21
   

Republicans using Healthcare as a political game.

 
 
ebrown p
 
  3  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:37 pm
President Obama wrote:
Now there are some in this town who are content to perpetuate the status quo, who are in fact fighting reform on behalf of special interests. There are others who recognize the problem but believe " or perhaps hope " that we can put off the hard work of insurance reform for another day, another year, another decade.

Just the other day, one Republican Senator said " and I’m quoting him now " "If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Think about that.

This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses, and breaking American’s economy.

We can’t afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:00 pm
@ebrown p,


President Obama lied.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm on the fence for single payer.

I think there should be single payer for catastrophic illnesses....or illnesses over a certain dollar amount.

But I think supplemental or private insurance should be shut out of the picture. Nor should the option to pay cash.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:03 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I'm on the fence for single payer.

I think there should be single payer for catastrophic illnesses....or illnesses over a certain dollar amount.

But I think supplemental or private insurance should be shut out of the picture. Nor should the option to pay cash.


You probably meant that sup and private insurance 'should not' be shut out of the picture; and I agree.

I think the option to pay cash is OK, but the responsibility of carrying insurance is entirely akin to carrying car insurance - there should be something there so the rest of us aren't screwed when one gets into a bad accident...

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yep. I meant "should not".

When I think of single payer, I immediately think of Canada, and there they've shut out everything BUT the single payer (the government) (from what I understand), and that, I believe, causes lower quality care for everyone.

Are there single payer countries out there that allow private insurance and cash options? If so, aren't they then multi-payer?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:10 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Yep. I meant "should not".

When I think of single payer, I immediately think of Canada, and there they've shut out everything BUT the single payer (the government) (from what I understand), and that, I believe, causes lower quality care for everyone.


I just don't know if this is true - that it causes 'lower quality care' for everyone. I'm not sure why it does, necessarily, and I haven't seen a ton of evidence that this is true; certainly, the Canadians seem to be happy with their system.

Quote:
Are there single payer countries out there that allow private insurance and cash options? If so, aren't they then multi-payer?


I don't know, but I will check. I do believe that Canada allows supplemental health insurance.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't see competition as anything but a good thing. In any field.

To your previous posts...if a private option can provide a better system than the government, then they will have no problem staying in business.

If there are private companies who are successful and providing a better system of care than the government option, then it gives the government options something to strive for.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:17 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I don't see competition as anything but a good thing. In any field.

To your previous posts...if a private option can provide a better system than the government, then they will have no problem staying in business.

If there are private companies who are successful and providing a better system of care than the government option, then it gives the government options something to strive for.


Fine with me. I won't hold my breath, however, as the private companies have profit ratios to maintain that will make it very difficult for them to continue their shitty business practices.

I think the public option is necessary precisely TO provide competition - right now, it currently doesn't exist in any meaningful fashion for the consumer.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think the public option is necessary precisely TO provide competition - right now, it currently doesn't exist in any meaningful fashion for the consumer.


I agree completely.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:26 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I don't see competition as anything but a good thing. In any field.


You mean, competition is good when a private company financed by premiums competes with a government system financed by taxes?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:28 pm
@roger,
Not ideal. But better than no private company financed by premiums, no?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:33 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I don't see competition as anything but a good thing. In any field.


You mean, competition is good when a private company financed by premiums competes with a government system financed by taxes?


Yes, it is. And why not? The private system needs to be able to show why it deserves to exist in the first place, if there is a cheaper option available; it isn't a given that they should exist, at all.

Cycloptichorn
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Of course the government is cheaper. It gets someone else to pay. Or, are you suggesting the overall, total cost will be less for the same treatment?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:47 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Of course the government is cheaper. It gets someone else to pay. Or, are you suggesting the overall, total cost will be less for the same treatment?


It's hard to say. Right now there are practically no controls at all keeping costs from rising, so how is the other situation worse? It's hard to knock one system, when the current one is so damn bad and lets costs rise double digits every year.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 04:51 pm
@roger,
Roger wrote:
This is planned so everyone has health insurance. Just not very good insurance.


