President Pivots on Taxing Benefits

[Wreckem]

People dont really seem to understand the costs associated with govt medicare and medicad.

Medicare has ~$50trillion in unfunded liabilites.

Most states have 25-35% of their states budgets going to medicad, for a SMALL precentage of the population. Tennesse experimented with adding every that was uninsured to TennCare. They played chicken with a plan that would potentially eat 90% of the states yearly budget. The first four years they were winning the game of chicken, but then TennCare budget balloned year after year until and outside auditer came in and said it wasn't sustainable. They obviously had to reform it, drop people, make benefit cuts, and they are still working out problems to this day. At this time, the high risk uninsured are A LOT worse off than before the 1994 clusterfuck of epic proportions. Oh and their plan was based off HilaryCare and they weren't trying to insure everyone, just those that were uninsured.

Over the next 20 years medicare and medicad costs SKYROCKET at both the state level and federal level.

Changing to a single payer UHC system DOES NOTHING to get costs under control. Because
1. under current proposals, the Fed will pay private companies to insure people.
2. it does nothing to address the medical cost problem.

It allows people to have "insurance" but that "insurance" is going to be COSTLY for the federal government because they are FAILING TO ADDRESS the real issue, and that is to bring down the cost of MEDICAL CARE. Current UHC proposals don't bring medical costs down by any significant level. Shit Congress cannot even figure out how to bring down medicare costs without just slashing benefit levels.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, I'll admit I kind of goofed that up. (Choppy train of thought, was busy in between)

There will be increased demand in preventative care services (checkups, prescriptions, dental exams, eye tests) because now that people can get it they will.

BUT demand will lessen for emergent care, which is far more expensive.

Cost will go down.
Emergent care will go down.
Preventative care will go up.

Why would it lessen? I doubt this will affect the stupid shit people clog our emergency rooms with. Hell, I have one of those "gold plated" plans from work (yeah, I'm union) and you'd be amazed how many people still do the same stupid crap when it comes to medical things.

The whole plan stinks. It's not UHC (not that I want it). It's a tax increase for almost everyone and I doubt most of us will see any benefit other than more money out of pocket.

Yeah, somehow when it comes to financial matters posters here say that people/markets are irrational, inefficient and stupid. But when it comes to health care issues the same people are suddenly gonna be using UHC in the most efficient/rational and intellegent way so that costs will be reduced.

Fern

Uh it would lessen because when you can go to a doctor and get blood pressure medicine for your illness that wouldn't of been diagnosed or treated you don't end up in the emergency room from a stroke.

People can't afford lots of doctors visits and medicine that are (in the big picture) inexpensive to the system.

This ends up with huge problems and them becoming a HUGE expense to the system for surgeries and lifelong treatments (sometimes at the expense of the state after they can't work anymore) for something that could of been prevented.

There is no efficient and economical government health care. It does not exist.
Now why on earth do you have reason to believe that in the very same bureaucracy will suddenly create one which of necessity must be the largest, most complex in the history of the world? People who need medical care can now go to the emergency room and get treatment. To be sure it isn't long term, but they can go again and again.

It's said that the elephant is an animal designed by a committee, but a government run health care beast will be a cross between Cthulhu and Medusa.

Because the government already has experience through the low income medicare system, but this system will be better than that even because it will be built from the ground up for all American's, and the government will only handle the billing end. The government is good at cutting a check and letting other people manage the business end, the hospitals will handle the care.

It will be a 20% injection of insurance coverage at the most, easy to cope with. Incentives to boost capacity and care can be provided with the money saved as time goes on from less urgent care visits.

Sure, people can go to the E.R. now with no insurance, get huge bills, not pay them, and boost everyone's premiums and maybe drive themselves into bankruptcy while they are at it, but that is part of the thoughtless government care that has made America unstable at its financial core.

You do know that the medicare and medicaid system is a horrible rat's nest of contradictory regulations, horrendous paperwork and is virtually impossible (too often) to maneuver through when trying to get a patient help.

