President Pivots on Taxing Benefits

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Medicaid is a disaster. Medicare is a disaster. HIPPA was a huge snafu. Now you point to Sweden or some other place.

Here's a deal. Get Sweden to put the system in place. Otherwise the same jokers that brought you the first three real honest to goodness American health care initiatives.

You have great faith in the competence of US politicians to get this right. I suspect they'll get it about as right as they did Iraq.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Medicaid is a disaster. Medicare is a disaster. HIPPA was a huge snafu. Now you point to Sweden or some other place.

Here's a deal. Get Sweden to put the system in place. Otherwise the same jokers that brought you the first three real honest to goodness American health care initiatives.

You have great faith in the competence of US politicians to get this right. I suspect they'll get it about as right as they did Iraq.

Exactly. Eskimospy, I just find arguments which attempt to compare UHC in other countries - countries with vastly different legal and political systems - to what it would look like in the US to be speculative at best and disingenuous at worst. After the insurance companies, trial lawyers, unions, elderly lobby, and everyone else gets done adding their favorate ingredients to this stew, it's going to be an absolute mess, with no cost savings or efficiencies whatsoever. I once read an article which compared the expected long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid with what those costs actually turned out to actually be, and it was ridiculous how off the projections were - 100% or more. I can't find the numbers now, but I'm confident of my memory of the general trend; why won't a US version of UHC be the same? Additionally, when states have tried to enact UHC, or when the gov't has tried it for select groups (see VA), the costs always grossly exceed expectations, and enrollments have to be scaled back drastically.
I'm not opposed to UHC in theory - I'd like to see it - but I don't see how it can be implemented without breaking our already-overburdened treasury.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Medicaid is a disaster. Medicare is a disaster. HIPPA was a huge snafu. Now you point to Sweden or some other place.

Here's a deal. Get Sweden to put the system in place. Otherwise the same jokers that brought you the first three real honest to goodness American health care initiatives.

You have great faith in the competence of US politicians to get this right. I suspect they'll get it about as right as they did Iraq.

Exactly. Eskimospy, I just find arguments which attempt to compare UHC in other countries - countries with vastly different legal and political systems - to what it would look like in the US to be speculative at best and disingenuous at worst. After the insurance companies, trial lawyers, unions, elderly lobby, and everyone else gets done adding their favorate ingredients to this stew, it's going to be an absolute mess, with no cost savings or efficiencies whatsoever. I once read an article which compared the expected long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid with what those costs actually turned out to actually be, and it was ridiculous how off the projections were - 100% or more. I can't find the numbers now, but I'm confident of my memory of the general trend; why won't a US version of UHC be the same? Additionally, when states have tried to enact UHC, or when the gov't has tried it for select groups (see VA), the costs always grossly exceed expectations, and enrollments have to be scaled back drastically.
I'm not opposed to UHC in theory - I'd like to see it - but I don't see how it can be implemented without breaking our already-overburdened treasury.

So again, we've decided that America is some sort of unique disaster where health care cannot be affordably implemented, despite it having been successfully done in so many other countries. Why is it that 95% of the time everyone lauds America as the place that can do anything, but when it comes to health care we're suddenly raging incompetents, helpless in the face of adversity? It's silliness.

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to that you think it will be implemented poorly so we shouldn't even try. You're complaining about a plan that doesn't even exist. If we can come up with any plan that costs the government less than $2.5 trillion annually, we've saved money. (Also, lawyers account for virtually zero of our health care problems. The total cost is less than 2%, awards, malpractice premiums, everything) Considering our current scheme is rapidly headed for collapse, the only rational response is to see where the health care system has been managed better, and base ours off of that.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Medicaid is a disaster. Medicare is a disaster. HIPPA was a huge snafu. Now you point to Sweden or some other place.

Here's a deal. Get Sweden to put the system in place. Otherwise the same jokers that brought you the first three real honest to goodness American health care initiatives.

You have great faith in the competence of US politicians to get this right. I suspect they'll get it about as right as they did Iraq.

