|
How can anything that sounds so good be bad for us? FREE health care...for EVERYBODY! Clearly no debate is needed on such a straightforward proposal. |
|
|
how you state vague positive goals that no one can disagree with, without bothering to outline any specifics on how exactly you intend to achieve them as an alternative. |
|
Relying on the people who have brought us to this health care mess to come up with a solution? "Give Americans more choices" by denying Americans the option of a public plan that takes the profit motive out of insurance? What gobbledygook.
You keep you private insurance that you like so well. I know-- it's great for those who can afford it. But don't get in the way of reforms that will suit the needs of millions of Americans who want another choice. |
|
|
Does a bang up job with the postal services I know the will do as well with our health care. |
|
I encourage everyone to go read the links on those bad government-run health care programs. You'll learn that Sweden is "edging toward" a market system - from an article published in 2001.
There is an awful lot to debate here, but none of it is helped by ignorant statements like, "Government-Run Health Care - A Proven Failure." The Veterans Administration runs one of the top-ranked health care systems in the country - as ranked by its customers and by quality assurance organizations. It's a large, government-run health care system, and it works just fine.
Or, "While our current system is not perfect, it's the best there is." There are several categories where we are far from the best. More importantly, any discussion of "good, better, best" must include the cost, and America's health care costs are drastically higher than anybody else's.
So let's have an honest debate, but leave out baloney like "government health care doesn't work" or "we're the best."
|
|
|
tell me you trust the likes of Washington to do the best for the people, Sen Feinstein comes to mind as a real honest politician, Chris Dodd is another I know you can come up with many Repubs also, so again do you trust these politicians to take care of us? |
|
"How can anything that sounds so good be bad for us? FREE health care...for EVERYBODY!"
Well, of course it's NOT free. Why not phrase it as "what would you rather have, a health care system that builds in a profit margin for those who pay for it, or one that doesn't?" |
|
|
If you wish to refer to rationing as progress in health care reform, then you go right ahead. The rest of us don't see anything progressive about having a government bureaucracy deciding who lives and who dies, basing its decisions on the future benefit of said consumer to the system. There's nothing progressive about stifling experimentation on possible cures for diseases or new treatments. There's nothing progressive about limiting the amoung of doctors and medical professionals in order to limit the cost, nor is there anything progressive about closing hospitals and reducing beds in those facilities. That's the consequence of universal health care, which will become two systems...the very best for those wealthy enough to travel, and a mediocre (at best) system for the rest of us. |
|
[Does a bang up job with the postal services I know the will do as well with our health care. ]
To be fair, the Postal service today is a much better organization than it was even 20 years ago.
As to rationing, it's kind of a double edged point to be making. Because there is scarcity, there will always be rationing, even under a perfectly free market system. The rationing will just take place via pricing instead of fiat. (i.e. Those who cannot afford it go without.)
So, in essence, we live under a system that rations health care now as millions of people go without health insurance and cannot afford to go to the doctor.
I personally would love to see more subsidizing of free clinics in poorer neighborhoods, but I suspect that even this modest measure would still be met with cries of Socialism by the GOP these days. |
|
"The Government Does a bang up job with the postal services I know the will do as well with our health care."
Do you feel the government's handling of the nation's defense is as incompetent as its handling of the mail? |
|
"The rest of us don't see anything progressive about having a government bureaucracy deciding who lives and who dies, basing its decisions on the future benefit of said consumer to the system."
So you'd rather leave it in the hands of a private corporation, basing its decision on the profits of that corporation? |
|
"To be fair, the Postal service today is a much better organization than it was even 20 years ago."
The U.S. Postal Service handles more items in one day than Federal Express and UPS combined handle in an entire year. |
|
Just check the UK, Canada, and our very own Hawaii. Ask them how it's going...
