succeed in providing lower prices, and that the overall number of people insured would go up. As opposed to a government plan that I honestly have no idea how it would alter the medical industry as I have no real experience in the depths of the medical industry. I can only say that insuring everyone regardless is not insurance, but charity.

I do believe it is perfectly fine to let people die if they cannot afford insurance. I also think that charitable foundations could provide the minority of people without health insurance if the costs of health insurance were lowered due to competition.

One question I have is how will things be rationed? Is there a system in the bill for this to occur? If not, then I think we're just ignoring reality and the inevitable. An important question is to what extent should we go, or how much should the government pay, to extend a person's life? Is $1 worth it to extend a person's life by 1 year, how about $100k, or $1 million? How about quality of life? Is a pill that increases quality of life worth it? How much will that person's quality of life increase associated with a specific cost target? So basically, how much is a human life worth? It should have a finite and calculable value. If the value is very high, then costs and waste in the medical industry will rise, so that every patient reaches this limit etc. After all, they must be covered etc.

I don't believe in a public good, there is only individual good. If me and someone else have goods in common, we work together. If not, we should not be forced to under a system. That's pretty much all I will write about it.

 

[blackangst1]

No not like Medicare. Your example is also ridiculousness. I said all employee salaries originally.

Great Britain doesn't have the rejection issue our country does because they aren't activelly looking not to pay.

You keep propping up an environment where it is okay to make money off the dying if you want, but these people who get paid to reject others are not needed.

/sigh

You keep talking about all this waste that exists in private health care...sometimes you mention exec salaries...sometimes you mention claims people who reject...and you dont get it. Salaries are a fraction of operating costs. Youre chasing a paper dragon.

BTW you keep hinting that turning over healthcare to the public sector is going to somehow curb waste. WTF you smokin? http://money.aol.com/article/payment-errors-continue-to-plague/488304 Articles like this show that the government cant manage what little it has now. Like my mother taught me when I was in middle school If you cant manage $5/week you cant manage $500/week. Can you explain how taking health care away from the private sector will end BILLIONS in fraud and waste? At least in the ouvlic sector there's a board and shareholders to answer to. Is it perfect? No. But your arguments about how wasteful private health care is is simply LAUGHABLE.

 

[TruePaige]

/sigh

You keep talking about all this waste that exists in private health care...sometimes you mention exec salaries...sometimes you mention claims people who reject...and you dont get it. Salaries are a fraction of operating costs. Youre chasing a paper dragon.

BTW you keep hinting that turning over healthcare to the public sector is going to somehow curb waste. WTF you smokin? http://money.aol.com/article/payment-errors-continue-to-plague/488304 Articles like this show that the government cant manage what little it has now. Like my mother taught me when I was in middle school If you cant manage $5/week you cant manage $500/week. Can you explain how taking health care away from the private sector will end BILLIONS in fraud and waste? At least in the ouvlic sector there's a board and shareholders to answer to. Is it perfect? No. But your arguments about how wasteful private health care is is simply LAUGHABLE.

The problem is that the government doesn't have enough control over health care, that is why they can't cut costs.

If they have absolute power in drug and supply negotiations they can force the costs down like the UK does when it negotiates rates with the drug companies.

It's not rocket science, Black Angst. The health insurance industry is the epitome of waste because it isn't needed at all. The government can handle it by simply paying the bills and setting the price companies can sell their meds and products to hospitals at. It's easy, ask the UK.

 

[blackangst1]

The problem is that the government doesn't have enough control over health care, that is why they can't cut costs.

If they have absolute power in drug and supply negotiations they can force the costs down like the UK does when it negotiates rates with the drug companies.

It's not rocket science, Black Angst. The health insurance industry is the epitome of waste because it isn't needed at all. The government can handle it by simply paying the bills and setting the price companies can sell their meds and products to hospitals at. It's easy, ask the UK.

And therein lies the problem: absolute power. This may be shocking, but there is a large majority of people who dont want the government to have absolute power. I dont know what your nationality is, but to trade absolute control over healthcare in exchange for the nanny state that is the UK, FUCK NO. And realistically, it isnt gonna happen anytime soon. I'll take the downsides to capitalism over the downsides of a nanny state every day of the week.

