IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I will say, that while there is overwhelming evidence that costs have risen dramatically over the last 5-7 years, there's not a lot of evidence presented here that 'misuse of services' is a leading factor for these rises in costs. I would be interested in seeing the data behind this, as it does not correlate with the data I have seen.

Cycloptichorn

where is the data you've seen? and by "data" i'm sure you're not referring to CI's little list.

I've already explained what I mean by misuse, so I'm not going to rehash that. I'm still confused why CI is sooooooo stuck on this. It seems a bit silly. The list he posted even says, in other terms, that it is not complete. Hell, it doesn't even say "these are the most significant factors." It ONLY says that these factors are INCLUDED in those that raise costs.

CI, if you're seeking to prove me wrong, at least get a better list.

The data I've seen are industry examinations of health care companies - where they pay their money our, their rates of return on investment for investors, etc. I can tell you that much of the pressure to cut costs - and therefore deliver a lower-quality product - comes from the ever-present desire to generate returns for investors, and therefore capture more market share.

Our health care should not be beholden to an industry which places negative pressure on providing its' customers with service!!!

Cycloptichorn

unfortunately it IS an industry and you will NEVER change that. that is, unless you want the government to take over development of new technologies and drugs as well. the health care industry is too complex to be managed wholly by the gov't.

oh, and my defeatism comes from having worked in the gov't for a few years. the hoops are numerous.

It's funny - on one hand, people believe that the US is the best system in the world and the best country in the world. On the other hand, many of these same people decry any ability for us to self-improve or to make our situation any better, because they don't trust that same system.

Universal/mandated health care doesn't remove health care from being an industry. But, what's the requirement that it be a for-profit industry? Isn't helping people a profit?

But, then, you might counter that it's difficult to raise money from investors in order to get the money to back up the system. After all, investors want a return on their investments, and they don't want to hear about intangible good feeling returns. So where do we find a large, large pool of investors whose money could guarantee a nationalized insurance system?

Why, they are called taxpayers. And it isn't as if people won't still have to pay some sort of premiums at all - there will still be money coming into the system. Just not money which is beholden to make people profits.

Yes, it is going to require a basic-reorganizing of the health care industry, which will be fought tooth and nail by people who are quite willing to prop up the old, poorly-working and supremely inefficient system b/c they profit from it personally. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

What about the money for research? Where is that going to come from? What about for new drugs?
And we still have the problem of physicians leaving the public health care realm. Hell, I know doctors that are thinking of doing it now because they are getting shafted by taking medicaid and medicare.

Also, I would like to add that the government already pays for the vast majority of new products and scientific advancements. The canard that single-payer or some sort of universal health system would stifle innovation is illogical bullshit. It shows that the proponent of said argument doesn't really understand the complex nature of the University research system, or the difference between Applied and Theoretical research.

Also, the concept that innovation would die in these areas beggars belief. I firmly disagree with the notion that people are going to stop working for new technologies, if they aren't guaranteed to make them rich. It's ridiculous. The vast majority of discoveries made by humankind were done so not for money, but to advance the body of knowledge for humanity as a whole. This will continue no matter what type of health insurance we have here in America.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, I would like to add that the government already pays for the vast majority of new products and scientific advancements. The canard that single-payer or some sort of universal health system would stifle innovation is illogical bullshit. It shows that the proponent of said argument doesn't really understand the complex nature of the University research system, or the difference between Applied and Theoretical research.

Also, the concept that innovation would die in these areas beggars belief. I firmly disagree with the notion that people are going to stop working for new technologies, if they aren't guaranteed to make them rich. It's ridiculous. The vast majority of discoveries made by humankind were done so not for money, but to advance the body of knowledge for humanity as a whole. This will continue no matter what type of health insurance we have here in America.

Cycloptichorn

The desire will still be there, sure... but the resources (money) to make it happen will dwindle.

I just read Hillary's plan, and I have some reservations about ti.