Vlad, VA healthcare is not as good as all that. The red tape that vets must go through to receive the care they deserve is less than timely. A friend of mine who was rendered quadriplegic because of the war had to wait 21 months before they declared him 100% disabled. So, he went without the necessary healthcare and his retirement pay while he fought the battle to get what was rightfully his. |
|
|
I worked in the health care industry for over 20 years at a large teaching hospital. We treated a large number of patients from Europe and Canada. Many came as they said it was their only chance of survival. Families pooled their money to get a parent or child treatment. Each told horror stories of the wait time or the denial of services. Yes lots have no coverage in this country but their choice is not death. The emergency rooms treat everyone regardless of their finances. To judge who deserves treatment by a cost benefit analysis will mean that many will not get treatment. I guess Universal Health care won't do much for them will it. |
|
"The U.S. Postal Service handles more items in one day than Federal Express and UPS combined handle in an entire year."
Please prove the veracity of this statement.
"So you'd rather leave it in the hands of a private corporation, basing its decision on the profits of that corporation?"
No, I want the patient and the doctor to decide. |
|
"Vlad, VA healthcare is not as good as all that."
OK, I have several different surveys of patients and quality audits that say VA is one of the best health care systems in the country. You have an anecdote about somebody who didn't get very good care. |
|
"Well, of course it's NOT free. Why not phrase it as 'what would you rather have, a health care system that builds in a profit margin for those who pay for it, or one that doesn't?'"
I was being a little sarcastic. But one must recognize there is going to be a cost no matter what. A government is less motivated to provide an efficient and cost-effective system than an enterprise which is trying to maximize profits.
So I would ask whether the cost of governmental inefficiencies and the cost of government bureaucracy are less than the business costs of private insurers.
I would also ask whether governmental attempts to cut costs would result in a lesser standard of care, as has been the problem in nations with nationalized health care.
There are going to be costs and trade-offs no matter what. I'm not convinced our current system is so terrible that we have to throw it out and accept all the detriments that come with another system. I think we can build upon the system we have. |
|
|
I am not quite sure if why you addressed me in your post regarding the VA. I was not talking about the VA. First of all in many cases from what I understand the VA works quite well. How many millions of more people would be treated with Universal Health Care than are now being treated under the VA system. I do not believe that cost benefit analysis comes into play at the VA either. We know that cost benefit will be a big part of the new government plan, they have already admitted that. You my friend are comparing apples to oranges. |
|
|
|
I believe some sort of national health care system would have been approved during this election cycle, regardless of which party gained power -- it was time. The question now is will the democrats take time to really look at what is needed/possible or will they pull something out of their stern just to get a bill passed? (Not that the republicans might not have done the same thing -- neither party is good at long range planning.)
They might look at Spain's health care. It appears superb; however, the way they man and fund it will never get past the American Medical Association.
I've never been served by the VA, but I have relatives who use the system and have friends who are PA's at a hospital in WVA. I've heard none of the patients say the slightest thing bad about the treatment they get, except that the paperwork handling is terrible. The PA's ain't too overjoyed with the paperwork either.
A lot of the treatment at VA hospitals is done by PA's, which ain't a bad thing, considering the fine PA's I've met in the civilian medical world -- very knowledgeable folks from what I can see. One I know damned sure knows more than the doctor for whom he works in a specialized field. He's very tactful at correcting the doctor, but the looks on his face tells the story. |
|
"I am not quite sure if why you addressed me in your post regarding the VA."
Fair enough. I was going to say more, but at my age, well you forget what you're doing.
Still, I'm sure you're aware that there is a growing industry around Americans flying to Asia for surgery. Thailand, for example, has many excellent quality hospitals that will perform many different kinds of surgery at much lower prices than in the U.S. And price has to be included in any discussion of "value." |
|
"There are going to be costs and trade-offs no matter what. I'm not convinced our current system is so terrible that we have to throw it out and accept all the detriments that come with another system. I think we can build upon the system we have."
Well, that's an excellent point - I certainly don't have all the answers and can't predict what will or won't work.
Too many people look at what government-funded health care will cost without considering what other costs will be eliminated. For instance, if everybody has basic coverage, businesses will no longer have to offer basic coverage as part of their compensation.
I know that's over-simplified: we can't just snap our fingers and drop health care costs from business expenses. And I'm not a bomb-throwing anarchist: somebody has to figure out a way out for private insurance companies. We can't just announce that they are now out of business.