I just want you to understand that in the real world, this experience hasn't helped. In fact it's gotten worse.

Real life example regarding medicaid. There is a medication which costs approximately $900 per hundred. About 6 weeks ago a generic appeared which costs just under $200.

Immediately, the private health care databases were updated to include this medication. Medicaid has not, and it will probably be another month.

That means for the better part of 3 months we have to dispense something that's far more expensive while they get around to punching it into the system.

This happens EVERY time a new medication comes off patent.

Now how does this experience translate into efficiency?

Look at the budget for Medicaid spending vs private insurance spending though.

If Medicaid had the resources of private insurers they could operate at vastly improved rates. I know Medicaid isn't perfect, but it gets the job done now, so with more resources and total cooperation throughout the United States, it has the power to transform into a system of care for all of America.

I think in the end it will be more efficient than our current system, but even if it was just -as- efficient, I think it is worth it to take care of America.

I love this country, and I truly care about the well being of all citizens in this nation. I'm fine discussing it with you, because I know you just want to do what you feel is right as well. I'm just tired of seeing people suffer.

I understand you have the best interest of the nation at heart. My concern is based on my experience. If this was run by people who have actually participated in health care I'd be far more optimistic. As it is, it's being crafted by the very same people who crafted HIPPA, another turkey.

If they want health care to work, work with health care. Don't dictate based on political concerns.

I agree we need to work with health care providers, but the goals of providing healthcare to everyone are in direction opposition to insurance companies making a highly profitable company.

It doesn't seem right that something as neseceary as health care is a for-profit venture.

Perhaps the companies could handle running the health care programs and get paid a fee from the government, while still providing premium health care services to private policy holders.

I'd like that a lot more, but I was thinking in terms of practitioners. After all, who sees to the needs of patients? Not Aetna, and not Ted Kennedy.

Unfortunately the ones likely to run the show are former private insurance execs and the politicians.

Where are knowledgeable people going to be asked to participate?

If I were going to consider a national health care plan, I'd gather consumer advocates, health care practitioners etc to sit down unimpeded and put down what works and what doesn't. When the pros get done, get the actuaries in to determine what the costs will be and submit the whole thing to Congress.

That's a far cry from what seems to be happening.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I agree we need to work with health care providers, but the goals of providing healthcare to everyone are in direction opposition to insurance companies making a highly profitable company.

It doesn't seem right that something as necessary as health care is a for-profit venture.

Perhaps the companies could handle running the health care programs and get paid a fee from the government, while still providing premium health care services to private policy holders.

I agree.

I also think that food is necessary and therefore we should not allow companies to make a profit selling food.
Housing in necessary too, so we should not allow companies to make a profile providing housing.
Transportation in necessary too, can't have a job without it, therefore we should not allow companies to make profit providing it too.

Why don't we just turn all of these services over to the government and let them provide us with them for 'free'?

 

[fskimospy]

Hooray, another UHC thread.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hooray, another UHC thread.

You could try a Cheney one

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I agree we need to work with health care providers, but the goals of providing healthcare to everyone are in direction opposition to insurance companies making a highly profitable company.

It doesn't seem right that something as necessary as health care is a for-profit venture.

Perhaps the companies could handle running the health care programs and get paid a fee from the government, while still providing premium health care services to private policy holders.

I agree.

I also think that food is necessary and therefore we should not allow companies to make a profit selling food.
Housing in necessary too, so we should not allow companies to make a profile providing housing.
Transportation in necessary too, can't have a job without it, therefore we should not allow companies to make profit providing it too.

Why don't we just turn all of these services over to the government and let them provide us with them for 'free'?

So PJ, how long are those arms of yours? Because you really R-E-A-C-H.

Food? Don't have food go to any food bank / shelter and get it. They will help you, give you services, and food stamps to make sure you can eat.

Shelter? Go to any shelter. They will feed you, help you get on your feet, and give you services to make your life better.

Transportation? Public Transit.

Food & Shelter, by the way, effect the extremely poor very heavily, and is already handled for them, very well.

