Help me to understand McCains health care plan.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: shira
Everybody deserves decent health care.

What's after health care? Everyone deserves a plasma TV? A Lexus? Golden toilet?

Well, he's right to a point we all "deserve" it but that doesn't make it a "right" or something the gov't should provide. But once you cross the "right" line then your point is valid... what else do we think we "deserve" so we turn it into a "right".

As I wrote, we're already paying for health care for everyone. Why deny it? And once you stop the denial, it just becomes a question of what's the most efficient/just system we can construct.

wrong - you still don't understand Insurance and healthcare and the separation of them.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
I think we are asking the wrong question in this country.


What we should be asking is...

1) Why do we spend 16% of our GDP on health care, where the next highest country that spends money on health care is roughly 8%

2) Why are costs so astronomical on every level. Why are drug companies allowed to lobby for the prevention of the importation of cheaper drugs (and I don't mean just generics, but other drugs from other countries that do similar things)

3) Why is the premium for health care at work going up so quickly over the last 10 years or so. Did we as a nation get sicker all of a sudden? What is that extra money doing? I don't see any increased benefits in my coverage...

I think if we can isolate the reasons for HIGH COST first, we can then talk about how to get everyone insured.

But we are approaching this issue backwards.

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You obviously haven't read my positions on healthcare if you continue on with your ridiculous ASSumptions. Come back when you have something more than ASSumptions.

No, BHO is not on the right track(although this thread isn't about the BHO plan) his calls for more and more gov't spending on a currently broken system. It's throwing good money after bad...

Sigh...look, just never go into sales or politics. They are not your strongest points.

:laugh:

I was quite good as a salesman and no, I doubt I'll go into politics but then again neither will you or most of the people here.

When you want to come back with more than your assumptions - I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion.

*shrug*

I don't even know what you are assuming that I am assuming.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: shira
By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).

This already exists. It's called COBRA.

It lasts only 18 months. Then you're out of luck.

True, and I don't think many would object to extending that for a longer duration.

And I don't think its fair to say that everyone gets health care. Everyone gets some degree of emergency room care, but the illegals and the poor don't get everything that Cheney does, obviously.

That will cost money.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JS80
Why should I subsidize your disease?

For the same reason that I -non-parent - pay property-tax dollars to subsidize your kids' public schools.

Everybody deserves decent health care. Every kid deserves decent schooling.

Wrong. Taxes(and Education for that matter) are different than INSURANCE. Why do these discussions always devolve into people trying to make stupid comparisons?

Yes, everyone deserves health care. However, INSURANCE is not healthcare. Those who choose to not have INSURANCE can still gain healthcare, they just pay for their actual costs instead of pooling their risk with others.
However, just because someone does not have INSURANCE does not mean that I(the gov't) should subsidize all their care.
Your argument is specious. You state that "everyone deserves decent health care." Unstated by you is that tens of millions of Americans can't afford health insurance. CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, get it?

Now, we all know those uninsured WILL receive health care one way or another. The costs of health care delivery to uninsured people are paid for with/factored-into the insurance rates of those who ARE insured, into the rates charged by health providers (to cover costs they won't be able to recover when they treat uninsured), and tax dollars.

In other words, the health costs of the sick and un-insured are already subsidized by the rest of us, but in a haphazard way that ends up delivering sub-optimal care to the un- and under-insured and randomly bankrupts individuals that get hit with huge costs they can't afford.

In other words, our current system is grossly unjust. The question is: What's the best way to improve it. As far as I can see McCain's plan will only make the problem worse. Obama's plan will cost more, but it will do a lot to address the problem.

By the way, one issue addressed by neither McCain nor Obama is tranportability of insurance. If you leave a company that offered health insurance and strike out on your own, there's a good chance you won't be able to obtain insurance at any price (if you have pre-existing conditions). Why not pass a law that that says that if you're currently insured under a group plan, your existing health-insurance provider is required to offer you the same group plan at the same price (paid for by you) if you decide to change employment? I can't see how the insurance companies could object - they'd still be insuring someone they already insured, and would be receiving the same premiums (plus, perhaps, a small administrative fee).


