Healthcare reform

[Y2HH]

It's not just the uninsured who are unhappy with their current health care situation. It's an awful lot of the insured too. And it would be even more if they actually had an understanding of how much of their salary was actually going to pay for health care costs under the current system as well.

 

While true, I'd still maintain that you are speaking of a minority, not a majority who are unhappy. And I don't see it being any cheaper, which is the biggest problem I have...nothing we do is cheap...why do people insist that this one single thing will be? WHY?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

It's not just the uninsured who are unhappy with their current health care situation. It's an awful lot of the insured too. And it would be even more if they actually had an understanding of how much of their salary was actually going to pay for health care costs under the current system as well.

 

If you believe that salaries will rise then you're going to be sorely mistaken.

[Balta1701]

Reports are coming in that Joe Wilson is now getting substantial financial backing from both his constituents and other donors. Looks like it's working both ways.

I think you're mixing up threads now, but anyway, it's like $200k for Wilson so far and $700k for his opponent at the current count.

[BigSqwert]

[Balta1701]

Really NYT, you let the aluminum tubes stuff slide for years...and this is the fact-check you do give?

Mr. Obama opened his 40-minute speech with what he called “disturbing news”: a report from the Treasury Department that, he said, “found that nearly half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next 10 years” and that “more than one-third will go without coverage for longer than one year.”

 

In fact, that is not precisely what the department found when it analyzed data from a University of Michigan survey that tracked the health insurance status of more than 17,000 Americans from 1997 to 2006.

 

The survey found that 47.7 percent had lost coverage at some point during those 10 years for one month or more, and that 36 percent lacked coverage for at least one year during that time, though not necessarily 12 months consecutively. Mr. Obama extrapolated those statistics to predict what might happen in the future.

[Texsox]

1,500 posts and y'all haven't solved the problem? Damn partisan slackers.

[southsider2k5]

Really NYT, you let the aluminum tubes stuff slide for years...and this is the fact-check you do give?

 

This is the lame crap that the NYT will use to say that it is "objective". I wouldn't even quibble with calling 47%, "nearly 50%".

 

[chunk23]

While true, I'd still maintain that you are speaking of a minority, not a majority who are unhappy. And I don't see it being any cheaper, which is the biggest problem I have...nothing we do is cheap...why do people insist that this one single thing will be? WHY?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare...ain-canada.aspx

 

A huge majority of Americans are unhappy with accessibility of healthcare.

 

Regarding cost, we already spend twice as much as any other country on healthcare. Medicare's overhead costs are by the worst measures half of what private insurance companies' overhead costs are by the best measure. Not only that, but Medicare's overhead costs have been decreasing historically, while private insurance companies haven't seen any decline in overhead. Medicare also has the highest consumer satisfaction rating. Currently, Medicare's beneficiary costs average around $6k, whereas private insurance beneficiary costs are around $3k. This is because the Medicare risk pool is entirely high risk, as it's only the elderly, while private insurance companies will just drop you if you cost too much money (21% of claims are denied, the more you need insurance, the more likely you are to be dropped). If we opened Medicare eligibility to everyone, the average beneficiary costs would drop dramatically. Combine that with the low administrative costs compared to private insurance, billions would be saved.

 

People often say that a government bureaucrat will get between you and your healthcare. Would you rather have a corporate bureaucrat, whose job is to actively deny you care, instead? Did you know that having a history of any mental illness is grounds for denial of coverage? (from a blue cross underwriter manual)

 

How about acne?

 

How about having been a victim of domestic violence? http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-viole...g-condition.php

[kapkomet]

You're getting your talking points from SEIU? Please.

[chunk23]

You're getting your talking points from SEIU? Please.

 

Refute the assertion, not the source. The source in that article was the insurance companies. Are you saying the insurance companies lied when they admitted to denying coverage because of domestic violence?

[kapkomet]

Refute the assertion, not the source. The source in that article was the insurance companies. Are you saying the insurance companies lied when they admitted to denying coverage because of domestic violence?

Oh good lord. It's not even worth it. Your insurance company could deny you because you took a 10 inch s*** instead of the typical 8 inch s*** because you were irregular yesterday. Poor guy, you were constipated! Now go somewhere else with your megabulls***. LOL.

 

It's their perogative, right? Just like it will be a single payor choice all in due time. So instead of getting denied by 1,304 (or whatever the hell number it is) you can be denied once.