Anyway, there is much to debate, but we don't get anywhere by saying "Government won't work!" or "My dentist's cousin had to wait a year for a hip replacement in Canada." |
|
"The question now is will the democrats take time to really look at what is needed/possible or will they pull something out of their stern just to get a bill passed? "
Another excellent point. It's hard to imagine that any group of people, no matter how smart and experienced, would get something like this right the first time, so any new system should have processes built in for adjustments. And the real challenge here is that we're talking about medical care - when you need it, you need it RIGHT NOW. |
|
"You my friend are comparing apples to oranges."
I'm not saying that the Veterans Administration has the answer to all our problems. But they clearly *disprove* the statement "government-run health care is a proven failure." |
|
"There's nothing progressive about limiting the amount of doctors and medical professionals in order to limit the cost, nor is there anything progressive about closing hospitals and reducing beds in those facilities. That's the consequence of universal health care, which will become two systems...the very best for those wealthy enough to travel, and a mediocre (at best) system for the rest of us."
Excuse me for thinking, but isn't this already the case in America? Don't the HMOs and insurance companies perform this wonderful service?
Do you really believe the wealthy receive the same kind of health care as the indigent?
|
|
|
Yes I am well aware of surgery being done in other countries. When my husband was awaiting a transplant I researched every option for him to get an organ before it was too late. I did find that I could take him to another country until I found out how they got some of the organs. I am sure that some people get the transplant and all is fine but I am sure for others it does not work out so well. Those who go to another country I am sure do not have the option of a malpractice law suit. Remember our doctors are paying rates as high as $200,000. per year just for malpractice insurance even if they have never had a lawsuit. Most doctors I know would happily lower their fees if there was some sort of tort reform. Also HMO plans that were a product of the quest to save money on healthcare produced a nightmare for doctors. In most cases they have had to hire more staff just to do pre-certifications and paperwork. Medicaid is run by the states and for sure there is more fraud there than with any private insurance company. In many states the hospitals tack on an extra surcharge on the bill of every private insurance patient to make up for those who are uninsured. There are many ways that health care costs could be cut. When you start with benefit analysis you cut costs by cutting care. Do you think that a government employee is more equipped to decide if you should or should not get treatment or if you should or should not get a certain medication than your doctor I don't think so. |
|
|
The postal service is a joke, having the government run health care is a bigger joke, Why don't you and the rest of your liberal friends just donate money to cover all the poor people so they can have coverage, we know what great compassion the left has in giving to charities. |
|
I have a different doctor almost every time I go to a major hospital in my city, for a check up. I noticed a couple of check ups ago that lots of the staff had changed too, so I asked one of them WTH by jokingly asking if the salaries were so poor that folks kept quiting.
The nurse (or whatever she was) said that the price of insurance made it impossible to hire enough doctors and that the doctors quit because of the long working hours. She said the hospital was hard up for money because of the number of patients who couldn't pay for the treatment and the hospital clinic had reduced working hours to four days per week. That was very hard on the staff as they were paid by the hour. She said such things were going on all over Florida. |
|
"The postal service is a joke, having the government run health care is a bigger joke"
I notice you avoided my question: is the federal government competent to run the nation's defense? |
|
Diane writes, "Do you think that a government employee is more equipped to decide if you should or should not get treatment or if you should or should not get a certain medication than your doctor I don't think so."
Rush Conservative writes, "No, I want the patient and the doctor to decide."
You can decide today on whatever you and the doctor want. If your doctor thinks that a complete reconstruction of your ____ is necessary, and you agree, well, go right ahead an do it.
But if your insurance company says they won't pay for it, will that have an impact on your decision?
So all this talk about "I don't want the government deciding" is just smoke. Unless you're very wealthy, SOMEBODY is going to decide what will or won't be paid for.
Last time around, the scare tactic was, "I don't want the government telling me which doctor I can see," and I remember thinking, "Somebody else has told me which doctor I can see for my entire life: the insurance company."
|
|
If you are talking about the civilian side of the house, the answer is NO! (I'm not speaking of civil servants either - the political appointees screwed up as badly as a three-decker, soup sandwich.)
Reference: Vietnam and others |
|
|
Do you watch the show "24"? There, a cabal is trying to show that private contractors would be more capable of running national defense than the government. Absurd, but amusing. |
|
So fine. Move to North Korea.
...can't say we'll miss you.....
|
|
I'll answer that....