Healthcare? It's fucked, across multiple socio-economic tiers.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Yeah, I'll admit I kind of goofed that up. (Choppy train of thought, was busy in between)

There will be increased demand in preventative care services (checkups, prescriptions, dental exams, eye tests) because now that people can get it they will.

BUT demand will lessen for emergent care, which is far more expensive.

Cost will go down.
Emergent care will go down.
Preventative care will go up.

Why would it lessen? I doubt this will affect the stupid shit people clog our emergency rooms with. Hell, I have one of those "gold plated" plans from work (yeah, I'm union) and you'd be amazed how many people still do the same stupid crap when it comes to medical things.

The whole plan stinks. It's not UHC (not that I want it). It's a tax increase for almost everyone and I doubt most of us will see any benefit other than more money out of pocket.

Yeah, somehow when it comes to financial matters posters here say that people/markets are irrational, inefficient and stupid. But when it comes to health care issues the same people are suddenly gonna be using UHC in the most efficient/rational and intellegent way so that costs will be reduced.

Fern

Uh it would lessen because when you can go to a doctor and get blood pressure medicine for your illness that wouldn't of been diagnosed or treated you don't end up in the emergency room from a stroke.

People can't afford lots of doctors visits and medicine that are (in the big picture) inexpensive to the system.

This ends up with huge problems and them becoming a HUGE expense to the system for surgeries and lifelong treatments (sometimes at the expense of the state after they can't work anymore) for something that could of been prevented.

There is no efficient and economical government health care. It does not exist.
Now why on earth do you have reason to believe that in the very same bureaucracy will suddenly create one which of necessity must be the largest, most complex in the history of the world? People who need medical care can now go to the emergency room and get treatment. To be sure it isn't long term, but they can go again and again.

It's said that the elephant is an animal designed by a committee, but a government run health care beast will be a cross between Cthulhu and Medusa.

Because the government already has experience through the low income medicare system, but this system will be better than that even because it will be built from the ground up for all American's, and the government will only handle the billing end. The government is good at cutting a check and letting other people manage the business end, the hospitals will handle the care.

It will be a 20% injection of insurance coverage at the most, easy to cope with. Incentives to boost capacity and care can be provided with the money saved as time goes on from less urgent care visits.

Sure, people can go to the E.R. now with no insurance, get huge bills, not pay them, and boost everyone's premiums and maybe drive themselves into bankruptcy while they are at it, but that is part of the thoughtless government care that has made America unstable at its financial core.

You do know that the medicare and medicaid system is a horrible rat's nest of contradictory regulations, horrendous paperwork and is virtually impossible (too often) to maneuver through when trying to get a patient help.

I just want you to understand that in the real world, this experience hasn't helped. In fact it's gotten worse.

Real life example regarding medicaid. There is a medication which costs approximately $900 per hundred. About 6 weeks ago a generic appeared which costs just under $200.

Immediately, the private health care databases were updated to include this medication. Medicaid has not, and it will probably be another month.

That means for the better part of 3 months we have to dispense something that's far more expensive while they get around to punching it into the system.

This happens EVERY time a new medication comes off patent.

Now how does this experience translate into efficiency?

Look at the budget for Medicaid spending vs private insurance spending though.

If Medicaid had the resources of private insurers they could operate at vastly improved rates. I know Medicaid isn't perfect, but it gets the job done now, so with more resources and total cooperation throughout the United States, it has the power to transform into a system of care for all of America.

I think in the end it will be more efficient than our current system, but even if it was just -as- efficient, I think it is worth it to take care of America.

I love this country, and I truly care about the well being of all citizens in this nation. I'm fine discussing it with you, because I know you just want to do what you feel is right as well. I'm just tired of seeing people suffer.

I understand you have the best interest of the nation at heart. My concern is based on my experience. If this was run by people who have actually participated in health care I'd be far more optimistic. As it is, it's being crafted by the very same people who crafted HIPPA, another turkey.

If they want health care to work, work with health care. Don't dictate based on political concerns.

