Healthcare reform

[mr_genius]

That's the U.S. economy the way it should be.

 

India is a pretty closed economy, they probably wouldn't let kap in if he was going to take a job that an Indain could possibly fill.

 

but of course, they demand free access to the US economy. thats fair though, globalization at it's finest. everyone in the United States works at Walmart, or works for the government, or gets welfare checks, or dies in the street. a successful economy.

Edited June 11, 2009 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

India is a pretty closed economy, they probably wouldn't let kap in if he was going to take a job that an Indain could possibly fill.

 

but of course, they demand free access to the US economy. thats fair though, globalization at it's finest. everyone in the United States works at Walmart, or works for the government, or gets welfare checks, or dies in the street. a successful economy.

Right on!

 

[Balta1701]

Right on!

You still have to break the government employee unions first.

[kapkomet]

You still have to break the government employee unions first.

I just can't win. I'm an educated, white, suppressed non-union American male. The world sucks for me.

 

[Soxbadger]

Well you had a good 1,000 year run, but everything has a beginning and an end.

 

[mr_genius]

Well you had a good 1,000 year run

 

maybe if you're English. Irish heritage or something, you've had a decent 75 years.

 

[StrangeSox]

I just can't win. I'm an educated, white, suppressed non-union American male. The world sucks for me.

 

Go work for the IRS. They've got a union!

 

Malpractice spending is less than 5% of health care costs. Tort reform won't solve this problem.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

[kapkomet]

Go work for the IRS. They've got a union!

 

Malpractice spending is less than 5% of health care costs. Tort reform won't solve this problem.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Yes it will. It has only a little to do with the % spent, it has to do with the threat.

[StrangeSox]

Yes it will. It has only a little to do with the % spent, it has to do with the threat.

 

Insurance costs are covered in the several CBO studies I've seen. Malpractice insurance is there to cover that threat.

[BigSqwert]

Some more liberal bias in the media. This time on MSNBC. I love the 3rd user comment.

Steve McMahon, the resident "Democratic strategist" on Hardball who routinely debates that hairless former McCain staffer, was on with Chris Matthews tonight doing an excellent job echoing the centrist, moderate Democratic horses*** line on the public option.

 

Which is, of course, to paint the public option as far-left and "controversial." In fact, he actually called it that. Let's take a look at how controversial the public plan actually is.

 

A poll from January via Greg Sargent:

While recent polling ha

s

s

hown con

s

i

s

tent broad

s

upport for comprehen

s

ive health care reform, thi

s

poll

s

pecifically addre

s

s

ed whether people want a choice of a public health in

s

urance plan. 73% of voter

s

want a choice of a private or public health in

s

urance plan, including Democrat

s

(77%), Independent

s

(79%), and Republican

s

(63%).

Hmm. 63 percent support from Republicans. Controversial!

 

Next, from April:

Wa

s

hington DC

—

A new poll relea

s

ed today by Con

s

umer

s

Union, the non-profit publi

s

her of Con

s

umer Report

s

magazine,

s

how

s

that 66 percent of American

s

s

upport having the option of a public health in

s

urance plan a

s

part of health care reform. Thi

s

public plan would give everyone

–

in

s

ured and unin

s

ured

–

the option of a plan that i

s

more affordable, with no preexi

s

ting condition

s

, ha

s

a con

s

i

s

tent menu of benefit

s

, and i

s

alway

s

available. A clear majority acro

s

s

all demographic

s

ector

s

s

upported creating a public plan.

A clear majority across all demographic sectors. Controversial! Avoid! Avoid!

 

What about a poll conducted by an actual health insurance provider, Kaiser Health:

...about two-third

s

(67%) of U.

S

. re

s

ident

s

"

s

trongly" or "

s

omewhat" favor e

s

tabli

s

hing a public health in

s

urance option "

s

imilar to Medicare," with about 80% of Democrat

s

, 60% of independent

s

and 49% of Republican

s

in favor of

s

uch a plan.

IEEEEE! Third rail!

 

Matthews, wisely, admitted prior to McMahon's obviously paid spin that McMahon's clients include health insurers. So why, then, was he invited onto the show given his obvious conflict of interest? MSNBC has to answer for this. They're passing off a paid shill as an expert commentator.

 

Speaking of which, McMahon said that if President Obama abandons the public option and strives for 80 votes in the Senate, "everyone will be happy." By "everyone," McMahon clearly means his awful clients.

 

LINK

[StrangeSox]

AMA opposes government-sponsored health care plan.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I have required medical treatment in France. The treatment was well done, simple and free.

 

Which, frankly, is bulls***. If we ever develop a nationalized health care system you'd better be paying into that system to receive it's benefits.

 

And no, I'm not referring to the person who just got laid off and is actively looking for a new job.