As a veteran, the answer is no....the military is one giant cluster-f*ck. We need the civilians to oversee the services and keep them reigned in, but are they competent otherwise? Not just no, but HELL no....
Fortunately, we are still far better than any other military....in training, equipmant, and caliber of the man in uniform.
This is in spite of the Federal beaurocracy, not because of it. |
|
"So fine. Move to North Korea."
Next time I heard somebody talk about how the liberals don't want to discuss issues . . . I'll just send them to you, OK? |
|
|
I didn't avoid your question that is not the topic I was discussing I was takling about the postal service, you have jumped to the military, stay focused big fella, postal service is one thing millitary is another, otherwise you might get a letter mixed up with a bullet |
|
|
Did you notice still no southpaws on the thread about the photo op fly over, I guess there is no splainin that one. |
|
|
.. is pretty good. I have my own doctor, I've never been denied service, and can go as often as I want. I pay a quarterly bill that's pretty cheap. Sounds good, right? Sign us up? Well, newsflash, VA is NOT the system being proposed, not even close, not even on the same planet. Don't even try that crap of saying Universal health care will be the same as VA.. You WILL be rationed, some bureacrat will decide whether you get to even have treatment, and you'll wait YEARS for an appointment. |
|
"Don't even try that crap of saying Universal health care will be the same as VA."
Remind us, who said that? |
|
This message is for the stupid burnette Michelle Bachmann. This is one of the dumbest Republicans I have heard speak in along time. For instance immigration, Republicans donot want the President to give these people legal status. All I hear the Republicans say it would take jobs from hard working Americans. I want to know what Americans are willing to go back into the fields, clean your homes, groom your hards and take care of your children? Black Americans aren't, remember our ancestors who where brought here by your racist ancestors will not go back, we have a reason to be proud and look forward. It looks like to me Republicans are going to have homes that look like crap, kids out of control and NO one to clean their homes. REPUBLICANS WAKE UP THIS ISN'T THE 19th or the 20th CENTURY IT IS THE 21st AND THE COUNTRY HAS A PRESIDENT THAT CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AND THAT IS SOMETHING OLE DUMB W. COULD NOT DO! |
|
|
I feel that it is unfair to the American people, to say that Government- Run Health Care would be a failure in the United States, without attempting to see if it would work here. The United States and for example New Zealand, a country that has attempted Universal Health Care, are two very different countries. Making a comparison to what happened in New Zealand and what could happen in the United States if a Universal Health Care plan were implement is ridiculous. A Universal Health Care is clearly needed, given that fact that around 45 million Americans are currently uninsured. It is our obligation not only has humans, but as Americans to help out those uninsured Americans who can’t afford health care. Universal Health care would benefit not only the uninsured, but every American. Purposed plans by President Obama, as well as The Common Wealth Fund Commission, would save Americans much needed money. Under President Obama’s plan, Americans would save up to $ 2,500 a year with his Universal Health care plan. The Common Wealth Fund Commission proposed plan would insure that within two years 98% of Americans would be insured, as well as savings of $2.3 trillion for households, $ 1 trillion for local and state governments, and $ 231 billion for employers. Given the current state of the economy, savings of that magnitude would make life a little easier for all Americans. While no plan is completely perfect, it doesn’t hurt to try Universal Health Care. |
|
|
If you will go back to your home country and come back LEGALLY, you will be most welcome here by ALL of us..... |
|
|
There is one major problem with your line of reasoning. Under the current system, consumers have the right to choose their HMO, as well as the right to pay out-of-pocket for treatment if the HMO doesn't choose to pay for it. Under the universal, government-run health care system, there is no escape or opportunity to appeal...you will not be allowed the procedure or operation even if you wish to pay for it out-of-pocket (at least that's the way it works in Sweden, Canada and the UK). Under your form of health care, there will still be different levels of care for the wealthy and the rest of us...in fact, that disparity will be more pronounced...while throwing in the dynamic of "political considerations" entering the equation. |
|
|
Why work ,someone else can pay taxes and us nonworkers can vote to tax the workers more so we don't have to work ,We are the core of the democratic party . |
|
|
The NYtimes are you all enchanted to be here? |
|
|
Gets the tough questions, while the President get the softball questions. |
|
|
It's obvious that Michelle Bachmann is an idiot, and her comments regarding "Hoot, Smalley" (Smoot, Halley) are proof positive. How do people like her even get elected unless the electorate in her district is smokin' dope. |
|
Michele-thank you for working hard to bring facts to the people. New Zealand isn't the only example: Canada, England, Mexico, plenty of examples out there of socialized medicine not working. Why do you think doctors in Canada send their patients to the U.S.?
