This kind of crap needs to be stopped. The sooner we just put the whole f*ing health insurance industry out of business the better off we’ll all be. Yes, because the mindless bureaucrats in Washington are the ones we need to watch out for…
In response to those that say it’s socialism, so what, who cares? If it works and it makes sure people get the health care they need who the f*^$ cares if it’s socialism, seriously? For those scoring at home socialized medicine works, is cheeper, and makes people happy (C.F. Scandinavia). Socialism is not a threat to democracy (anyone that tries to convince you differently does not actually understand what words mean) nor is socialism a threat to freedom (a point that is more arguable, but only slightly and is really kind of dumb) and we already have it and people like it… “Keep the government out of my Medicare!” Seriously? What the hell are people smoking? Though the most worrisome statistic I’ve ever come across, 26% of americans (40% for those between 18 and 29) are not sure whom America declared it’s independence…” 6% gave a completely wrong answer, including France (an ally in the American Revolution), also Japan, China and a few others… My head hurts. (Sadly, the author of the release doesn’t know much about grammar and so Brendan will be annoyed.)
Anyone that tries to convince you that socialized medicine “works, is cheeper, and makes people happy” knows nothing about health care in Britain:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1896222.ece
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/774601.woman_72_too_old_for_treatment/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1844501.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/04/health.healthandwellbeing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1025334/I-told-I-young-smear-test-I-dying-cervical-cancer-just-24.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4085858.ece
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/2367416.joshuas_50_mile_trek_with_a_broken_arm/
… or Canada:
http://www.thestar.com/Article/305918
http://www.atv.ca/london/news_40168.aspx
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080319/breast_cancerfiles_080319/20080319?hub=Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article761117.ece
http://www.thestar.com/article/216280
So I wouldn’t go throwing the baby out with the bath water on the basis of one egregious example.
The funny thing is, the minute I start taking dcl and his ilk at their word that socialism works and we should have more of it is the minute Brendan chimes in with a sarcastic dismissal like OMG!!! SOCIALISM!!! HERBERT HOOVER RULZ!!!
Except the British model isn’t even close to anything that has ever ever ever been discussed here. Like not even the same planet.
Canadian style healthcare has been discussed here, but that’s not the only model (Canada tends to be the worst of all single-payer systems).
The irony here is I can point to well running “socialized” medical systems, but you cannot point to a single well functioning “market based” medical system.
“There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.”
Gee.
“The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. “Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference,” he says.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm
dcl – the article you cite also lays the blame for that specific situation exactly where it should be – and that is on the dimbulb-of-unknown-gender who invoked the cut-off rather than simply invoicing for the $00.01 … the problem was one of an individual wrapping himself/herself in the trappings of bureaucracy and denying the coverage …
Your solution is to have a significantly *higher* proportion of bureaucrats involved – and that is going to help *how* ?
Jim Kelly – apparently you have missed me commenting on the British NHS … and, more improtantly, the British set-up …
Back last millennium, the UK NHS was staffed by mostly amazingly dedicated folk, from nurses and doctors and specialists …
Then the unions got involved – and, as it their wont, they stated requiring that everyone get the same treatment … which is fine if that is the treatment you need, while it sucks royally if you need specialised treatment … so the NHS went from being world-renowned for valid reasons of excellence to being the system that Joe Mama shows in his cites …
Now, there actually *is* an area related to healthcare where the US can indeed learn from the UK, and that is Tort Reform … probably more specifically “Loser Pays” …
I wonder how long it will take for Tort Reform to happen in the US ?
Jim Kelly reminds me of the folks during the Cold War who used to defend socialism and communism, and when you’d point out the atrocities of the USSR, China, Cambodia, the African dictatorships, and so forth, they’d protest: “But that’s not real socialism / communism — they just didn’t implement it properly!”
Alasdair, what it comes down to is this:
Bureaucrats will be involved. Unless you can demonstrate that the government system would involve dramatically more levels of bureaucracy then you are being dishonest. Bureacrats are ALLREADY involved. They will ALWAYS be involved. The problem isn’t the bureacrats, its the rules they operate under and the motivations for those rules.
So the relevant question is, what are the motivations at work?
For a non-profit private healh care co-op, the motivation is clearly not profit (duh) and you are likely to get more focus on keeping your members happy and healthy.
For a non-profit gov’t run health care co-op, the motivations are similar to the above non-profit co-op that is privately run, taking care of patients.
For a for-profit private health care company the primary motivation is profit (duh). Numerous examples abound of private health care companies going out of their way to deny peoples coverage using whatever loopholes necessary because it maximizes their profits.
So really who should I trust more with making decisions that are in my best interest? A group motivated first by profit, or first motivated by keeping me happy and healthy.
It’s the belief of people like you that the for profit companies are going to put your health ahead of their profits, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, that leads me to question the intelligence level of the right wing in this country.
It would be one thing if you could admit that for-profit companies do the sort of things they are well documented for doing but be able to defend it by pointing out that co-ops and government run programs are worse, but you can’t! Medicare, Medicaid and the miliatary health care plans are some of the best and most efficient there are!
Your opposition (and the opposition of the people who agree with you) don’t appear to be based on empircal evidence of which system is measureably better in this country. Its based on ideologies grounded in right wing talking points like “government bad, big buisness good!”. The only defenses you can muster are trying to compare the proposed system in this country with those in other countries that are significantly different than what has been proposed here! As usual, its MORE red herrings from you!