Exactly. Eskimospy, I just find arguments which attempt to compare UHC in other countries - countries with vastly different legal and political systems - to what it would look like in the US to be speculative at best and disingenuous at worst. After the insurance companies, trial lawyers, unions, elderly lobby, and everyone else gets done adding their favorate ingredients to this stew, it's going to be an absolute mess, with no cost savings or efficiencies whatsoever. I once read an article which compared the expected long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid with what those costs actually turned out to actually be, and it was ridiculous how off the projections were - 100% or more. I can't find the numbers now, but I'm confident of my memory of the general trend; why won't a US version of UHC be the same? Additionally, when states have tried to enact UHC, or when the gov't has tried it for select groups (see VA), the costs always grossly exceed expectations, and enrollments have to be scaled back drastically.
I'm not opposed to UHC in theory - I'd like to see it - but I don't see how it can be implemented without breaking our already-overburdened treasury.

So again, we've decided that America is some sort of unique disaster where health care cannot be affordably implemented, despite it having been successfully done in so many other countries. Why is it that 95% of the time everyone lauds America as the place that can do anything, but when it comes to health care we're suddenly raging incompetents, helpless in the face of adversity? It's silliness.

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to that you think it will be implemented poorly so we shouldn't even try. You're complaining about a plan that doesn't even exist. If we can come up with any plan that costs the government less than $2.5 trillion annually, we've saved money. (Also, lawyers account for virtually zero of our health care problems. The total cost is less than 2%, awards, malpractice premiums, everything) Considering our current scheme is rapidly headed for collapse, the only rational response is to see where the health care system has been managed better, and base ours off of that.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. are all headed towards collapse as well. And yet you think the government can run universal healthcare better...based on what? Past precedence and logic is the reason why we are 99% sure that government run healthcare will be a disaster. Because in the past...government run healthcare programs have been a disaster!

Your basic argument is this: government can do everything better than the private industry (despite what the facts say).

It's not really worth debating with you, since you just ignore the facts anyway and push your liberal agenda, no matter what.

Here's the thing: the current private healthcare industry is a bit of a mess. However, if they ever come to the verge of collapse (like Medicare, Medicaid and SS, for example) then they MUST fix things to get the ship on the right course. With a government run program, however, they don't have to fix things. If a government program is on the brink of collapse, instead of fixing the problems, they can just raise taxes, print more money, etc. to cover up the problems instead of addressing them. Private industry cannot raise taxes or print money, so they MUST address the problems to avoid a collapse.

But of course, this time they will get it right! The government just all of a sudden magically discovered how to run things properly and efficiently!

:roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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).

I thought it was the govt being a middleman in securing private insurance?

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).

I totally agee and have been yapping about this through the whole debate. I have no idea how this will be addressed and until it does the costs involved with any healthcare system arent going down. There is no getting around that problem, especially as a larger segment of our population hits that demographic.

The number I often cite that I got from an article a few years ago. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. I dont think anybody(including myself) will have the balls to cut the terminally ill and elderly off.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So again, we've decided that America is some sort of unique disaster where health care cannot be affordably implemented, despite it having been successfully done in so many other countries. Why is it that 95% of the time everyone lauds America as the place that can do anything, but when it comes to health care we're suddenly raging incompetents, helpless in the face of adversity? It's silliness.

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to that you think it will be implemented poorly so we shouldn't even try. You're complaining about a plan that doesn't even exist. If we can come up with any plan that costs the government less than $2.5 trillion annually, we've saved money. (Also, lawyers account for virtually zero of our health care problems. The total cost is less than 2%, awards, malpractice premiums, everything) Considering our current scheme is rapidly headed for collapse, the only rational response is to see where the health care system has been managed better, and base ours off of that.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc. are all headed towards collapse as well. And yet you think the government can run universal healthcare better...based on what? Past precedence and logic is the reason why we are 99% sure that government run healthcare will be a disaster. Because in the past...government run healthcare programs have been a disaster!

Your basic argument is this: government can do everything better than the private industry (despite what the facts say).

It's not really worth debating with you, since you just ignore the facts anyway and push your liberal agenda, no matter what.

Here's the thing: the current private healthcare industry is a bit of a mess. However, if they ever come to the verge of collapse (like Medicare, Medicaid and SS, for example) then they MUST fix things to get the ship on the right course. With a government run program, however, they don't have to fix things. If a government program is on the brink of collapse, instead of fixing the problems, they can just raise taxes, print more money, etc. to cover up the problems instead of addressing them. Private industry cannot raise taxes or print money, so they MUST address the problems to avoid a collapse.