Feel free to immigrate though (if you dont already live there) if its so awesome. Enjoy your big brother

 

[TruePaige]

And therein lies the problem: absolute power. This may be shocking, but there is a large majority of people who dont want the government to have absolute power. I dont know what your nationality is, but to trade absolute control over healthcare in exchange for the nanny state that is the UK, FUCK NO. And realistically, it isnt gonna happen anytime soon. I'll take the downsides to capitalism over the downsides of a nanny state every day of the week.

Feel free to immigrate though (if you dont already live there) if its so awesome. Enjoy your big brother

Oh no, in the bluntest terms available "fuck that".

I've wrote many posts railing on the UK's horrific civil liberty abuses. From CCTV to gun control to ISP level monitoring and recording of data to wiretaps they are a scary nation.

But they did health care right, and I can separate the right from the wrong when I evaluate the two.

I like the UK model of health care the most out of all the models I've studied.

 

[blackangst1]

Oh no, in the bluntest terms available "fuck that".

I've wrote many posts railing on the UK's horrific civil liberty abuses. From CCTV to gun control to ISP level monitoring and recording of data to wiretaps they are a scary nation.

But they did health care right, and I can separate the right from the wrong when I evaluate the two.

I like the UK model of health care the most out of all the models I've studied.

Yes, I know you have, and some I agree with and some I dont; however, when using the UK as a mdel for healthcare, you have look at the bigger picture as to HOW its possible to do what they do (which is similar to Japan, as Im sure you know). You arent really going to accomplish that model without absolute power. Here in the USA we have a pesky thing called free enterprise, and as I said, I'll take the downside of free markets as opposed to the downside of that piece of shit country. And Im speaking as one with a lifelong chronic illness who very much relies on insurance.

FUCK THAT.

 

[TruePaige]

Yes, I know you have, and some I agree with and some I dont; however, when using the UK as a mdel for healthcare, you have look at the bigger picture as to HOW its possible to do what they do (which is similar to Japan, as Im sure you know). You arent really going to accomplish that model without absolute power. Here in the USA we have a pesky thing called free enterprise, and as I said, I'll take the downside of free markets as opposed to the downside of that piece of shit country. And Im speaking as one with a lifelong chronic illness who very much relies on insurance.

FUCK THAT.

The government governs utilities fairly and hasn't used it's utility company power to invade any other major aspects of my life, so I am quite fine with letting it do the same for health care and feel comfortable that it is the best decision we as citizens can make for our nation's long term health and prosperity.

We have to provide health care services to those that need them or the cost and loss of opportunity for our citizens will be our downfall.

 

[blackangst1]

The government governs utilities fairly and hasn't used it's utility company power to invade any other major aspects of my life, so I am quite fine with letting it do the same for health care and feel comfortable that it is the best decision we as citizens can make for our nation's long term health and prosperity.

We have to provide health care services to those that need them or the cost and loss of opportunity for our citizens will be our downfall.

Now youre backsliding. First you say absolute control, now you say govern.

:blink:

Nothing wrong with smart regulation as you mention. Everything wrong with absolute control (YOUR words, not mine). I would suggest you take up the attitude of fix the man in the mirror first. How about making the system we have in place already efficient? How about freeing up over $3 BILLION in waste and fraud in that same system? FFS you talk (kind of aimlessly) about waste and fraud in the private sector, wheres the outrage about taxpayer $$$ waste? Thats a cause I would stand arm in arm with you on. But to throw more fuel on the fire? No thanks. I'll stand back for that.

Well off to bed. Nice chatting with you. I think in the end we agree on the basic premise of healthcare, but have polar opposite opinions on how to achieve it. At least there's that.

(BTW I have several good friends in the UK if you need a contact there....you know...if you wanna move )

 

[StageLeft]

I don't think it's a good idea for the law strictly stating that people need to pay for a service or product from a private entity. No matter what (which makes it unlike, say, car insurance).

 

[charrison]

I don't think it's a good idea for the law strictly stating that people need to pay for a service or product from a private entity. No matter what (which makes it unlike, say, car insurance).

It is even dumber to require someone to buy something or face a fine that is less significantly less than than what was required to be purchased. This just allows people to not buy insurance until they get sick, since pre-existing conditions will not exist.

 

[Praxis1452]

I don't think it's a good idea for the law strictly stating that people need to pay for a service or product from a private entity. No matter what (which makes it unlike, say, car insurance).