The irony is that single-payer systems such as Sweden’s, which proponents of socialized medicine love to cite as a success while dismissing Britain and Canada as just “bad examples,” are not much better.
On tort reform, you do realize that tort reform, while a fun talking point for republicans and right wingers like yourself, is a drop in the bucket compared to the other problems with the health care system right? Complaining about tort reform as if it were the primary problem, is like treating someone for a splinter in their finger while ignoring the bone sticking out of their leg. Sure its going to help their over all health, but not much.
Finally, here’s a question for you free market lovers, what exactly is the problem with the following set up:
The government sets up a user-supported national health care co-op.
Private health care companies, both profit and non-profit are allowed to continue as before.
All citizens are required to carry some kind of basic health care, either from a private provider or from the government (with exceptions for people with religious objections, etc.)
If you are right, if the government is so bloated and bad at running health care, no one will choose to go with those plans because the private systems will be better and/or cheaper. It would be the ULTIMATE proof of your belief system that private industry is better than government. I mean seriously, why would you NOT want the chance to prove you are right? The only rational reason to oppose allowing the government to compete in such a way with the private industry is that you don’t actually believe the free-market system works. If it were universally tax-payer supported, then sure, it wouldn’t be on even footing, but thats not what was proposed. What was proposed was a government run, but member funded health care co-op. No taxes involved. Yet this was tantamount to burning the constituion and setting up gulags according to the right. So what is it? Are you simply afraid that like the belief in Bush/Reagan economics when put into place it will fail? Or are your motivations based not on out come and whats actually best for people and this country but knee-jerk ideological extremeism?
Either put up or shut up. Allow the private health care companies to prove they can do it better than the government by ALLOWING the government to compete with them, or get out of the way so we can fix this obviously flawed system. What exactly are you so afraid of?
Joe Mama: No, the irony is that systems such as Sweden’s and Germany’s cost much less than ours and provide far more access and in Germany’s case demonstrably lower waiting times.
A more important point: I don’t think anyone is arguing that “socialized” medicine is perfect, rather that despite what some conservative commentators would claim, nobody’s country is falling into the sea as a result of it.
On tort reform, you do realize that tort reform, while a fun talking point for republicans and right wingers like yourself, is a drop in the bucket compared to the other problems with the health care system right?
Huh? Defensive medicine makes up between 4-9% total health care spending in the U.S. depending on who you listen to, which translates to roughly $90-200 billion annually. That’s a lot of $ wasted on unnecessary tests and procedures that docs perform just to avoid a lawsuit, which could be better spent covering the uninsured.
Jim may have the best slogan yet for adopting socialized medicine: “The U.S. won’t fall into the sea!”
Get rid of the insurance companies first and everything else will work itself out. I know someone who just had a baby, it cost $16,000, one night in the hospital and they were discharged. The circumcision was $9,000. Now I know why they said it’s not neccessary. The insurance carrier covered 25% and she has a medical bill $13,000. Only in America.
Joe Mama: Glad I could help out. 🙂
If Obamacare is so great, and so popular, why were the Democrats unwilling to schedule Donald Berwick for Congressional hearings?
@gahrie, sorry I asked the first question you have to answer mine before we answer yours. I’ll simplify it for you:
If the private health insurance industry is so great and so popular, why are the Republicans afraid to let it compete with the public option?
If the private health insurance industry is so great and so popular, why are the Republicans afraid to let it compete with the public option?
1) Because the “public option” will be subsidized by the taxpayer, giving it a competitive advantage over private insurance, designed to drive the private insurance companies out of business.
2) Because the Federal government will put regulations in place that will drive private insurance out of business.
If you won’t answer my first question…how about this one….
If Obamacare is so great, why is the Federal government forcing us to buy health insurance?
The Federal government is forcing us to buy health insurance because that was a concession to the Republicans by the chicken-ass democrats, to get the bill passed. I don’t know why Democrats even tried to work with the Republicans on this with the town halls and discussions. You’ve got the president being called a socialist and nutjobs screaming at representatives and a bunch of lies, this President should have done what the last President did with the majority in power and drafted what he wanted and shoved it up the Republicans asses. So far this decade, the country has always been better off when we do the opposite of what Republicans advocate for.
Obamacare sucks because it’s not what we need, it’s the first step towards what we need. Unfortunately the majority of Americans have to suffer because retard republicans want to force us all to take baby steps toward progress. Compromise is a very bad thing when there’s a right way to do things, you don’t half-way go to war, and you don’t half-way re-do healthcare. It’s really all the way or it’s just a disaster, and because of all the Republican BS, it’s going to be a disaster.
Everybody should just cancel their health insurance on the same day. Now that’s change I can believe in.
Actually gahrie the public option was going to be supported solely by the people who purchased it’s policies, it was NEVER going to be tax payer supported.
Try again.
Actually gahrie the public option was going to be supported solely by the people who purchased it’s policies, it was NEVER going to be tax payer supported.
Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus too?
