IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@kickycan,

Quote:

I have a question: How is this bill going to get us anywhere closer to the stated goal? The main problem in our system is insurance companies. They are ******* us every which way but loose. If we could get rid of those fuckers, we'd be on our way to a better system. But just regulating the scum that sucks us dry, without a public option, isn't in any way an increment leading to that. Or is it?

It is. It starts to reign in the excessive practices of our current insurance companies. Hopefully this will bring about a situation in which they either have to undergo radical reform or collapse completely. It helps us get rid of 'health insurance' as we know it, by making it something which simply is not possible to administer for a profit.

Plus, you can always add in a public option later. Medicare and SS took several revisions before we got them right.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

BUT; it ain't going to happen right now, too many right-wingers in this country would faint at the very thought, and I'll SETTLE for whatever reform I can get.

Anybody would think that right-wingers swooning is the end of the world or that there is only one to make them. A PM here who went into bat for UHC and lost the vote would **** off and leave them to it.

If Mr Blair had lost the vote in the Commons on doing our bit in Iraq he would have done exactly that.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm still quite sure that the House will not sink their chances this November by letting the bill die. There is absolutely no reason for them to do so, as it guarantees their loss.

I think the midterms are going to be far, far worse for the Democrats if they do pass this bill. Most of the country wants health reform; most of the country does not want this bill.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm still quite sure that the House will not sink their chances this November by letting the bill die. There is absolutely no reason for them to do so, as it guarantees their loss.

I think the midterms are going to be far, far worse for the Democrats if they do pass this bill. Most of the country wants health reform; most of the country does not want this bill.

I think you grossly overestimate your position in two ways -

1, I don't think that most of the country knows the first thing about this bill, but they will know what 'no pre-existing conditions' means.

2, You think the Democrats would be rewarded by either their own base or from yours if they didn't pass the bill? This seems extremely unlikely.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We'll see. I'm not affiliated with either party, but I have contacted representatives from each and let them know my concerns.

0 Replies

@parados,

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/news/economy/health_care_doctors_quitting/index.htm

We might have more doctors than we did 10 years ago, but we also have more people. And those people are fatter, sicker, and expect more out of the healthcare system.

Keep in mind that while the total number of physicians may be going up, the proportion that are in the front-lines of medicine, primary care, is plummetting.

Medical students aren't stupid. Even if medical school were free, the difference between the salary of a physician and a surgical specialist can easily top $10 million dollars over the course of a lifetime. A recent survey of primary care physicians revealed depressingly low job satisfaction, with a huge number planning to retire/quit/change careers in the next 5 years.

Primary care is the backbone of any healthy healthcare system, and we don't have what it takes to support our present population. And we think the solution is to shove another 30+ million people into the system?

The problem with the healthcare "reform" that is being undertaken is that it's not fixing the broken system we have -- it's just trying to make sure everyone has access to it.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I didn't respond because it's ridiculous. You want them to charge the exact same price for every-single-person regardless of how ill they are or how expensive. That's not a business model, it's a death sentence. Insurance companies won't do anyone any good once they've been run into the ground by idiotic ideas like that.

....Other countries insurance companies do exactly this and they sure don't seem to be going out of business. How do you account for this fact?

Other countries also aren't at a 64% obesity rate.

64% is the combined obesity and overweight rate in the US as a whole; it's split evenly between the 2. The CDC also calculates results by counties and by race (non-hispanic white, hispanic, non-hispanic black). These are the statistics for blacks - in some counties their obesity rate (not including overweight) is well over half: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#Race

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/images/obesity_race_black_2008.jpg

However federal law prohibits charging different premiums to blacks and whites, so everybody's insurance costs must rise to cover the extra costs of obesity among blacks and hispanics (see link). The other countries you compare to the US in your statistics also don't have quite as many of those 2 racial groups - and even if they do, for some reason theirs don't get quite as fat as ours.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