This is what really scares me about this whole Obama plan. In order to ensure everyone has some health care, let's downgrade everyone else's plan to some common level of limited, but universal coverage. This may be great for the average person who only goes to the doctor for routine checkups and perhaps the ocassional more serious (non-chronic) health problem, but heaven forbid you need surgery or some other specialist care. While that specialist might cost you an arm and a leg today, at least you can get it. What will incentivize a brain surgeon to continue his deservedly lucrative practice, if some Government bureaucrat determines that he charges too much? Or (as they are considering with banking execs) they decide he gets paid too much.

The reason our health care system is so capable of dealing with the most serious health issues and c0ntinues to innovatively find new cures and treatments is due to the profit-making opportunities in the health business. Monopolistic and socialistic practices like Obamacare will squash that innovation and eventually drive the most competent into other fields.

As for the occassional bone-headed denial of some desparately needed health service from a bureaucrat...that will happen anyway whether that idiot is part of some private company or the Government. Medicare itself imposes a condition that a test or procedure be "reasonable and necessary". So it's the ultimate in self-delusion to think Obamacare will somehow provide any and all treatments to anybody that walks in the door to the doctor's office. Judgements will be made and denials of service will be as commonplace as they are today. The only difference is that, under Obamacare, you will not be able to go to a commercial health provider with check in hand and get the service you were just denied.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:06 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
The only difference is that, under Obamacare, you will not be able to go to a commercial health provider with check in hand and get the service you were just denied.


For 90% of Americans, this is exactly the case today; for the price of services have risen to the point of affordability under any circumstances for those who are not already rich.

I believe there are other motives for innovating and improving health care besides 'profit.' It is quite telling that Conservatives cannot see any other reason why anyone would continue to work in the health industry, other than the (frankly massive) profits involved therein.

Cycloptichorn
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm sure they love their work, as you do yours. Under the Medicare schedule, my doctor is required to accept a 35% discount. How many legal business have net income in excess of 35% that you know of? Bernie Madhoff perhaps, but I said legal business.

He must really love the work, though. When existing patients go on medicare, he doesn't kick them out of the practice. He could. He is not required to accept Medicare patients, and it would be easier not to.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:24 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

I'm sure they love their work, as you do yours. Under the Medicare schedule, my doctor is required to accept a 35% discount. How many legal business have net income in excess of 35% that you know of? Bernie Madhoff perhaps, but I said legal business.

He must really love the work, though. When existing patients go on medicare, he doesn't kick them out of the practice. He could. He is not required to accept Medicare patients, and it would be easier not to.


Well, I'm quite sure that on some things, the docs make far more than 35% profits, and others, almost none, like most businesses. The net income doesn't have to be in excess of 35% in toto.

I imagine your doc does love his work; under your theory, he should have quit and/or kicked out the Medicare patients. Shouldn't this work as an example that the health care industry will not in fact disintegrate under the new model?

Cycloptichorn
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm sure gross margine (not net income) often exceeds 35%. Factor in the staff and fixed expenses, it isn't there. Please, don't even suggest that staff could be cut under a government operated system.

Quote:
Shouldn't this work as an example that the health care industry will not in fact disintegrate under the new model?


No. If true, he would also accept new patients with Medicare. I don't know of a single doctor in Farmington that does. Also, there are no HMOs currently operating in town. Blue Cross has a PPO plan. Their two - count 'em TWO, preferred providers would provide you a chuckle if you knew their reputations.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 05:43 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

I'm sure gross margine (not net income) often exceeds 35%. Factor in the staff and fixed expenses, it isn't there. Please, don't even suggest that staff could be cut under a government operated system.

Quote:
Shouldn't this work as an example that the health care industry will not in fact disintegrate under the new model?


No. If true, he would also accept new patients with Medicare. I don't know of a single doctor in Farmington that does. Also, there are no HMOs currently operating in town. Blue Cross has a PPO plan. Their two - count 'em TWO, preferred providers would provide you a chuckle if you knew their reputations.


Well, that doesn't sound much like a situation worth preserving, now does it?

It also sounds like a pretty big potential untapped market, if you get my drift.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 03:29:16