 

But seriously, why does that make sense? You should have to be a citizen to receive such benefits. If not, the level of illegal aliens in this country will just continue to climb.

[StrangeSox]

If its through a VAT sales tax, they'll be paying in. Illegals may not pay income taxes, but they still pay sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, cig tax, etc.

[Balta1701]

AMA opposes government-sponsored health care plan.

After that article was printed yesterday, the chair of the National Physicians Alliance immediately issued a letter of resignation from the AMA. The AMA gets a speech from Obama himself on Monday, and the AMA realized that they were in trouble rapidly enough that they issued this statement later in the day walking back their opposition.

Today’s New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA’s position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians.”

Note...the big reason why they'd love a co-op plan is that no one organization would be big enough to actually negotiate competitively the prices that medical providers can charge for services. That's the big weakness of that idea compared to a true public plan...the public plan is strength and efficiency in numbers.

[lostfan]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/15/mir...osts/index.html

Great article here that gets to the root of the whole issue (lack of incentives to be efficient, encouraging everyone to choose the best available, most expensive options because they are currently subsidized and don't have to pay for the quality).

[Balta1701]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/15/mir...osts/index.html

Great article here that gets to the root of the whole issue (lack of incentives to be efficient, encouraging everyone to choose the best available, most expensive options because they are currently subsidized and don't have to pay for the quality).

I think he's got the major issues right and it seems like we're actually agreeing with him there...but I think he's totally wrong on the fixes. Basically, his thinking is entirely based around "If people have to pay more for the more expensive treatments they're likely to spend less on health care" which is true, but which neglects the fact that a lot of necessary health care is damned expensive, and no matter what happens or what changes you make, your average consumer is going to find making educated decisions about health care almost impossible. They go with what their doctors or their health care providers recommend.

[lostfan]

I think he's got the major issues right and it seems like we're actually agreeing with him there...but I think he's totally wrong on the fixes. Basically, his thinking is entirely based around "If people have to pay more for the more expensive treatments they're likely to spend less on health care" which is true, but which neglects the fact that a lot of necessary health care is damned expensive, and no matter what happens or what changes you make, your average consumer is going to find making educated decisions about health care almost impossible. They go with what their doctors or their health care providers recommend.

IMO, better efficiency is a bigger priority than providing coverage for everyone. The first kills many birds with one stone. The second just increases the amount of money we need to spend.

[Balta1701]

IMO, better efficiency is a bigger priority than providing coverage for everyone. The first kills many birds with one stone. The second just increases the amount of money we need to spend.

Efficiency = providing coverage for everyone. Think about this...how much time and money is spent in this country figuring out whether or not a person is covered at all or is covered for a specific treatment? Or how much is spent by insurance companies figuring out creative ways to not pay for treatments? Administrative costs, especially for private insurance, are through the roof, even compared to Medicare (Which is why a public system is such a necessity).

One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.

 

...

One of these is an earlier McKinsey study explaining the difference in 1990 health spending in West Germany and in the United States. The researchers found that in 1990 Americans received $390 per capita less in actual health care but spent $360 more per capita on administration.

 

A second, more recent study of administrative costs in the American and Canadian health systems was published in 2003 by Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2003. The study used a measure of administrative costs that includes not only the insurer’s costs, but also the costs borne by employers, health-care providers and governments – but not the value of the time patients spent claiming reimbursement. These authors estimated that in 1999, Americans spent $1,059 per capita on administration compared with only $307 in purchasing power parity dollars (PPP $) spent in Canada.

One of the biggest advantages to a public system, and to a universal system is; everyone is covered. There's no profit to be made spending large sums of money on finding ways to deny treatment. There's no profit to be made spending large sums of money trying to make sure that you don't cover anyone who is actually sick. There's no time wasted filling out forms to determine if a treatment is covered. There's no money spent on the thousands of people who's job it is to find reasons for you to deny coverage. There's only profit to be made by being more efficient overall than the next provider. There's only profit to be made by providing better care.

 

There is enough money being spent right now on finding administrative ways to deny coverage to people to pay for covering our entire population of uninsured.

[Y2HH]

I find the fact that some of you believe they can pull off a "universal system" is hilarious. They couldn't/can't even get medicare working properly and that's only covering seniors, etc. Now what a lot of people are saying is you'd want them to scrap that shoddy system, and implement a system that covers EVERYONE but somehow doesn't suck?!

 

If they can't get it right for say, 50M Americans, why, I ask, do you think they can get it right for 350M...if not more?! Simple math doesn't back this line of thinking. Hell, they can't even run a public transit system well enough in this country, so let's hand them the key to the entire public health system, too? I often find myself shaking my head at how many times the government can fail, yet a lot of you believe their lies. It concerns me that the fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me saying never seems to apply to a lot of people when it comes to government.

 

When it comes to government, it's more like:

 

Fool me once, it's ok...I'll still vote for you, I know you meant well!