But all hail the mighty public entity.

 

[werepossum]

A bit of light and reason - first, health insurance companies make damn little profit. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ANCE?SITE=MABED&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Second, anyone know the insurance company that denies the most claims? Medicare, on a weighted basis almost twice as many rejections as all the audited independent insurance companies combined, as well as the highest percentage of claims denied (although Aetna gave it the old college try too.)

From the AMA's own 2008 Health Insurance Report Card:http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

A chart showing the major carriers and how Medicare compared to them in the study follows:

DenialsByInsurer2008
http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/DenialsByInsurer2008.jpg

This is the kinder, gentler system the Democrats want to force us all into - well, all except course government workers who can continue their publicly funded but privately managed health care. Is it just for the raw power? For the thrill of destroying another capitalistic industry? All part of wrecking the US economy to usher in Obamatopia? You decide! Extra credit for praising Che Guevara, Marx and Castro in your answer!

Paige, if you admire the British heal care system I can only conclude that you're a sadistic sociopath because the UK's National Health Service is hands down the worst health care system in any Western civilization. 4,000 women last year gave birth in corridors, lifts, ambulances, and toilets because there were no beds. People wait for hours in ambulances because emergency rooms won't take them until they can ensure the mandatory maximum emergency room wait can be honored. Hell, the system of improvements the UK is currently implementing calls for a maximum wait for hospital admission of eighteen weeks! That's not the problem, that's the target! There are more horror stories about the NHS than all other Western socialized medical systems combined. Here are a few.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL702.cfm
http://lc.org/media/9980/attachments/list_nhs_ uk_newspapers.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...aby-bathroom-floor--saves-daughters-life.html

Here's an excellent article comparing the American and United Kingdom's systems, with the strengths and weaknesses of each discussed. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6806274.ece

We Americans have the shortest wait times and the best serious disease survival rates in the world - and that's in spite of the fact that we are by far the fattest, the most sedentary, and have the worst diet. Our life expectancy suffers from these factors and because we are also by far the most violent and we drive the most, not because of our health care system.

It's all moot anyway - the Supreme Court established in Kelo v. New London that we are all property of government at all levels. This is simply government arguing about the best way to manage its property. Still, it irks me to see the cattle fighting to go up the chute. The hammer is NOT your friend, no matter what Michael Moore says.

 

[boomerang]

Excellent post werepossum. The faithful will of course turn a blind eye.

That so many can blindly follow a party when presented with mountains of evidence time after time, bodes not well for our Republic.

Even well intentioned shit is still .... shit!

 

[Zstream]

Still, it irks me to see the cattle fighting to go up the chute. The hammer is NOT your friend, no matter what Michael Moore says.

One of the greatest post I have seen here in a while.

 

[ebaycj]

Gee, who might those people be?

1. Those who want to empower the elite ruling class and enslave the people as government property?
2. Those who want to empower the people and enslave the government as public property?

Once the lines are drawn you can quickly realize who this bill favors. Particularly when how you live your life and treat your body will directly impact the federal budget once they have asserted themselves as your health provider. How long do you think it’ll be until cost savings requires them to enter your home and tell you what you can or cannot do?

I dunno, they've had UHC in the UK for 50ish years. Over there, they pretty much all drink like fish, smoke like chimneys, and eat like it's their last meal.

I'd say we'll be ok on the authoritarian front.

 

[Jaskalas]

At least in the ouvlic sector there's a board and shareholders to answer to.

I believe the most glaring problem is that our health provider will be the same entity that is supposed to protect us from abuse by health providers. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

Removing checks and balances in the creation of UHC is unconscionable. Though I understand where government proponents disagree as they consolidate power against the public.

 

[ebaycj]

You mean like Medicare does right? The rejection thing?

Oh heres a number for you..Edward Hanaway (CEO of Cigna) had an income that represented .0015% of Cigna's revenue. Big fucking deal.

I bet that doesn't include his stock compensation. Which very likely makes his cash compensation look like a single cheerio in a box of cheerios.

 

[TruePaige]

I believe the most glaring problem is that our health provider will be the same entity that is supposed to protect us from abuse by health providers. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

Removing checks and balances in the creation of UHC is unconscionable. Though I understand where government proponents disagree as they consolidate power against the public.