But of course, this time they will get it right! The government just all of a sudden magically discovered how to run things properly and efficiently!

:roll:

Hey, look who it is again. Here to own me some more I see? hahaha. I really did appreciate your post on the definition of nanny state by the way, I genuinely laughed. Stupid people are one thing, but one of my great joys in life is watching people such as yourself make fools out of themselves and not even know it.

The United States has never had a single payer UHC system like the entire rest of the industrialized world uses. You are also confusing government programs that interface with our broken system as somehow being the broken system themselves.

Your attempt to make a straw man out of my argument was pathetic, but sadly not unexpected. You can't win an argument on the merits, so you have to invent positions for people to hold.

 

[EXman]

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.

That is some funny shit! Ideology blind me? I'm the independant you are the uber lib partisan yesman.

Bad service, long wait times, rationing of care, utter contempt, no second opinions, good luck seeing a specialist, little accountability, and an I don't give a flip attitude somehow equals = GOOD UHC according to eskimos DATA! yea we can believe him /end thread. DATA DOES NOT EQUAL CRAP IF if have to deal with the inept bureaucracy.

Once again do you deal with UHC currently? Or are you basing your experience on data that that you have bought hook line and sinker? Do you have a mind? We know that you are a know-it-all but frequently we all know they don't know shit!

Do you have any first hand EXPERIENCE with UHC?

 

[piasabird]

How much extra would congressmen pay for all the extra freebees like the gym, health care, parking, etc if we could tax that? Also if your employer gives you free coffee, meals for overtime, and stock options which you sell, Company Car, company owned real estate, etc, how can we tax all these item?

Also if your Union pays you when you are laid off, that should be taxed also. Note that most people get nothing when they are laid off.

This gets to the point of rediculous.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EXman

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.

That is some funny shit! Ideology blind me? I'm the independant you are the uber lib partisan yesman.

Bad service, long wait times, rationing of care, utter contempt, no second opinions, good luck seeing a specialist, little accountability, and an I don't give a flip attitude somehow equals = GOOD UHC according to eskimos DATA! yea we can believe him /end thread. DATA DOES NOT EQUAL CRAP IF if have to deal with the inept bureaucracy.

Once again do you deal with UHC currently? Or are you basing your experience on data that that you have bought hook line and sinker? Do you have a mind? We know that you are a know-it-all but frequently we all know they don't know shit!

Do you have any first hand EXPERIENCE with UHC?

Depends on what you call UHC, but no matter what yes I have some experience. I visited a hospital in Germany when I was 16 for some stitches, everything was clean, quick, and without problems. Not a big deal, but some interface with a true UHC system. For more serious matters I have been fighting cancer since November through the VA hospital system. While the VA is not UHC, it is a government run health care system. Care was absolutely top notch. Not only was I treated quickly, I was treated kindly and effectively. As of this moment, thanks to government run health care I have been cancer free for 3 months. Not a lot of time, but I'll take what I can get.

There was certainly no bad service, no 'utter contempt' (WTF?!? You want to see utter contempt, go roll up to a hospital without insurance), there most certainly are second opinions, etc... etc.

Your idea that data doesn't mean anything when it interfaces with the government is simply baffling. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Are you saying data from other government run health care in other countries isn't applicable because our government is somehow uniquely incompetent? That's quite a stretch that you'll need to back up with some evidence.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So again, we've decided that America is some sort of unique disaster where health care cannot be affordably implemented, despite it having been successfully done in so many other countries. Why is it that 95% of the time everyone lauds America as the place that can do anything, but when it comes to health care we're suddenly raging incompetents, helpless in the face of adversity? It's silliness.

Last time I saw the figures on those "many other countries", they were running deficits just like us. That does not meet the definition of successful, IMHO. There may be some larger industrial nations offering UHC and not going broke doing it, so I could be wrong on that, but the majority seem to be funding UHC based in part on sustained deficit spending.

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to that you think it will be implemented poorly so we shouldn't even try. You're complaining about a plan that doesn't even exist. If we can come up with any plan that costs the government less than $2.5 trillion annually, we've saved money.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that. Gov't isn't known for efficiency.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

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.

That is some funny shit! Ideology blind me? I'm the independant you are the uber lib partisan yesman.

