How do people envision cutting medical cost?

[edpell]

How do you think the U.S. will cut medical cost?

 

[Proton Soup]

"cadillac" tax seems to be one plan on the table. encourage people to buy less coverage by making additional coverage progressively expensive.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM

 

[WhoWee]

"cadillac" tax seems to be one plan on the table. encourage people to buy less coverage by making additional coverage progressively expensive.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM

About 2 weeks ago, estimates of costs of $2,400 per year for a 4 person family were being discussed. Now, last week, Obama raised the "Cadillac tax" base to begin at $24,000 per year (not counting dental and vision) for union members.

My question is this, what kind of medical care do you receive for $2,400 versus a $24,000 union plan?

 

[Proton Soup]

About 2 weeks ago, estimates of costs of $2,400 per year for a 4 person family were being discussed. Now, last week, Obama raised the "Cadillac tax" base to begin at $24,000 per year (not counting dental and vision) for union members.

My question is this, what kind of medical care do you receive for $2,400 versus a $24,000 union plan?

are you comparing a base individual plan to a family cadillac plan?

 

[WhoWee]

About 2 weeks ago, estimates of costs of $2,400 per year for a 4 person family were being discussed. Now, last week, Obama raised the "Cadillac tax" base to begin at $24,000 per year (not counting dental and vision) for union members.

My question is this, what kind of medical care do you receive for $2,400 versus a $24,000 union plan?

Links:

http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/does_the_new_senate_health_care_bill_get_the_job_done_pt_1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011503901.html

 

[WhoWee]

are you comparing a base individual plan to a family cadillac plan?

They're both tax payer subsidized - so yes - except the $2,400 is for a family of 4 under the Senate plan.

 

[Proton Soup]

They're both tax payer subsidized - so yes.

that's not the point. one plan has more people in it, so it makes the discrepancy in cost wider. if you don't compare an individual to an individual plan, the comparison is invalid.

 

[WhoWee]

that's not the point. one plan has more people in it, so it makes the discrepancy in cost wider. if you don't compare an individual to an individual plan, the comparison is invalid.

Our posts have over-lapped. Both plans cover a family of 4 persons.

 

[Proton Soup]

They're both tax payer subsidized - so yes - except the $2,400 is for a family of 4 under the Senate plan.

oooohhh, OK. yeah, from what i understand, the Senate has a MAJOR cadillac plan and are ridiculously well-covered.

fwiw, i think it's a bit silly that they're doing this. all it does really is highlight that government workers are the worst "offenders" when it comes to spending "too much" on healthcare. so... let's ration healthcare not by government fiat, but by using a sin tax (like we do with cigarettes and alcohol) and while we're at it, let's exempt all our political friends. it's just a big disaster in the making, IMO.

 

[mgb_phys]

My question is this, what kind of medical care do you receive for $2,400

The UK or Japan's ?

 

[WhoWee]

oooohhh, OK. yeah, from what i understand, the Senate has a MAJOR cadillac plan and are ridiculously well-covered.

fwiw, i think it's a bit silly that they're doing this. all it does really is highlight that government workers are the worst "offenders" when it comes to spending "too much" on healthcare. so... let's ration healthcare not by government fiat, but by using a sin tax (like we do with cigarettes and alcohol) and while we're at it, let's exempt all our political friends. it's just a big disaster in the making, IMO.

Actually, the $24,000 per year plans I'm referring to are the UAW plans that Obama has agreed not to tax. The $2,400 per year plans are the ones being offered to families making less than $88,000 per year and subsidized under pending Senate legislation.

As for the plans the Senators enjoy - I don't know their cost - has to be VERY high.

 

[WhoWee]

How do you think the U.S. will cut medical cost?

Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

How about asking for prof of insurance or citizenship to provide anything over stabilization care (they do this in Europe). Also changing HIPA rules so first responders all the way up to specialists can report fraud in any government health assistance program. And the last big one tort reform.

 

[Skyhunter]

Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.

We have that system now. I think they have a new plan.

Individual mandates, salaried doctors, digital records, focus on regular healthcare and maintenance instead of reacting to health crisis', etc.

 

[edpell]

Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.

It seem obvious to me that this is the one and only way to lower cost.

And then there would be the free system that you pay for yourself in parallel. That is beggars have no choice.

So the question is how low do we want to lower government medical cost? 5% of GPD? Higher? Lower?

 

[Skyhunter]

Japan spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare. And they have a much higher life expectancy than the US, which spends ~16%

If we can get it to 12% GDP, which is closer to average, that would be a $500 billion a year reduction.

It is quite telling that when the prescription drug bill was passed by the Republicans, I don't recall much of a conservative outcry. Not only did they not pay for it, they didn't tell us the true cost until after it became law.

So after giving a trillion dollars away to the drug companies, now they argue that the only way to save money is to:

Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.

Surely there are other ways.

It is sad that the Republicans have decided that power is more important than obligation and have refused to participate in an honest debate. The true conservatives are moderate Democrats, and IMO they are getting their way. The progressive Democrats made the initial compromise, substituting a public option for single payer. Then the Senate moderates eliminated the public option.

So what we end up with will not please anyone but the insurance companies. But it will cover more people and should help, but it is IMO a minor retrofit, when what is required is a major overhaul.

 

[edpell]

Surely there are other ways.

We all hope so.

What are some of these?

 

[Proton Soup]

We all hope so.