I agree we need to work with health care providers, but the goals of providing healthcare to everyone are in direction opposition to insurance companies making a highly profitable company.

It doesn't seem right that something as neseceary as health care is a for-profit venture.

Perhaps the companies could handle running the health care programs and get paid a fee from the government, while still providing premium health care services to private policy holders.

I'd like that a lot more, but I was thinking in terms of practitioners. After all, who sees to the needs of patients? Not Aetna, and not Ted Kennedy.

Unfortunately the ones likely to run the show are former private insurance execs and the politicians.

Where are knowledgeable people going to be asked to participate?

If I were going to consider a national health care plan, I'd gather consumer advocates, health care practitioners etc to sit down unimpeded and put down what works and what doesn't. When the pros get done, get the actuaries in to determine what the costs will be and submit the whole thing to Congress.

That's a far cry from what seems to be happening.

I truly hope they take in the valuable input that these professionals have to offer, but also provide oversight so that private insurers set to handle the rollout do not try to push their profits higher.

I think the most important part is to get the care out to our citizens and then over a period of 4 years or so fine tune all the programs to peak efficiency.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I agree we need to work with health care providers, but the goals of providing healthcare to everyone are in direction opposition to insurance companies making a highly profitable company.

It doesn't seem right that something as necessary as health care is a for-profit venture.

Perhaps the companies could handle running the health care programs and get paid a fee from the government, while still providing premium health care services to private policy holders.

I agree.

I also think that food is necessary and therefore we should not allow companies to make a profit selling food.
Housing in necessary too, so we should not allow companies to make a profile providing housing.
Transportation in necessary too, can't have a job without it, therefore we should not allow companies to make profit providing it too.

Why don't we just turn all of these services over to the government and let them provide us with them for 'free'?

So PJ, how long are those arms of yours? Because you really R-E-A-C-H.

Food? Don't have food go to any food bank / shelter and get it. They will help you, give you services, and food stamps to make sure you can eat.

Shelter? Go to any shelter. They will feed you, help you get on your feet, and give you services to make your life better.

Transportation? Public Transit.

Food & Shelter, by the way, effect the extremely poor very heavily, and is already handled for them, very well.

Healthcare? It's fucked, across multiple socio-economic tiers.

Healthcare? Go to a Hospital, they can't turn you away.

 

[JD50]

And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

Food banks and homeless shelters are not comparable to UHC. You're doing yourself a disservice comparing those three things actually. Food banks and homeless shelters are for a few people that would otherwise go hungry and live on the streets, they are not designed for all 300 million citizens to use, what do you think would happen if everyone decided that they were going to live at a shelter? UHC will be for ALL US citizens. Two completely different things.

You can go to any hospital and get emergency care, they can't turn you away. That's the same as going to a food bank if you're starving or a homeless shelter if you're homeless. Again, you can't compare that to UHC, it's not even close to the same thing.

 

[JD50]

Wow, what a great campaign slogan that would be. "Universal Healthcare, it'll be like eating at a food bank and sleeping at a homeless shelter!"

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

Food banks and homeless shelters are not comparable to UHC. You're doing yourself a disservice comparing those three things actually. Food banks and homeless shelters are for a few people that would otherwise go hungry and live on the streets, they are not designed for all 300 million citizens to use, what do you think would happen if everyone decided that they were going to live at a shelter? UHC will be for ALL US citizens. Two completely different things.

You can go to any hospital and get emergency care, they can't turn you away. That's the same as going to a food bank if you're starving or a homeless shelter if you're homeless. Again, you can't compare that to UHC, it's not even close to the same thing.

This is the dumbest damn comparison I have ever seen anybody make.

You can go to Food banks /shelters for short term care and ANYONE can go. That's the comparison.

If you need it in the long term we have LOTS of programs for both. If you even have a basic understanding of social services you'd know that.

And there aren't 50 million homeless who need shelter.

People who need shelter get it. People who need health care are not getting it.

If you have no home I can find you a place to stay, a transition home, a job program, and clothing.