As to the other point of charging a flat rate to everyone regardless of pre-existing condition: the sickest 10% of the US population costs over 60% of all medical expenditures. Some are covered in high-risk pools, but they must pay premiums for at least one year prior to start of coverage
http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=14329#Enrollment

There's no reason they can't be included in a general pool as long as premiums are doubled for everybody across the board. If rates can't be doubled, but just raised by some percentage, triage by imposing waiting periods for treatment will also have to be imposed across the board - meaning the sickest ones will either have to pay for treatment, qualify for public assistance, or die. There's ample actuarial data in support of that calculation.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm still quite sure that the House will not sink their chances this November by letting the bill die. There is absolutely no reason for them to do so, as it guarantees their loss.

I think the midterms are going to be far, far worse for the Democrats if they do pass this bill. Most of the country wants health reform; most of the country does not want this bill.

They're certainly getting panicky - Speaker Pelosi has lost it so completely she actually said this, verbatim:

Quote:

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

1 Reply

Health insurance companies are bookies pure and simple.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Irishk wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm still quite sure that the House will not sink their chances this November by letting the bill die. There is absolutely no reason for them to do so, as it guarantees their loss.

I think the midterms are going to be far, far worse for the Democrats if they do pass this bill. Most of the country wants health reform; most of the country does not want this bill.

They're certainly getting panicky - Speaker Pelosi has lost it so completely she actually said this, verbatim:
Quote:
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

I don't agree with your assessment; in fact, the opposite seems to be true - Republicans in both houses seem increasingly resigned to the fact that the Dems are going to pass something, with their focus turning to a 'repeal the bill' message this Fall.

They have also resorted to outright lying about what the Senate Parlimentarian says (along with their few Dem allies who want to kill the bill) -

Quote:

March 11, 2010
Categories:

* Senate

An option still on table?

Senate Republicans caused a major stir Thursday when they told reporters that the parliamentarian had informed them that the Senate bill needed to be signed into law before lawmakers took up a sidecar bill to fix it.

And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told his Democratic colleagues during a caucus meeting Thursday that he had heard the same thing.

But according to reporting by POLITICO’s David Rogers, the accounts aren’t accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. “It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books,” said one person familiar with situation.

---

Republicans have been trying to frighten squeamish House Democrats into voting "no" on the Senate bill " and the stories Thursday on the parliamentarian’s apparent guidance sent more tremors through the caucus.

There is no written confirmation of the parliamentarian's guidance, Senate Republican aides said.

It was relayed to them verbally, making it difficult to independently confirm what the parliamentarian said.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, I suppose that could have been worded better. The point was that you can call it a logical fallacy if you like, but the fact remains that you are critiquing a system about which you know nothing. That's really easy when you don't actually have to consider the details or the actual effects if would have in the real world.

Well, we only have your assertion that I 'know nothing' about our system. On the other hand, there is the fact that I am someone who has lived in America all my life and used said system; what more, I've been studying it for years as part of my overall political education and knowledge. So perhaps you would admit that you are exaggerating somewhat when you state that I know nothing about our health care system, or the effects that changes would have in the real-world?

Certainly there's no reason that anyone would think you would know more about how it works. At least, you haven't displayed anything here that would lead people to that belief. Why do you assert that you are so much better at predicting the future outcome of events then others? What special knowledge do you possess that allows you to make better predictions then others?

Cycloptichorn

You are subject to the same comments you made against me. We only have your assertion that you know anything about healthcare. And you may have been studying healthcare but I seriously doubt you have any idea how compensation works. I doubt you have any idea how medical billing works. I doubt you have any real idea about how hospitals operate internally.

I don't think I can predict the future. That's the difference between us. I'm simply pointing out that your ideas and predictions about how great things will be are flawed severely. You simply gloss over or ignore all of the details that the system relies on. The only thing you've managed to contribute to this is the same propaganda in the news. You can vomit up a bunch of statistics, good for you. And just like all of the politicians making all of their political statements, you think you're right despite not having any actual experience in the medical community. Until you are surrounded by the medical system (and not just a consumer), you can't say that you really understand the impacts.

