Healthcare reform

[Balta1701]

Right - they flood them with money in exchange for control. Pretty simple, and expected, just like we've all been saying - the lead in to the single payer - because it is. It's just a lot more veiled.

Wait one moment...so the insurers have flooded them with money in exchange for control...and the thing that the insurers want with that control is single payer...aka none of them existing any more?

[kapkomet]

Wait one moment...so the insurers have flooded them with money in exchange for control...and the thing that the insurers want with that control is single payer...aka none of them existing any more?

No, they don't want it, of course not. But the choice is get subsidized (taken over) or put out of business.

[NorthSideSox72]

No, they don't want it, of course not. But the choice is get subsidized (taken over) or put out of business.

Your arguments on this topic have become circular.

[kapkomet]

The bottom line is it is still government run health care. Period.

 

Or more specific, there's still an "option" that will promote price controls - that will either consolidate the industry more then it already is or outright force the shutdown of insurance companies. Then the government says - oh wait, we'll subsidize you... essentially that means they take over anyway (aka Freddie and Fannie and we all see how that turned out).

Edited September 16, 2009 by kapkomet

[BigSqwert]

The bottom line is it is still government run health care. Period.

Just move to Somalia where there's no government, no taxes, and you can have as many guns as you'd like. The conservative trifecta!

[lostfan]

whatever to the GOP, if this is the bill that the dems need to pass to get BLUE dog support, why would the repubs support it. The bill the dems will be owning is essentiallly telling the poor and middle class voters they need to pay money to health insurance companies, who are probably dancing to the bank right now.

Greenwald's been writing articles about this, that it was the insurance companies' plans all along. They basically are going to write laws, on terms favorable to them.

[mr_genius]

Greenwald's been writing articles about this, that it was the insurance companies' plans all along. They basically are going to write laws, on terms favorable to them.

 

They have been paying their bribes on time, they are entitled.

 

USA! USA!

 

[bmags]

why are we so against this private business right now trying to make profit?

[mr_genius]

why are we so against this private business right now trying to make profit?

 

Corporations writing legislation, endless bailouts, special rights for certain businesses; f*** yea.

[southsider2k5]

Just move to Somalia where there's no government, no taxes, and you can have as many guns as you'd like. The conservative trifecta!

 

You could always move to Canada where they already have universal everything and astronomical taxes. The Liberal Uptopia!

[Balta1701]

You could always move to Canada where they already have universal everything and astronomical taxes. The Liberal Uptopia!

Actually we already pay almost as much for Medicare as they pay for their universal health care system (per person), so you save a bundle on health care there. That's one of the reasons Toyota et al. keep putting factories in Canada instead of the U.S. And their tax collections are astronomical if you mean in the lower 1/3 of developed countries and about 5 percentage points higher than the average rate paid in the U.S. The liberal utopia continues to be those Scandanavian countries.

 

[kapkomet]

Actually we already pay almost as much for Medicare as they pay for their universal health care system (per person), so you save a bundle on health care there. That's one of the reasons Toyota et al. keep putting factories in Canada instead of the U.S. And their tax collections are astronomical if you mean in the lower 1/3 of developed countries and about 5 percentage points higher than the average rate paid in the U.S. The liberal utopia continues to be those Scandanavian countries.

 

Then go there, since it's so damn great. Of course, California is pretty close.

[Balta1701]

Then go there, since it's so damn great. Of course, California is pretty close.

No, California is not. California's tax system is a disaster, and California's public services are soon going to be at the level of Mississippi. Because the state can't collect property taxes at any reasonable level, the state has to rely hugely on income and sales taxes, which pushes up those rates to ridiculous levels making California seem like it's overtaxed. It has the side effect of murdering California any time there's an economic downturn, because housing prices are more stable than incomes or sales. And it has the side effect of being a huge subsidy to the housing industry. And of course, putting a giant distortion in to the housing market can have no negative consequences whatsoever, right?

[kapkomet]

No, California is not. California's tax system is a disaster, and California's public services are soon going to be at the level of Mississippi. Because the state can't collect property taxes at any reasonable level, the state has to rely hugely on income and sales taxes, which pushes up those rates to ridiculous levels making California seem like it's overtaxed. It has the side effect of murdering California any time there's an economic downturn, because housing prices are more stable than incomes or sales. And it has the side effect of being a huge subsidy to the housing industry. And of course, putting a giant distortion in to the housing market can have no negative consequences whatsoever, right?

I was joking. I understand that. Property taxes SUCK in Texas, but it's one reason that this state is faring pretty well is because the prices weren't skyrocketing like everywhere else - thus creating a more stable stream of income to the state. With that said, every other tax is low here.

[lostfan]

Property taxes aren't that bad in Maryland, but income tax is a b**** (basically right behind the feds) and it seems like there is an excise tax for everything.

Edited September 17, 2009 by lostfan

[Texsox]

More like, a few people shouldn't be forced to pay for the entire world's health care system.