Fool me twice, it's still ok...as long as you keep promising me things you cannot possibly deliver, I'll still vote for you because I have a short to non-existant memory for the things you promised yet never delivered on!

Fool me thrice, it doesn't matter...you promised to deliver a whole mess of stuff and ended up delivering on only 1% of it, so I'm gonna consider that a massive success!!!!

Fool me again...it's ok, because I'm a f***ing fool.

 

Look, as badly as we'd all love a working system that pays for everyone while continuing to deliver the highest of quality care stop and look around for a minute before you get what you're wishing for. If they can't get it right for a small sub-section of the population, why do you think they can suddenly get it right for the ENTIRE population?

 

This is a mess waiting to implode upon the United States.

[Y2HH]

Efficiency = providing coverage for everyone. Think about this...how much time and money is spent in this country figuring out whether or not a person is covered at all or is covered for a specific treatment? Or how much is spent by insurance companies figuring out creative ways to not pay for treatments? Administrative costs, especially for private insurance, are through the roof, even compared to Medicare (Which is why a public system is such a necessity).

One of the biggest advantages to a public system, and to a universal system is; everyone is covered. There's no profit to be made spending large sums of money on finding ways to deny treatment. There's no profit to be made spending large sums of money trying to make sure that you don't cover anyone who is actually sick. There's no time wasted filling out forms to determine if a treatment is covered. There's no money spent on the thousands of people who's job it is to find reasons for you to deny coverage. There's only profit to be made by being more efficient overall than the next provider. There's only profit to be made by providing better care.

 

There is enough money being spent right now on finding administrative ways to deny coverage to people to pay for covering our entire population of uninsured.

 

This all boils down to one thing : there would be no money in it.

 

So why would anyone want those jobs? I know you probably have some odd cockamamy thinking in mind that will keep these very highly paid doctors working for 10$ an hour, but wake up and smell the coffee here...they won't, at least, not the ones you'd want working on you in an emergency. And yes, their high salaries would have to disappear along with the rest of the money that system has flowing in it to keep a system of this magnitude in place and affordable.

 

It comes down to money, no matter what spin you try to put on it, to think a universal system can work in a country this large with the same level of care we currently have isn't just insane, it's f***ing stupid.

[Balta1701]

This all boils down to one thing : there would be no money in it.

 

So why would anyone want those jobs? I know you probably have some odd cockamamy thinking in mind that will keep these very highly paid doctors working for 10$ an hour, but wake up and smell the coffee here...they won't, at least, not the ones you'd want working on you in an emergency. And yes, their high salaries would have to disappear along with the rest of the money that system has flowing in it to keep a system of this magnitude in place and affordable.

 

It comes down to money, no matter what spin you try to put on it, to think a universal system can work in a country this large with the same level of care we currently have isn't just insane, it's f***ing stupid.

None of that $150 billion a year I just talked about is going to doctors. Not a cent.

[Y2HH]

None of that $150 billion a year I just talked about is going to doctors. Not a cent.

 

So the people it is going too -- just lay them all off, too? And don't tell me it's just going to the insurance companies and other gluttonous properties, either. That's probably a few hundred thousand jobs we're talking about now. Bottom line is, no matter what happens, that lost money won't suddenly appear in the average Americans pocket...the government simply wants it for themselves, after all, they're gonna need a multitude of ways to pay for this.

 

The government hasn't found a way to purchase simple items like computers for schools without blowing millions upon millions per school -- hell, forget computers, they can't buy anything without massive waste/overhead, but I'm sure they'll know how to make health care affordable!

 

I don't mean to sound like a jag when I talk about this, but there is a lot more too it than they're letting on. If they want to seriously make heath care more affordable without messing up the current system even more, put massive legislation and changes the laws when it comes to the COUNTLESS frivolous lawsuits brought up against doctors/surgeons on a daily basis, also, crack down on insurance fraud from people collecting benefits when they aren't really hurt/sick, as this is a RAMPANT problem in the insurance industry, yet the laws the government put fourth does almost nothing but helps these types. I heard a few things earlier today about making the lawsuits harder -- and the fact that they realize this is/has been going on yet have done nothing about it should show you how interested the government is in saving you money on free healthcare.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I don't mean to sound like a jag when I talk about this, but there is a lot more too it than they're letting on.

Here's my problem with your argument...there's nothing to back it up. It is an empty assertion that the government can never do anything right.

 

I can point out how every other country in the western world with a national health care system produces equal or substantially better results than our system does and ALWAYS does so at a lower cost per patient, every single example, and you can just respond with that.

 

I can point out how Medicare by even the most pessimistic of estimates works with vastly lower administrative and overhead costs than any private insurance company, and you can respond with that.

 

I can point out how the health care system in this country with the highest rate of satisfaction and the lowest cost per person is the government runs Veterans Affairs System, and you can just respond with that.

