Where is the US economy headed?

What data do you have showing that it will eventually lead to such a system? Especially when coupled with private supplemental insurance a la Maporsche's idea.

Cycloptichorn

A single payer system is what the left wants, thats what Democrats want. Anything less now is merely incrementalism. That should be very obvious to anyone familiar with political philosophies in play here. Ask for proof, I don't need proof any more than you can provide proof to the contrary.

Look, I think we need to fix the health care area, but I think different solutions are far superior to the ones now being proposed by Democrats. Why destroy the best health care system in the world? And don't give me life expectancy data, because we are one of the most unhealthy living countries in the world, with alot of obesity, etc. I believe we have excellent health care, but face it, we will all die at some point, even Obama, despite Obama-care.

You conclude it'll destroy the present system; how do you come up with such idiocy? Do you already know what the health plan will look like before it even comes out of committee?

You are impossible to reason with.

We don't have the best health care system in the world, by any measurement. Not by far.



Why not? You are talking about health care issues when you talk about our unhealthy lifestyles.



Nobody besides you believes we have excellent health-care here in America, apparently. And the fact that we all will die is immaterial to the conversation.

Cycloptichorn

okie's plan will provide for longer life spans.

From the NYT:



okie is ignorant about medical care too!

What okie fails to mention are two majors points about American health care: a) the highest cost in the world, and b) about 45-million Americans do not have health insurance. We have already mentioned in an earlier post that with the downturn in our economy, more Americans are losing their health insurance. The "best in the world?" If you don't have access to the best health care in the world, what good is it? If a family member becomes ill, and you don't have health insurance, many become bankrupt in the process of getting care.
Is this the best health care in the world? I don't think so.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

I don't know if Mr.Imposter is aware of the Chicago Tribune. That paper, in the president's home town has been one of the strongest backers of the President both before and after his election but their recent editorial does not support President Obama's health plan.

Jun. 20--Talk about bad timing for President Barack Obama.

There he was on Monday, exhorting doctors at an American Medical Association confab to join his once-in-a-generation overhaul of health care in America. He drew several standing ovations, even as he told them things that would probably cut their pay.

But then, on the same day, came an astonishing Congressional Budget Office analysis of what all this could cost.

The CBO analyzed the first major health-care proposal introduced, by Sen. Edward Kennedy, and concluded that it would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. That sent a jolt of sticker shock through Congress.

But hold on. Here's the kicker to that breathtaking figure: Even after spending all that money, 37 million Americans still wouldn't have health insurance.

Yes, that's a tentative analysis, as the CBO warned. It will change as the bill is fleshed out. And the Kennedy bill is only one of several health-care reform proposals now percolating in Congress.

But the analysis sure seemed to rattle advocacy groups and the White House. "This is not the administration's bill and it's not even the final Senate committee bill," a White House spokesman said.

Ooh, chilly.

So, OK, this is a work in progress, things will change, blah blah blah. But the point here is that the CBO analysis tells us three things that probably won't change, no matter how a major health-care reform law is crafted.

It will be: --Complicated. --Extremely expensive. --Full of unforeseen consequences.

Congress doesn't have to take our word for it. Lawmakers can learn from the experience of Massachusetts, the first state to mandate health insurance coverage.

How are things going there? We'd say it's mixed.

At last count, the Bay State had the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation, 2.6 percent. That's compared to the national average of 15 percent. Those holdouts are either unwilling to pay for insurance (and willing to incur the penalties assessed by the state) or they can't afford the insurance (even with state subsidies) and aren't required to buy it. Conclusion: Even if coverage is mandated, Congress will have to settle for something less than universal coverage.

Then there's the budget. The state expected to spend $472 million in fiscal 2008 for its health-care plan. The actual cost: $628 million. Budget projections for fiscal 2010 range from $750 million to $880 million. The state is struggling because it underestimated the number of adults who would sign up for subsidized insurance, which under some circumstances covers a family of four that earns up to about $66,000.

Conclusion: Congress has considered subsidizing American families earning up to $110,000 to buy insurance. That would be too broad and too expensive. It appears that lawmakers are moving away from such a commitment.

Beyond the numbers, what about suddenly insured patients who need care? A recent report by the Urban Institute wasn't too reassuring. It found that even those who got health-care coverage in Massachusetts found they couldn't afford needed treatments. It's not clear why.

The sudden influx of the insured has strained the health-care system in the Bay State. Patients report long waits to see doctors. One in five patients has reported being told that a doctor was not accepting new patients, or not accepting patients with their type of insurance, according to the report.

The upshot: People still wound up in emergency rooms for routine care. That undercuts a major premise for covering all Americans, which is to stop them from going to the emergency room for routine care that could be less expensively dispensed in the doctor's office.

Obama wants to push a bill through Congress before the August recess. That deadline may be slipping, thanks in part to this bolt of fiscal reality from the CBO.

To see more of the Chicago Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.chicagotribune.com.

No, I'm not aware of the Chicago Trib, because I live in California. However, any opinion that only looks at cost and not the savings is living in the No Party party.

The congressional committees are still looking at how to implement the health plan; any guesses about cost is not realistic nor justified until a plan actually comes out to be reviewed by the media and the public.

