Obamacare

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
Pretty good article here U.S. Last in Health Care Among 7 Industrialized Countries | LiveScience that sums up the state of American healthcare as compared to other industrialized countries. Summary, for those who don't want to read it, is the while we are paying twice as much per capita in this country on health care, we are at the bottom when it comes to quality of that care.

If Obamacare isn't the answer to start correcting this problem, I'd like to hear alternatives. The status quo should be unacceptable no matter what your party affiliation.

There is a link at the bottom of that article titled "Why Healthcare Will Always Cost a Fortune." The article lists some extenuating factors that contribute to both, a.) the United States' higher than average health care costs and b.) why this country lags behind other industrialized nations in health & mortality standards.

A basic point is that we don't take very good care of ourselves. Take into account smoking, booze, crap food, and little to no exercise and the scales get tipped. It's easy to run and blame politicians or health insurance companies but we really need to look at ourselves. The average American abuses his body with crap but puts off going to the doctor because he thinks that a $30 co-pay is a rip off. Meanwhile, that same person spends that much a week on smokes. Priorities, people. Okay, off my soapbox.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I believe that abortion is murder. That is a big difference. Mandatory healthcare or preventing murder. Not the same thing.

So because there are two evils we should vote for the more evil? That makes less sense than voting for the less evil. Also you discredit some of our belief because you claim they have no ground yet you believe Romney hates women and gays?

I respect your belief about abortion, both me and my oldest son could have ended up lying in a bucket somewhere, and he is the oldest of seven kids. But the fact of the matter is Old Testament teachings were that you should not let your newborn lay on a rock or in a field somewhere, inferring that these were children born with deformities enough to be recognized from birth, and that these children were not expected to survive. All the way up to nearly the modern church, life was not recognized until quickening. I believe these are two guide posts we should use today. Everybody gets the extraordinary compassion, but to call a young kid a murderer, is to alienate them further. I would be crushed if one of my daughters was to have an abortion. I would not be upset if they used contraception; and I would be happiest of all if they rejected the bull shiit influences of society that convince them they are not right if they are unwilling to have sex with no emotional connection. I know a lot of kids with whom this is a big part of their poor self-image. The fact that they really don't want to have sex without a connection and feel forced into it.

I do not feel that Obama is the greater of two evils. I don't even feel he is evil at all. I don't feel Romney is evil. I think he is pretty silly. And ironically cast. I can still remember the flip floppers from the '04 GOP Convention. I guarantee anything Romney says, Jon Stewart from the Daily Show, can find a legitimate clip of him expressing a contradictory opinion in the last ten years.

Oh, yeah. I did a little experiment. If I started paying $1000 per year for medical insurance, the year GWB was elected president, and I use the numbers that everyone here agreed upon, last year my payment would have been $2,560. Having increased the least in the last three years.
 
Last edited:

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV. While I think the way Americans treat themselves may account for some of the difference it is a bit of a stretch to claim that inefficiencies, incompetence and plain old fashioned greed don't have at least a little to do with the American expenditures being soooo much higher than the other nations.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
I guarantee anything Romney says, Jon Stewart from the Daily Show, can find a legitimate clip of him expressing a contradictory opinion in the last ten years.

I beg anyone on here who I disagree with to watch the Daily Show for a week and reevaluate how they feel about things. Jon Stewart is not the intellectual underpinnings of my political beliefs, but he does do a masterful job exposing the utter absurdity of a lot of the things that drive contemporary political discourse.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
This probably won't help much, but this is how I'm going to react to this "great unknown complexity".

1). I am going to wish that people who hate it for reasons that they cannot clearly describe do lots of screaming about it, because psychology shows that this makes one feel better;
2). I am going to hope that people who like it for reasons that they cannot clearly describe do lots of cheering about it, because psychology shows that this makes one feel better;
3). I am planning to sit back a moment and see how the great health experiment begins to actually play out, because as an old prof having a clearer view of complex issues makes me feel better.

I am, in the end, in the "hoping to feel better" school of life. That, at least in theory, was what this whole thing about health coverage was supposed to be about for my fellow citizens, so I'll wait and see, since it "ain't obvious" to me just yet.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
To the extent that anyone here is interested in discussing the ACA specifically instead of engaging in general partisan bickering, this blog post does a decent job of describing why I'm skeptical about it.