 

A few people pay for the world's military

A few people pay for the US roadways

A few people pay for our water and sewer

A few poeple pay for the inspection of our food and drug systems

A few people pay for our police and fire protection

and we can keep going on, but you get the point.

[EvilMonkey]

What are you basing that on? I see spare capacity all over the place. One easy thing, how many Doctors are advertising? Why advertise if you have no capacity? Also, if there is money to fund expansion, don't you think companies will expand? Another idea, since we are making some major changes, let's build into a new system more P.A.s and R.N. care clinics.

 

There will be a growth curve, and some growing pains, but Americans have always found ways to ramp up and get the job done. That's how we won WW2 and it is how we will win this.

Tex, you see capacity, AP says otherwise.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32829974/ns/health-health_care

[southsider2k5]

Tex, you see capacity, AP says otherwise.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32829974/ns/health-health_care

 

Where have I heard this idea before...

 

To keep up with the demand for primary care doctors, the country will need to add another 40,000 to the existing 100,000 doctors over the next decade or face a soaring backlog, according to Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the Kansas-based American Academy of Family Physicians.

 

"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," he said.

 

The need for more primary care doctors comes as the country's shortage of all doctors is expected to worsen, according to a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which found the rate of first-year enrollees in U.S. medical schools has declined steadily since 1980.

 

If current patterns persist, the study shows the country will have about 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025.

 

And that is without 10/30/45/50/80 million new patients.

[BigSqwert]

If there's no spare capacity then why do so many doctors support it?

 

A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.

 

Link

Edited September 17, 2009 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Where have I heard this idea before...

 

 

 

And that is without 10/30/45/50/80 million new patients.

Those won't be new patients - not sure why people keep saying this. Those patients are already in the system. Now, one can make an argument that some of them will go more often - but if you are insuring 30M (for example) more people, that is not 30M new patients. It is probably some % of that with no change in behavior, and some % with an increase in visits. So yes, you will see an increase, but it won't be anything like the total number of new insured.

 

Also, you seem to be ignoring the reality that Balta has pointed out continuously, that by insuring these people, you actually help the existing providers save some money. That is why so many doctors and providers actually support a public option.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

If there's no spare capacity then why do so many doctors support it?

 

 

 

Link

Yet 45% would consider quitting if congress gets its way.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A....aspx?id=506199

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.....• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

[EvilMonkey]

Those won't be new patients - not sure why people keep saying this. Those patients are already in the system. Now, one can make an argument that some of them will go more often - but if you are insuring 30M (for example) more people, that is not 30M new patients. It is probably some % of that with no change in behavior, and some % with an increase in visits. So yes, you will see an increase, but it won't be anything like the total number of new insured.

 

Also, you seem to be ignoring the reality that Balta has pointed out continuously, that by insuring these people, you actually help the existing providers save some money. That is why so many doctors and providers actually support a public option.

NSS, those patients are already in the system, only when somethign serious happens to them. If changed, every sniffle, cough or sore wrist will result in another visit to the doctor.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yet 45% would consider quitting if congress gets its way.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A....aspx?id=506199

Interesting. So 63% want a public option... Congress tries a plan with a public option, but the GOP'ers and some Dems don't want it, so they remove it... resulting in 45% of doctors saying they will quit early based on the plan that does NOT have a public option? Sounds to me like the medical community would actually prefer a more liberal, socialzed approach, than is being proposed.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

NSS, those patients are already in the system, only when somethign serious happens to them. If changed, every sniffle, cough or sore wrist will result in another visit to the doctor.

I think reality is somewhere between. You won't have them all suddenly becoming systemic abusers - there is no logic in thinking that would happen. A few would, but mostly, they'd go more often for things, when they need it. The public option still would carry some sort of costs to the patient. I don't see anyone here suggesting a truly nationalized, fully tax-dependent social medical policy.

 

[Cknolls]

No, California is not. California's tax system is a disaster, and California's public services are soon going to be at the level of Mississippi. Because the state can't collect property taxes at any reasonable level, the state has to rely hugely on income and sales taxes, which pushes up those rates to ridiculous levels making California seem like it's overtaxed. It has the side effect of murdering California any time there's an economic downturn, because housing prices are more stable than incomes or sales. And it has the side effect of being a huge subsidy to the housing industry. And of course, putting a giant distortion in to the housing market can have no negative consequences whatsoever, right?

 

 

It has nothing to do with public employee unions and their pension costs. Not just Cally. Illinois needs to reform too. I hear no one talk about this problem. 3% colas every year,in ILLINOIS, without regard to the underlying economy? Good policy. You want to retire after a certain amount of years, and then take another job, you do not receive your pension until you turn 65, just like Social Security. You take your pension early, you take a reduced amount, just like Social Security. You work in several levels of gov't., you receive one pension. That's the argument people will make, right, these peolple have no Social Security. So make the pension system like social security.