@gahrie
Unless you have some factual evidence to demonstrate I’m wrong then shut the f**** up. I’m tired of dealing with the right wing bull crap about what you think Obama MIGHT have someday wanted to happen if everything had gone according to his secret islamo-socialist master plan. Unless you can accurately predict the future you are ignoring the REALITY and FACTS to, as I pit it above base your decision on partisan ideology.
So I’ll ask you again, why aren’t right wingers willing to put their beliefs about private industry being more efficient and desirable than government on the line? Instead you cowards hide behind lies and vapid doom and gloom predictions while ignoring facts and what is actually said.
Here is your chance to prove your more than a right wing hack. Come up with an explanation of why the right wing wouldn’t put their theories to the test and had to protect their precious “free market” from the public option, which I’ll point out would NOT have been tax payer funded according to any plan put forth?
Stop hiding behind blind ideology and spell it out. Right here, right now. Put up, or shut up, coward.
I’ll say this slowly, and explicitly..forgive the language.
The government always fucks things up. Always.
David K – even for you, you seem to be off your meds…
When government dictates what any plan *must* look like, where is the “competition” ?
“right-wingers” regularly put their theories to the test – it’s called the Free Market …
Right-wingers put their theory of union effectiveness to the test – by not joining unions when they are permitted a choice …
Right-wingers put their theories to the test when they start their OWN companies and run ’em according to their beliefs …
When did we last se an Auto Union starting a small start-up auto company to run the way the auto unions want auto companies run ?
And specifically about the public option wherein is stated “the “public option” — a government-run health insurance policy that would be offered along with private policies “ – the “along with private policies” is a CLUE, David K …
Fascinating what happens when you throw a match on kerosine and walk away…
AML, you fell right into the standard conservative trap that I told you to watch out for. That whole knowing what words mean thing. Communism and socialism are not the same ism… They are in fact quite different things. In fact in the wake of WWII several European nations implemented socialist reforms for the express purpose of preventing the spread of communism. You say communism / socialism has never worked and then proceed to list failed communist states which is not and never has been what this debate is about. It is about socialism, that thing they have in Western Europe… that place that is always out-scoring the US on those pesky life satisfaction surveys.
I’m also unclear on what this whole unfettered free markets are the end all be all when they have generally failed just as catastrophically as communism. Pure anything tends not to work so well. So everyone off the high horses. The airline industry hasn’t been profitable since the days of regulation… Actually no transportation industry has really ever existed without subsidy from somewhere.
And what have we gotten for or limited regulation free markets in the US? People that work too much, buy too much crap they don’t need, are massively in debt, and generally fairly unhappy. But hey, they have a free market. F%^& that. Seriously, what is so great about that? I’m not talking about freedom… I’m talking about this unfettered free market concept that doesn’t bother to make sure it provides for basic human needs and has a tendency to destroy self sufficiency as it expands into less developed areas? Why is this good?
But while we are on the subject of socialism, lets talk about one of the best most beloved socialistic reforms of all time. Nobody ever even thinks of it, much less complains about the bureaucracy involved with it and it really would be utter political suicide to try and get rid of it. I am, of course, talking about the Fire Department. There was, in years past, a “free market” fire prevention and protection system. You paid money to a company, got a medallion to stick on your house and if you had a fire they would show up to put it out. If you didn’t they would show up to make sure that one of their client houses didn’t catch fire, but you were f^&*ed. And then they implemented socialized fire protection. And I’m sure the conservatives bitched about what it was doing to the free market. But you know what, it just works a whole hell of a lot better despite putting an entire industry out of business. Everyone is better off for having socialized fire protection. Because fires spread fast and are, indeed, a major hazard to the community. And you know what, so is community health. I suppose it will take some sort of pandemic that kills off an entire city before there is he will to change. Just like it took entire cities burning down for there to be the will to implement socialized fire.
On the subject of miss appropriation of government funds. You actually have it backwards. The reason that Social Security and Medicare are in financial difficulty is because they’ve had their trust funds (you know the money that you pay that goes specifically to Social Security and Medicare, the idea was that it was basically a enforced minimum pension plan) raided by other government agencies, not the other way around and mostly by the military. So there is no reason to think that the Obama public option would some how of magically been paid for by the general fund. But it does seem likely that your health premiums might get used to help pay for the military.
And on the subject of the Military, why do we have a standing army? Seriously? I get the coast guard. Even, perhaps, a limited Navy. But why does the single biggest line item in the federal budget even exist? We would save more than half a trillion dollars a year if we just got rid of it. Imagine what we could do with a half trillion dollar tax cut or a half trillion dollar health care system. Instead the answer to everything in the US is… Go shopping… Seriously?
dcl, move to Western Europe. Why do we have a standing army? WOW?!?!
I wish I lived in your version of the world. So many people on this blog talk abut arguing the facts and yet much of what you presented in your last comment was hyperbole as bad as most right wing bat s#$@ crazies utilize.
I work in the business side of the health care industry. The key problem is the separation of the consumer from paying for the expense of the service. I happen to lean right, but realize this problem needs addressing. The article you site in your original post was total crap. In the end all involved handled the situation. Health Insurance is the only insurance we as consumers purchase that is nearly 100% guaranteed to have to pay off. If every house, every car, every disability policy had to pay off like Health insurance did, we would be having national debates on the viability of those programs. Insurance buy it’s definition can’t pay off to nearly 100% of policy holders, it doesn’t work. Furthermore, when my father in law is ticked off because his UAW retiree insurance copay whet from $5 to $15, and that is his biggest expense, something is seriously wrong. When my in laws go to the doctor, they do EVERYTHING any medical professional asks. CAT scans, MRI’s, blood tests, expensive meds, and you know why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T PAY FOR IT. My family on the other hand has to make reasonable fiscal decisions based on the most likely outcomes. We have a $5000 deductible and we question our caregivers about true necessity and “rule out” medicine. The reality is the if the consumer of the service isn’t paying a good portion of the bill, there is tremendous inefficiency. This won’t change with socialized medicine or even Obamacare. Which I agree is not socialized medicine, but it does nothing to narrow the gap between the consumer and the cost of the service.
I don’t have a suggested solution, and I am against the current health care bill, but something needs to change. Don’t tell me tort reform, David K is right, that won’t fix it. Lawsuits and defensive medicine isn’t the cause. To me it is a question of fairness. Just because a procedure, test, or medicine exist, does every US citizen have a “right” to that item? Does a person of more means deserve access to more advanced care because they can pay for it? Wouldn’t we all want to be treated at a Mayo or Cleveland Clinic if we are suffering from an illness? Is health care a right? Is basic health care a right, while advanced care is a privilege?
Don’t get me started on the other major issue we have and that is end of life care. My grandmother passed away in February, was in a hospital for the last 7 weeks of her 86 year life, had a knee replacement when all involved said she would never walk again, had multiple “exploratory” surgeries, and some very expensive scans and tests. Guess what, SHE STILL DIED! But she had Medicare and a supplemental policy so the care providers knew they were authorized by Medicare to do these things and they would get paid. Had she been desolate they wouldn’t have done the knee replacement, they wouldn’t have done the advanced tests and probably not even the exploratory surgeries. The doctors knew she had very little chance of ever leaving the hospital alive. She had a systemic infection and the expensive antibiotics couldn’t treat the infection. Even though it was my own Grandmother, I have to question the effectiveness of spending nearly $80,000 in 8 weeks of treatment to get the same outcome that most all involved knew from December 30 was so likely. This goes back to my question, Do we just because we can? I can tell you, had the family been directly responsible for the $80k, there would have been serious discussions about the cost/benefit of various tests and treatments. As it was because Medicare and the supplemental policy was paying nearly 100% there was very little discussion of the financial implications of her care. That is flawed.
Please don’t argue that cost should never enter into decisions regarding your care choices. Costs are a reality and our soft culture no longer wants to think that money should be factored in. I don’t care what model you follow, costs have to be in the discussion.
By the way dcl, my wife and I are self employed, work our ass off, don’t think you can decide how much crap I need, am NOT massively in debt, and we are generally VERY happy. We contribute to multiple charities both in time and treasure, and provide jobs to no less than 4 other people in our business. I would prefer government stay out of my way and let us build our business.
The point on the military is actually a serious philosophical question. I’m not saying we should lack a defense strategy. I’m saying why do we have a standing army. We went 150 some odd years in this country’s history without one. Conservatives were the most against having one and then all of a sudden it’s something we can’t live without. And when you have it you have to use it, which costs even more. Think we would have invaded Iraq in such an irresponsible manner had we had to raise the army to do it? Not likely. Think we would have invaded Afghanistan? hell yes. There was a massive fight over whether or not a standing Navy was even a good idea. Personally, I like the Swiss system. Literally everyone in that country is ready to protect it on a moments notice, but they don’t really have a standing army and they aren’t constantly pissing away money on one.
The standing army is an economic subsidy. Plain and simple. It keeps companies in business. Companies that outsource making the stuff we need to fight to China, you know the country we are most likely to need to engage in a major war with. That’s f^&*ing stupid.
“We work our ass off”. This makes you happy? Really? Are you sure about that? The point of life isn’t going to an office.
If you start paying the real cost of all that shit you buy I won’t say anything about over consumption. Given the lyon share of the cost of goods are externalized and in the process of destroying the planet and are completely un-sutanable, yeah, I’ll say don’t but so much shit.
Really, no car loan (or three)? No home loan? How’s the value of your home doing compared to what you owe on it? Yes I know I’m being kind of a dick, but it is actually a serious point. We have re-structured so much culturally that it’s the norm for people to have $6,000 + in credit card debt. That’s insane. And it’s all for stuff we don’t really need. But we are told that we a) need it and that b) it’s okay to be in debt to get it. And then we work too hard to pay for it and think that it’s good to work too hard. So we are all stressed out and all to busy to enjoy life. It really is kind of dumb.
On health care costs. Yes there are a lot of problems with the way we provide health care. But that does not, ipso facto, lead to we shouldn’t have socialized medicine because otherwise we can’t control costs. There is a wonderful article from last year in the New Yorker about this. But for the money we blow on health care in this country, we should be able to provide high quality health care to everyone in the country without them having to worry about what it all costs. The mayo clinic has some of the lowest cost to outcome results in the country. Not because it skimps on treatment, but because it provides healthcare differently.
Also, your point on health insurance being the only one that ends up with 100% of customers needing to get paid. Yep, it’s true, which is why it shouldn’t be done with insurance. And people also shouldn’t be put in a position where they need to decide between dinner and taking the kids to the doctor. It is dumb, we can do better.
