Healthcare bill debate passed

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

Unnecessary being defined by what? What if the new insurance company (the feds) and the docs have conflicting opinions? Who wins, the professional or politician? The latter.

So the government who won't be interfering will do so up to its elbows. They do it now and its going to get worse once they assume control over medicine.

 

[fskimospy]

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

I like how someone else makes unsourced, bullshit claims and then I need to write a research paper disproving them. You're in the same boat as boomerang, he tells you what you want to hear and so he's right until proven wrong. This has been the MO of the extreme right this entire healthcare debate, to make crazy statements and then claim because they haven't been disproven, they are legitimate. Can I argue by these rules of debate too? This is 'Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl' territory. Oh wait, he does offer a 'comparison' of the two systems in an sourceless editorial by a Bush administration official. That's kind of like actual evidence.

Don't get mad because reality doesn't conform with the ultra right .

Anyways,

"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." False. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

"and that's in spite of the fact that we are by far the fattest" False. Australia has the highest obesity rate in the world. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/200...attest-country-study-says/UPI-23231213998709/

"America has the shortest wait times". So vague as to be meaningless. Shortest wait times for what? Our emergency room wait times aren't the shortest, in fact they are over 4 hours at this point, longer than many european nations.

"best serious disease survival rates" Again, vague to the point of meaninglessness. Survival rate for what? Cancer? Heart disease? Some types this is true, other types it isn't. On the balance Germany and the nordic countries come out to be VERY comparable to the US. (Germany for example loses to the US on breast cancer survival, but wins on prostate cancer survival). I won't even get into the US sample bias. Link: http://www-dep.iarc.fr/

Of course looming over all of this is the fact that we spend twice as much as most other nations if not more on health care. Face it, our system sucks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I like how someone else makes unsourced, bullshit claims and then I need to write a research paper disproving them. You're in the same boat as boomerang, he tells you what you want to hear and so he's right until proven wrong. This has been the MO of the extreme right this entire healthcare debate, to make crazy statements and then claim because they haven't been disproven, they are legitimate. Can I argue by these rules of debate too? This is 'Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl' territory. Oh wait, he does offer a 'comparison' of the two systems in an sourceless editorial by a Bush administration official. That's kind of like actual evidence.

Don't get mad because reality doesn't conform with the ultra right .

Anyways,

"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." False. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

"and that's in spite of the fact that we are by far the fattest" False. Australia has the highest obesity rate in the world. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/200...attest-country-study-says/UPI-23231213998709/

"America has the shortest wait times". So vague as to be meaningless. Shortest wait times for what? Our emergency room wait times aren't the shortest, in fact they are over 4 hours at this point, longer than many european nations.

"best serious disease survival rates" Again, vague to the point of meaninglessness. Survival rate for what? Cancer? Heart disease? Some types this is true, other types it isn't. On the balance Germany and the nordic countries come out to be VERY comparable to the US. (Germany for example loses to the US on breast cancer survival, but wins on prostate cancer survival). I won't even get into the US sample bias. Link: http://www-dep.iarc.fr/

Of course looming over all of this is the fact that we spend twice as much as most other nations if not more on health care. Face it, our system sucks.

Yep, it "sucks" because the gov't has it's hands all over it. Yet you leftists want the gov't to fix the problem by digging it's hands deeper into it? Sounds logical

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, it "sucks" because the gov't has it's hands all over it. Yet you leftists want the gov't to fix the problem by digging it's hands deeper into it? Sounds logical

What's amazing about your response is that it shows the degree to which your extreme right wing ideology controls your perception.

1.) Our system 'sucks' because it compares unfavorably to other systems around the world.

2.) In this case all of the systems, without exception, that the US is compared to are primarily or entirely run by government.

3.) From this data you conclude that the reason the US compares poorly is that the US system has excessive government involvement.

Simply baffling.

 

[blackangst1]

What's amazing about your response is that it shows the degree to which your extreme right wing ideology controls your perception.

1.) Our system 'sucks' because it compares unfavorably to other systems around the world.

2.) In this case all of the systems, without exception, that the US is compared to are primarily or entirely run by government.

3.) From this data you conclude that the reason the US compares poorly is that the US system has excessive government involvement.

Simply baffling.