If you have a family, make 25k a year, and have AIDS or Cancer such that no insurance company wants you, you get to go die in misery.

People like you are fucking over this country with your selfish behavior. This is why we are a laughing stock as far as care goes worldwide.

I'd discuss this with you like I have with everyone else here but you are making comparisons like they are wise when they are apples and oranges and trying to make sarcastic comments as if it makes your point more valid.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

Food banks and homeless shelters are not comparable to UHC. You're doing yourself a disservice comparing those three things actually. Food banks and homeless shelters are for a few people that would otherwise go hungry and live on the streets, they are not designed for all 300 million citizens to use, what do you think would happen if everyone decided that they were going to live at a shelter? UHC will be for ALL US citizens. Two completely different things.

You can go to any hospital and get emergency care, they can't turn you away. That's the same as going to a food bank if you're starving or a homeless shelter if you're homeless. Again, you can't compare that to UHC, it's not even close to the same thing.

So basically you're saying we already have UHC.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I wonder where all the libs are hiding??

This is a $246 billion a year tax and it will be paid by just about every American from the poor to the rich.

Good... I'm hoping he does whatever it takes to get access to quality health care for all.


I couldn't care less if he raised the taxes on cigarettes and booze 2-300% ... Wouldn't bother me one bit.

Tho the way he's going about it is ... It needs to be done for ALL. Everyone needs to get on board. No half here no keeping your old plan. I don't think it's going to work if they tell you ... Yeah you can take your plan with you.

And for those that are going to believe that line --- Well, I got some land on the moon for sale!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: TruePaige


This is the dumbest damn comparison I have ever seen anybody make.

You can go to Food banks /shelters for short term care and ANYONE can go. That's the comparison.

If you need it in the long term we have LOTS of programs for both. If you even have a basic understanding of social services you'd know that.

And there aren't 50 million homeless who need shelter.

People who need shelter get it. People who need health care are not getting it.

If you have no home I can find you a place to stay, a transition home, a job program, and clothing.

If you have a family, make 25k a year, and have AIDS or Cancer such that no insurance company wants you, you get to go die in misery.

People like you are fucking over this country with your selfish behavior. This is why we are a laughing stock as far as care goes worldwide.

I'd discuss this with you like I have with everyone else here but you are making comparisons like they are wise when they are apples and oranges and trying to make sarcastic comments as if it makes your point more valid.

Wow, calm down.

There is no UHC equivalent for food or housing in this country, that is, a food or housing program meant to provide free food and houses to everyone in the country. That is what you are wanting with UHC correct? Free healthcare for everyone? You said that healthcare is a necessity, and that is why it should be free for everyone correct?

Food is more of a necessity than healthcare. Housing is more of a necessity than healthcare. If you truly believe that just because something is a "necessity" then it should be provided for free, then you should also be pushing for free housing and free food for everyone.

You are mixing up emergency medical care, medical care for the poorest of the poor, and UHC (healthcare for everyone). They are all three separate things.

Everyone gets emergency medical care, you will not be turned away from an emergency room.
The poorest of the poor get healthcare, medicaid.

People that need healthcare get it. The problem is that if they don't have health insurance then they're stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills that everyone else ends up paying for. Just because I don't think that the government taking control of everything is the answer doesn't make me selfish.

But I guess now we're down to the point where you've got nothing left so you're just going to insult people simply because they have a different view on this subject from you. I'm not fucking over this country by discussing this with you on a message board. And you're not saving the world by discussing this on a message board, get over yourself.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

Food banks and homeless shelters are not comparable to UHC. You're doing yourself a disservice comparing those three things actually. Food banks and homeless shelters are for a few people that would otherwise go hungry and live on the streets, they are not designed for all 300 million citizens to use, what do you think would happen if everyone decided that they were going to live at a shelter? UHC will be for ALL US citizens. Two completely different things.

You can go to any hospital and get emergency care, they can't turn you away. That's the same as going to a food bank if you're starving or a homeless shelter if you're homeless. Again, you can't compare that to UHC, it's not even close to the same thing.