@alasdair
“And specifically about the public option wherein is stated “the “public option” — a government-run health insurance policy that would be offered along with private policies “ – the “along with private policies” is a CLUE, David K …”
Were you born stupid or did you have to work at it? I mean honestly, when you are such an idiot it’s hard to tell. Try reading what I wrote above which is EXACTLY what you just quoted. In fact that’s the whole damn point.
So I’ll ask one last time to see if you have the cojones to step up to the plate and actually answer the question instead of being a cowardly ideologue like gahrie has proven to be:
Why are right wingers so afraid of putting their belief that private industry is more efficient and preferable to government run systems to the test by shooting down the non-tax payer funded government option?
It’s a simple question, let’s see if you have the guts to answer it honestly.
@gahrie
“I’ll say this slowly, and explicitly..forgive the language.
The government always fucks things up. Always.”
Proof positive you don’t care about facts or reality but are a blind partisan hack.
You can’t come up with a substantive fact based explanation so you run away waving your hands spouting unsupportable absolutes that would make Papa Rush proud.
Yeah the government is so bad at running things explains why our military is considered to be the strongest in the world. It explains why Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. It explains our highly effective national highway system. It explains the Hoover,Grand Coulee, and other hydro-electric dams that power massive regional economies by providing cheap, safe power and irrigation. It explains the massive improvements in public health and food safety since the creation of the FDA.
By your “theory” every single one of those should be massive failures that have ruined all our lives. Yet any one of them along with numerous others show that you are, as usual, wrong.
Government is not perfect, and it is not always the answer, that is true, but in determing whether government should be involved in any given area, the intellectually honest and intelligent thing to do is to actually look at the facts and do an analysis of the specific situation in question. Or you can do what gahrie does and hide behind vague, unsupportable ideological statements based mostly on fear of perceived boogie men and not real information.
When my in laws go to the doctor, they do EVERYTHING any medical professional asks. CAT scans, MRI’s, blood tests, expensive meds, and you know why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T PAY FOR IT.
To me this is the central point of disagreement between people who are serious about the discussion on the right and left. I disagree.
As we learn in econ, an effective market requires several preconditions, and one of them is an informed, rational consumer. As regards healthcare, the consumer is neither informed nor rational. Patients are not doctors so they are not and can not be truly informed, and do not understand what is needed and what is not nor what. They are not rational actors either, since they generally feel like getting every possible thing done just to cover all the bases is the best strategy.
So this is why I’m against having the market involved in healthcare.
DCL:
There was, in years past, a “free market” fire prevention and protection system. You paid money to a company, got a medallion to stick on your house and if you had a fire they would show up to put it out. If you didn’t they would show up to make sure that one of their client houses didn’t catch fire, but you were f^&*ed. And then they implemented socialized fire protection.
Yes, there were private fire departments, but there were public fire departments also. They were usually volunteers, members of the community organizing themselves to provide a service. There were public fire departments in America before there was a United States. Also, it was insurance companies selling fire insurance who paid for the private fire departments, not the people. People were merely buying fire insurance, just as most homeowners do today.
Jeff F.:
The key problem is the separation of the consumer from paying for the expense of the service.
Exactly. The problem is, we handle health insurance differently from all other forms. In most forms of insurance, you make any necessary payments, and are then reimbursed by the company. This gives you an incentive, and the power, to make choices. We wouldn’t have $5 aspirin if people had to pay for them, and then get paid back by their insurance.
David K #29 – “… by shooting down the non-tax payer funded government option?” …
Ummm if it is “non-tax payer funded”, by whom *is* it going to be funded ?
Cuz I can find private policies … I can find the proposal for the government public option (which is to be government-funded) … I have yet to find a cite to a non-tax-payer-funded government-run pulbic option …
Can you point us at the URL for such a thing ?
Is George Soros *finally* giving back to the US community ?
Jeff Freeze #27 – “Don’t tell me tort reform, David K is right, that won’t fix it.” …
In that narrow respect, David K is indeed right … Tort Reform by itself won’t fix it … nor will Obamacare … nor will ‘reforming’ Medicare (especially when that consists of paying doctors and medical facilities even less) …
Tort Reform, however, is one proverbial Good Start, wherein wasted resources can be freed-up to give better health coverage across the board without having to pay more for it … “Lawsuits and defensive medicine isn’t the cause. “ … again, simplistically true, while being actually false … Frivolous/nuisance/punitive lawsuits are a signficant drain on healthcare dollars – and in a way that they cannot be a drain on healthcare pounds-sterling (cuz the UK has “Loser Pays”) … so – they are not *the* cause, while they *are* among the causes …
Glad to see you have nto only not paid attention to this discussion, but you didn’t pay attention during the whole health care debate. It’s actually not surprising that you are clueless, but its always nice when you confirm it.
The proposed public-option would have been a government run health care co-op. Basically it would have created a way for individuals not insured by private companies to purchase coverage as a group and therefore have bargaining power. It would have been 100% funded by the premiums paid by those who CHOSE to be part of it.
Apparently the thought of having to compete with a government run system was too scary for Republicans so they shot it down, even though it would have been, as I keep pointing out, NOT been tax payer funded.
“I’ll say this slowly, and explicitly..forgive the language.