And as far as the comment about legal citizens not being willing to do the jobs, that's such a lie. The jobs being taken are also construction, painters, landscapers, and other skilled labor jobs that U.S. citizens are more than willing to do. It's time to send these carpetbaggers back where they came from. Simply stop hiring them and they'll self deport. It's working in Arizona. |
|
No kidding, dude. Here in CA we elect Batty Babs, Nutty Nancy, and Ditzy DiFi. Are these the frauds you want in charge of health care?
My family member is medical doctor who takes MediCare patients. The wonderful US govt is over $300,000 in arears to their little group of docs. How is a broken govt supposed to pay for everybody's medical care?
Of course, they cannot without two things: tort reform (as Diane so wisely commented) and SEVERE and I mean SEVERE restrictions on care and salaries.
Let all the US trained docs go do something else. (Most tell me they will quit if there's govt controlled health care. Anybody smart enough to be a doctor is smart enough to do something else, they say.) Get a bunch of docs and nurses from third world countries to come here to treat Americans.
In the meantime, I live 15 minutes from the border. Let the good US docs start clinics and hospitals in Mexico for "rich" Americans who don't trust their good health to politicians elected by dope smokers.
|
|
Bill said "It's obvious that Michelle Bachmann is an idiot,"
Nice Bill, instead of a constructive argument you call someone an idiot. Way to be open minded and accepting of diversity of opinion. That is helpful.
The solution to this debate is multifaceted. It will not be solved by a fully nationalized system. It will not be solved by a fully private payer system. And it certainly will not be solved without Tort reform. Were fully nationalized systems exist for most people they are terrible systems (Canada, UK for starters). They do ration care in ways we would find unacceptable, if we were honest. And, they are slow to adopt and make available new technology. We are blessed in this country with the best technology and access to health care in the world. It isn't perfect and some people who can't afford health care could use some sort of help. It is a complex debate, but if we simply fall to calling someone with an opinion an idiot because we don't agree with them, we help nothing. |
|
I figure that in Michele's district her voters are drinking scotch in their kool-aid while some of those who vote against her are the d.s.-ers.
|
|
The Government
Does a bang up job with the postal services I know the will do as well with our health care.
Me- Okay, let's look at that. The Postal service handles billions of letters, most of them delivered on time. They do this at a fraction of what it costs FedEx or UPS to do so, they provide their employees excellent pay and benefits.
Frankly, I've never had a problem with my mail service. I've had lots of problems with private health insurance.
|
|
"While our current system is not perfect, it's the best there is. We should work to give Americans more choices in health care; not less. We should work to make health care more portable and more affordable; not subject all health consumers to a singular government bureaucracy. The Democrat plan is an extreme makeover for which we already know the ugly outcome. The examples of countries who went down this path exist all around us and the results are in - it's bad policy, plain and simple."
The problem is that it isn't the best there is. It is a system that leaves 1 out of six with NO coverage, dumps 1 out of three off on the government, and the other half think they are getting good health coverage, until they actually get sick and find out they don't have nearly as much coverage as they thought they did.
Here are some ugly facts about the "best system there is"...
* As mentioned above, 1 out of 6 aren't covered.
* We spend more per capita than any nation in the world.
* We have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.
*We have one of the lowest life expectancies in the industrialized world.
* 50% of all bankruptcies are people who had a medical crisis in the family and went bankrupt DESPITE having medical insurance.
The problem with employer-based health care is that taking care of the patient is the THIRD priority. The first is making money for the stockholders, the second is saving money for the employer and keeping his costs down. THEN you might actually take care of the patient. Maybe. Or maybe not.
|
|
If we get universal health care
Why work ,someone else can pay taxes and us nonworkers can vote to tax the workers more so we don't have to work ,We are the core of the democratic party .