What part of health care != INSURANCE do you not understand. Please educate yourself before posting more foolishness.

Just because someone "CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE" doesn't mean they can't get healthcare. "get it?"

Again, everyone gets health care, even the uninsured. The rest of us already pay for it. You can object and turn red in the face, but facts are facts.

The problem is that the current system is grossly inefficient and unjust. We can do better.


When are you going to stop with the ignorance? No, everyone does not get "health care", they get emergency care.

The problem with the current system is that it's based on an antiquated system of employer based insurance, the under utilization of preventative care, and over use of drugs. It has nothing to do with how "unjust" you think it is.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think we are asking the wrong question in this country.


What we should be asking is...

1) Why do we spend 16% of our GDP on health care, where the next highest country that spends money on health care is roughly 8%

2) Why are costs so astronomical on every level. Why are drug companies allowed to lobby for the prevention of the importation of cheaper drugs (and I don't mean just generics, but other drugs from other countries that do similar things)

3) Why is the premium for health care at work going up so quickly over the last 10 years or so. Did we as a nation get sicker all of a sudden? What is that extra money doing? I don't see any increased benefits in my coverage...

I think if we can isolate the reasons for HIGH COST first, we can then talk about how to get everyone insured.

But we are approaching this issue backwards.

1/3 of money spent on health care goes to insurance companies. You want to fix that problem, put everyone under one nonprofit health insurance plan, aka "single payer"
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: shira
As I wrote, we're already paying for health care for everyone. Why deny it? And once you stop the denial, it just becomes a question of what's the most efficient/just system we can construct.

While you may be correct, it amuses me that any realistic person would think the most efficient system would involve the gov't.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

When are you going to stop with the ignorance? No, everyone does not get "health care", they get emergency care.

The problem with the current system is that it's based on an antiquated system of employer based insurance, the under utilization of preventative care, and over use of drugs. It has nothing to do with how "unjust" you think it is.

Glad to see you've finally come to accept Obama into your heart.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: shira
As I wrote, we're already paying for health care for everyone. Why deny it? And once you stop the denial, it just becomes a question of what's the most efficient/just system we can construct.

While you may be correct, it amuses me that any realistic person would think the most efficent system would involve the gov't.

Name ONE country with government universal healthcare that spends more per capita than we do.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

When are you going to stop with the ignorance? No, everyone does not get "health care", they get emergency care.

The problem with the current system is that it's based on an antiquated system of employer based insurance, the under utilization of preventative care, and over use of drugs. It has nothing to do with how "unjust" you think it is.

Glad to see you've finally come to accept Obama into your heart.

:roll: I stated these things long before BHO tried to use them to sell his universal "health care" crap.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: shira
As I wrote, we're already paying for health care for everyone. Why deny it? And once you stop the denial, it just becomes a question of what's the most efficient/just system we can construct.

While you may be correct, it amuses me that any realistic person would think the most efficent system would involve the gov't.

I guess it depends on what how you define efficiency.

One thing is for certain, that, if government were to step in I think we would/could have some kind of price control.

I don't want to get into a massive debate, but things like energy/food/healthcare/gas are not affected by free markets as much as we think they are.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think we are asking the wrong question in this country.


What we should be asking is...

1) Why do we spend 16% of our GDP on health care, where the next highest country that spends money on health care is roughly 8%

2) Why are costs so astronomical on every level. Why are drug companies allowed to lobby for the prevention of the importation of cheaper drugs (and I don't mean just generics, but other drugs from other countries that do similar things)

3) Why is the premium for health care at work going up so quickly over the last 10 years or so. Did we as a nation get sicker all of a sudden? What is that extra money doing? I don't see any increased benefits in my coverage...

I think if we can isolate the reasons for HIGH COST first, we can then talk about how to get everyone insured.

But we are approaching this issue backwards.