Bad service, long wait times, rationing of care, utter contempt, no second opinions, good luck seeing a specialist, little accountability, and an I don't give a flip attitude somehow equals = GOOD UHC according to eskimos DATA! yea we can believe him /end thread. DATA DOES NOT EQUAL CRAP IF if have to deal with the inept bureaucracy.

Once again do you deal with UHC currently? Or are you basing your experience on data that that you have bought hook line and sinker? Do you have a mind? We know that you are a know-it-all but frequently we all know they don't know shit!

Do you have any first hand EXPERIENCE with UHC?

Depends on what you call UHC, but no matter what yes I have some experience. I visited a hospital in Germany when I was 16 for some stitches, everything was clean, quick, and without problems. Not a big deal, but some interface with a true UHC system. For more serious matters I have been fighting cancer since November through the VA hospital system. While the VA is not UHC, it is a government run health care system. Care was absolutely top notch. Not only was I treated quickly, I was treated kindly and effectively. As of this moment, thanks to government run health care I have been cancer free for 3 months. Not a lot of time, but I'll take what I can get.

There was certainly no bad service, no 'utter contempt' (WTF?!? You want to see utter contempt, go roll up to a hospital without insurance), there most certainly are second opinions, etc... etc.

Your idea that data doesn't mean anything when it interfaces with the government is simply baffling. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Are you saying data from other government run health care in other countries isn't applicable because our government is somehow uniquely incompetent? That's quite a stretch that you'll need to back up with some evidence.

First of all let me say best wishes on your battle with cancer.

I'm not sure what "interfaces with our broken system" means. We health care providers aren't broken, but I can assure you that the government programs we try to work with are. Right now we're taking money from our schools to pay for Medicaid, the one untouchable NY program. It's consuming more and more. What takes minutes to fix with private insurance may not get fixed. We had a medicaid patient a few days ago who had a problem with a transposition of numbers in the medicaid system. I was told the AIDs patient would just have to wait until they looked at it. It might be fixed next week.

This system soaks up money like a sponge, and yet this patient will go two weeks without medication. Do you have any idea what that means?

You've seen Germany. I've seen what happens here and now.

Get Germany to run the system.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The number I often cite that I got from an article a few years ago. 80% of a persons medical costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. I dont think anybody(including myself) will have the balls to cut the terminally ill and elderly off.

There's just no way care for the elderly gets reduced - the AARP (not to mention basic human self-interest) is way too strong for that, as evidenced by stillborn attempts to fix Social Security. That's why I predict any US version of UHC will simply be financed via deficits until those deficits crush us.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So again, we've decided that America is some sort of unique disaster where health care cannot be affordably implemented, despite it having been successfully done in so many other countries. Why is it that 95% of the time everyone lauds America as the place that can do anything, but when it comes to health care we're suddenly raging incompetents, helpless in the face of adversity? It's silliness.

Last time I saw the figures on those "many other countries", they were running deficits just like us. That does not meet the definition of successful, IMHO. There may be some larger industrial nations offering UHC and not going broke doing it, so I could be wrong on that, but the majority seem to be funding UHC based in part on sustained deficit spending.

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to that you think it will be implemented poorly so we shouldn't even try. You're complaining about a plan that doesn't even exist. If we can come up with any plan that costs the government less than $2.5 trillion annually, we've saved money.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that. Gov't isn't known for efficiency.

A plan is 'successful' (or at least more successful than ours) if it gives better quality of health to the citizens for the same cost, the same quality of health for the citizens for less cost, or both. These other plans most certainly do this.

 

[SagaLore]

Lets just outlaw both private and government healthcare.

Then we will finally be on equal playing ground.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So again, we've decided that America is some sort of unique disaster where health care cannot be affordably implemented, despite it having been successfully done in so many other countries. Why is it that 95% of the time everyone lauds America as the place that can do anything, but when it comes to health care we're suddenly raging incompetents, helpless in the face of adversity? It's silliness.

Last time I saw the figures on those "many other countries", they were running deficits just like us. That does not meet the definition of successful, IMHO. There may be some larger industrial nations offering UHC and not going broke doing it, so I could be wrong on that, but the majority seem to be funding UHC based in part on sustained deficit spending.

The rest of your argument seems to boil down to that you think it will be implemented poorly so we shouldn't even try. You're complaining about a plan that doesn't even exist. If we can come up with any plan that costs the government less than $2.5 trillion annually, we've saved money.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that. Gov't isn't known for efficiency.