There will be some cost offsets against the higher cost anticipated for the life of the plan. However, we must remember that a universal health plan not only helps our citizens obtain health care, but it also makes our products and services more competitive in the world marketplace. Our country already spends the most per capita for health care; surely, there must be many ways to cut costs.

The conservatives are already playing the fear card; they're saying that the government is going to direct the patients to the doctors, and lose their freedom to choose their own doctors.

The No Party is living up to their name - again. Where's their solutions?

I have never said it can't be improved, or that it is without problems. I just don't like more government control. I do not want a bureaucrat in Washington telling my doctor what he can or cannot do, what he can charge, and so on, and the same with hospitals. Sorry, thats the way I see it. I believe in the American way. It has worked well, and can work better if we tweak a good system, but do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Therefore, I will vigorously oppose any Obama plan, period. I don't think Obama knows much about alot of things, including health care. I would rather Obama go back to Chicago and finish organizing the cities housing projects that are still living in poverty and ruin.

Okie, I don't think you realize that some of the things you fear are already happening.

1) the government already controls price for services via Medicare. The health insurance companies already have price controls as well. The only people who pay whatever the doctor wants (true free market) are the people who pay cash.

2) insurance companies force people to certain doctors via their "network" vs "out-of-network" doctors.

That guy already exists; he just works for your insurance company. And they love to deny expensive treatment.



You haven't really shown much understanding of how things work in America right now, let alone that you understand the plan Obama is proposing.

Cycloptichorn

How did you come to the conclusion that the government will be controlling the doctors? Please provide credible evidence for this claim? PLEASE!

I have learned one important fact in life, ci, he that holds the purse strings is he that makes the decisions. You haven't learned that yet, and you are well into retirement?

Insurance companies do expect the doctors/medical facilities that they reimburse to agree with certain requirements of the insurance company which is no different than any business doing business in the private sector. If a doctor refuses to 'take' a certain insurance company, then the patient still has the option to pay out of pocket and obtain the medical care that he or she wants. The patient also has the option to join an HMO and further reduce his/her costs, but can still go outside the HMO on his own dime. That is what freedom looks like.

When you FORCE doctors or other medical providers to accept certain insurance or not practice, when you FORCE employers or patients to adhere to insurance company provisions or what the government dictates and take away options to seek medical care elsewhere, freedom is eroded or taken away altogether.

It is quite easy to say that the government won't take away our freedoms and that we can still do this or that. But what the President proposes will absolutely apply some mandates re what we must and cannot have re healthcare, and once we sit still and allow it to do that, history teaches us that it can and will exercise more and more control over our lives.

There is no Constitutional right to government supplied healthcare any more than there is a Constituional right to government supplied food, clothing, shelter, or any other necessities of life. There is a Constitutional right for us to secure such 'blessings' of liberty however we can do so without trampling on the rights of others. The government proposes to take away our liberties re healthcare and force upon us what it thinks we should have.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. Us 'old timers' won't be so affected and, though it looks as if our President will be increasing our costs and reducing our benefits, we probably won't see the worst of it quite yet. You young ones, however, will have to live a long time with whatever you permit to happen now. Please, for your sake, be very wise and very careful.

It's evident you have no concept of how health care works in any country.

My wife and I both have Medicare, and I chose my own doctor (the best I've ever had in my whole life). Medicare is a government funded program that is supported by payroll deduction - by the government. I was treated for prostate cancer two years ago, and got the best doctors and treatment money can buy (my research showed such treatments costs between $35,000 and $50,000 if I had to pay it out of pocket). My oncologist graduated from Harvard Medical School. Many of the doctors who work here are graduates from Stanford Medical School.

I was never restricted from using any service or specialty as a patient of Kaiser.

Where do you get your info? It certainly isn't from the white house web site or the committees looking into universal health care. .

The only people who are restricted from treatment are those who purchase private health insurance; somebody in their office tells them what they can be treated for or not. They often also have a lifetime maximum they can spend on their health care needs.

You know absolutely nothing about any topic discussed on a2k. You are an idiot.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the source from which you got your information. Your screwed up imagination doesn't count.

Actually I do realize it, I just have not gone into that. Thanks to Foxfyre for elaborating on that as well. I have been involved with my parents medical care and their insurances, also the prescription drug plan, etc., as well as my own insurance and medical care, so I am aware of some of this. My brother was also a doctor before retiring and he has told me some. By the way, the prescription drug plan is a nightmare, and the amount of paper generated to administer this is absolutely astonishing, I have never seen so much, my parents get more paper in the mail in regard to this than almost everything else combined, either from the government or insurance company, I can hardly tell the difference between it all. The cost of this program must be monumental. Just to understand it is almost a fulltime job, and it must be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I hope that Obama doesn't propose that every doctor is mandated to accept the public option (provided that there are other options for the community that the doctor serves). I will not support that (nor have I heard he's proposing that). People who want to pay more/extra to go to a doctor that they feel is better, has shorter lines, etc, should be able to do so. That would allow everyone to basically maintain the same freedom they have today.

I do not have a problem with people being forced to buy insurance though. Since our hospitals are required to provide emergency care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, I think that people need to be forced to take responsibility for their own healthcare coverage.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, ci, but so am I, and I think you have progressively painted yourself further into a corner, and most people here regard you as making a lot of noise, but there isn't much pop to the noise anymore. I think you need to back off and re-evaluate your approach here.