No, our system sucks because the portion of medical our government already has its hands in has FAR more fraud, waste, and corruption than the system you blind lefty wackos want to replace.

"Hey I know! Lets take this 1999 LeMans that has pinging pistons and replace it with a 1976 Gremlin with a blown motor!"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, our system sucks because the portion of medical our government already has its hands in has FAR more fraud, waste, and corruption than the system you blind lefty wackos want to replace.

"Hey I know! Lets take this 1999 LeMans that has pinging pistons and replace it with a 1976 Gremlin with a blown motor!"

No, because our society is the most anal retentive self destructive of any major nation. We think that working 12 hours a day without a break, sneaking in fast food is superior to cultures that actually have a defined lunch and catch a nap.

It's a complement to our health care system that we do as well as we have.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What's amazing about your response is that it shows the degree to which your extreme right wing ideology controls your perception.

1.) Our system 'sucks' because it compares unfavorably to other systems around the world.

2.) In this case all of the systems, without exception, that the US is compared to are primarily or entirely run by government.

3.) From this data you conclude that the reason the US compares poorly is that the US system has excessive government involvement.

Simply baffling.

1. No, our system sucks because people no longer have a vested interest in their health care. They expect the best but want someone else to pay/provide it.

2. Again, what other people have is irrelevant to the discussion of our system. Trying to compare a socialist system with XXX system is not comparing apples to apples. The problem with your little comparisons is that gov't provided healthcare or Insurance is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are other components to their governance that directly affect how the system is run.

3. Did I say "excessive"? Not in a broad view sort of way. However it has meddled in it and cause much of the problem with our current system. They are the ones that have caused the problems and yet you and your lefty friends want to give them even more control since they've F'd it up so far? BRILLIANT!!!

Oh, and it's quite obvious your extreme lefty ideology colors your perception. Want to keep this up?

 

[TruePaige]

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

Oh, I know full well this bill will only have minor savings.

But when we get UHC..someday...this country will be a better place if it isnt too far gone when we finally implement it.

 

[fskimospy]

No, our system sucks because the portion of medical our government already has its hands in has FAR more fraud, waste, and corruption than the system you blind lefty wackos want to replace.

"Hey I know! Lets take this 1999 LeMans that has pinging pistons and replace it with a 1976 Gremlin with a blown motor!"

I imagine that now you will request I write a research paper showing why the comment about our system that you just made up is false. (and it is.)

If you believe the disparity between US per capita health care spending/outcomes and the spending/outcomes of other OECD countries is due to medicare/medicaid/VA/etc. fraud, waste, and corruption please provide citations from authoritative, nonpartisan, or peer reviewed sources to back up your argument.

Don't forget the links! (no op-eds please)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, I know full well this bill will only have minor savings.

But when we get UHC..someday...this country will be a better place if it isnt too far gone when we finally implement it.

I have not found such great faith, no, not even in Israel.

 

[Carmen813]

I imagine that now you will request I write a research paper showing why the comment about our system that you just made up is false. (and it is.)

If you believe the disparity between US per capita health care spending/outcomes and the spending/outcomes of other OECD countries is due to medicare/medicaid/VA/etc. fraud, waste, and corruption please provide citations from authoritative, nonpartisan, or peer reviewed sources to back up your argument.

Don't forget the links! (no op-eds please)

Research has a liberal bias!

 

[fskimospy]

1. No, our system sucks because people no longer have a vested interest in their health care. They expect the best but want someone else to pay/provide it.

2. Again, what other people have is irrelevant to the discussion of our system. Trying to compare a socialist system with XXX system is not comparing apples to apples. The problem with your little comparisons is that gov't provided healthcare or Insurance is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are other components to their governance that directly affect how the system is run.

3. Did I say "excessive"? Not in a broad view sort of way. However it has meddled in it and cause much of the problem with our current system. They are the ones that have caused the problems and yet you and your lefty friends want to give them even more control since they've F'd it up so far? BRILLIANT!!!

Oh, and it's quite obvious your extreme lefty ideology colors your perception. Want to keep this up?

1.) People in other countries have the same 'non-vested interest', and yet their systems are much more successful than ours. Therefore, this cannot be the reason.