 

Generally, if you have a job, you're going to be covered. Of course there's exceptions, and a lot of times, you may have to get riders that expire - again - most of the time. The horror stories are so far and few between, yet we see all these "horror stories" from websites like the SEIU. People GENERALLY want their insurance left alone. Fix the damn problems. You talk about medicare and the administration... that's a bs point too, but the SEIU and the other left wing sites better build the strawmans, and FAST! The "time for debate is over!!!!", declares Barackus the Great. You have supermajorities, go for it, big BOY. Oh wait, he can't even lead his own party... oh the games, oh the games...

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Oh good lord. It's not even worth it. Your insurance company could deny you because you took a 10 inch s*** instead of the typical 8 inch s*** because you were irregular yesterday. Poor guy, you were constipated! Now go somewhere else with your megabulls***. LOL.

 

It's their perogative, right? Just like it will be a single payor choice all in due time. So instead of getting denied by 1,304 (or whatever the hell number it is) you can be denied once.

 

Generally, if you have a job, you're going to be covered. Of course there's exceptions, and a lot of times, you may have to get riders that expire - again - most of the time. The horror stories are so far and few between, yet we see all these "horror stories" from websites like the SEIU. People GENERALLY want their insurance left alone. Fix the damn problems. You talk about medicare and the administration... that's a bs point too, but the SEIU and the other left wing sites better build the strawmans, and FAST! The "time for debate is over!!!!", declares Barackus the Great. You have supermajorities, go for it, big BOY. Oh wait, he can't even lead his own party... oh the games, oh the games...

 

That cuts both ways, kap, with the horror stories of ZOMG! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! in Europe and Canada.

 

Why haven't countries with actual single-payer systems seen the disappearance of private health care? Don't you think there's a big enough political opposition that there will always be a market for private insurance in this country?

 

And yeah, surprise, Obama isn't cramming a super Marxism policy down our throats like conservatives b****ed about for months now. The democrats aren't nearly as cohesive as the republicans and they love kowtowing to the mythical middle and cowering at the first signs of opposition. These health care proposals without a government option or co-op are not liberal in any way, yet its still portrayed as ZOMG! SOCIALISM!

Edited September 15, 2009 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

You don't get it. Private insurance cannot compete. They lose money under this. Private health care is springing back up in Canada because people hate the system. Gee, go figure. It's a boondoggle to control what they don't now, and that IS socialism, whether you want to admit it or not. They ARE liberal because they KNOW what it will do. Oh, let's take public option off the table, but in its place, let's put regulations up the ass on what they can and cannot do. Last time I checked, that means they will be so regulated that they will not be able to make the decisions in a market based situation.

 

Oh, I forgot. The "market" is an evil socio-f***up that we dare not do. We must contain salaries, health care, industries, environment, and everything else under the sun, all in the name of making our society so much better - they know what's best for us, shut the f*** up, sit down, no debates, we know what's better for you then you know! Barackus the Great knows utopia, and we will arrive! Woot!

 

[Texsox]

You don't get it. Private insurance cannot compete. They lose money under this. Private health care is springing back up in Canada because people hate the system. Gee, go figure. It's a boondoggle to control what they don't now, and that IS socialism, whether you want to admit it or not. They ARE liberal because they KNOW what it will do. Oh, let's take public option off the table, but in its place, let's put regulations up the ass on what they can and cannot do. Last time I checked, that means they will be so regulated that they will not be able to make the decisions in a market based situation.

 

Oh, I forgot. The "market" is an evil socio-f***up that we dare not do. We must contain salaries, health care, industries, environment, and everything else under the sun, all in the name of making our society so much better - they know what's best for us, shut the f*** up, sit down, no debates, we know what's better for you then you know! Barackus the Great knows utopia, and we will arrive! Woot!

 

Citizens of the US are here to provide profits for corporations. The government of the people should get out of the way and let the corporations dictate how they want to take profits from the people. Become a government for the corporations. Hell, let stop voting and allow corporations to run everything.

 

Enron, Worldcom, bank after bank, and the list goes on. There is a balance, you think the government is evil, I get it. The government sucks. How dare we think we could do something better than Canada!? Next you will say we should stop some military action because it didn't work for the French.

 

Damn, kaperboly is fun!

[StrangeSox]

private companies can't compete except for in all of the dozens of countries we can observe where it does. That's been my point. If the public plan really sucks balls, its not going to drive them out of business. We can look to countries that enact far more government control and see that this is the case. Your scenario just doesn't match reality.

