The best single item I've seen on the healthcare debate

[Craig234]

Bill Moyers last interviewed the former head of corporate communications for CIGNA.

Last year, he left CIGNA after he had moral reservations become strong.

In this interview he does an excellent job of summarizing the issue, what's really going on, the real pros and cons of the issues, the agenda of the insurance companies, their PR tactics.

It won't be a surprise to hear his comparisons between the 3% overhead for Medicare versus the 20% overhead for private insurance - with Meicare getting higher patient satisfaction.

It does a great job at putting the issue in some perspective and helping the viewer to cut through the propaganda.

Link to video

 

[sandorski]

Ya, watched it last night, very informative. Moyers almost looked angry in his closing statements. :laugh:

 

[XZeroII]

You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Xero has a point. I just can't imagine this is a particularly objective pros and cons side of the debate, in great part because it's become as polarizing and silly as the global warming one; i.e. pick a side and fight tooth and nail for your side, any reasonable contadictions to it be damned.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Xero has a point. I just can't imagine this is a particularly objective pros and cons side of the debate, in great part because it's become as polarizing and silly as the global warming one; i.e. pick a side and fight tooth and nail for your side, any reasonable contadictions to it be damned.

Watch the damn show. Interviewee was in the Insurance Industry,, knows what he's talking about. Moyers is an upstanding Journalist and not some knob.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

I'll take that chance on this one.

 

[alchemize]

Ah yes, the old 3% myth.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The medicare 3% myth has been debunked. The 20% cost is for the richest featured, employee provided plans. Many Blue Cross/Blue Shield programs provide admin costs that are administratively equal to medicare, with high patient satisfaction.

Patient satisfaction for an insurance plan is typically a reflection of the network, not the insurance. It's also skewed by the demographics of the population. Face it, old people don't complain like young people do. They don't call them the "silent" generation for nothing.

I'm sure if Mr. Moyers had any intention of intellectual honesty, he'd interview a Medicare "turncoat" and balance the conversation. But of course, he's got an agenda as has been proven time and again.

I will watch the video at some point, I did want to address the OP's assertions first.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Xero has a point. I just can't imagine this is a particularly objective pros and cons side of the debate, in great part because it's become as polarizing and silly as the global warming one; i.e. pick a side and fight tooth and nail for your side, any reasonable contadictions to it be damned.

Watch the damn show. Interviewee was in the Insurance Industry,, knows what he's talking about. Moyers is an upstanding Journalist and not some knob.

A quick look at Wikipedia shows that he holds very left-wing views. Just by looking at that page and the fact that Craig posted this, I can already summarize the video. I stand by my original post. I may be missing out, but that's a chance I'm willing to take.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Xero has a point. I just can't imagine this is a particularly objective pros and cons side of the debate, in great part because it's become as polarizing and silly as the global warming one; i.e. pick a side and fight tooth and nail for your side, any reasonable contadictions to it be damned.

Climate Change isn't a debate.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Ah yes, the old 3% myth.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The medicare 3% myth has been debunked. The 20% cost is for the richest featured, employee provided plans. Many Blue Cross/Blue Shield programs provide admin costs that are administratively equal to medicare, with high patient satisfaction.

Patient satisfaction for an insurance plan is typically a reflection of the network, not the insurance. It's also skewed by the demographics of the population. Face it, old people don't complain like young people do. They don't call them the "silent" generation for nothing.

I'm sure if Mr. Moyers had any intention of intellectual honesty, he'd interview a Medicare "turncoat" and balance the conversation. But of course, he's got an agenda as has been proven time and again.

I will watch the video at some point, I did want to address the OP's assertions first.

1st. So your argument is that SOME plans are about the same overhead as Medicare? Is that not a good thing for Medicare that even the best insurance plans at best can only come close to matching Medicare?

2nd WHAT? Old people don?t complain but young people do? You do realize that old people vote in very high percents while young do not. It?s a reason no politician will say we need to cut social security as old people vote so much that person would be next to impossible to elect.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Xero has a point. I just can't imagine this is a particularly objective pros and cons side of the debate, in great part because it's become as polarizing and silly as the global warming one; i.e. pick a side and fight tooth and nail for your side, any reasonable contadictions to it be damned.

Climate Change isn't a debate.

Climate change is not a debate because the climate is always changing.

Climate Change is a debate (note the capital letter) because it's a concept about HOW the climate is changing and there certainly is something to debate on it.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Ignorant? At what, the knowledge that government run healthcare is one failure after another?

Click

Thats what will happen to us, only most likely probably worse. The thing is you'll never hear the good of private care because thats not in the governments interest. No, they want to tax those with jobs so they can turn around and provide "needed" care to those without.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Ignorant? At what, the knowledge that government run healthcare is one failure after another?

Click

Thats what will happen to us, only most likely probably worse. The thing is you'll never hear the good of private care because thats not in the governments interest. No, they want to tax those with jobs so they can turn around and provide "needed" care to those without.

Total Fail. Yet every Canadian is covered, Canadian Health Outcomes are better in almost every category, only Costs 2/3 what it costs in the US, and you're falling for that old song and dance yet again.

 

[themusgrat]

I had a friend that hurt his arm working one day, apparently he twitched some nerve in the shoulder or something, rendering his arm useless. It took him 6 months to finally see a proper doctor about it, during which he couldn't work at all, and was in excruciating pain. In the end, the doctor bailed basically and told him it would be best to simply put the arm to sleep for the rest of his life. So now he's stuck with a limp arm that he drugs up every morning, and his job opportunities are very limited. What a waste, he's 35.