So basically you're saying we already have UHC.

In a bastardized way yea, kind of.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

Food banks and homeless shelters are not comparable to UHC. You're doing yourself a disservice comparing those three things actually. Food banks and homeless shelters are for a few people that would otherwise go hungry and live on the streets, they are not designed for all 300 million citizens to use, what do you think would happen if everyone decided that they were going to live at a shelter? UHC will be for ALL US citizens. Two completely different things.

You can go to any hospital and get emergency care, they can't turn you away. That's the same as going to a food bank if you're starving or a homeless shelter if you're homeless. Again, you can't compare that to UHC, it's not even close to the same thing.

So basically you're saying we already have UHC.

In a bastardized way yea, kind of.

So I don't understand this logic. In our current system we won't pay $50 for someone to get a strange looking mole checked out, but we will pay $500,000 to treat the melanoma that has spread through their whole body a few years later. It's insane.

UHC is not the right answer because it is a right, or because it is an obligation, it is the right answer because there are mountains of empirical evidence that show it is better and cheaper than any other form.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JD50
And how exactly was he reaching? Food and Shelter is much more important for our survival than health insurance. That is the most basic need that we could possibly have, yet we don't have "universal food" or "universal shelter" in the same way that you're proposing "universal health care".

You can get free food and shelter anywhere. Maybe it just won't be up to your "higher standards" that are designated by wants and needs, but you can get free food/shelter.

Also, when bread costs $100 a loaf, then it'll be like health care.

Food banks and homeless shelters are not comparable to UHC. You're doing yourself a disservice comparing those three things actually. Food banks and homeless shelters are for a few people that would otherwise go hungry and live on the streets, they are not designed for all 300 million citizens to use, what do you think would happen if everyone decided that they were going to live at a shelter? UHC will be for ALL US citizens. Two completely different things.

You can go to any hospital and get emergency care, they can't turn you away. That's the same as going to a food bank if you're starving or a homeless shelter if you're homeless. Again, you can't compare that to UHC, it's not even close to the same thing.

So basically you're saying we already have UHC.

In a bastardized way yea, kind of.

So I don't understand this logic. In our current system we won't pay $50 for someone to get a strange looking mole checked out, but we will pay $500,000 to treat the melanoma that has spread through their whole body a few years later. It's insane.

UHC is not the right answer because it is a right, or because it is an obligation, it is the right answer because there are mountains of empirical evidence that show it is better and cheaper than any other form.

or in real life these are reasons why UHC sux:

1st reason: I used to work for a canadian company. Guess what people came to our U.S. based part of the company to visit while they were on one of their 4 paid weeks of vacation? Healthcare. Yup they would come down here get a procedure done stop by our place to say hi and see how the Yanks were doin then go home. in 5 years I saw maybe a dozen people I know of in a small company do this. 12 isn't much but that is just the ones that I know of.

2nd reason: My father-in-law needed knee replacement surgery. He is a veteran. He has UHC as a part of DVA. How long did it take to get the MRI? 20 days. How long did it take to get the knee replacement? almost 3 years. They are backlogged and well younger vets get first priority. No kidding they tried to talk him out of it since he was to old late 50's.

3rd reason: My Kiddos are covered by our state run Schip. UHC for poor kids. Since I make alot by thier standards I have to pay for it and it is CHEAP! Guess what you get what you pay for. No doctor will take my kids and if they do they try and diagnose from the phone or give you a 2 minute office visit. Yea I said 2 minutes! Oh and guess what? You have to go through a bureaucracy to get it and you never talk to the same caseworker twice. They treat you as sub-human. They lose your paperwork. They deny paying for benefits and then guess what I have to end up paying the doctors cash due to the bureaucratic scumbags F'ed up as usual. So now the Cheap insurance costs a fortune and the sevice is on par with a post office late in the day. And since they are a government entity you cannot complain. No one cares! Thier jobs are safe! Doctors often get stuck with the bill and refuse to see patients that have our governments UHC for kids. You think you have Shitty service now? You have not seen anything! UHC is the most frustration thing I have ever delt with in my entire life and i'm married!