[chunk23]

You don't get it. Private insurance cannot compete. They lose money under this. Private health care is springing back up in Canada because people hate the system. Gee, go figure. It's a boondoggle to control what they don't now, and that IS socialism, whether you want to admit it or not. They ARE liberal because they KNOW what it will do. Oh, let's take public option off the table, but in its place, let's put regulations up the ass on what they can and cannot do. Last time I checked, that means they will be so regulated that they will not be able to make the decisions in a market based situation.

 

Oh, I forgot. The "market" is an evil socio-f***up that we dare not do. We must contain salaries, health care, industries, environment, and everything else under the sun, all in the name of making our society so much better - they know what's best for us, shut the f*** up, sit down, no debates, we know what's better for you then you know! Barackus the Great knows utopia, and we will arrive! Woot!

 

Conservatives have come back to power in Canada and have gutted funding for health-care to make private insurance companies more attractive.

 

Don't just call points bs, you have to back up your assertion with facts. Like this one about administration costs. http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resource...hnicalPaper.pdf

 

According to the UN, the number one health care system in the world is France. They have private insurance companies. The difference between their companies and ours is a big one though. Theirs are non-profit. It is that incentive to maximize profits in every sector that have driven up American healthcare costs and led to massive numbers of people being denied care.

 

Also, I don't think you know what socialism is.

Edited September 15, 2009 by chunk23

[lostfan]

I'll vouch for Kap and say he definitely does know what socialism is but his interpretation of it is more liberal (lol I like the almost-play on words)

[kapkomet]

Conservatives have come back to power in Canada and have gutted funding for health-care to make private insurance companies more attractive.

 

Don't just call points bs, you have to back up your assertion with facts. Like this one about administration costs. http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resource...hnicalPaper.pdf

 

According to the UN, the number one health care system in the world is France. They have private insurance companies. The difference between their companies and ours is a big one though. Theirs are non-profit. It is that incentive to maximize profits in every sector that have driven up American healthcare costs and led to massive numbers of people being denied care.

 

Also, I don't think you know what socialism is.

I know what the French system is - I worked for a French company. And I spoke to all of them from their side of the world and even they say that health care is overpriced here but there is nowhere better in the world to get treatment as quickly as we do.

 

Why is it executives our my former French company wanted on the US plan, if their insurance is so good? Why is it when the executives go back, they stay on the US plan? I mean if it's so damn good, they should hate our system, but they don't. Why?

 

Oh, I know...! Because we provide the best treatment in the world in a timely manner to those who need it. And that's what matters.

 

[EvilMonkey]

That cuts both ways, kap, with the horror stories of ZOMG! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! in Europe and Canada.

 

Why haven't countries with actual single-payer systems seen the disappearance of private health care? Don't you think there's a big enough political opposition that there will always be a market for private insurance in this country?

 

And yeah, surprise, Obama isn't cramming a super Marxism policy down our throats like conservatives b****ed about for months now. The democrats aren't nearly as cohesive as the republicans and they love kowtowing to the mythical middle and cowering at the first signs of opposition. These health care proposals without a government option or co-op are not liberal in any way, yet its still portrayed as ZOMG! SOCIALISM!

And just who is it in these countries that can AFFORD to get private insurance? certainly not everyone. Sure, they have the same opportunity to purchase it, but then private insurance becomes a perk of the wealthy.

[chunk23]

 

Slower than everyone but Canada.

 

 

If we have the best health-care in the world, why is our mortality amenable to healthcare so high?

 

Also, the argument isn't over whether or not the actual health care is the problem. We certainly have excellent doctors and treatment facilities. The problem is that we pay more than anyone else in the world and 50 million of our citizens are without insurance, effectively meaning they are barred from anything but emergency services. It is an issue of access and affordability not quality of care.

Edited September 15, 2009 by chunk23

[kapkomet]

Because the way we count mortality is different then those in other countries.

 

And when you give them the access you're speaking of, it will kill the quality of care that you're suggesting that's ok now, or not ok, depending on what part of your mouth you want to speak out of.

[chunk23]

How come it hasn't killed the quality of care in countries with UHC?

[lostfan]

chunk I'd like to shake your hand, this is about the most reasonable and engaging I've seen kap argue in a while. lol. all of us know each other in here so we just push each others buttons.

[kapkomet]

How come it hasn't killed the quality of care in countries with UHC?

Seriously? It hasn't?

[chunk23]

Not according to the UN and the World Health Organization, which ranked the US as the 37th best healthcare system, with many countries with UHC ranked above us.