 

I can point out how the creation of Medicare in the 1960's corresponded with a dramatic long-term decline in the poverty rate amongst the elderly, and you can just respond with that.

 

Here is the simple reality; our current health care system is killing this country. It makes us sicker. It costs us 1.5 to 2 times as much per person as every other developed country pays to provide its citizens with health care. It fails to cover a huge fraction of the country. It is a gigantic inefficiency in business. It is a huge impediment to economic growth and economic mobility. It drives jobs overseas or to Canada like crazy. And it gets more expensive and less effective every single day.

 

We've tried decades of "market based" solutions. We've tried letting the "Free market" handle things; the prices have just gone up. We've tried HSA's, we've tried having private companies run medicare (it wound up costing a hell of a lot more per person than normal medicare). None of it has made a difference. The private system is crubling and the economic collapse is accelerating that. It's time to try what works for everyone else.

[Balta1701]

If they want to seriously make heath care more affordable without messing up the current system even more, put massive legislation and changes the laws when it comes to the COUNTLESS frivolous lawsuits brought up against doctors/surgeons on a daily basis, also, crack down on insurance fraud from people collecting benefits when they aren't really hurt/sick, as this is a RAMPANT problem in the insurance industry, yet the laws the government put fourth does almost nothing but helps these types. I heard a few things earlier today about making the lawsuits harder -- and the fact that they realize this is/has been going on yet have done nothing about it should show you how interested the government is in saving you money on free healthcare.

Many states, for example, have done this. Their health care rates have only declined marginally, if at all. There's a number like 4% that we've thrown around already repeatedly in this thread that reflects the %age of health care costs attributable to malpractice. It's simply tiny.

 

On the other hand...I'm more than willing to trade a full national reform of the lawsuit system for a public health care option with teeth. Just like I'm willing to trade drilling in ANWR for a real, legit, national renewable energy policy. In terms of policy, I'm more than willing to give up something that an interest group cares about in exchange for a policy that would dramatically improve this country.

[Y2HH]

Here's my problem with your argument...there's nothing to back it up. It is an empty assertion that the government can never do anything right.

 

I can point out how every other country in the western world with a national health care system produces equal or substantially better results than our system does and ALWAYS does so at a lower cost per patient, every single example, and you can just respond with that.

 

I can point out how Medicare by even the most pessimistic of estimates works with vastly lower administrative and overhead costs than any private insurance company, and you can respond with that.

 

I can point out how the health care system in this country with the highest rate of satisfaction and the lowest cost per person is the government runs Veterans Affairs System, and you can just respond with that.

 

I can point out how the creation of Medicare in the 1960's corresponded with a dramatic long-term decline in the poverty rate amongst the elderly, and you can just respond with that.

 

Here is the simple reality; our current health care system is killing this country. It makes us sicker. It costs us 1.5 to 2 times as much per person as every other developed country pays to provide its citizens with health care. It fails to cover a huge fraction of the country. It is a gigantic inefficiency in business. It is a huge impediment to economic growth and economic mobility. It drives jobs overseas or to Canada like crazy. And it gets more expensive and less effective every single day.

 

We've tried decades of "market based" solutions. We've tried letting the "Free market" handle things; the prices have just gone up. We've tried HSA's, we've tried having private companies run medicare (it wound up costing a hell of a lot more per person than normal medicare). None of it has made a difference. The private system is crubling and the economic collapse is accelerating that. It's time to try what works for everyone else.

 

I can also respond with I personally know foreigners who have had to come HERE to the United States and pay cash for a surgery deemed not necessary by their 'government run plan of awesome'. So throw that superiority complex you seem to think foreign plans have out the window, because it's not reality, take it from a person in the industry. I don't want anything resembling that, ever, and neither do you. You think you do, until you run into a three month wait to get something they deem 'non important' checked out. I, on the other hand, would prefer to have it checked out NOW for peace of mind, and the fact that I can. I like the fact that I can go have an MRI if my shoulders bothering me, while in government run plans you'd get told no because that's not how those systems work. They don't like to talk about these rules in all of these "free" plans we hear of, and how great everyone else's system is flawless and wonderful and how bad ours is. If everyone else's system was so grand, those same countries wouldn't have the massive black market they have in terms of healthcare. And yes, that black market exists, and it's downright frightening.

 

I'll agree with you in one place, we have a lot of inefficiencies, but those can be solved in a multitude of ways, none of which is a government run health system.

 

The best part of all of this is you seem to think it's gonna be free.

 

A lot of these foreigners deal with 50+% taxes for their "free" care. I'm not sure about you, but I prefer to take home what I take home...if they started wacking me with even higher taxes, which they will have to do, I couldn't live with just me working anymore. So much for the family life, eh?

 

No thanks.

 

How about I respond with that, instead.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH