Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: ErikHolmes on August 25, 2009, 05:36:20 PM
-
So I was looking up stuff on Obama's Health Care plan and came across this article. I thought it was 'interesting' and thought I might share. Flame me if you must . . .
THE ONE WORD TO DESCRIBE OBAMACARE
Written by Dr. Dave Janda
Thursday, 23 July 2009
As a physician who has authored books on Preventative Health Care and Health Care Cost Containment, I was recently given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington D.C... The presentation, entitled Health Care Reform; The Power & Profit of Prevention was well received.
In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of "reform" as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reed. It is important to realize that The Obama Health Care Plan is comprised of two parts ... that's right, not one but two parts.
The first part of The Obama Health Care Plan was buried in The Stimulus Bill which was signed into law by the President in February (see http://www.readthestimulus.org/ ). It is the second part of The Health Care Plan which is now being debated in Congress. Below is the link to the over 1000 page document.....
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Let me summarize just a few salient points of the two part Obama Health Care Plan. Warning.......They need to put the same warning on The Obama Health Care Plan as they do a pack of cigarettes.....Consuming this product WILL be hazardous to your health.
The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care, NOT PREVENTING health care need. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs. The rationing of care is implemented through a Council, equivalent to the National Health Care Board in the British Health Care System. The name given to this panel is The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research ("Federal Council"). (Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill.)
President Obama has already appointed the fifteen member Federal Council. According to the Stimulus Bill, p. 152, all members of the Council must be "senior federal officers or employees." Thus, medical treatment will be dispensed by a group of bureaucrats from their ivory towers, not by the hands-on practitioners in the presence of the patients. The council was funded with $1.1 BILLION from The Stimulus Bill. (http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html )
"Comparative Effectiveness Research" is based on the formula of the approval or rejection of treatment for patients based upon the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment.
According to former New York Lieutenant Governor and Health Policy Analyst Dr. Betsy McCaughey, the Federal Council will set a cost effectiveness standard for treatment. (Stimulus Bill p. 464) Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your box. Oh, you say...this could never happen. Sorry....this is the same model they use in Britain.
The plan also empowers the Federal Council to create another level of bureaucracy, The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. (Health Care Bill, Section 1181, p. 502). The effect of this extra level of bureaucracy is to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs. How special is that!
The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This "Coordinator" will be responsible for monitoring treatments to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following what the government deems appropriate and cost effective, and to "guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." (Stimulus Bill, p. 116; see also pp. 442, 446).
The Stimulus Bill goes on to say that hospitals and doctors that are NOT "meaningful users" of the new systems will face penalties. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time." (Stimulus Bill pp. 366, 478, 511, 518, 540, 541.) According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. According to the Obama Plan, if your doctor saves your life but breaks government protocol, you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.
In Section 102 of the Health Care Plan has the Orwellian title: "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is ILLEGAL for you to keep your private insurance if your status changes, e.g., if you lose or change your job, become a senior citizen, graduate from college and land their first job. Yes, illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of his plan recently, his response was, "I am not familiar with that part of the plan."
Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Then there is Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this government run session will include how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care. It is no wonder the Obama Administration does NOT like my emphasis on Prevention. Under the Health Care Plan for cost containment, Prevention is the "enemy," since people would live longer.
I rest my case....The Health Care Plan authored by Obama / Pelosi / Reed is hazardous to the health of every American.
In the question/answer session following my Capitol Hill presentation, a Congressman asked: "I am doing a number of network interviews next week on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan, what should I answer?"
The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, and sad, but truthful. The word is FASCIST.
-
I rest my case....The Health Care Plan authored by Obama / Pelosi / Reed is hazardous to the health of every American.
Well, duh. ::)
Quick thoughts from the nursing department. When I was doing my surgical rotation, I was chatting with the surgeon and being annoying (I'm sure no one here could picture that :P ) and he was talking about how he was going to have to leave off his retirement because they weren't getting many new surgeons. Med schools that used to competitively turn away lots of potential students were now having trouble filling all their slots. The reason for this is that with medicare always having there hand in it, surgeons can't set their prices with the market so those that might be interested in medicine opt for something like dentistry instead, smaller: less inessential practices that can set their own prices with the market and it's a lot less schooling. And that was over a year ago, before any national system was suggested.
Also with the new shiny thing called the internet, hypochondriacs abound. I've worked in family practice and experience this constantly with people running in with every cough and sniffle sure that it is cancer or some rare foreign virus. It is a little annoying, but understandable and workable, but imagine if it were 'free?' They'd fill up the system and it would be very easy for things to be missed.
Going purely off my own experience, it is no wonder there are shortages and long waits in a nationalized system. As much as I enjoy the service aspect of my job, I think it is scary how people want the government to baby them in the most important matter of their own health.
-
The part about section 102 is taking it out of context. It's only talking about grandfathered plans—the kinds of plans that currently exist which have exceptions for preexisting conditions and the like. Private insurance will still exist, but must not have exceptions for preexisting conditions. That is explained in other sections of the bill. You can't sign up new people for the grandfathered plans but can continue to serve the people who have those plans. That's the very definition of grandfathering. And you can't go changing their rates willy-nilly. Makes sense to me.
When we were in Montreal for Worldcon we talked to Canadians about their healthcare. They think it's great. I'm an American and I think my healthcare system sucks. Some of the proposed changes aren't so hot but almost anything would be better than the current system.
-
The current healthcare system in the US does suck. It sucks because it's ridiculously expensive, time consuming, and confusing. Ever tried to get your insurance company to correct a mistake they made? You know what I'm talking about.
From my, admittedly limited, research and experience, the current healthcare system is all those bad things because the government started sticking its fingers in.
For example, in the early days of medicare, in order to reduce costs, medicare informed the doctors on its rolls that it would pay only a percentage of any fee they charged. The doctors, faced with getting only $50 dollars of a $100 dollar fee and $80 dollars of operating cost, simply upped their stated fee schedule until 50% (what medicare would pay) equaled $100 dollars. Thus those patients who were not on medicare ended up paying $200 fees for $100 dollar procedures. Thank you government.
Something similar happened when I sprained-maybe broke-my ankle during a military exercise earlier this year. Because the bureaucrats screwed the military health insurance process up I ended up having to get deeply involved in who paid whom when and how much. Long story short, the insurance company dictated every step I made during treatment (had to go to an emergency room instead of an instacare or simply waiting 'til my GP opened on Monday among other things) then screwed up the payment. After the literally 10+ hours I had to spend on the phone with different entities, things finally got sorted out. For an $800+ bill, the government run health insurance paid everyone involved a little over $170 dollars total and told them they'd like it or stop treating soldiers. I honestly don't know how the doctors and hospitals make any money on that deal.
Which is, of course, the heart of the matter. When the government gets into the game and insists on paying $170 for $800 bills and has the all encompassing power to say 'you'll accept it as payment in full or go to jail' we'll have broken the system forever.
When there is no monetary incentive to build a better mousetrap (that being better, smarter, cheaper care in this case) people will stop fiddling with mousetraps. And all we'll be left with is a committee of bureaucrats deciding whether or not to let you have that tried and true operation you're in desperate need of. And when the government forces those evil pharmaceutical companies to operate at a loss on every new wonder drug in the name of fairness no more wonder drugs will be developed.
And when it gets so bad you'd like to take your business elsewhere, you won't be able to. You'll either pay or go to jail for evasion of taxes.
**********************
I caught Jon Stewart on the Daily Show peddling the idea that publicly funded healthcare would not adversely effect private healthcare and his laughtrack approved. Silly morons, look at all the private universities that are 'doing just fine' in competition with public universities!
He didn't mention, if he even realized, that there is no such thing anymore. Even 'private' universities today could not exist without federal funding. Funding for their operating costs as well as their student's tuition.
And now the White house is asking us to inform on those who hold the opinion, and dare to speak it, that their healthcare reform is not a good idea. Yikes, Stalin anyone?
-
This administra...regime?...gets scarier as time goes on. Stalin indeed. How many Czars do we have these days? Well we didn't elect any of them but we sure the hell pay for them. Insanity.
-
The government isn't perfect, but it's at least trying. I find it much easier to blame the greedy insurance company execs and their shareholders, who are trying only to make money. Sure, it's great to make money, but when you do it by denying medical care to people who need it most, you are evil and deserve to have your cash cow taken away from you by the government.
-
...but when you do it by denying medical care to people who need it most
I see this as a symptom of the problem. How exactly do you define those "...who need it most"? Are they the rich old cancer patients who won't be able to get cutting-edge treatment under Obamacare or the poor students who can't get it now? They're both citizens right?
It also implies a belief that Healthcare is some sort of inalienable right. It's not and it never has been.
As I pointed out earlier, the government itself drove the cost of healthcare into the stratosphere and its further, ever more pervasive, involvement will only make that worse. The only difference will be that universally inefficient and sub-standard care will be subsidized by taxes and totally divorced from any need to respond to things like customers or results.
...you are evil and deserve to have your cash cow taken away from you by the government
The same line of reasoning was used to legally force banks to give housing loans to people who could not afford them. The result is the collapse of the housing market and the vast financial woes of the present day. It won't work in this case either. And, frankly, I find the idea that people who are not breaking the law 'deserve to have their cash cow taken from them' disturbing. Do we really want the government to get into the practice of taking money from people who 'deserve' to have it taken from them irrespective of the law? Really?
As for the government 'trying' to fix healthcare, when the man smashing away at your car's engine with a hammer claims fervently that he's trying to fix it you don't compare him to the mechanic across the street and say, 'well, at least hammer guy is trying to fix it,' and encourage him to continue. You make him stop and find the right way to do things.
I find it much easier to blame the greedy insurance company execs and their shareholders, who are trying only to make money. Sure, it's great to make money, but when you do it by denying medical care...
Those rich execs would absolutely love to field an insurance plan to every single person in the country. The more the merrier. The more people they get on some kind of payment plan the more money they make. Unfortunately, the kind of bare bones plan the kind of people I think you're talking about could afford is functionally prohibited by federal regulation. The regulations insist that every plan (including those offered to 22 year old Mormon male students, ask me how I know) must offer breast cancer exams and prostate exams and phsychological counseling and substance abuse counseling and so forth ad nauseum, whether the purchaser thinks they need them or not. It is federal law that requires silly things like this in the name of fairness. I find it to be foolish optimism in the extreme to suppose that getting the government more involved will improve matters.
-
I do believe Healthcare should be an inalienable right. I think technology and society have progressed to the point where that's possible and practical. Many countries are making it work.
I define "who need it most" as whoever's denied coverage because they are sick. It would be best for everyone to be required to have coverage.
It's laughable to blame the current healthcare woes on government intervention when executives and stockholders are making enormous amounts of cash. People are getting hurt, but no one's breaking the law, so we should leave the law the way it is and not change it? No. The law must be changed.
I am not entirely confident in the government's ability to make it work, but the free-market healthcare system has FAILED. Leaving it the way it is is not the answer. Thinking that shareholders and corporate execs will make life better for everyone if left to their own devices is foolishness beyond the extreme.
I'm not saying the execs and shareholders should be "punished." They won't go to jail or get fined. But they need to find another source of income. They are not providing healthcare; they are running a business or owning stock. Those skills are widely applicable in all sorts of companies that I'm sure will be happy to hire them.
Even if there is no government-run plan, we need to ban making a profit on health insurance. Everyone should be forced to buy coverage, and insurance companies should return all excess profits beyond a reasonable buffer to their policyholders at the end of the year.
My daughter was denied coverage by two insurance companies even though she has had uninterrupted coverage since she was born and the doctors have said her heart murmur is nothing to worry about. Outright denied, not even offered coverage at an expensive rate. We eventually got her covered under a state-run plan that I am happy to pay for.
-
I define "who need it most" as whoever's denied coverage because they are sick. It would be best for everyone to be required to have coverage.
^ This ^
I have my own personal reasons for hating the current healthcare system. No one should be denied healthcare
It *NEEDS* to be reformed, the current system is broke, no doubt about it.
Now, as far as what the article is talking about, a lot of it seems like it's jumping to conclusions.
for example, the part that states:
Then there is Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this government run session will include how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care. It is no wonder the Obama Administration does NOT like my emphasis on Prevention. Under the Health Care Plan for cost containment, Prevention is the "enemy," since people would live longer.
I looked at the mentioned link, at section 1233, and it doesn't seem to say anything about what this says. Maybe my legal-nese is terrible, but to me it sounds like its saying that you go to a counseling to inform you of your options for healthcare, life choices, and the keeping up to date of your will, and plans for if you end up in a vegetative state, so that these things will always be current and correct. I fail to see how this is "designed to end life sooner", and is more along the lines of "making sure your family is covered in the event of the unexpected"
-
You can't ignore the repeated examples of government screwing up whatever they touch. It is an undeniable fact that government run plans are less efficient and more prone to problems than private industry (this is with everything, not just healthcare). Also, there are studies that show that while Canadians have more access to health care, they give lower marks than the U.S. for the quality of their care. Canada also has 1/10th the population of the U.S, and is far less diverse (which means less need for specialists in certain genetic disorders). It is naive to believe we can do anything remotely related to Canada's system (not without doubling our tax rate, anyway). Besides, whenever a Canadien gets a serious illness, where do you think they go for treatment? That's right, the U.S.A. Cancer, multiple-birth pregnancies, Amyloidosis, etc. People come from around the world to seek treatment here. Why? Because we have the best doctors and facilities. This will not remain true if National Healthcare is put in place. Finally, remove the restrictions that cause a complete lack of competition with health insurance. Auto insurance was the same way until the Feds allowed you to choose whatever plan you wanted. If the restrictions on your choice of coverage was lifted, prices would drop, just like they did with auto insurance premiums. Ironically, our "private" healthcare system is not all that private at all. It is heavily regulated already.
I agree that no one should be denied care, but I am confident the government will screw it up even more. They've proven it already.
Earongal, the first clause of your statement is the kicker: the counseling session gives you your OPTIONS for HEALTHCARE. These options could very well include denial of coverage to due negative overall outcomes.
-
Earongal, the first clause of your statement is the kicker: the counseling session gives you your OPTIONS for HEALTHCARE. These options could very well include denial of coverage to due negative overall outcomes.
(4) ANTIDISCRIMINATION LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not enter into an agreement with an entity to provide health care items or services under the pilot program, or with an entity to administer the program, unless such entity guarantees that it will not deny, limit, or condition the coverage or provision of benefits under the program, for individuals eligible to be enrolled under such program, based on any health status-related factor described in section 2702(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act
(A) Health status.
(B) Medical condition (including both physical and
mental illnesses).
(C) Claims experience.
(D) Receipt of health care.
(E) Medical history.
(F) Genetic information.
(G) Evidence of insurability (including conditions aris-
ing out of acts of domestic violence).
(H) Disability.
This appears to apply the former to all policies under this plan, where as with the public health service act, it appears to only apply to group health plans. To me this says that less people will be turned down, regardless of the overall negatives.
Edit: Also, I'm always unsure how we get off pointing at canada and bashing their healthcare system. Their healthcare is ranked 30th worldwide. We're ranked 37th. (their average life expectancy is also higher than ours) France and italy are number 1 and 2 respectively, which both have government subsidized healtcare systems. France, however, has the "both of best worlds" so to speak, they have a government subsidized plan, augmented by private health care plans.
-
Who ranks these things? US News & World Report?
-
Who ranks these things? US News & World Report?
the world health organization, a part of the UN
-
I am not entirely confident in the government's ability to make it work, but the free-market healthcare system has FAILED.
As I have said more than once in this thread, with examples, we haven't had a truly free-market healthcare system in DECADES.
It's laughable to blame the current healthcare woes on government intervention when executives and stockholders are making enormous amounts of cash.
Can't quite see the connection here. Sounds more like class envy/warfare than anything else. People are making enormous amounts of cash therefore those people are evil?
People are getting hurt, but no one's breaking the law, so we should leave the law the way it is and not change it? No. The law must be changed.
Agreed. The law should be changed. In fact, I couldn't agree more. Several thousand federal regulations on healthcare should be stricken from the books. Take it back to an actual free market system and you will see prices for medical procedures as well as insurance plans drop and the range of care and types of insurance plans available multiply a thousandfold.
Thinking that shareholders and corporate execs will make life better for everyone if left to their own devices is foolishness beyond the extreme.
Agreed. Fortunately for me, that's not exactly the point I'm trying to make. That point is this: If you connect covering everyone directly to making money, which is the very definition of a true free-market system, then everyone gets covered. In the current state of things the government has made it expensive and in many cases illegal to offer plans tailored to high-risk or special cases.
I do believe Healthcare should be an inalienable right.
We'll have to agree to disagree here I suppose. I simply can't in good conscience insist that my neighbor pay for my healthcare.
I think technology and society have progressed to the point where that's possible and practical. Many countries are making it work.
They're not actually. Every case I've looked up, Canada (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705"), England (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080814210004.htm"), France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm"), etc... are unsustainable financially. Why they are unsustainable is wide open to debate, and they aren't actually working.
The underlying problem with giving everyone something for free is that nothing is actually free. Everything costs something. Putting the government in charge of a 'healthcare for everyone' system simply means that you're extracting the money for the system from private citizens at the point of a gun and then filtering that money through the government and lying about it being free. Insisting that the government is the only entity that can run an intelligent healthcare system flies in the face of every single bit of my life experience.
Even if there is no government-run plan, we need to ban making a profit on health insurance. Everyone should be forced to buy coverage, and insurance companies should return all excess profits beyond a reasonable buffer to their policyholders at the end of the year.
Wow. Just, wow. This philosophy didn't work in communist russia, it didn't work in china, it hasn't worked anywhere. But I suppose we could try again with starry eyes and hearts full of hope.
Conclusion: Yes, it would be possible to create a state-run health insurance/health care system that paid for itself and encouraged innovation, efficiency, and customer service. The nature of government and bureaucracies themselves work against it though. And the current plan on the table does none of the above.
Who ranks...? the world health organization, a part of the UN
First, keep in mind that places like Oman and Colombia rank above the US. That says something about how they run those rankings does it not? And have a look at this. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236")
-
I am not entirely confident in the government's ability to make it work, but the free-market healthcare system has FAILED.
As I have said more than once in this thread, with examples, we haven't had a truly free-market healthcare system in DECADES.
It's laughable to blame the current healthcare woes on government intervention when executives and stockholders are making enormous amounts of cash.
Can't quite see the connection here. Sounds more like class envy/warfare than anything else. People are making enormous amounts of cash therefore those people are evil?
People are getting hurt, but no one's breaking the law, so we should leave the law the way it is and not change it? No. The law must be changed.
Agreed. The law should be changed. In fact, I couldn't agree more. Several thousand federal regulations on healthcare should be stricken from the books. Take it back to an actual free market system and you will see prices for medical procedures as well as insurance plans drop and the range of care and types of insurance plans available multiply a thousandfold.
Thinking that shareholders and corporate execs will make life better for everyone if left to their own devices is foolishness beyond the extreme.
Agreed. Fortunately for me, that's not exactly the point I'm trying to make. That point is this: If you connect covering everyone directly to making money, which is the very definition of a true free-market system, then everyone gets covered. In the current state of things the government has made it expensive and in many cases illegal to offer plans tailored to high-risk or special cases.
I do believe Healthcare should be an inalienable right.
We'll have to agree to disagree here I suppose. I simply can't in good conscience insist that my neighbor pay for my healthcare.
I think technology and society have progressed to the point where that's possible and practical. Many countries are making it work.
They're not actually. Every case I've looked up, Canada (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705"), England (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080814210004.htm"), France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm"), etc... are unsustainable financially. Why they are unsustainable is wide open to debate, and they aren't actually working.
The underlying problem with giving everyone something for free is that nothing is actually free. Everything costs something. Putting the government in charge of a 'healthcare for everyone' system simply means that you're extracting the money for the system from private citizens at the point of a gun and then filtering that money through the government and lying about it being free. Insisting that the government is the only entity that can run an intelligent healthcare system flies in the face of every single bit of my life experience.
Even if there is no government-run plan, we need to ban making a profit on health insurance. Everyone should be forced to buy coverage, and insurance companies should return all excess profits beyond a reasonable buffer to their policyholders at the end of the year.
Wow. Just, wow. This philosophy didn't work in communist russia, it didn't work in china, it hasn't worked anywhere. But I suppose we could try again with starry eyes and hearts full of hope.
Conclusion: Yes, it would be possible to create a state-run health insurance/health care system that paid for itself and encouraged innovation, efficiency, and customer service. The nature of government and bureaucracies themselves work against it though. And the current plan on the table does none of the above.
Who ranks...? the world health organization, a part of the UN
First, keep in mind that places like Oman and Colombia rank above the US. That says something about how they run those rankings does it not? And have a look at this. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236")
Skar, You. Are.My.Hero. I was going to respond in similiar fashion but you beat me to the punch and said much better than they way I had it down.
-
They're not actually. Every case I've looked up, Canada (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705"), England (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080814210004.htm"), France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm"), etc... are unsustainable financially. Why they are unsustainable is wide open to debate, and they aren't actually working.
And ours isn't? Ours has the highest per resident cost, and in 2007 was 16.2% of our Gross Domestic Product, as opposed to:
France: 11% GDP
England: 7.5%
Italy: 8.9%
-
People are making enormous amounts of cash BY HURTING OTHER PEOPLE BY DENYING THEM HELP WHEN THEY NEED IT therefore those people are evil.
I suppose I shouldn't insist that my neighbor pay for my police protection, or my military protection, or my roads, or my gradeschool education.
The only way insurance works is that healthy people pay for sick people. And then when those healthy people eventually get sick, other healthy people pay for them. If everyone was in one big pool, costs would be lower. The only way you're going to connect covering everyone to making money is if the government gets involved! A truly free market would dump sick people and cover only healthy people, because sick people are more expensive. It's common sense.
I'm not talking about giving anyone anything for free. But mandated coverage will share the costs around, like you do with the police and the military. If only parents of school-age kids paid for gradeschool education costs, we'd have a ton of illiterate kids running around because their parents couldn't afford to send them to school. It's in the public good of society as a whole to pay for education.
If I had to pay $5000 every time I needed to call the police to my home, and much much more every time there was a very serious crime to be solved, I wouldn't be calling them very often, would I? (On the other hand, a $20 copay when you call 911 would cut down on frivolous calls.)
Everyone I've talked to in Canada is very happy with their healthcare system. I think there is a ton of misinformation out there, and I don't know why people are spreading it or what they get from it. There seems to be a need to fearmonger.
My car insurance company returns excess profits to policyholders at the end of the year, has done so for decades, and it was ranked #1 in the US in 2006 for overall customer satisfaction. It WORKS.
-
The problem of he "one big pool" you speak of is that not everyone in said pool would be contributing. And why would they when "everyone else" has it covered. Sure on paper great idea! Everyone that's healthy and has money pays for all the sick people. Great. Problem is that without any incentive of being a contributing member of society many simply won't contribute.
I suppose I shouldn't insist that my neighbor pay for my police protection, or my military protection, or my roads, or my gradeschool education.
The difference is you actually want and get benefits from those things. Whereas being forced to pay for someone elses healthcare does not benefit you in any way.
-
I already explained how it benefits you. When you get sick, someone else pays for you. Unless you have no insurance and just pay everything from your bank account, this is how it happens NOW.
Mandated coverage means everyone is required to pay. Some people will be too poor to pay anything, but those people don't pay taxes either yet still are protected by the police. When they start making money again, they start paying again.
-
I already explained how it benefits you. When you get sick, someone else pays for you.
I also responded that it wouldn't work that way. There are simply those who will never contribute to the pool. Thus, never paying for me in return.
-
So you think they should just die?
You already pay for them one way or another. They go to emergency rooms unable to pay and you pick up the tab. Better they are covered and go to normal doctor hours and not to overworked emergency rooms.
I'm for eliminating fraud in the system, but just refusing to help sick people is not the way to do it. Overall quality of life is not great if you're living on the street. There are many self-motivating factors for getting out of a life like that. And into one where you are making money and paying for things yourself.
Some people never get off the street. I don't understand why that is, but I'm not going to condemn them to death for it.
-
So you think they should just die?
I definately do not think that. Maybe there can be an option on your tax form that allows for you to contribute to some sort of universal healthcare for those less fortunate or down on their luck. The key there is the option part. Noone should be forced into this type of plan. Look I don't claim to have the final answer to the healthcare problem that hounds the U.S.. I do however disagree with the plan that Obama is pushing forward.
-
Yes, that would work, because everyone is full of compassion and will be standing in line to pay the government more than the government says they should.
I'm out for now since I have stuff to do.
-
Yes, that would work, because everyone is full of compassion and will be standing in line to pay the government more than the government says they should.
So, then the government should force us to pay into anything they say is "good" for us then?
-
People are making enormous amounts of cash BY HURTING OTHER PEOPLE therefore those people are evil.
This reasoning is unfortunate. Let me extend it and see where it takes us. Insurance companies, whose stated and logical purpose is to make money, are refusing to cover people like your daughter, are therefore hurting her and are thus evil.
I, every day, decline to pay for your daughter's medical bills or even contribute a partial payment. This is implicit on my part. I could cough up some cash for you. I don't. By your reasoning, this makes me evil, along with every other human being on the planet. As evil as the health insurance companies if not more so. Unless, of course, you put me in a different category than the health insurance companies when it comes to moral obligation.
At what point did it become the moral obligation of the health insurance companies to pay for your daughter's healthcare? If they are obligated so to do, why are you not paying for their healthcare? Why are you not paying for mine?
I suppose I shouldn't insist that my neighbor pay for my police protection, or my military protection, or my roads.
Not at all. These are common goods and benefit everyone. Those who use them and benefit from them should pay for them. How do I, for example, benefit from your healthcare coverage?
The only way insurance works is that healthy people pay for sick people. And then when those healthy people eventually get sick, other healthy people pay for them.
Actually, no, that's not how it works. The insurance companies gamble that the money they collect from their customers, sick and healthy alike, will equal more than what they must pay for the care of the sick people according to their contracts. Enough more that they can meet operating costs and make enough of a profit to make it worth their while. The profit motive is the only reason anyone ever got into the health insurance business, exactly like any other business.
If everyone was in one big pool, costs would be lower.
Absolutely. And why are there no bigger pools right now? The government prohibits health insurance programs from crossing state lines. Which, incidentally, is untrue of auto-insurance.
The only way you're going to connect covering everyone to making money is if the government gets involved!
Huh? Expand your reasoning for me please.
A truly free market would dump sick people and cover only healthy people, because sick people are more expensive. It's common sense.
Actually, no. If health insurance companies behaved that way, dumping you the moment you got sick, no one would buy it in the first place. There's common sense for you.
I'm not talking about giving anyone anything for free. But mandated coverage will share the costs around, like you do with the police and the military.
You missed my point. It's IMPOSSIBLE to give it away for free, because it's NOT free. It always costs. All you're doing by getting the government involved is filtering taxpayer's money through the largest bureaucracy in the history of the world before it ever gets to pay for actual healthcare.
I would have no problem paying into a limited government-run health insurance program designed to cover the hard cases, like pre-existing conditions and people who actually can't afford private insurance, if it could be run efficiently. But, we already have those programs and they are not run efficiently. As you found, they suck. They're horrible, time-consuming, bureaucratic nightmares that provide sub-standard everything. If that's all you can afford, it's certainly better than nothing. But it's not exactly the best case scenario. And now we want to, essentially, expand those programs and penalize people for not participating? I would like to decline please.
Everyone I've talked to in Canada is very happy with their healthcare system. I think there is a ton of misinformation out there, and I don't know why people are spreading it or what they get from it. There seems to be a need to fearmonger.
Ah, so those articles I linked to were made up from thin-air. Well, I suppose that's possible. Or perhaps the misinformation is on the other side of the debate as well.
My car insurance company returns excess profits to policyholders at the end of the year, has done so for decades, and it was ranked #1 in the US in 2006 for overall customer satisfaction. It WORKS.
And was it necessary for the government to mandate that behavior as you claim it would be for health insurance? If it wasn't you've proven my point about the free market as opposed to government control. The auto insurance industry is far less regulated than the health insurance industry. So...what conclusions can we draw from that?
-
People are making enormous amounts of cash BY HURTING OTHER PEOPLE BY DENYING THEM HELP WHEN THEY NEED IT therefore those people are evil.
I normally try to avoid calling people "evil" unnecessarily. While people would be evil to deny service to the injured because they enjoyed seeing them in pain, I don't think that refusing to cover chronically ill people is "evil". Sickeningly smart, maybe. Life sucks and you die. Some people get out earlier than others by nature of their sucky character rolls. Most people learn to adapt.I suppose I shouldn't insist that my neighbor pay for my police protection, or my military protection, or my roads, or my gradeschool education.
No, you shouldn't expect your neighbor to pay for your government's military. Especially since it is illegal (or, as lawmakers are so fond of saying about every possible topic, unconstitutional) for the government of the country you live in to maintain a standing army. I'm split on education. While it's lovely to have mandatory primary school, it's stupid to pay for students who don't want to be there. Let them grow up and realize what idiots they were and finally go to school.The only way insurance works is that healthy people pay for sick people. And then when those healthy people eventually get sick, other healthy people pay for them. If everyone was in one big pool, costs would be lower. The only way you're going to connect covering everyone to making money is if the government gets involved! A truly free market would dump sick people and cover only healthy people, because sick people are more expensive. It's common sense.
No, see, some people would get upset and make their own company for health care. It would be more expensive because the people it would cover would be higher risk customers, but it would be available. That's what happens now. While getting everyone into the same pool is nice, you can't charge a 30 year old the same as an80 year old. I can see not discriminating against people because of their health status, but some people are just more likely to be using the health care system because of their age.I'm not talking about giving anyone anything for free. But mandated coverage will share the costs around, like you do with the police and the military. If only parents of school-age kids paid for gradeschool education costs, we'd have a ton of illiterate kids running around because their parents couldn't afford to send them to school. It's in the public good of society as a whole to pay for education.
A government's job is to provide protection in exchange for some freedoms and money. If you personally feel that every youth in your nation needs advanced education, then you and like-minded individuals can make that happen. I'm just not willing to trade in quality of education for people who won't care about the education they receive.If I had to pay $5000 every time I needed to call the police to my home, and much much more every time there was a very serious crime to be solved, I wouldn't be calling them very often, would I? (On the other hand, a $20 copay when you call 911 would cut down on frivolous calls.)
Law enforcement is one of the necessary services a government provides. You seem to be equating a free market to anarchy. There's a quite large difference between the two. The second exists only briefly because people will form groups that evolve into local governments, the kind of government depending on the types of people you have creating them.Not at all. These are common goods and benefit everyone. Those who use them and benefit from them should pay for them. How do I, for example, benefit from your healthcare coverage?
You don't personally benefit from (or pay for) Ookla's local law enforcement unless you live in the same county. If you pay for his health care, you don't personally benefit from it unless you are likely to catch a disease from the area he lives in. Which is actually far more likely than a criminal from his area affecting you in any way. While I agree with you for the most part, this is just a silly assertion. Of those five services (military, law enforcement, education, roads, and health care), the ones you benefit least from are Ookla's education, roads, and law enforcement. Unless he is a part of the production or development of a product you use, which could well be the case. He is for me.
-
We're not fearmongering, we're just stating facts. Polls show that less than half of Canadians like the outcomes of their health plan, while the U.S is slightly more than half. Not mind-shattering numbers, I'll admit, but it is there. You are making my point with regard to the car insurance companies, so why don't we start by employing the same standards for health insurance? Make them all compete fairly. The government already funds 46% of total healthcare costs, with private insurance picking up 42% and out-of-pocket expenses equalling 12%. As a comparison, Canada is about 70-30 (they didn't have the out of pocket numbers). I am currently reading an interesting article showing a loophole in compensation to doctors via imaging technology. The cost of an MRI or CT Scan is absolutely out of control. Just getting this number in line with other countries would lower costs significantly.
-
People are making enormous amounts of cash BY HURTING OTHER PEOPLE BY DENYING THEM HELP WHEN THEY NEED IT therefore those people are evil.
I normally try to avoid calling people "evil" unnecessarily. While people would be evil to deny service to the injured because they enjoyed seeing them in pain, I don't think that refusing to cover chronically ill people is "evil". Sickeningly smart, maybe. Life sucks and you die. Some people get out earlier than others by nature of their sucky character rolls. Most people learn to adapt.
and what of people who get dropped by their healthcare provider because they have suddenly become to great an expenditure? Sentencing people to die because of no health because it's cost effective doesn't seem like a terrible idea to you?
-
I never said that it wasn't a terrible idea, I just said that I wouldn't call it evil. I tend to be very sparing with the term, especially since it has historically been used by religious zealots to justify their dickery. Rapists and serial killers do evil things and enjoy them. That's evil, no matter what psychological excuse you can find for it.
If I understand the regulations right, you can't be dropped by a provider legally unless you let your coverage lapse, at which point they can refuse you as a new customer.
-
If I understand the regulations right, you can't be dropped by a provider legally unless you let your coverage lapse, at which point they can refuse you as a new customer.
They apparently can. As I said earlier, I have my reasons for disliking the current healthcare system, and that's because my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer at the age of 50, and was promptly dropped by his healthcare provider, citing the costs of treatment versus the chances of success or something along those lines. His healthcare was part of his benefits package from his place of employment, and this happened even before he went on disability. I'm not sure of the legal mumbo jumbo that went along with it, but we checked into it after it happened, and was apparently legal on some grounds. All medical expense came directly out of our pockets.
All in all, after all was said and done, on what treatment we could afford without healthcare, he lived 6 years longer than the 6 months he was diagnosed with. There's no doubt in my mind he would have a much better shot at being alive today if we had healthcare to help pay for the treatments.
-
That type of thing should certainly not happen, E. While I will accept that a certain point can be reached where the treatments are of no help, shutting someone off the moment they are diagnosed is ludicrous. Of course, my arguments against the current healthcare reform package do not mean I am against healthcare reform. I just wildly disagree with how it is being handled. When my company started to have money issues, we looked at the largest causes and found ways to reduce costs. There are specific issues that can be fixed that will allow our healthcare system to fall in line without the need for monstrous, expensive oversight. Like I have said a million times, if the government can't handle the regulations they currently enforce, how can they handle greater oversight? Medicare is a joke. Medicaid is a joke. Veterans care is pretty lousy as well. The only government run health care that does work is the one Congress has (what a surprise that is). The link below broke down our system quite well, compared it with other nations, and showed some glaring inneficiencies that I believe can be fixed without increased beurocracy. It's a little heady and long, but please read it carefully and let me know what you think.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/US_healthcare/pdf/US_healthcare_Chapter1.pdf
-
So, then the government should force us to pay into anything they say is "good" for us then?
We the people make the government. If enough people agree, then yes. And I have no problem with a standing army.
I think some of various people's answers have basically made my point for me as far as not caring about other people. If you're happy that way, hooray for you.
Skar, I never talked about anything being free. You're the one who brought up "free" as far as I can tell. I agree with you that nothing is free.
I never asked insurance companies to pay for my daughter's healthcare. I asked them to let her be covered. Assuming doctors aren't lying to us (and she doesn't have some horrible disease they haven't told us about that will create huge medical expenses, or that what they have told us about isn't much much worse than they've said), chances are we'd pay them more money than they'd ever pay out for us. (That's the way insurance works like you said, though what I said about how insurance works is still true. Sick people do pay part of their own costs but the rest is paid by healthy people. Insurance companies wouldn't have money to cover the costs of sick people if healthy people didn't give it to them.) And we have a high deductible plan so we'd pay for most of it anyway unless something catastrophic happened.
The profit motive did not cause mutual insurance companies to come into existence. A desire to help each other out and get help when you needed it did. Unfortunately the profit motive is what has caused most mutual insurance companies to go out of existence: selling out to for-profit companies in order to make a short-term gain because they were deluded into thinking coverage would be just as good. I think it's pretty darn obvious that reliance on the profit motive to provide good healthcare has shown that that model is a failure. Healthcare is too important to leave up to the profit motive.
I never said 30-year-olds and 80-year-olds should pay the same amount. The health insurance I have has age brackets and that makes sense to me. 80-year-olds also have different types of expenses as 30-year-olds. And I do agree that allowing cross-state access would be a good thing, though a point has been brought up that some states allow crappy insurance to be sold there and I think there should be some kind of minimum standard. States with car insurance requirements (is that all of them?) have minimum standards people live with.