I think the primary answer to #1 and #2 is technology. Healthcare is one of the few industries where technology increases costs. We have more medical 'capital' than any other nation, and given a choice between a $100 patented drug, and a $10 off patent drug, the $100 one is always chosen.

Look how much Dick Cheney's pacemaker treatment costs. I have no idea why we are trying to offer the same level of care to 300 million people; its not feasible.

Liability is another story altogether.

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think we are asking the wrong question in this country.


What we should be asking is...

1) Why do we spend 16% of our GDP on health care, where the next highest country that spends money on health care is roughly 8%

2) Why are costs so astronomical on every level. Why are drug companies allowed to lobby for the prevention of the importation of cheaper drugs (and I don't mean just generics, but other drugs from other countries that do similar things)

3) Why is the premium for health care at work going up so quickly over the last 10 years or so. Did we as a nation get sicker all of a sudden? What is that extra money doing? I don't see any increased benefits in my coverage...

I think if we can isolate the reasons for HIGH COST first, we can then talk about how to get everyone insured.

But we are approaching this issue backwards.

I think we are approaching both at once instead of separately. I am not sure if that is the best approach or not but that does appear to be what we are doing. The two biggest problems with the vast majority of solutions that people present is that you are either sacrificing quality or you are sacrificing availability.

Also, when it comes to #2 specifically, I believe the idea is that different countries have different standards and tests in terms of which drugs get approved. A lot of people like to place blame on the FDA for this problem. My take on it is that there are things which I believe the FDA should be more flexible over, but you really need to be careful because you run into the quality sacrifices really quick if you go overboard. I have always wondered what it would be like if a large international organization were constructed which sets standards and rules for drugs. If done right, it could reduce the costs and maintain quality at an international level as well as open doors more quickly and more cost effectively to the medicines that we see other countries having so much success with.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think we are asking the wrong question in this country.


What we should be asking is...

1) Why do we spend 16% of our GDP on health care, where the next highest country that spends money on health care is roughly 8%

2) Why are costs so astronomical on every level. Why are drug companies allowed to lobby for the prevention of the importation of cheaper drugs (and I don't mean just generics, but other drugs from other countries that do similar things)

3) Why is the premium for health care at work going up so quickly over the last 10 years or so. Did we as a nation get sicker all of a sudden? What is that extra money doing? I don't see any increased benefits in my coverage...

I think if we can isolate the reasons for HIGH COST first, we can then talk about how to get everyone insured.

But we are approaching this issue backwards.

1/3 of money spent on health care goes to insurance companies. You want to fix that problem, put everyone under one nonprofit health insurance plan, aka "single payer"

And yet....the profits of the 5 largest insurance companies total about .5% of healthcare spending.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
1/3 of money spent on health care goes to insurance companies. You want to fix that problem, put everyone under one nonprofit health insurance plan, aka "single payer"

And yet....the profits of the 5 largest insurance companies total about .5% of healthcare spending.

These sound like numbers that need some solid proof and further analyzing using the rest of the picture before any conclusions are drawn from it.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: shira
As I wrote, we're already paying for health care for everyone. Why deny it? And once you stop the denial, it just becomes a question of what's the most efficient/just system we can construct.

While you may be correct, it amuses me that any realistic person would think the most efficent system would involve the gov't.

Name ONE country with government universal healthcare that spends more per capita than we do.


Easy none. But I bet you can't tell me why?
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,692
4,204
136
My question is if we had UHC of some sort and were taxed to support it. Would it cost me more monthly then the $90/month i currently pay for insurance? Simple question, but i dont know the answer.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
My question is if we had UHC of some sort and were taxed to support it. Would it cost me more monthly then the $90/month i currently pay for insurance? Simple question, but i dont know the answer.
$90 a month? Nice, I pay $600 a month.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
My question is if we had UHC of some sort and were taxed to support it. Would it cost me more monthly then the $90/month i currently pay for insurance? Simple question, but i dont know the answer.