That's not true at all. Our health provider wouldn't change one bit under Universal Health Care, it would remain the same as the hospitals and care givers you use now.

All that would change is that it would allow that provider to provide more affordable services and create a simpler set of financial departments making life better and easier for all.

 

[umbrella39]

One of the greatest post I have seen here in a while.

With exception of all of FUD, yeah /rollseyes

 

[Turin39789]

You mean like Medicare does right? The rejection thing?

Oh heres a number for you..Edward Hanaway (CEO of Cigna) had an income that represented .0015% of Cigna's revenue. Big fucking deal.

I bet that doesn't include his stock compensation. Which very likely makes his cash compensation look like a single cheerio in a box of cheerios.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/0BHA.html

 

[fskimospy]

Excellent post werepossum. The faithful will of course turn a blind eye.

That so many can blindly follow a party when presented with mountains of evidence time after time, bodes not well for our Republic.

Even well intentioned shit is still .... shit!

It was certainly a heartfelt post filled with rhetoric from the extreme right, but unfortunately for both of you it was riddled with errors. If you want to look at a pretty comprehensive study of how the US stacks up as compared to other countries here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf

When you read through it, generally you will see that the US does very well in a few areas, but mostly hovers around the lower middle end of things. You can look at that and think 'well that's not so bad', until you realize that we are spending 250% of the OECD median on health care to get those results. In AT terms, it's like we as a country bought the Geforce FX 5800. In reality our system is a catastrophic waste of resources.

As for the errors, his claims of the lowest wait times are difficult to prove due to the fact that our patchwork system does not gather that data effectively (as compared to other countries), that he failed to differentiate between elective and essential procedures (as other countries emphasize essential procedures for...well... obvious reasons), he was incorrect that the US is 'by far the fattest' country in the world (that's Australia), etc... etc. An interesting note, despite being fatter and having higher smoking rates than we do, Australia achieves better health outcomes while spending far less. Something to think about.

Not like it matters, he told you what you wanted to hear and so it's a good and insightful post.

 

[blackangst1]

I believe the most glaring problem is that our health provider will be the same entity that is supposed to protect us from abuse by health providers. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

Removing checks and balances in the creation of UHC is unconscionable. Though I understand where government proponents disagree as they consolidate power against the public.

And I agree. Again, let me state if this bill threatened private insurance I wouldnt be for it. But it doesnt. At least with this bill the feds arent going to be our major health provider.

 

[blackangst1]

I bet that doesn't include his stock compensation. Which very likely makes his cash compensation look like a single cheerio in a box of cheerios.

It does. Total compensation for 2008 = $29 million (rounded up), total revenue = $19.1 billion = .0015%. Damn those high salaries are friggin killing it!

 

[blackangst1]

That's not true at all. Our health provider wouldn't change one bit under Universal Health Care, it would remain the same as the hospitals and care givers you use now.

All that would change is that it would allow that provider to provide more affordable services and create a simpler set of financial departments making life better and easier for all.

Paige, this health bill is going to do nothing int he way of lowering medical costs. I hope you understand this.

 

[blackangst1]

It was certainly a heartfelt post filled with rhetoric from the extreme right, but unfortunately for both of you it was riddled with errors. If you want to look at a pretty comprehensive study of how the US stacks up as compared to other countries here's one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf

When you read through it, generally you will see that the US does very well in a few areas, but mostly hovers around the lower middle end of things. You can look at that and think 'well that's not so bad', until you realize that we are spending 250% of the OECD median on health care to get those results. In AT terms, it's like we as a country bought the Geforce FX 5800. In reality our system is a catastrophic waste of resources.

As for the errors, his claims of the lowest wait times are difficult to prove due to the fact that our patchwork system does not gather that data effectively (as compared to other countries), that he failed to differentiate between elective and essential procedures (as other countries emphasize essential procedures for...well... obvious reasons), he was incorrect that the US is 'by far the fattest' country in the world (that's Australia), etc... etc. An interesting note, despite being fatter and having higher smoking rates than we do, Australia achieves better health outcomes while spending far less. Something to think about.

Not like it matters, he told you what you wanted to hear and so it's a good and insightful post.

And unfortunately your cry of foul is nothing but squawking. If his post is wrong, please list point by point the incorrect statement, followed by a link that shows it is incorrect. Your post was a bit OT from his, but cool story bro!

kthx