But anyway, I see healthcare as a common good that benefits everyone. You don't. That's the gist of it.
When there is an ambulance with a siren speeding up behind you, why do you pull over? Do you do it only because it's the law? Or do you do it because you hope that one day when you're in an ambulance and need to get to the hospital fast there better darn not be a bunch of slowpoke cars blocking your ambulance's path? Pulling over for someone else's ambulance helps YOU because if it's a habit everyone has then they'll pull over for your ambulance in the future. It's a public good. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. But pulling over for an ambulance is also a public good that's mandated by the law and I have no problem with that mandate.
Doctors are required to help people without knowing whether they can pay for good reasons (and I already said how you pay for other people's healthcare now whether you like it or not, by your own costs going up). If you get hit by a car and can't talk or move or anything, you want an ambulance to come help you whether or not they've found your insurance card already, don't you? That's a protection you'd lose if government regulation went away. Each and every one of those regulations was put in place when people took a good look at the abuses that were happening without those regulations and said, "This is not the kind of country we are." (Some regulations don't work quite right but trashing them all is not the answer.) And that's what people are saying now. "This is not the kind of country we are." (Of course, people disagree what kind of country we aren't. I don't think we should be a welfare state but the system we have is crap and it's not because of too much government regulation.)
Everyone can make a poll, apparently. Harris polls: People in other countries, including Canada, like their healthcare more than the US's and more than people in the US like their own. Only EIGHT PERCENT of Canadians think the US's system is better.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_08_12.pdf
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=927
-
[IFYPFY]We the people elect many of the officials that make the government. If enough of those people agree, then we should get forced to pay into what they say. Most people have no problem with the president they elect having control over the most advanced military force in the world, as long as the guns aren't turned on them personally. [/IFYPFY]
I think some of various people's answers have basically made my point for me as far as not caring about other people. If you're happy that way, hooray for you.
Some of us are heartless SOBs because we don't want to turn over extra freedoms to the government. I believe that health care is a good thing, and that everyone should have it. I also believe that the government has proven itself incapable of taking care of most (if not all) New Deal programs, so why would a health care program be any different? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'd rather not take the risk. So yes, I guess you could say that I'm with the greedy bloodsuckers.
-
Insurance minimum standards are definitely a must. Customized plans should also be allowed. For example, you can choose more or less auto insurance based on risk, the same should be for health insurance. I remember my work plan from Aetna had all this coverage for holistic medicines, 52 free chiropractor visits per year, and other things I really didn't want or need, but was still paying for. The worst thing you can do to a private industry is remove it's competition, and allow regulations to become excuses to raise costs. It is easier to modify existing than to completely overhaul the system. To be honest, I think Obama is committing political suicide right now. I have a feeling he will turn it around, but idealism just doesn't fly with Americans, nor does admitting you are not familiar with major portions of your own plan. If you are that adamant about something, you better make damn sure you are able to defend it completely. Even if his plan was the greatest thing ever (and there are parts of it that are good), the way it was pitched to the public was pretty poor.
-
I think it's pretty darn obvious that reliance on the profit motive to provide good healthcare has shown that that model is a failure.
And I think the opposite. Since the government has been more and more deeply involved in healthcare for decades, we don't know WHAT actual capitalist healthcare might look like unless we go back to before the government was so involved. (That same period you refer to so nostalgically in your post, incidentally) The truth is that the ills of the healthcare industry have been increasing in lockstep with government involvement therein. That turns into a chicken or the egg argument, you think it's the chicken, I think it's the egg.
But anyway, I see healthcare as a common good that benefits everyone. You don't. That's the gist of it.
Not actually true if you read post #24. I DO see healthcare as a common good and I think it would be great if everyone could be covered for all the reasons the Obamites are giving about why universal healthcare would be good. My objection is simply that the federal government SUCKS at running big programs. It is an incredibly wasteful organization with zero perceived responsibility to its customers or shareholders. If it becomes as heavily and universally involved in healthcare as the obamacare plan proposes, I think the quality of everybody's healthcare will spiral into the toilet and we'll pay more for it as the 'premiums' are filtered through that massive bureaucracy I mentioned earlier.
It comes down to the idea that intentions are actually separate from outcomes. The fact that a group fervently believes that they are doing good does not mean they actually are. I share the belief that healthcare for everyone would be great; lower costs in the long run, healthier people make more money and more progress, etc... I don't share the belief that putting the government in charge will result in anything resembling that outcome.
Veiled implications that I don't care for my fellow man and that I am generally a 'meany' aside, I would be happy to voluntarily put money towards an efficient system of healthcare aimed at covering those that can not provide for themselves. I simply don't believe the government is capable of doing that.
Earlier you pooh-poohed the idea that people would be willing to voluntarily contribute to the common good.
Yes, that would work, because everyone is full of compassion and will be standing in line to pay the government more than the government says they should.
Yet you're anxious to place your health in the hands of a career bureaucrat. You expect him to be any kinder? I don't understand that at all.
And finally:
My car insurance company returns excess profits to policyholders at the end of the year, has done so for decades, and it was ranked #1 in the US in 2006 for overall customer satisfaction. It WORKS.
And was it necessary for the government to mandate that behavior as you claim it would be for health insurance? If it wasn't you've proven my point about the free market as opposed to government control. The auto insurance industry is far less regulated than the health insurance industry. So...what conclusions can we draw from that?
I'd be interested in your response.