A plan is 'successful' (or at least more successful than ours) if it gives better quality of health to the citizens for the same cost, the same quality of health for the citizens for less cost, or both. These other plans most certainly do this.

Exactly. :thumbsup:

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

First of all let me say best wishes on your battle with cancer.

I'm not sure what "interfaces with our broken system" means. We health care providers aren't broken, but I can assure you that the government programs we try to work with are. Right now we're taking money from our schools to pay for Medicaid, the one untouchable NY program. It's consuming more and more. What takes minutes to fix with private insurance may not get fixed. We had a medicaid patient a few days ago who had a problem with a transposition of numbers in the medicaid system. I was told the AIDs patient would just have to wait until they looked at it. It might be fixed next week.

This system soaks up money like a sponge, and yet this patient will go two weeks without medication. Do you have any idea what that means?

You've seen Germany. I've seen what happens here and now.

Get Germany to run the system.

I know exactly what it means. Pain and suffering for that poor patient.

If the entire system was setup to take care of all American's instead of just those that had Medicaid or Private insurance (if EVERYBODY had UHC), he wouldn't have to wait because we wouldn't have to worry about the numbers, or the limited funds of the Medicaid system or reimbursements. The medicine would just be filed for, the patients ID documented, and the claim funded.

 

[alphatarget1]

I just find it funny how people who are so fixated on ideology (UHC supporters) doesn't even want to understand why medical professionals don't think UHC would work, and come up with explanations even though they know nothing about the profession. I have relatives who work in the medical field and they said the same thing. Good luck getting our government to run anything efficiently.

I feel bad for the next few generations who will have to pay for all of this (Iraq war, reckless spending) by Dubya and Obamessiah. Maybe they should blame the old (by the time they have to pay for this) people who voted all of these politicians in.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I just find it funny how people who are so fixated on ideology (UHC supporters) doesn't even want to understand why medical professionals don't think UHC would work, and come up with explanations even though they know nothing about the profession. I have relatives who work in the medical field and they said the same thing. Good luck getting our government to run anything efficiently.

I feel bad for the next few generations who will have to pay for all of this (Iraq war, reckless spending) by Dubya and Obamessiah. Maybe they should blame the old (by the time they have to pay for this) people who voted all of these politicians in.

I agree, we should listen to what the doctors think.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I agree, we should listen to what the doctors think.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

There is no guarantee that a UHC plan will decrease the cost. I guess liberals just fail to understand people's concern that government run programs are mostly crap.

My take on the issue: Too many greedy people/entities who wouldn't give up or compromise at all.

Leeches who use healthcare services anyway, even if they don't have the means to pay for it.
People want more services and less taxation.
The general public wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
Insurance companies want to make money.
Politicians want to stay in power.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

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.

That is some funny shit! Ideology blind me? I'm the independant you are the uber lib partisan yesman.

Bad service, long wait times, rationing of care, utter contempt, no second opinions, good luck seeing a specialist, little accountability, and an I don't give a flip attitude somehow equals = GOOD UHC according to eskimos DATA! yea we can believe him /end thread. DATA DOES NOT EQUAL CRAP IF if have to deal with the inept bureaucracy.

Once again do you deal with UHC currently? Or are you basing your experience on data that that you have bought hook line and sinker? Do you have a mind? We know that you are a know-it-all but frequently we all know they don't know shit!

Do you have any first hand EXPERIENCE with UHC?

Depends on what you call UHC, but no matter what yes I have some experience. I visited a hospital in Germany when I was 16 for some stitches, everything was clean, quick, and without problems. Not a big deal, but some interface with a true UHC system. For more serious matters I have been fighting cancer since November through the VA hospital system. While the VA is not UHC, it is a government run health care system. Care was absolutely top notch. Not only was I treated quickly, I was treated kindly and effectively. As of this moment, thanks to government run health care I have been cancer free for 3 months. Not a lot of time, but I'll take what I can get.

There was certainly no bad service, no 'utter contempt' (WTF?!? You want to see utter contempt, go roll up to a hospital without insurance), there most certainly are second opinions, etc... etc.

Your idea that data doesn't mean anything when it interfaces with the government is simply baffling. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Are you saying data from other government run health care in other countries isn't applicable because our government is somehow uniquely incompetent? That's quite a stretch that you'll need to back up with some evidence.