I am glad to share that with anyone. Really I do not think everyone knows we already have UHC for kids and vets. It sucks. It sucks huge! Remember when dealing with bureaucrats you are going to lose every time. There is no benefit for them to be nice to you. There is no sense of urgency to get you proper care. Good doctors are hard to find. Finding a bureaucrat to care is impossible. You're screwed!

If BHO cannot fix other entitlements how do you think UHC is gonna work out?

 

[fskimospy]

So basically your rebuttal to the empirical evidence of UHC being better and more efficient as supported by evidence from every single other industrialized nation on the planet is some anecdotes. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

The evidence is in... it came in a long time ago. Don't let ideology blind you to the reality that is staring you in the face.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So basically your rebuttal to the empirical evidence of UHC being better and more efficient as supported by evidence from every single other industrialized nation on the planet is some anecdotes. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

The evidence is in... it came in a long time ago. Don't let ideology blind you to the reality that is staring you in the face.

I would enjoy seeing this evidence.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So basically your rebuttal to the empirical evidence of UHC being better and more efficient as supported by evidence from every single other industrialized nation on the planet is some anecdotes. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

The evidence is in... it came in a long time ago. Don't let ideology blind you to the reality that is staring you in the face.

I would enjoy seeing this evidence.

Example

Bet you cant wait for this to apply to the rest of the country!



Cancer Survival Rates in England

I found this interesting because it mentions Singapore and their HSA's and catastrophic care model. Something I have been asking why we dont do within the United States? Make health insurance catastrophic in nature. Costs look lower than both the NHS and what we have in the United States.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So basically your rebuttal to the empirical evidence of UHC being better and more efficient as supported by evidence from every single other industrialized nation on the planet is some anecdotes. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

The evidence is in... it came in a long time ago. Don't let ideology blind you to the reality that is staring you in the face.

I would enjoy seeing this evidence.

Example

Bet you cant wait for this to apply to the rest of the country!



Cancer Survival Rates in England

I found this interesting because it mentions Singapore and their HSA's and catastrophic care model. Something I have been asking why we dont do within the United States? Make health insurance catastrophic in nature. Costs look lower than both the NHS and what we have in the United States.

I really don't see the nation accepting a substandard level of care such as is seen in other countries offering UHC - the political pressure would be too much not to improve the system. Rather, I see care being roughly the same, with costs continuing to spiral out of control, eventually bankrupting the country. That's what we do here in the US - we live at a standard to which we think we're entitled, regardless of whether we can pay for it, until the debt crushes us.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I found this interesting because it mentions Singapore and their HSA's and catastrophic care model. Something I have been asking why we dont do within the United States? Make health insurance catastrophic in nature. Costs look lower than both the NHS and what we have in the United States.

My original understanding of 'Obama Care' was that everyone in the US must secure health insurance primarily through private providers - and a supplemental umbrella 'catastrophic' coverage plan would be available through the gov't (for those with pre-existing conditions, low income, self-employed, etc).

Catastrophic coverage would still be available through the private sector.

The issues which always come to the forefront (and are generally ignored here) are long-term health care and medical costs associated with the elderly. Historically families have cared for their elders in their declining years - that is no longer the case (we institutionalize 'em).

And over 60% of medical expenditures are made for 12% of the population (those over the age of 65).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So basically your rebuttal to the empirical evidence of UHC being better and more efficient as supported by evidence from every single other industrialized nation on the planet is some anecdotes. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it.

The evidence is in... it came in a long time ago. Don't let ideology blind you to the reality that is staring you in the face.

I would enjoy seeing this evidence.

This evidence has been posted over and over and over and over again on this forum. When you compare per capita spending with any host of health related indicators, the difference in money spent compared to health outcomes achieved is staggering.

I'm not really interested in having the same debate again, because I've probably had it more than a dozen times on here. Just letting you know. The general response is usually some complaint about how America is a unique and some how super-difficult un-health-care-able death zone. I find that unconvincing.