I'd prefer a market-based solution, but that doesn't seem to be politically realistic at the moment. Failing that, I'd prefer single-payor. The ACA is neither of those, and may even be worse than the terrible status quo ante.
 

JadeBrecks

MOΛΩN ΛABE
Messages
4,982
Reaction score
371
No, what I am saying is most people who hate Obama can't really get down with Romney either, so they say he's the lesser of the 2 evils. Evil is evil, if you hate Obama, but can't be behind Romney 100% you shouldn't vote for either one. How does that not make sense to conservatives? Voting for an idiot just to oust Obama is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Have you ever heard Romney talk? He does hate gays and women. If he didn't, he'd let them live their lives. Abortion is legal. You may think it's murder, and that's ok for you to believe that, but are you also against welfare? A lot of conservatives in Washington believe abortion is murder, yet they don't give a flip what happens to those kids once they are born. It just makes no sense to me. People hate big government, yet they want to regulate a woman's body and that's ok. They want to ban gay marriage and that's ok. But the government says enough is enough with insurance company gouging prices, people not being covered for pre-existing conditions, and children not being covered, etc etc etc, and people think their heads are going to explode.

If someone gets into an accident and goes to the ER to get their bodies put back together and can't pay, and doesn't have any insurance, who do you think pays for that? YOU AND ME. You just think you don't, because it's not a tax, and it's not medicaid and medicare, but the facility must write off that money as a loss, which makes insurance premiums go up, costs go up, and then the employees take pay cuts to cover the losses. It happens all the time. All those people who frivolously use the ER and never pay a dime, are contributing to why people have $10,000 deductibles.

I don't how you can say it is ok for me to believe abortion is murder and then be surprised that I want it outlawed. Romney doesn't hate gays. His belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. He doesn't believe it is between to like sex coupes. He is not out there calling fit their heads or driving them out of the country he just doesn't believe what they do is right. Obama had the same beliefs as Romney until he flip to try and gain votes. Can you please try and explain why he hates women? I will be voting for the"lesser of two evils" here because Obama is against all my beliefs in government while Romney is not. I am not in perfect sync Romney but while in office he will be on my side on a lot of issues. if I don't vote it is the same thing as a vote for Obama. If Obama is in office he won't be on my side for anything. That is why I will vote for Romney even though he isn't my perfect politician.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
To the extent that anyone here is interested in discussing the ACA specifically instead of engaging in general partisan bickering, this blog post does a decent job of describing why I'm skeptical about it.

I'd prefer a market-based solution, but that doesn't seem to be politically realistic at the moment. Failing that, I'd prefer single-payor. The ACA is neither of those, and may even be worse than the terrible status quo ante.

We have common ground in that we would both prefer single-payer to the ACA, but we differ in that I prefer the ACA to a pure market-based approach or the status quo, because I believe the ACA will be more effective than either of the latter two approaches to insuring everyone. Ultimately, that is the goal we should be striving for, IMO.

If it costs more to insure everyone than it does to insure 80% of people, that would still be worth it to me. I still believe expanding the pool will lower costs, though.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
We have common ground in that we would both prefer single-payer to the ACA, but we differ in that I prefer the ACA to a pure market-based approach or the status quo, because I believe the ACA will be more effective than either of the latter two approaches to insuring everyone. Ultimately, that is the goal we should be striving for, IMO.

Not sure why you're certain a market based approach could never insure everyone; most such approaches I've read about include government-provided universal catastrophic coverage as a baseline. And how will the ACA insure more people than single payor? The ACA allows people to opt out and pay a tax instead; single payor wouldn't.

If it costs more to insure everyone than it does to insure 80% of people, that would still be worth it to me. I still believe expanding the pool will lower costs, though.

I appreciate the importance you place on achieving universal coverage, but cost is really at the heart of this problem. The inefficiency of the third party payor system has devoured virtually all wage growth in this country over the last 20 years, and everyone is worse off for it. Instead of fixing it, the ACA has enshrined the 3rd party payor system, without including effective cost controls.

Choosing to ignore its tremendous flaws because it achieves some arbitrary level of national coverage or because it's a "victory" for the blue team makes you no better than the reactionary conservatives you've been scolding in this thread.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Not sure why you're certain a market based approach could never insure everyone; most such approaches I've read about include government-provided universal catastrophic coverage as a baseline. And how will the ACA insure more people than single payor? The ACA allows people to opt out and pay a tax instead; single payor wouldn't.

I don't think it will. You and I are in agreement that single-payer is better than ACA.


I appreciate the importance you place on achieving universal coverage, but cost is really at the heart of this problem. The inefficiency of the third party payor system has devoured virtually all wage growth in this country over the last 20 years, and everyone is worse off for it. Instead of fixing it, the ACA has enshrined the 3rd party payor system, without including effective cost controls.

Choosing to ignore its tremendous flaws because it achieves some arbitrary level of national coverage or because it's a "victory" for the blue team makes you no better than the reactionary conservatives you've been scolding in this thread.

I guess its a matter of priorities. If you think getting everyone insured is of ultimate importance, then you make sacrifices on other things and end up with the ACA. Of course, the ACA is not perfect, or even a preferred approach. I'm not ignoring its flaws. I wish we could get single payer, but politically that is not viable right now. ACA was the ONLY politically viable way to insure everyone (or at least give everyone the opportunity to be insured).

The ACA is certainly flawed, but it is also not the system we wanted. We were blunted by obstructionists from getting a better system merely because they viewed their job description as destroying the President. Its unfortunate, but this is better than the status quo.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Here I am....

Let's clear one thing up...insurance rates go up because Americans do not want to be healthy. They like eating food that could be considered a chemical sh!t storm, they don't like to be active, and if anything is wrong with them, they will take a pill for whatever is wrong with them. Americans want things to be wrong with them. Right now, I'm working in endocrinology with diabetic and hormone disorder patients. Everytime I tell someone their thyroid is not the cause of their fatigue, 4 out of 5 will BLOW UP on me about how stupid the doctor is, and they want second and third opinions. Blood doesn't lie. Also, we drink crap like Monster and Red Bull, then take ambien so we can sleep. We get depressed? Take a pill. High cholesterol? God forbid you change your diet, take a pill. Got diabetes? Don't lose weight, or watch what you eat, just keep titrating your insulin on your own against your doctors orders. Your kid is a brat? Shove some Adderall down his throat instead of whooping his ***. You like to smoke? Go ahead. But when you get lung cancer, don't throw benefits to help you pay your medical bills, you did it to yourself. Can't handle being born white? Lay in a tanning bed and bake yourself into melanoma. THESE are the reasons health care costs are through the roof.

.

Let me go on the record agreeing with k1ssme1m1r1sh in a political thread because it may never happen again.

Our differences start in the implementation of a solution. I see this legislation facilitating bad health decisions and doing little to incentivize good health and disincentivize bad. Consider the following:

1) Women, poor health and pre-existing conditions cannot be discriminated against - does this not mean they cannot give preference to those in good health? Of course this only works if you make it manditory to screw the healthy.
2) Consider a maternity rider on an individual policy. Pretty much the only coverage item you are able to customize in most policies (deductible and co pays are payment terms, not covered care items). Also consider plans MUST provide abortion coverage. I guess technically a maternity rider is not needed since any unplanned pregnancy can be aborted for "free"?

We need to provide financial incentives for good decisions, I fail to see how this legislation does nothing but incentivize poor or less optimal healthcare decisions and punishing good health. I see only an increase in demand without addressing any corresponding increase of supply. It is also interesting how we ignore the uninsured non-citizens that will still use our system without the same requirements. In many respects, it is to your disadvantage to be a citizen using our systems.
 

k1ssme1m1r1sh

THE CHICK
Messages
981
Reaction score
186
I don't how you can say it is ok for me to believe abortion is murder and then be surprised that I want it outlawed. Romney doesn't hate gays. His belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. He doesn't believe it is between to like sex coupes. He is not out there calling fit their heads or driving them out of the country he just doesn't believe what they do is right. Obama had the same beliefs as Romney until he flip to try and gain votes. Can you please try and explain why he hates women? I will be voting for the"lesser of two evils" here because Obama is against all my beliefs in government while Romney is not. I am not in perfect sync Romney but while in office he will be on my side on a lot of issues. if I don't vote it is the same thing as a vote for Obama. If Obama is in office he won't be on my side for anything. That is why I will vote for Romney even though he isn't my perfect politician.

Apparently you took my comment about the "lesser of two evils" personally. I originally said that I have heard people saying that, I didn't say I heard you say it. You can vote for whomever you want to, but if you did say "I'm voting for Romney because he's the lesser of two evils" then I'd have to set your voter ID card on fire, because that is stupid. But you can vote for Romney, it's your choice.
And it is ok for you to believe abortion is murder, but it's legal, and the choice belongs to the woman carrying the pregnancy. As far as gay marriage goes, why does the government get to interject itself into your relationship just because a book about a mythical being says it is wrong? The Bible says a lot of ridiculous crap, especially in Leviticus which is where homophobes famously pull quotes, though I highly doubt you've ever stoned your kids to death for disrespecting you, or locked your wife in a shed during her menstrual cycle because she is unclean. Gay is a part of society, it's not a choice, so no politician has a right to legislate it. If churches want to have say in what I do, and want politicians to spread their word, then maybe they should pay taxes.
 

Jason Pham

Administrator
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
320
Apparently you took my comment about the "lesser of two evils" personally. I originally said that I have heard people saying that, I didn't say I heard you say it. You can vote for whomever you want to, but if you did say "I'm voting for Romney because he's the lesser of two evils" then I'd have to set your voter ID card on fire, because that is stupid. But you can vote for Romney, it's your choice.
And it is ok for you to believe abortion is murder, but it's legal, and the choice belongs to the woman carrying the pregnancy. As far as gay marriage goes, why does the government get to interject itself into your relationship just because a book about a mythical being says it is wrong? The Bible says a lot of ridiculous crap, especially in Leviticus which is where homophobes famously pull quotes, though I highly doubt you've ever stoned your kids to death for disrespecting you, or locked your wife in a shed during her menstrual cycle because she is unclean. Gay is a part of society, it's not a choice, so no politician has a right to legislate it. If churches want to have say in what I do, and want politicians to spread their word, then maybe they should pay taxes.

I think you're being inconsistent here, advocating a hands-off approach with one set of rights but advocating a regulatory approach elsewhere. To be fair, I don't think your position is necessarily wrong but I'm not sure just repeating the hands-off rationale explains how you are distinguishing between when government can and can't regulate.

Second, I find the anti-religious rhetoric tiring. While I agree with a lot of what you have to say, that sort of vitriol is unnecessary, tangential, and off-putting. What's more, saying that someone's position is "ridiculous crap" because it came out of the Bible is as a lazy a way of arguing as someone arguing their position merely because it came from the Bible. You say you advocate logic and reason in discussion, and I admire that, but I think you're starting to move away from that a bit here.

Finally, I disagree with the idea that you have to buy your way into having a say in government.
 

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
The legislation itself is the worst ever passed in America from a practical and moral basis. It not only puts the health care of Americans into the single group that has proven to be the most inefficient, ineffective, incompetently managed—the federal government, but it also funds and releases an army of IRS agents on the American people.

When the Iron Curtain came down and Soviet files were exposed by Glasnost, American analysts were surprised to find out that the KGB had never viewed the CIA as their counterpart, but rather the IRS. They understood that it was the IRS that could most easily and quickly control the American people.
 

Jason Pham

Administrator
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
320
FYI, even by the most optimistic estimates ObamaCare only cuts in half the number of uninsured.

How the Number of Uninsured May Change - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Meanwhile, yesterday Congress passed the most regressive tax in the history of government.

For the sake of discussion, I think those numbers should be put in context of how many are insured as a percentage of the total population. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the the insured share of the non-elderly population will increase to 94% in 2019 (up from 83% in 2012). And a population that is often included in the number of uninsured is unauthorized immigrants who aren't eligible for the program anyway.

EDIT: Here's the source for those numbers. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/amendreconprop.pdf
 
Last edited:

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
Another interesting article:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/dont-call-it-a-mandate-its-a-tax/

A few quotes:

Moving away from the political, and back to the legal, the Court majority’s tax discussion does leave something of a cloud over how effective this enforcement technique will be, in terms of inducing people to buying health insurance. Even the Obama Administration’s lawyers had conceded — and the Chief Justice’s opinion carefully takes note of it – that “if one chooses to pay [the tax] rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.” That concession, alone, may be the most revealing about how the mandate really is not a guarantor of a sharp upswing in business for health insurers.

The Chief Justice cited a congressional estimate that some 4 million people each year “will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance.” And he noted that Congress was not enough troubled about that prospect to choose to punish people directly for failing to buy insurance. “Congress did not think it was creating 4 million outlaws,” Roberts wrote.
One factor that may hold down a new willingness to buy health insurance, the Chief Justice suggested, was that in dollar terms the size of the tax assessment will make it considerably cheaper than the annual premiums for health coverage.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Wham, Bam thank you Pham.

So we overhaul 20% of our economy in order to get 9% of our population insured. I would also like to know what percentage of those are young, healthy and really don't use much health care with little or no financial standing to protect.

I can't wait to be taxed for not eating my vegetables next.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
it is done.

who knows maybe it might make things better.

our system cant get much worse (if you havent had to deal with multiple healthcare insurance related things in your life then dont bother responding. I have and let me tell you the staus quo SUCKS.)

BTW the world is still here, the sun came up today did it not?

this republican is moving on from this whole issue now, .
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
Wham, Bam thank you Pham.

So we overhaul 20% of our economy in order to get 9% of our population insured. I would also like to know what percentage of those are young, healthy and really don't use much health care with little or no financial standing to protect.

I can't wait to be taxed for not eating my vegetables next.


so who do you think pays when that "young healthy kid with no assets" who is not insured gets into an automobile crash, and is left paralyzed for life?

may i ask how old you are? not busting on you but young people think they are gonna live forever. i was that way too. but we all need to pay our fair share of insurance it sucks but its a necessary evil.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
I know a 24 year old male who did not take COBRA upon leaving a job and was diagnosed with a brain tumor a few months later. Uninsured, quickly bankrupt, but alive and treated. There were lots of fund raisers and donations to pay over $100K of the bills but that was not enough (I would like to know what the "negotiated rates" on those same bills would have been under a major insurer, I suspect less than half).

Ever do a "fun run" for any hospital charity? Ever hear of a Catholic Hospital, or any non-profit for that matter? Ever hear of the big hospital endowments or any other sources of funding they take beyond just billing for services? You are damn right those with insurance pay for it indirectly but there are lots of other sources as well.

Now riddle me this, since this is just a tax for not having health insurance, don't we still have the same uninsured problem, just on a theoretically smaller scale since more people will be absorbed by some form of insurance? AND ILLEGALS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS BUT STILL PARTICIPATE IN THE SYSTEM, thus guaranteeing even if all citizens were insured we would still have HUGE uninsured problems.

You say "everyone NEEDS to pay..." which this ruling resoundingly (I would argue rightfully) denies. Everyone only "needs" to pay a tax penalty if they do not have insurance (which I find fairly absurd on its face and incredibly regressive as a tax). Our society choses not to turn anyone away at the hospital which has costs already absorbed into the system yet for some reason we act like we are letting people die in the streets.

I fully understand that I pay for the uninsured in my taxes and health care costs. It is a cost of securing my own financial future. It is great you are upset about that but guess what, life's not fair now is it? Exactly what incentive is out there for the uninsured who make this conscious decision? Now there is a tax, that ideally would offset health system costs but looks like it will grossly fall short of funding the massive expansion of medicaid (ie free health care for poor people). Now you have enormous disincentive to make more than 133% of the federal poverty line. Not to mention paying no more if you are an unhealthy slob, or cursed with poor health.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
1) Better bankrupt than dead - a choice we allow Americans to make by taking all comers at the hospital

2) I pay for uninsured motorist insurance for my car, in case I am hit by an irresponsible bastard (even though my state mandates car insurance) Guess what, people drive illegally! Pretty hard to enforce that 100% huh? How is that much different than the hidden cost of uninsured in the health system
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
Why don't the single payer advocates realize that they are just taking the "system absorbs the costs of the uninsured" and making it an official program? We get to pay either way. I'll admit that there may be some savings because some people will seek out preventative care because they have insurance. But what's the difference between the uninsured person who gets admitted to the hospital now and that same person who gets admitted under single payer? I submit that it simply shifts the cost burden unto the taxpayers. We can all pat ourselves on the back that people aren't going bankrupt because of medical bills, but someone still has to pay that bill.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
so who do you think pays when that "young healthy kid with no assets" who is not insured gets into an automobile crash, and is left paralyzed for life?...

This "young healthy kid" who didn't want health insurance in the first place probably still won't buy it under the ACA.

That's because the penalty only applies if you file a tax return, which this kid probably won't. (After all, he doesn't even buy health insurance -- he's probably either a student, self-employed, unemployed, or an under-the-table odd jobs type). And the mandate penalty only makes it less likely he'll do so.

So the very group you most want to buy insurance under the ACA is still unlikely to purchase it.
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209
maybe single payer and private provider is the way to go:

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.some highl;ights of single payer are:

Universal, Comprehensive Coverage Only such coverage ensures access, avoids a two-class system, and minimizes expense
No out-of-pocket payments
Co-payments and deductibles are barriers to access, administratively unwieldy, and unnecessary for cost containment
A single insurance plan in each region, administered by a public or quasi-public agency
A fragmentary payment system that entrusts private firms with administration ensures the waste of billions of dollars on useless paper pushing and profits. Private insurance duplicating public coverage fosters two-class care and drives up costs; such duplication should be prohibited
Global operating budgets for hospitals, nursing homes, allowed group and staff model HMOs and other providers with separate allocation of capital funds
Billing on a per-patient basis creates unnecessary administrative complexity and expense. A budget separate from operating expenses will be allowed for capital improvements
Free Choice of Providers
Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care provider, without financial incentives or penalties
Public Accountability, Not Corporate Dictates
The public has an absolute right to democratically set overall health policies and priorities, but medical decisions must be made by patients and providers rather than dictated from afar. Market mechanisms principally empower employers and insurance bureaucrats pursuing narrow financial interests
Ban on For-Profit Health Care Providers
Profit seeking inevitably distorts care and diverts resources from patients to investors
Protection of the rights of health care and insurance workers
A single-payer national health program would eliminate the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people who currently perform billing, advertising, eligibility determination, and other superfluous tasks. These workers must be guaranteed retraining and placement in meaningful jobs.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
ND NYC:

I appreciate you laying out the case for single payer in a comprehensive, rational manner. I will offer my questions & counter-points in the same spirit and try to avoid rancor.

-Does the private health insurance industry get eliminated? You mention a "ban on for-profit health providers." How far does that stretch? Just insurers, or are we talking about doctors, ambulance services, drug makers, and health equipment manufacturers?

-If we allow doctors to remain private and for-profit are they required to take single payer patients or do they have the option to refuse? I would imagine many doctors would not want the hassle that would likely go with dealing with government-run universal health coverage.

-"No out of pocket expenses." Isn't it fair to say that making medical visits free will probably result in overuse of the privilege, thus clogging the system?

-Who has the final say on policies and procedures? A Congressional Committee? Or a board of appointed medical professionals? And who selects those people?

-If we allow for-profit drug and medical device makers to continue to operate, to what extent are they permitted to lobby the government, which will likely be their largest client?

-Roughly how large of a tax increase/annual budget are we talking about? Single payer needs a bureaucracy large enough to cover about 325 million Americans. I think it is safe to say that an American national health service would be the single largest federal agency in our government.

I look forward to your responses.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Why don't the single payer advocates realize that they are just taking the "system absorbs the costs of the uninsured" and making it an official program? We get to pay either way. I'll admit that there may be some savings because some people will seek out preventative care because they have insurance. But what's the difference between the uninsured person who gets admitted to the hospital now and that same person who gets admitted under single payer? I submit that it simply shifts the cost burden unto the taxpayers. We can all pat ourselves on the back that people aren't going bankrupt because of medical bills, but someone still has to pay that bill.

Seems to me, you have many more options. Want to live an unhealty lifestyle, it will cost you. If it is not a prohibitive charge and is mandated across the board, and reduces the risks for others, what problem is there?

Trans fat has been virtually eliminated and despite the gloom and doom forcasts, prices going up, scarcity of certain products, all is well. This was achieved by a few large cities, states, and a few purchasing organizations prohibiting it's use. Worked out well.

We can do this with high fructose corn syrup; in fact we can ship corn (not hfcs) oversease to countries that are poor and just developing where it can be added as a nutritional staple, making more food available at a lower price. We all become more healthy.

In fact we can provide insurance for all, less expensively than what we have today. We will just have to come up with a welfare system for the economic preditors running the current system.
 

cody1smith

Active member
Messages
679
Reaction score
61
There's a difference between bad ideas and socialism. Individual health care is clearly different that forcing me to pay for someone else because they can't afford it. It was a terrible idea, sure. But it wasn't socialist like Obamacare.

If someone works their tail off their whole life and makes enough money to get by, why should they pay for healthcare costs for some bum who uses his money for booze and cigarettes and turns down job offers because he doesn't want to work? Just because he isn't making any money means he can use someone else's money? Why should we reward laziness and terrible lifestyles?

If it really is taxation that is...

I don't get it. As if 40% of my paycheck doesn't already go to taxes.

I've had full health coverage that I pay for for 4 years now. Do you want to know how many times I've visited the hospital? Once. I was glad I paid for it all those years, and I was glad I could get in and out fast. Now that everyone will have it they will be abusing the hell out of it and we all know it. I can't wait for the next time I go in 4 years when I actually have a medical issue and I have to wait in line for 4 hours behind people who are abusing their insurance that I'm paying for. Google the waits at hospitals and emergency rooms in Canada. It's a scary, scary world when a patient has to wait several days to have an "emergency" surgery to save his life.

I can promise we are installing a program that will be a never-ending nightmare that we can't escape from.

I'm going to pick up smoking and extremely #reckless behavior I think. I might as well visit the hospital as much as I can. And if I die sooner, that's less time I have to be socialist!
40 percent? You need a new accountant!
 
M

Me2SouthBend

Guest
There's a difference between bad ideas and socialism. Individual health care is clearly different that forcing me to pay for someone else because they can't afford it. It was a terrible idea, sure. But it wasn't socialist like Obamacare.

If someone works their tail off their whole life and makes enough money to get by, why should they pay for healthcare costs for some bum who uses his money for booze and cigarettes and turns down job offers because he doesn't want to work? Just because he isn't making any money means he can use someone else's money? Why should we reward laziness and terrible lifestyles?

If it really is taxation that is...

I don't get it. As if 40% of my paycheck doesn't already go to taxes.

I've had full health coverage that I pay for for 4 years now. Do you want to know how many times I've visited the hospital? Once. I was glad I paid for it all those years, and I was glad I could get in and out fast. Now that everyone will have it they will be abusing the hell out of it and we all know it. I can't wait for the next time I go in 4 years when I actually have a medical issue and I have to wait in line for 4 hours behind people who are abusing their insurance that I'm paying for. Google the waits at hospitals and emergency rooms in Canada. It's a scary, scary world when a patient has to wait several days to have an "emergency" surgery to save his life.

I can promise we are installing a program that will be a never-ending nightmare that we can't escape from.

I'm going to pick up smoking and extremely #reckless behavior I think. I might as well visit the hospital as much as I can. And if I die sooner, that's less time I have to be socialist!

Do you really believe that people will start going to hospitals just to "get their money's worth" from their insurance? Is that really your thought or is that something you heard from some right wing talking head? Serious question. That is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Kind of like, well I have car insurance, I guess it's ok to go out and get in a few accidents so I can get my money's worth. You just said that you've had insurance for 4 years now and you've accessed help 1x. Why do you think John and Jane Q Public will be any different. Preventive care(I.e. physicals, cancer screenings) at your primary care physicians sure, but just heading to the hospital to "get my moneys worth out of my insurance" I think not.
 
Last edited:

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
The legislation itself is the worst ever passed in America from a practical and moral basis. It not only puts the health care of Americans into the single group that has proven to be the most inefficient, ineffective, incompetently managed—the federal government, .

Medicare is the only universal health insurance in this country. Ask almost any person over 65 if they like it. Of interest, administrative costs are under 6%. The AHCA requires the private sector to attempt to keep their costs to under 20%. If all people could be covered by medicare (my suggested solution ) this could free up 12% of our health care costs, more than enough to cover all the uninsured with a lot left over.
We would still need tort reform and adherence to science based medicine to control costs however.
By the way, I am a physician and I agree 100% with Kissmeiamirish. (I am Irish also, but I do not want you to kiss me.)
And please don't point out to me that 20-6=14.
 
Top