Well I'm grateful to you for your service. I wish the best for you in your battle/recovery. Germans usually run a tight ship so your experience sounds good. I think the VA will have many detractors though. I have rarely heard people commend them and the few times I have visited our VA hospital in KY the facilities were antiquated and somewhat depressing. Especially considering the four other major hospitals with in one mile of it. The parking was top notch though. I think taking care of vets is paramount.

I have rolled into an ER with no insurance. I had to pay through the nose. I doubt the illegals had to but I went to the closest hospital so their were few there. But they did cut me a better deal than they would charge a insurance company. Illegals have narrowed down where they can get primary care from the universties hospital. Anyways that is off track but it does contribute to more expensive healthcare.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I agree, we should listen to what the doctors think.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

There is no guarantee that a UHC plan will decrease the cost. I guess liberals just fail to understand people's concern that government run programs are mostly crap.

My take on the issue: Too many greedy people/entities who wouldn't give up or compromise at all.

Leeches who use healthcare services anyway, even if they don't have the means to pay for it.
People want more services and less taxation.
The general public wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
Insurance companies want to make money.
Politicians want to stay in power.

You were the one that said we should listen to doctors, not me. It's not my fault if you don't like what they have to say.

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

You can get free healthcare anywhere too, it just may not be up to the "higher standards" given by private medical insurance.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
As a guy that only makes 50k a year this would really hurt. On Tuesday I had to get a chipped tooth fix cost me 1280 out my pocket with insurance. It was old injury I had when I was 15 2 teeth busted and after 23 years they had to be capped. I would love to had this paid for fully but in reality that not going to happen. I pay part of my health coverage each paycheck and all Obama's plain would jack that up each pay. My employer is not going to cover extra tax they just going to pass it off to me. It will be take it or leave it thing for me. Fuck this shit when come to money/tax/economy this government is fucking clueless.

Look at the big picture.

If we had universal health care everyone would get the treatments they need before they become huge problems,

That assumes rationality, which isn't always the norm.

lowering the burden to societies insured people (like yourself), so that in the future instead of 1280 out of pocket you'd pay something reasonable like 400 (and the government would pay that 400 for you because we'd have UHC, so you wouldn't pay a penny! It'd be free to get your basic tooth maintence. ). That is because they wouldn't have to jack it up to cover those who can't pay at all.

That also assumes demand won't explode now that health care is 'free'.

I don't really know how much demand could increase, I wouldn't be sick any more often if healthcare was free, and I wouldn't go any more often for little things if it was either.

Nobody wants to miss work to go to the doctor, because you need work to make money to live (and you might even live a little longer because now you have UHC!)

Quick example. I run a lot and my ankle has been kind of sore for the past couple of weeks. It'll probably work itself out so there's really no need for me to spend the money to go to the Dr. and then possibly be referred to a specialist, it's a waste of money. However, if healthcare was "free", I wouldn't hesitate going to the doctor on my day off, I've got nothing to lose if he just says to let it heal on it's own.

That's punny

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I agree, we should listen to what the doctors think.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

There is no guarantee that a UHC plan will decrease the cost. I guess liberals just fail to understand people's concern that government run programs are mostly crap.

My take on the issue: Too many greedy people/entities who wouldn't give up or compromise at all.

Leeches who use healthcare services anyway, even if they don't have the means to pay for it.
People want more services and less taxation.
The general public wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
Insurance companies want to make money.
Politicians want to stay in power.

You were the one that said we should listen to doctors, not me. It's not my fault if you don't like what they have to say.

I said medical professionals, which consists of more than just doctors.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I agree, we should listen to what the doctors think.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

There is no guarantee that a UHC plan will decrease the cost. I guess liberals just fail to understand people's concern that government run programs are mostly crap.

My take on the issue: Too many greedy people/entities who wouldn't give up or compromise at all.

Leeches who use healthcare services anyway, even if they don't have the means to pay for it.
People want more services and less taxation.
The general public wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
Insurance companies want to make money.
Politicians want to stay in power.

You were the one that said we should listen to doctors, not me. It's not my fault if you don't like what they have to say.

I said medical professionals, which consists of more than just doctors.

Are you implying that other medical professionals besides doctors feel differently? If so, what is your evidence of this?