If I am reading it right,anyone who makes over $250,000 that keeps their own plan,if it is better then the govts, will have to declare their plan as income.

That doesnt seem right to me.

Also,her plan calls for everyone to get health insurance, either on their own or thru the govt.
What happens if I dont?
Are the health police going to come after me?
Am I going to be sued?

Also,she says nothing about those here illegally.
Are they going to be required to get insurance?
Who will pay for it.

Even the Hillary campaign hasnt thought that part thru.

And this plan is going to cost alot more hen her original plan.
That called for a cost of 300 billion over 6 years,this plan says 110 billion a year.

While her idea intrigues me,there are to many unanswered questions for me.

Just as a quick follow-up; one other thing I don't think will work with Hillary's plan.

One of her proposals is that if you are insured and you leave your job and take a new job you take your insurance with you. In other words, you pick your insurance policy and you keep it until you decide you want to change it. On top of that she leaves a mandate for employers to be in the middle of providing health insurance.

There is NO way this is going to fly.

Say I go to work for Employer A who offers a top of the line health plan and pay 95% of the cost of it (as my last employer did). After working there for a few years I quit my job and take a job with another company that pays a higher salary but doesn't offer the same level of benefits.

Now my new employer is responsible for administering the business related health insurance costs with multiple insurance carriers and very shortly every employee has differing coverage.

This could force many companies out of group plans because they won't have enough employees in any one group to get those group rates.

THere is one other thing about her plan that bothers me.

Since her plan states that nobody can be denied insurance for any reason,and it also mandates that everyone have health insurance, here is the question...

What would stop me from not getting insurance until I get sick?

Why couldnt I wait till I get cancer and then get medical insurance?
Since I cant be denied, the insurance company would have no choice but to pay for my health care, even though I paid nothing into the plan except fr my beginning premium payment.

mysteryman wrote:

THere is one other thing about her plan that bothers me.

Since her plan states that nobody can be denied insurance for any reason,and it also mandates that everyone have health insurance, here is the question...

What would stop me from not getting insurance until I get sick?

Why couldnt I wait till I get cancer and then get medical insurance?
Since I cant be denied, the insurance company would have no choice but to pay for my health care, even though I paid nothing into the plan except fr my beginning premium payment.

If you don't show evidence that you've signed up for an independent plan, you're enrolled in the gov't one - and the money is deducted from your paycheck.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

THere is one other thing about her plan that bothers me.

Since her plan states that nobody can be denied insurance for any reason,and it also mandates that everyone have health insurance, here is the question...

What would stop me from not getting insurance until I get sick?

Why couldnt I wait till I get cancer and then get medical insurance?
Since I cant be denied, the insurance company would have no choice but to pay for my health care, even though I paid nothing into the plan except fr my beginning premium payment.

If you don't show evidence that you've signed up for an independent plan, you're enrolled in the gov't one - and the money is deducted from your paycheck.

Cycloptichorn

But her plan doesnt say WHEN you have to get insurance, only that you get it.

So,my question still stands.

You aren't even in this country and have no idea how it works - you are constantly asking.

What happened to the idea of personal responsibility? We all know that it's irresponsible, for ourselves and our family and our workplace and society as a whole, to not have some form of medical insurance. You seem to be advocating personal irresponsibility.

The problem I have with Senator Clintons plan is not so much the plan itself, it is her lack of ability to make it happen. She has not shown the ability to bring together a consensus on anything during her limited term as Jr. Senator from NY. Her disingenuous way of presenting the "new and improved" plan already has me sceptical when she say, "I been down this road before and I know what to expect". Yes, she has been down this road and was unable to get anything accomplished.

Based upon what abilities that she has demonstrated, makes me feel she can accomplish this bold endeavor?

How does the "math" add up? If her plan is to raise taxes on the top earners, how will she incorporate this into any meaningful economic / tax plan?

I fear she will use this "plan" as a single platform item, since as is apparent from this post, touches a sensitive "button" of many.