The government always fucks things up. Always.”
Proof positive you don’t care about facts or reality but are a blind partisan hack.
How?
Why?
Seriously.. Where did I say anything about Republican or Democratic?
Call me an anti-government hack maybe, but where does the partisan come in?
David K #35 – so the government employees running said plan are to be paid out of the premiums of those who “choose” to use it ? Doesn’t sound like anything I saw … again, can you point us at the URL which explains that to us ?
Entertainingly enough, even as you cling bitterly to the Obamaganda, in the UK they are learning from experience and moving away from government-run bureaucracies – “We knew that the Conservatives favoured GP budget-holding: at one stage, their leader David Cameron made no bones about it. He and many of his colleagues were convinced that family doctors could spend the budget far better than officials in the Department of Health, or the local Health Authorities, or the bureaucratic Primary Care Trusts that were set up under the last administration. “
Obamaganda? So you are claiming that proposals put forth publicly are propoganda now? Actually you’re definition of propoganda probably reads something along the lines of “I don’t agree with it so it must be lies!”.
Seriously can’t either of you actually answer the question? Its not that hard.
“How?
Why?
Seriously.. Where did I say anything about Republican or Democratic?
Call me an anti-government hack maybe, but where does the partisan come in?”
How and why? Simple, in response to my challange you made an absolute statement about how government always makes things worse. After demonstrating you were wrong in an absolutely trivial manner I pointed out you are a partisan hack based on your behavior.
Partisan also need not refer to a specific political party, something that is actually pretty well understood by most people with a basic education:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861723984/partisan_(1).html
Finally, based on this and past behavior, yeah, i’d say you easily qualify.
And again, as I pointed out to Alasdair, please provide me with a fact based expalnation for the right wings refusal to allow a non-tax payer funded system to compete head to head with the private system. If such a system operated by the government would be so terrible, the private system should easily be able to better it. Really, its not a hard question to understand. If you can’t answer it it means that the reason is not based on facts and reality but on partisan bias and blind ideological devotion. That doesn’t surprise me, the GOP is overwhelmingly guilty of such behavior, but I’m giving you the chance to demonstrate that either of you are beyond that and your positions are based on reasonable, fact based, arguments. So far, you continue to be unable to demonstrate that.
David K:
Project much?
David K #35 – so the government employees running said plan are to be paid out of the premiums of those who “choose” to use it ???
That doesn’t sound like anything I saw … again, can you point us at the URL which explains that to us ?
Except the British model isn’t even close to anything that has ever ever ever been discussed here. Like not even the same planet.
“Copying the NHS is the last thing the US should do”:
Gee.
Gee. So, uh, when and where was it ever discussed that the US would adopt anything even remotely close to the British model?
Nowhere, obviously. Berwick was obviously appointed by Obama despite his professed passion for the British model. Obviously.
Clearly you are being purposefully obtuse, as neither Obama nor Berwick have the ability to instate the British model here. You do know that in their system is both one of providing healthcare *and* paying for it, while where we are only discussing payment, correct? That, ya know, might make a big difference.
I think it’s pretty hilarious that you’d attack Berwick, he’s famous for cutting costs by demanding evidence for the efficacies of treatment. I’d think that’d be popular with you, considering it’s fiscally responsible.
I think it’s pretty hilarious that you’d attack Berwick, he’s famous for cutting costs by demanding evidence for the efficacies of treatment. I’d think that’d be popular with you, considering it’s fiscally responsible.
It’s also rationing.
You do know that in their system is both one of providing healthcare *and* paying for it, while where we are only discussing payment, correct?
LOL…now who is being purposefully obtuse? For one thing, the issue is not just “payment.” The health care reform debate has been and remains focused on how to increase coverage as well as decrease costs, which necessarily entails the philosophical question of the proper level of gov’t involvement in provisioning. For another, when it comes to “payment,” while President Obama purports to eschew a single-payer system, Senator Obama certainly supported single-payer, as do a significant number of Democrats. Funding in a single-payer system comes from a single source, i.e., the gov’t, which is exactly how health care is funded in Britain. There are differences, of course — British docs draw their salaries straight from the gov’t — but that misses the point. Single-payer and the NHS clearly inhabit “the same planet.”
A couple of things.
First, we already have health care rationing in this country, it is presently based on how good your health benefits are and how much money you have. Just perhaps, it would be better to provide care to those in the most serious condition first based on what action is most likely to have the best outcome?
Health care is like fire protection, it is better for everyone if we take care of everyone. And it allows us all to act more freely in the marketplace.
At the moment heath care as part of the free market doesn’t work. And that is because of two main things. First, it is exceedingly difficult in this day and age to be an informed health care consumer. There was a very finite period of time in which health care was affordable, understandable, and effective. This time is over, though conservatives seem to think we still live during that time. At this point we are basically left with effective (most of the time) from the above list. When your life is on the line it is very hard to be this magical informed consumer that most of us don’t even manage to be when we are picking between 30 different kinds of toilet paper at Costco. Second, the free market is good at one thing, making more money which leeds to people with one goal, making more money. The insurance companies just want to make more money, in any way possible. And, as for those that discount the article. You are wrong to think this wasn’t planned by the insurer. You clearly aren’t thinking enough. Lets say person X has medical claims in the form of 100,000 dollars and is short 1 cent on their premium. It makes sense, from a business perspective, to both fail to bill for that cent and stop payment, because you can, even if you will eventually have to pay. If you hold of paying for a month or two, you make several thousand dollars off not paying because you can do other things with the money in that time. Like say investing it or loaning it. The longer you don’t pay the more money you make. You’ll just reject any late fees the hospital comes up with. Especially if the bills are high enough dragging your heals on payment can make a lot of money. Why do you think before everything was electronic that major corporations did payroll out of a bank in the middle of nowhere Montana, because it took longer to get the money out of the account past pad day, and they made money every extra day it stayed in the account. If you don’t know how to make money on the float you won’t get far in business.