2.) Wow... just wow. This is a new pathetic low. 'The success or failure of other systems designed to accomplish the same goal as ours are irrelevant points of comparison'. I don't know what to say other than "!?!?!!!" What other people have is most certainly NOT irrelevant to the discussion of our system. In fact our system relative to other is pretty much the ONLY way to discuss the success or failure of a network with such a nebulous objective as 'keep people as healthy as you can for as long as you can'. What other measure would you propose? Be specific.

3.) Please explain exactly what the government has 'meddled' with in our current system, how this 'meddling' was not excessive, and yet how this was the source of our current difficulties.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"and that's in spite of the fact that we are by far the fattest" False. Australia has the highest obesity rate in the world. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/200...attest-country-study-says/UPI-23231213998709/

Read the study...America was first place and is now second place...this is a perfect example of how twisted you've become. You can't argue against some of werepossum's major points like 1) Health insurance companies make damn little profit, 2) Government run Medicare denies the most claims when compared to insurance companies, or 3) Major care problems with UK's National Health Service...but you can sure as hell argue about the minutia and put him to task for trivialities....and then have the audacity to say his post is riddled with errors. Seriously dude...did you take a double dose of your meds today?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

1.) People in other countries have the same 'non-vested interest', and yet their systems are much more successful than ours. Therefore, this cannot be the reason.

2.) Wow... just wow. This is a new pathetic low. 'The success or failure of other systems designed to accomplish the same goal as ours are irrelevant points of comparison'. I don't know what to say other than "!?!?!!!" What other people have is most certainly NOT irrelevant to the discussion of our system. In fact our system relative to other is pretty much the ONLY way to discuss the success or failure of a network with such a nebulous objective as 'keep people as healthy as you can for as long as you can'. What other measure would you propose? Be specific.

3.) Please explain exactly what the government has 'meddled' with in our current system, how this 'meddling' was not excessive, and yet how this was the source of our current difficulties.

1. Have you not been paying attention to the fact that many of these glorious UHC plan countries are having the same healthcare cost issues we are? Nah... just put some price caps...yeah... that'll fix it...
Oh, and BTW, something can't "suck" just because you think someone else has something better. You may think it "sucks" in comparison but it's not a REASON as to why it "sucks". Our current system sucks because people have no vested interest. OUR system would suck less if people held a stake in their health care.

2. Are you being purposely stupid? You really think the gov't control of healthcare elsewhere is a vacuum? Do you not see that the way their gov'ts operate might have a bit to do with things? Do you not understand that their socialism might just affect the way they do UHC? really? Are you really that blind?

3. Again with the stupidity. Do you really think that the healthcare system we have now is anywhere close to a "free market" system? If your answer is yes - there is no use talking to you as you refuse to see reality. If no, then it validates my previous point.

 

[fskimospy]

Read the study...America was first place and is now second place...this is a perfect example of how twisted you've become. You can't argue against some of werepossum's major points like 1) Health insurance companies make damn little profit, 2) Government run Medicare denies the most claims when compared to insurance companies, or 3) Major care problems with UK's National Health Service...but you can sure as hell argue about the minutia and put him to task for trivialities....and then have the audacity to say his post is riddled with errors. Seriously dude...did you take a double dose of your meds today?

What are you babbling about? Did you miss me? Do you want me to pay more attention to you?

1.) So what? Profit or no, they are inefficient and that's what actually matters. So why would I address a pointless statistic?

2.) So what? What does an absolute number or percentage of denials actually tell you about the effectiveness of the service? Almost nothing. Again, why would I address a pointless statistic?

3.) Anecdotal evidence cannot and should not be refuted in a policy argument because...well... it's anecdotal evidence. This should be obvious to you.

I took him to task about the only parts of his post that were even remotely quantifiable and related to the effectiveness of our health care system, and they were riddled with errors and misrepresentations.

I read the study, that's how I know that Australia is the fattest nation on earth now. What is interesting about it is that he mentioned America's obesity problem as being one of the major causes of our health care expenses, and I was showing him how a drinkier-smokier-fattier nation still kicks our ass. Someday you guys will open your eyes.

 

[fskimospy]

1. Have you not been paying attention to the fact that many of these glorious UHC plan countries are having the same healthcare cost issues we are? Nah... just put some price caps...yeah... that'll fix it...
Oh, and BTW, something can't "suck" just because you think someone else has something better. You may think it "sucks" in comparison but it's not a REASON as to why it "sucks". Our current system sucks because people have no vested interest. OUR system would suck less if people held a stake in their health care.

2. Are you being purposely stupid? You really think the gov't control of healthcare elsewhere is a vacuum? Do you not see that the way their gov'ts operate might have a bit to do with things? Do you not understand that their socialism might just affect the way they do UHC? really? Are you really that blind?

3. Again with the stupidity. Do you really think that the healthcare system we have now is anywhere close to a "free market" system? If your answer is yes - there is no use talking to you as you refuse to see reality. If no, then it validates my previous point.

1.) Every one of those countries spends a small fraction of what we do currently. That you would try to relate their 'cost problems' to our 'cost problems' is extremely dishonest. Stop it.

2.) You mentioned these differences twice now in vague terms. Please tell me exactly what these differences are, and how they relate to the efficiency and cost structure of their health care systems. Be specific. (this is twice now)

3.) I never said it was a free market system or anything of the sort. You said our system had problems due to government intervention in it. I assumed you meant excessive intervention, which is what I used to demolish your first post. You have since told me that the intervention was not 'excessive' and I have asked for clarification. Your response was nothing of the sort and was an attempt to divert the discussion. Once again, please explain to me the government intervention you think has caused the problems in our system, how it is not excessive, but how it has led to this nontheless. (twice now)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What are you babbling about? Did you miss me? Do you want me to pay more attention to you?

1.) So what? Profit or no, they are inefficient and that's what actually matters. So why would I address a pointless statistic?

2.) So what? What does an absolute number or percentage of denials actually tell you about the effectiveness of the service? Almost nothing. Again, why would I address a pointless statistic?

3.) Anecdotal evidence cannot and should not be refuted in a policy argument because...well... it's anecdotal evidence. This should be obvious to you.

I took him to task about the only parts of his post that were even remotely quantifiable and related to the effectiveness of our health care system, and they were riddled with errors and misrepresentations.

I read the study, that's how I know that Australia is the fattest nation on earth now. What is interesting about it is that he mentioned America's obesity problem as being one of the major causes of our health care expenses, and I was showing him how a drinkier-smokier-fattier nation still kicks our ass. Someday you guys will open your eyes.

So...you took him to task about the only parts of his post that were even remotely quantifiable and related to the effectiveness of our health care system. Like splitting hairs over which nation is most obese? Total bullshit. Listen to yourself.

LOL...So coverage denials tell you nothing about the effectiveness of the service? Pleeeease.

 

[fskimospy]

So...you took him to task about the only parts of his post that were even remotely quantifiable and related to the effectiveness of our health care system. Like splitting hairs over which nation is most obese? Total bullshit. Listen to yourself.

LOL...So coverage denials tell you nothing about the effectiveness of the service? Pleeeease.

It has nothing to do with splitting hairs, the only thing I can assume is that you didn't understand what you read. The point of mentioning Australia was his contention that obesity and a generally unhealthy lifestyle played a big part in why America's health care is more expensive than other OECD nations. Australia's lifestyle is arguably even worse than America's, with higher rates of heavy drinking, smoking, and obesity, yet their costs are much lower. This shows that his contention is unlikely to be true. It doesn't actually matter that Australia is fatter, only that it is comparable. I imagine you were in such a rush to find something to attack about my post that you didn't think about it. It's not my fault you're blinded by some sort of personal grudge though.

(don't worry, I still love you though.)

Please tell me exactly what you think you can glean about a service based on it's rate of treatment denial. If I file 99 fraudulant claims and 1 real one, and they deny the 99 fraudulant ones, they have a 99% disapproval rating. Would that be a bad thing? As I said before, that number in a vacuum is meaningless. Pleeeeease indeed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

1.) Every one of those countries spends a small fraction of what we do currently. That you would try to relate their 'cost problems' to our 'cost problems' is extremely dishonest. Stop it.

2.) You mentioned these differences twice now in vague terms. Please tell me exactly what these differences are, and how they relate to the efficiency and cost structure of their health care systems. Be specific. (this is twice now)

3.) I never said it was a free market system or anything of the sort. You said our system had problems due to government intervention in it. I assumed you meant excessive intervention, which is what I used to demolish your first post. You have since told me that the intervention was not 'excessive' and I have asked for clarification. Your response was nothing of the sort and was an attempt to divert the discussion. Once again, please explain to me the government intervention you think has caused the problems in our system, how it is not excessive, but how it has led to this nontheless. (twice now)

1. You are the twit that keeps trying to relate things to other countries. They are experiencing the same issues and I just pointed that out. It also doesn't matter what other small countries spend - especially when the countries you are using are socialist countries who have different levels of controls on care, pricing, etc.

2. I see you refuse to address the issue so I'll put it to you in a simple question so even you can answer. Do you think UHC/whatever operates in a vacuum in these socialist countries? If you can answer that, we might be able to continue.

3. lol, you assumed and then ran with it? go figure. I did not say it was not "excessive" either. I take your answer as a "no" and then ask you to go back to my original statement which was - "it "sucks" because the gov't has it's hands all over it. Yet you leftists want the gov't to fix the problem by digging it's hands deeper into it? " So do you still need help in figuring out where the gov't has it's hands all over it? Or did your acknowledgement that we don't have a free market turn a light bulb on for you?

 

[fskimospy]

1. You are the twit that keeps trying to relate things to other countries. They are experiencing the same issues and I just pointed that out. It also doesn't matter what other small countries spend - especially when the countries you are using are socialist countries who have different levels of controls on care, pricing, etc.

2. I see you refuse to address the issue so I'll put it to you in a simple question so even you can answer. Do you think UHC/whatever operates in a vacuum in these socialist countries? If you can answer that, we might be able to continue.

3. lol, you assumed and then ran with it? go figure. I did not say it was not "excessive" either. I take your answer as a "no" and then ask you to go back to my original statement which was - "it "sucks" because the gov't has it's hands all over it. Yet you leftists want the gov't to fix the problem by digging it's hands deeper into it? " So do you still need help in figuring out where the gov't has it's hands all over it? Or did your acknowledgement that we don't have a free market turn a light bulb on for you?

1.) Yes it does matter what other countries are spending, and we spend much more than others even on a PPP adjusted scale. How you could say it doesn't matter what other countries are spending is simply inexplicable. They are attempting to accomplish the same goal and are doing it vastly more efficiently. Ignoring that comparison would be the height of stupidity. Even you aren't this dense, take off the ideological blinders.

2.) You're still trying to dodge. I've made no statement about the issue whatsoever other than to ask you to back up an assertion you have made. You have said that there are elements of governance in these other countries that change how health care is administered. Name them. Third time now.

3.) Your original statement is still nonsensical as countries that have their governments' hands stuck far further into health care have superior systems, which was my original point. You have stated that the government has their hands all over our system and that this is leading to the problems we are having. In this case as in number two, please detail exactly what this meddling is and how it is negatively affecting our health care system. This is also the third request for very simple information.

This is your last chance to actually provide support for your ideological blathering. If you don't provide support in your next response to me I will assume that you are unable to do so. Put up or shut up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

1.) Yes it does matter what other countries are spending, and we spend much more than others even on a PPP adjusted scale. How you could say it doesn't matter what other countries are spending is simply inexplicable. They are attempting to accomplish the same goal and are doing it vastly more efficiently. Ignoring that comparison would be the height of stupidity. Even you aren't this dense, take off the ideological blinders.

2.) You're still trying to dodge. I've made no statement about the issue whatsoever other than to ask you to back up an assertion you have made. You have said that there are elements of governance in these other countries that change how health care is administered. Name them. Third time now.

3.) Your original statement is still nonsensical as countries that have their governments' hands stuck far further into health care have superior systems, which was my original point. You have stated that the government has their hands all over our system and that this is leading to the problems we are having. In this case as in number two, please detail exactly what this meddling is and how it is negatively affecting our health care system. This is also the third request for very simple information.

This is your last chance to actually provide support for your ideological blathering. If you don't provide support in your next response to me I will assume that you are unable to do so. Put up or shut up.

Nope - again, you aren't comparing apples to apples. It's a good anecdote but it certainly doesn't mean jack shit as a reason for why our system "sucks".

No dodging except from you. You seem to simply refuse to admit or acknowledge that a socialistic gov't is fundamentally different than ours and that it affects their healthcare. Do you really see healthcare in a vacuum?