I will happily admit that I don't know everything about the medical system. No one does. But, I would say I have more experience than you because although you might study healthcare, I spend 5 days a week talking to nurses and physicians and IT staff from hospitals all over the world. My corporation supplies software and machinery for more than 30% of the hospitals in the US. We also have clients in 20 other countries - including the NHS in the UK, France, Ireland, Germany and many others. My personal life is saturated with healthcare as most of my friends are physicians, some nurses and a few other things.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

One question for you then: does your company, and by extension yourself personally, stand to suffer at all if these reforms are passed?

I would note that 'vomiting up statistics' is something that you have been doing in the thread as well. It was not I who erroneously posted the American obesity rate, but you...

I don't believe the fact that you work in an industry related to HC does, in fact, provide you with a greater ability to predict the effects of changes to that system then others. Although I can see why you think it does. I work at a Law School; does that make me an expert on University funding politics and policies? Hardly. These systems are far too large and complex to be understood by limited anecdotal experiences.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I have a question: How is this bill going to get us anywhere closer to the stated goal? The main problem in our system is insurance companies. They are ******* us every which way but loose. If we could get rid of those fuckers, we'd be on our way to a better system. But just regulating the scum that sucks us dry, without a public option, isn't in any way an increment leading to that. Or is it?

It is. It starts to reign in the excessive practices of our current insurance companies. Hopefully this will bring about a situation in which they either have to undergo radical reform or collapse completely. It helps us get rid of 'health insurance' as we know it, by making it something which simply is not possible to administer for a profit.

Plus, you can always add in a public option later. Medicare and SS took several revisions before we got them right.

Cycloptichorn

You think Medicare and SS are "right" ????? SERIOUSLY? They are nearly bankrupt.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I have a question: How is this bill going to get us anywhere closer to the stated goal? The main problem in our system is insurance companies. They are ******* us every which way but loose. If we could get rid of those fuckers, we'd be on our way to a better system. But just regulating the scum that sucks us dry, without a public option, isn't in any way an increment leading to that. Or is it?

It is. It starts to reign in the excessive practices of our current insurance companies. Hopefully this will bring about a situation in which they either have to undergo radical reform or collapse completely. It helps us get rid of 'health insurance' as we know it, by making it something which simply is not possible to administer for a profit.

Plus, you can always add in a public option later. Medicare and SS took several revisions before we got them right.

Cycloptichorn

You think Medicare and SS are "right" ????? SERIOUSLY? They are nearly bankrupt.

No, they are not 'nearly bankrupt.' This is more of that good ol' Republican propaganda that you are throwing out there. Both of those programs can continue to exist for long amounts of time with only minor adjustments; and what more, neither was designed to be a permanent solution to our problems.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One question for you then: does your company, and by extension yourself personally, stand to suffer at all if these reforms are passed?

I would note that 'vomiting up statistics' is something that you have been doing in the thread as well. It was not I who erroneously posted the American obesity rate, but you...

I don't believe the fact that you work in an industry related to HC does, in fact, provide you with a greater ability to predict the effects of changes to that system then others. Although I can see why you think it does. I work at a Law School; does that make me an expert on University funding politics and policies? Hardly. These systems are far too large and complex to be understood by limited anecdotal experiences.

Cycloptichorn

No, actually, I think we would gain a considerably amount. We already have. The stimulus package has a large portion earmarked for using EMR software. We are the largest provider of this software and have made a nice profit the past year with more in site. A nationalized system will no doubt require more deployments of our systems. As I mentioned, our software is in use by the NHS in UK currently.

You seriously don't read anything... I told you I'm not trying to PREDICT. I'm trying to make you stop for a minute and think. Your ideas are based on an extremely limited understanding of our healthcare system. You support making all sorts of changes with absolutely no idea of the effects it will have on the various pieces.