And lastly, if the government is so ghastly that it turns everything it touches to shit, well two things. Get involved and change things, it’s your government after all. And secondly, then we really should get rid of the military. If you don’t agree it means the government can actually do something right and your entire argument doesn’t work. You can’t be Marry Both Ways… Sorry.
Joe Mama: Actually Obama as president has continued to say he’d prefer single payer, but recognizes that’s just not feasible in our country right now due to the political climate.
Second, I’m amused how you skim over that whole “doctors are paid by the government” thing. That’s a huge difference. They run the implementation of healthcare there, as well as the payment system. This isn’t a tiny detail, it’s fundamental.
And as far as rationing, Gahrie, no, it’s not rationing to not pay for treatments based on a lack of evidence of their efficacy.
Jim: I’m amused at your amusement since, as you say, “we are only discussing payment.” If that is true, then funding is really the only aspect of the British model worth comparing. I don’t deny that there are important differences vis a vis implementation, but those differences do not support your self-serving and vastly overstated claim that single-payer is “not even on the same planet” as the NHS.
First, we already have health care rationing in this country, it is presently based on how good your health benefits are and how much money you have. Just perhaps, it would be better to provide care to those in the most serious condition first based on what action is most likely to have the best outcome?
1) I prefer to say how good your health care benefits are and how responsible you have been? Made bad choices in life? Sadly there are consequences, and I shouldn’t have to suffer because others have been irresponsible.
2) Actually, you are going to find that many of those who are “most serious” are not going to receive the medical care they need because it is not “cost effective”.
Health care is like fire protection, it is better for everyone if we take care of everyone. And it allows us all to act more freely in the marketplace.
No, it is not. I still have fire insurance, even though the city has provided a fire department with my tax dollars. Hopefully, I will never make a claim against my fire insurance. I use my health insurance constantly. And forcing me to buy something is not allowing me to act freely in the marketplace. Freedom would mean I still had the ability not to buy something.
Get involved and change things, it’s your government after all. And secondly, then we really should get rid of the military. If you don’t agree it means the government can actually do something right and your entire argument doesn’t work.
1) National defense is actually one of the few things the government is actually supposed to do.
2) Periodically, usually immediately after a war, government screws up the military also. Depending on how intrusive the government is, it can happen in war also. Look at the Vietnam War era. The government completely screwed the military up during that period. It took the military 20 years to recover from what the government did to the military at that time.
And as far as rationing, Gahrie, no, it’s not rationing to not pay for treatments based on a lack of evidence of their efficacy.
Tell that to the people in the U.K. dealing with the N.I.C.E. board, and the people in Canada that have to come to the U.S. for treatment that they are refused by their system.
People like you complain that insurance companies refuse to cover treatments (for whatever reason) and use that as evidence we need the government to provide health care, but are somehow fine with the government refusing treatments.
Gahrie, nobody chooses to be poor or who their parents are. Not all health care risks are with in our control, the degree to which we are not in control of our own health risk is growing as cancer causes have a major environmental component. The most dangerous of these environmental components tend to be located in the poorest areas.
First, the most effective outcomes are not necessarily the most expensive.
Fire insurance is different from fire prevention. Stopping illness is in all of our interest.
Health care and the free market don’t work well together. Sorry. I know you like to fellate the god of the free market, but pure free market is just as problematic as communism. Get over it and get serious about solving real problems.
Clean up? The military is still a mess. Have you seen how poorly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been managed? It is a waste of money.
I don’t have a problem with the government refusing to pay for boob jobs, no. I also don’t have a problem with private insurance denying those also.
Gahrie, nobody chooses to be poor or who their parents are.
Which used to be covered by private charity, and is now covered by medicare, medicaid and various health programs for children (most of which are grossly underutilized despite the government begging people to register their children)
By the way, some people do chose to be poor, out of sloth and/or bad choices they make.
Health care and the free market don’t work well together.
You know what? I agree. But you know what else? Health care and governmental control work even worse together.
I don’t have a problem with the government refusing to pay for boob jobs, no. I also don’t have a problem with private insurance denying those also.
The blind squirrel is getting close……
Do you know why plastic surgery and other elective measures such as lasik have become so effective and relatively so cheap? It’s because neither government nor (usually) private insurance gets involved
Joe Mama: Well I’m amused by your amusement at my amusement.
At any rate, if you are only looking to compare payment systems you can’t draw conclusions. There’s a lot more affecting wait times and health outcomes, and it’s disingenuous to paint people as supporting the whole thing because of their support for a part of it.