Me- Hey, why not go all the way. Why not let Corporate America decide who is worthy to live or die. "Human Resources" will take on a whole new meaning, and people will REALLY worry about their reviews.
The fact is we spend more per capita than any nation in the world on medical care, and we have the worst in the industrialized world. (See statistics cited above.)
Compare Medicare to the Private Insurance industry. Of all money spent by Medicare, 3% goes to administration. The other 97% goes to paying for health care. Compare that to private insurance, where 30% of money spent is profits for shareholders and adminstration.
|
|
And so you are. You jaggovs keep counting folks that can afford but refuse insurance.
I went to a private doctor for years. He didn't accept insurance. He charged by time blocks. You can buy them in 30 minute intervals. So if I bought an hour and we used 45 mins, we would sit around drinking soda and talk about football (if I chose) until his next appointment. He was NEVER double booked. The only time you waited in line is if you were early. There was never some sappy mom with a snot nosed kid sitting there waiting to have the doctor cure her kids cold. NEVER
As you can see, the problem IS the insurance and socialized system created by the beurocracy.
Shoehorn - A friend of mine and his wife both work at the company I do. They have 4 kids. They've been running the numbers over and over again and it always comes out the same. With socialized medicine, they will be better off with her staying at home as they suck on the tit of society from handouts.
Further, my wife is a doctor. She is going to work only 4 days a month (licensing requirements) and that's at a private practice owned by some folks of our faith (you can forget about moral issues or working on the sabbath). We will also be getting some nice handouts and she can spend a lot more time with our kids.
So what do we have? Two females. Both highly educated and successful - one an engineer and one a doctor. Both leaving the workforce and ending their contribution to a highly demanded fields. Why? Because we make more money (whether by paying less in taxes, take more stuff from other workers and/or all but eliminating our healthcare costs) and can take our kids to the zoo more often if we make others pay for it. |
|
|
Why do libs that are so eager for gays to have equal rights, do they use those same gays and terms refering to gays to slam People on the right, Yougene I don't care what you think of me but, I'm ok with that I do have gay friends up here, "Sarcasm Alert" for Vlad,we let a few in the state for kicks.and I respect their life they respect mine , they dont get in my face and I don't get in theirs.So your broke back slam at me didn't get a rise out of me if that is what you were going for try it on someone else, now do me a favor with that axehandle, nevermind don't want you having too much fun. |
|
B- And so you are. You jaggovs keep counting folks that can afford but refuse insurance.
Me- Yes, these people are getting over on the system. when they are young and healthy they don't get insurance. When they get older, they insist on it, even though they paid nothing into it.
B - I went to a private doctor for years. He didn't accept insurance. He charged by time blocks. You can buy them in 30 minute intervals. So if I bought an hour and we used 45 mins, we would sit around drinking soda and talk about football (if I chose) until his next appointment. He was NEVER double booked. The only time you waited in line is if you were early. There was never some sappy mom with a snot nosed kid sitting there waiting to have the doctor cure her kids cold. NEVER
Me- So what is your point. How about the opposite. The sappy mom who doesn't have health insurance and ignors her kid's cold until it turns into full blow pneumonia and he dies!
B- As you can see, the problem IS the insurance and socialized system created by the beurocracy.
No, the problem is that the system is currently more focused on creating profit than actually providing care. |
|
I call you that because its FUNNY!
Anyway, you were so busy being offended (even though I think that this is the 20th time I've called you that) that you didn't even address my point. The Postal Service does exactly what it is designed to do, it's been doing it for 200 years, and it's darned good at it.
Look, private or public, you are always going to have people who don't give a darn. It's usually the result of bad leadership (not management. We have too much management and not enough leadership in this country, and that's teh problem.)
The real problem with health care is that it is in the control of too many people who make money by NOT providing care, which defeats the purpose. |
|
|
The real failure was you attempt to blame Swine Flu on the Democrats. Next time you try to roll in the mud, perhaps you should check you facts first. |
|
Brianbnc writes
Your stats are BS
His stats are true. Hide you head in the sand, but the US health care system is failing, and failing big (infant mortality), compared to the rest of the industrialized world. |
|