Oh right, this is in Canada.

I'm not saying anything for or against universal health care, but you're simply lying if you say canadian health outcomes are better in almost every category. Not really. Actually not at all. Our health care in America is really good, you may have heard this somewhere before....

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: alchemize
Ah yes, the old 3% myth.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The medicare 3% myth has been debunked. The 20% cost is for the richest featured, employee provided plans. Many Blue Cross/Blue Shield programs provide admin costs that are administratively equal to medicare, with high patient satisfaction.

Patient satisfaction for an insurance plan is typically a reflection of the network, not the insurance. It's also skewed by the demographics of the population. Face it, old people don't complain like young people do. They don't call them the "silent" generation for nothing.

I'm sure if Mr. Moyers had any intention of intellectual honesty, he'd interview a Medicare "turncoat" and balance the conversation. But of course, he's got an agenda as has been proven time and again.

I will watch the video at some point, I did want to address the OP's assertions first.

1st. So your argument is that SOME plans are about the same overhead as Medicare? Is that not a good thing for Medicare that even the best insurance plans at best can only come close to matching Medicare?

2nd WHAT? Old people don?t complain but young people do? You do realize that old people vote in very high percents while young do not. It?s a reason no politician will say we need to cut social security as old people vote so much that person would be next to impossible to elect.

Medicare has low overhead because medicare doesn't do much. It doesn't fight fraud effectively (huge cost), it doesn't manage costs - it sets prices via congress so providers raise costs on the privately insured, disease management is run through private contractors. I would guess that the actual activities Medicare performs are done much more inefficiently than private insurance, given it's the government. The only thing Medicare has going for it is a huge number of insured, which again falsely lowers the percentage. Put 50 million subscribers on a bare-bones BCBS plan and I guarantee you that you'd see lower costs, higher satisfaction.

Old people vote because they feel it is a civic duty. You're just proving my point.

I will definitely concede that the big, public, for-profit companies like UHC, Cigna, Humana, etc. are the ones that are fighting this. I wonder if you can have a stock-driven healthcare/insurance company without some serious constraints on how they operate.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Ignorant? At what, the knowledge that government run healthcare is one failure after another?

Click

Thats what will happen to us, only most likely probably worse. The thing is you'll never hear the good of private care because thats not in the governments interest. No, they want to tax those with jobs so they can turn around and provide "needed" care to those without.

Total Fail. Yet every Canadian is covered, Canadian Health Outcomes are better in almost every category, only Costs 2/3 what it costs in the US, and you're falling for that old song and dance yet again.

Looking at that report I can see why it is 2/3rds the cost. They have roughly 1/2-2/3rds the access to greater medical technology.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
I had a friend that hurt his arm working one day, apparently he twitched some nerve in the shoulder or something, rendering his arm useless. It took him 6 months to finally see a proper doctor about it, during which he couldn't work at all, and was in excruciating pain. In the end, the doctor bailed basically and told him it would be best to simply put the arm to sleep for the rest of his life. So now he's stuck with a limp arm that he drugs up every morning, and his job opportunities are very limited. What a waste, he's 35.

Oh right, this is in Canada.

I'm not saying anything for or against universal health care, but you're simply lying if you say canadian health outcomes are better in almost every category. Not really. Actually not at all. Our health care in America is really good, you may have heard this somewhere before....

Uh, they are.

 

[alchemize]

I will also add one last jab at the OP. It's the best video he's seen on the healthcare debate, because it's a one sided presentation he agreed with. There was no debate, hence the best. Par for for the course for the OP.

I want this subject debated vigorously, but like most politics in the US, seems everything is a coin marked D on one side and R on the other.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

Your loss. I suppose it's just better to remain Ignorant.

Ignorant? At what, the knowledge that government run healthcare is one failure after another?

Click

Thats what will happen to us, only most likely probably worse. The thing is you'll never hear the good of private care because thats not in the governments interest. No, they want to tax those with jobs so they can turn around and provide "needed" care to those without.

Total Fail. Yet every Canadian is covered, Canadian Health Outcomes are better in almost every category, only Costs 2/3 what it costs in the US, and you're falling for that old song and dance yet again.

Looking at that report I can see why it is 2/3rds the cost. They have roughly 1/2-2/3rds the access to greater medical technology.

Yet, despite that, Outcomes are statistically better. IOWs, totally meaningless point there.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
You mean it's the best item you've seen that supports your position? No thanks. I've read enough of your posts to know not to click on that link. Maybe it's good, maybe not, I guess I'll never know.

The best i have seen on the subject, is an op-ed about the treatment of prostrate cancer. 4 or 5 treatmenst exists ranging from keep an eye on it($2500 i doc visits overtime) to some super radtion treatment($50lk). The end results for all methods is about the same. Consumer does not care what the cost is, someone else is paying the bill. Docs lean to more expensive treatment as it makes more money.

And prostrate cancer is not usually what kills a guy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I will also add one last jab at the OP. It's the best video he's seen on the healthcare debate, because it's a one sided presentation he agreed with. There was no debate, hence the best. Par for for the course for the OP.

I want this subject debated vigorously, but like most politics in the US, seems everything is a coin marked D on one side and R on the other.

You also have a part in the Debate. By being exposed to both sides and not just making up flimsy reasons why you shouldn't.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Yet, despite that, Outcomes are statistically better. IOWs, totally meaningless point there.

What outcomes?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Yet, despite that, Outcomes are statistically better. IOWs, totally meaningless point there.

What outcomes?

Health Outcomes.

 

[theeedude]

The right still has head firmly in sand on this issue.