Gahrie: Okay, I will tell them that, because it’s a fact. If there are wait times beyond that it’s a different issue.
Hmmm…..How about this case…
Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.
Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.
But the average wait is nine months – and GPs are not trained
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1199714/A-9-month-wait-arthritis-treatment-Delay-mean-lifetime-agony-victims.html
This might be more on point:
Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections
Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html
The Premier of Canada:
An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision…….”This was my heart, my choice and my health,” Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.
“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cn-prime-minister-my-heart-my-choice
See, what you guys are missing, or deliberately ignoring, is that if you impose government health care on the United states, it will only widen the access to health care. The elite and politically connected will still have access to better health care than the average citizen, just like they do now in those countries with government health care. (and the vast number of them currently come here to the U.S. to get treatment that insurance companies will and do pay for)
From your link:
He accused pain specialists of refusing to accept that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support their practices.
and…
A spokesman for NICE said its guidance did not recommend that injections were stopped for all patients, but only for those who had been in pain for less than a year, where the cause was not known.
Oh noes! You have to have evidence for things and know what the hell is going on with a patient instead of blindly giving them crap! The horrors!
“David K:
Project much?”
No, not really. I am absolutely willing, ready, AND able to listen to opposing viewpoints that are argued from a fact based and rational standpoint. I’ve been asking both you AND Alasdair to do that this whole time and you both refuse.
You on the other hand are absolutely UNwilling to listen to viewpoints you disagree with and dismiss them with ridiculously un-true sound bites (“Government ALWAYS makes things worse”).
Its been over a week and you still refuse to answer my original question. Same is true of Alasdair. It’s both incredibly sad, and completely predictable that you two zealots would behave in this fashion, but at least I gave you the opportunity to prove you were not what we all percieve you to be. The offer is still on the table.
@ Alasdair: Again it doesn’t surprise me that you are completely and utterly clueless about the health care debate.
“David K #35 – so the government employees running said plan are to be paid out of the premiums of those who “choose” to use it ???
That doesn’t sound like anything I saw … again, can you point us at the URL which explains that to us ?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option
As spelled out in both the Senate and House plans the the Public Option would be entirely funded by premiums. In addition the plan would have been/would be required to pay back any initial setup costs incured by the government which used tax payer funds.
So despite your clueless ness, or the lies that Fox News spread, no, the Public Option would not have been tax payer funded, but funded by the premiums paid by its members just like EVERY OTHER HEALTH PLAN.
Which brings us right back to my question which you still refuse to answer:
Why are free-market loving conservatives unwilling to let a government run, participant funded health care option compete with the private run health care plans? If, as they so often state, the government is incapable of doing anything efficiently (or as gahrie complains it always makes things worse) what are they afraid of? They should be able to soundly defeat any government run operation.
At any rate, if you are only looking to compare payment systems you can’t draw conclusions. There’s a lot more affecting wait times and health outcomes, and it’s disingenuous to paint people as supporting the whole thing because of their support for a part of it.
Of course I can … for example, since single-payer and the British model have identical funding mechanisms, it’s perfectly valid to draw the conclusion that pretending the two are “not even on the same planet” is silly. Moreover, no one here is arguing that proponents of single-payer necessarily buy into every single aspect of the British model. Rather, I’m challenging your grossly overstated view that two cannot even be meaningfully compared. Like other nations with a single-payer system, Britain has had to deal with the problems of an aging population, increasingly expensive health care technology, and ever-growing health care expenses causing a strain on gov’t budgets that it deals with by instituting waiting lists for medical appointments and procedures in counties where there is essentially a fixed amount that can be spent annually on health care services. As you say, there are other factors affecting wait times, but the problem is made much worse by the inherent limitations of gov’t funding.
Well I fundamentally disagree, and since I don’t really even think the point is up for debate (ie there is no other side to consider, from my perspective it’s impossible to attribute health outcomes in Britain to the single payer model because the rest of the system is so different) I suppose there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
it’s impossible to attribute health outcomes in Britain to the single payer model because the rest of the system is so different)
We don’t know communism is a failure..because real communism has never really existed….
David K #61 – From the URL you give … “Another bill, the Public Option Act, also referred to as the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act, (H.R. 4789), would allow all citizens and permanent residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program.” … {my emphasis}
So – on your sorta exclusive planet with its own meanings for common english words, the Public Option Act lets folk start “participating in the public Medicare program” … (the Link goes to the Wikipedia entry for Medicare) …
Seems sorta unambiguous to me …
What part of buy in to do you not understand Alasdair? If they are paying for their participation in a program, then um, they are not being tax payer funded now are they? I know this is difficult for you to understand, since you are an idiot, but come on. You also are COMPLETELY IGNORING the bills which spell out that the public options proposed would be self funded. You claim it was never talked about and ask fro proof. I provided you the proof you were looking for and now you are trying to twist one bill that STILL requires participants to pay for their coverage to try and promote your idea, and you STILL haven’t answered the question but forth before you.
I’m not going to waste my time responding to you anymore Alasdair unless you answer the damn question:
Why are free-market loving conservatives unwilling to let a government run, participant funded health care option compete with the private run health care plans? If, as they so often state, the government is incapable of doing anything efficiently (or as gahrie complains it always makes things worse) what are they afraid of? They should be able to soundly defeat any government run operation.