No one knows-but countries that have UHC levee big time payroll taxes on the work force. Think 40% take home pay--that may give you some idea.

I tend to think that if the govt. gives me a dollar amt. to what something might cost--quaddruple it and you will probably be in the area of 'warm' to the actual amt.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

*sigh*
Yes, I know males can get breast cancer but YOUR post talked about reconstructive surgery. A normal male would not need anything special in the reconstructive area so why are we forced to be in the same risk pool?

:roll: rape kits and rape have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. You trying to use it(for whatever reason) is nothing more than unrelated emotional rhetoric.

The entire point here is that IF you want to have INSURANCE more affordable to people, you need to drop the extras from "minimum" coverage and let people buy more if they want to.
The point you fail to make is that items like the above topic will always be classified as EXTRA in your mind, not the public's. The public will always deem it more important than you think it is which is fine. That means you're in the minority and unless you plan on moving to another country, you have to deal with it just like I have to deal with paying taxes to enforce seatbelt laws. End of story since you obviously cannot comprehend why the public (49 states) deem it important enough to be a requirement.


The problem here is that we don't have "public's" insurance. It makes no difference what you think the "public" wants - INSURANCE is a consumer product. And no, I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the minority when it comes to INSURANCE.

Again, just because states make it part of "minimum" due to different lobbies does NOT mean the public deems it important. You can keep bleating about 49 states and "public" but until you understand what INSURANCE is - you will continue to be ignorant.
Wow. The fact that you don't even understand an "insurance" (we have to use your idiotic keywords here so you can absorb the point properly) requirement and how it's derived shows why you want to do away with them. Good thing your horse has a broken leg.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
My question is if we had UHC of some sort and were taxed to support it. Would it cost me more monthly then the $90/month i currently pay for insurance? Simple question, but i dont know the answer.
$90 a month? Nice, I pay $600 a month.
I pay $60 through my employer. I had individual insurance and was paying $100 for a decent plan as a young, healthy male with no pre-existing conditions. There is no way I will be paying $60 under McCain's plan, no way in hell.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I think we are asking the wrong question in this country.


What we should be asking is...

1) Why do we spend 16% of our GDP on health care, where the next highest country that spends money on health care is roughly 8%

2) Why are costs so astronomical on every level. Why are drug companies allowed to lobby for the prevention of the importation of cheaper drugs (and I don't mean just generics, but other drugs from other countries that do similar things)

3) Why is the premium for health care at work going up so quickly over the last 10 years or so. Did we as a nation get sicker all of a sudden? What is that extra money doing? I don't see any increased benefits in my coverage...

I think if we can isolate the reasons for HIGH COST first, we can then talk about how to get everyone insured.

But we are approaching this issue backwards.

1/3 of money spent on health care goes to insurance companies. You want to fix that problem, put everyone under one nonprofit health insurance plan, aka "single payer"

Agreed, we should remove the insurance part of the equation and focus on the care.


 
Nov 29, 2006
15,692
4,204
136
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
My question is if we had UHC of some sort and were taxed to support it. Would it cost me more monthly then the $90/month i currently pay for insurance? Simple question, but i dont know the answer.
$90 a month? Nice, I pay $600 a month.

Single healthy male with no preconditions. employer pays other half or 2/3's Cant remember. Its not bad. I was just curious what the taxes may end up being ina UHC system vs. what we already pay for insurance. Although if i paid $600/month id think id definatly favor UHC.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
My question is if we had UHC of some sort and were taxed to support it. Would it cost me more monthly then the $90/month i currently pay for insurance? Simple question, but i dont know the answer.
$90 a month? Nice, I pay $600 a month.

Single healthy male with no preconditions. employer pays other half or 2/3's Cant remember. Its not bad. I was just curious what the taxes may end up being ina UHC system vs. what we already pay for insurance. Although if i paid $600/month id think id definatly favor UHC.

If I put my entire family on my insurance then it would cost me almost $1000 a month. (family of 3)

They are not all insured for that reason. :(