Again, what other countries do doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to reasons for our "suck". I've already stated that it could be used as a comparison item but it most certainly is not the/a reason ours "sucks". You can try to claim they are superior all day long but it's nothing more than your opinion. I wouldn't trade our system for any in the world because I think it is superior(and the wealthy of the world coming here for treatment pretty much indicates that - no?)

So while you want to twist and wiggle - nothing you've stated refutes or destroys the statement I made. What other countries do is their business but they or their system is not a REASON why ours supposedly "sucks".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Unnecessary being defined by what? What if the new insurance company (the feds) and the docs have conflicting opinions? Who wins, the professional or politician? The latter.

So the government who won't be interfering will do so up to its elbows. They do it now and its going to get worse once they assume control over medicine.

Shhh.... no one seems to want to answer that question.... not that the media is even asking that question...

 

[blackangst1]

No, because our society is the most anal retentive self destructive of any major nation. We think that working 12 hours a day without a break, sneaking in fast food is superior to cultures that actually have a defined lunch and catch a nap.

It's a complement to our health care system that we do as well as we have.

You need a few more stamps in your passport, sir.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What are you babbling about? Did you miss me? Do you want me to pay more attention to you?

1.) So what? Profit or no, they are inefficient and that's what actually matters. So why would I address a pointless statistic?

2.) So what? What does an absolute number or percentage of denials actually tell you about the effectiveness of the service? Almost nothing. Again, why would I address a pointless statistic?

3.) Anecdotal evidence cannot and should not be refuted in a policy argument because...well... it's anecdotal evidence. This should be obvious to you.

I took him to task about the only parts of his post that were even remotely quantifiable and related to the effectiveness of our health care system, and they were riddled with errors and misrepresentations.

I read the study, that's how I know that Australia is the fattest nation on earth now. What is interesting about it is that he mentioned America's obesity problem as being one of the major causes of our health care expenses, and I was showing him how a drinkier-smokier-fattier nation still kicks our ass. Someday you guys will open your eyes.

1) So efficiency is what actually matters. Efficiency implies savings...so just how much is this going to save the average taxpayer? I'm hearing that CBO's projected $829 billion "savings" over 10 years reflects a massive hike in payroll tax revenues from the middle class. These 'savings' include an individual mandate tax, an employer mandate tax, a potential death of Health Savings Accounts (HSA), a tax on high-end health plans, a new cap on flexible-spending accounts (FSAs), and various tweaks in the tax code to raise new revenue. Add all these taxes together with Medicare and Medicaid cuts (estimated at $404 billion) and you get you $829 billion in 'savings'. Sweeet! Excuse me...but I can't afford this kind of "efficiency" and "savings". If this is your idea of "efficiency"...then I shutter to think about what constitutes "better healthcare".

2) I beg to differ with you regarding coverage denials...it tells you that you have a fraud problem and/or a healthcare effectiveness problem....and in Medicare's case....probably both. From your comments, it appears that Medicare's huge denial rate is a reflection of rampant fraud prevalent within this Government run healthcare system? If so, you're not exactly making a good argument here for more Government run healthcare now are you? $404 billion of Medicare and Medicaid cuts...that's probably not all fraud...that's probably not all magically created efficiencies...that's probably a lot of cuts that affects basic coverage like this:
Government Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' New Cuts Threaten U.S. Cancer Care
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-cancer-care-68577807.html?wwparam=1257795661
Is this your idea of "better healthcare"?

3) 4,000 mothers is one hell of a lot of "anecdotal evidence".
Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-offices-hospital-toilets.html#ixzz0WORO0RUG
"Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full."
"Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year."
Is this your idea of "better healthcare"?

eskimospy...I think we want the same thing. To most...it's clear that we do have a reasonably good system...that could use some major reforms. But a radical change to the system is risky and many fear that it will likely result in higher costs and lower quality care...something I hope that neither of us wants.

 

[blackangst1]

Oh, I know full well this bill will only have minor savings.

But when we get UHC..someday...this country will be a better place if it isnt too far gone when we finally implement it.

Savings? I never said anything about savings. What I said was reduction in medical COST. The savings this bill provides isnt due to anything spectacular in the benefit portion, its coming from spending cuts in other areas.