I agree that the system is complicated. My entire point is that you have no idea just how complicated it is.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sure that you don't mean to say that anecdotal experiences count for nothing. It depends on how much experience is involved and how closely related it is to the subject at hand.

In my company we have reviewed the consequences of the expected rise in health care costs. We have a very limited ability to pass these costs on to our customers in a very competitive market. Hard economic times and the attendant rise in competition combine to punish companies that try this. Business volume suffers and, as a direct result, employees lose their jobs (and health care coverage). Instead we will simply pass most of the health insurance cost increases onto our employees. Whatever additional cost we absorb will simply become an added disincentive for hiring additional employees - we will become more cautious about doing so and will instead try workarounds and other ways to delay such action until the economic benefit is very clear.

Our employees in turn will have less disposable income, and will reduce their discretionary economic spending, etc. etc.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, they are not 'nearly bankrupt.' This is more of that good ol' Republican propaganda that you are throwing out there. Both of those programs can continue to exist for long amounts of time with only minor adjustments; and what more, neither was designed to be a permanent solution to our problems.

Cycloptichorn

Can you offer any factual evidence to support the assertion that medicare and SS are not bankrupt from an accounting and acturarial perspective?

What do you mean by "neither was designed to be a permanent solution to our problems"? Do you know the intent of the designers of these programs? I note that the enabling legislation behind them has no specified temporal limit to their applicability. They sure look permanent to me.

Exactly what "minor adjustments" do you have in mind and what will be their effects?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

sstainba wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I have a question: How is this bill going to get us anywhere closer to the stated goal? The main problem in our system is insurance companies. They are ******* us every which way but loose. If we could get rid of those fuckers, we'd be on our way to a better system. But just regulating the scum that sucks us dry, without a public option, isn't in any way an increment leading to that. Or is it?

It is. It starts to reign in the excessive practices of our current insurance companies. Hopefully this will bring about a situation in which they either have to undergo radical reform or collapse completely. It helps us get rid of 'health insurance' as we know it, by making it something which simply is not possible to administer for a profit.

Plus, you can always add in a public option later. Medicare and SS took several revisions before we got them right.

Cycloptichorn

You think Medicare and SS are "right" ????? SERIOUSLY? They are nearly bankrupt.

No, they are not 'nearly bankrupt.' This is more of that good ol' Republican propaganda that you are throwing out there. Both of those programs can continue to exist for long amounts of time with only minor adjustments; and what more, neither was designed to be a permanent solution to our problems.

Cycloptichorn

Really? Cause this article, from the Social Security Administration, says that the Hospital Insurance trust fund will run out in about 8 years. The report goes on to say that in order to make the fund solvent for the next 75 years, it would require and immediate raise in payroll taxes of 134%

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

0 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

I agree that the system is complicated. My entire point is that you have no idea just how complicated it is.

I do have an idea how complicated it is: massively complicated. You get around the no-first hand experience thing by assuming the situation is very complex.

Quote:

You support making all sorts of changes with absolutely no idea of the effects it will have on the various pieces.

I wouldn't say that we have no idea what the effects will be. Some of the primary effects are pretty clear while, as you say, secondary and tertiary effects are not so clear and will only become clear over time. However, this is a poor reason to recommend inaction on policy, for two reasons:

1, we (America as a country) regularly take action on issues in which the effects are unclear. We are forced to do so by the world around us and by our limited ability to predict the future. This means that sometimes we will get it 'right' and sometimes not. However, we cannot choose to take NO action due to our inability to predict the future, becuase

2, the current situation is highly unsustainable. We wouldn't be talking about this if the costs of our current system were not already spiraling out of control. There is very little discussion on this point by opponents of the current reform package, in large part because I think that said opponents tend to have their own health care squared away, and really don't give a **** that the system doesn't work for many Americans.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know