What are some of these?

the japanese have a fee schedule. docs may charge X for Y service, and not more.

 

[Skyhunter]

the japanese have a fee schedule. docs may charge X for Y service, and not more.

Your provider doesn't?

 

[Skyhunter]

We all hope so.

What are some of these?

We have that system now. I think they have a new plan.

Individual mandates, salaried doctors, digital records, focus on regular healthcare and maintenance instead of reacting to health crisis', etc.

I hate having to repeat myself in a thread.

 

[Proton Soup]

Your provider doesn't?

nope. doctors don't have to accept your insurance plan.

 

[edpell]

the japanese have a fee schedule. docs may charge X for Y service, and not more.

So does medicaid, medicare, and most employer health insurances.

 

[edpell]

Skyhunter, yes salaried doctors. What is the point of digit records? Is it just fraud detection? Personally I like the federal government having as little information as possible (need to know basis). And since I get no government money for health care I see no reason that they need any information on my health or health spending.

 

[edpell]

How about a free market for medical services? Regulated in the sense that you must honestly state your qualifications (and the truthfulness of these claims is monitored and checked by a government agency). Free in the sense any with any qualification or in fact with zero qualification my enter the market.

For example if I cut my arm and need stitches I would like to have the option to go to a low cost nurse at $40 who knows how to clean a wound and knows how to sew rather than a Harvard med school grad at $400 for showing his/her face plus nurses fees and facility fees.

 

[Proton Soup]

So does medicaid, medicare, and most employer health insurances.

doctors can choose to accept that, or not. japan is different, because there is only one system, and only one fee that can be charged. here, the government or insurance company either has to adapt to the realities of the market, or fail to provide the services. so you've got two different systems, each with its own dynamics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

...Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors — often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists — are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.
...

 

[Skyhunter]

doctors can choose to accept that, or not. japan is different, because there is only one system, and only one fee that can be charged. here, the government or insurance company either has to adapt to the realities of the market, or fail to provide the services. so you've got two different systems, each with its own dynamics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

And the difference is, bottom line.

We pay twice as much for our system as the Japanese do for theirs.

Why should healthcare be for profit?

In order to balance the profit motive, you need heavy regulation. Single payer is the most efficient system.

Ours is a government of the people and by the people.

I sometimes wonder if those with an inordinate amount of distrust for the government are projecting.

 

[AverageJoe]

We pay twice as much for our system as the Japanese do for theirs.

Japan only has 127m people as compared to the USA's 308m. I'd say we're not doing half bad as is.


My question is this: Why are we intending on spending $1t to $10t on bureaucracy when we can spend that on research grants and get far more tangible results?

Think of all the lives that could be saved for the entire world instead of just this one country. The whole health care bill as is just seems to me to be extravagantly bloated and selfish.

 

[Nebula815]

If we can get it to 12% GDP, which is closer to average, that would be a $500 billion a year reduction.

It is quite telling that when the prescription drug bill was passed by the Republicans, I don't recall much of a conservative outcry. Not only did they not pay for it, they didn't tell us the true cost until after it became law.

I believe that bill is paying for itself, but even if so, I agree it was still a gamble at the time. There was most definitely a conservative outcry, but among the establishment Republican party, they were okay with it.

It is sad that the Republicans have decided that power is more important than obligation and have refused to participate in an honest debate.

The Republicans tried to participate but they were shut out of much of the debate.

The true conservatives are moderate Democrats, and IMO they are getting their way. The progressive Democrats made the initial compromise, substituting a public option for single payer. Then the Senate moderates eliminated the public option.

The public option was not a substitute for single-payer, it was to make the inroads for conversion to single-payer. It would be impossible to just write a bill to just "convert" the system to a formal single-payer system.

A public option was thus unacceptable to conservatives and moderate Democrats for two reasons:

1) It makes the way for single-payer

2) We already have Medicare and Medicaid bankrupt. It would be utter insanity to think we could fund a brand new program and it too would not hemmorhage money.

Also the idea of using a public option to increase competition and choice is unnecessary, when there are other, much simpler ways to go about doing that.

So what we end up with will not please anyone but the insurance companies. But it will cover more people and should help, but it is IMO a minor retrofit, when what is required is a major overhaul.

If the bill passes, the Democrats will likely get a form of single-payer healthcare, but by proxy. The bill is liked by the health insurance companies because, even though they are giving up a lot of control to the government, they are getting guaranteed profits by being turned into a form of utility.

It is a smart move by the Democrats for getting their way, if you can't create single-payer or a public option, then do the next best thing, regulate the insurers to the degree that you have essentially government healthcare through a group of "private" insurers.

The current healthcare system is among the best in the world, but it has a lot of inefficiencies that have been built up over the years that we need to reverse.

 

[jgens]

My question is this: Why are we intending on spending $1t to $10t on bureaucracy when we can spend that on research grants and get far more tangible results?

Think of all the lives that could be saved for the entire world instead of just this one country. The whole health care bill as is just seems to me to be extravagantly bloated and selfish.

You're right! And we should also cut those emergency services provided by the government because that money could be put toward research grants and, after all, we don't want to be selfish. Oh, and while we're at it, we should probably cut the money our state governments use to pave roads, light streets, etc. because in many cases, they aren't even a matter of life and death.

Not to mention the fact that I sincerely doubt people will support a tax hike in order to fund scientific research grants, especially given the number of people that oppose a tax hike in order to provide universal healthcare!

 

[Al68]

Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.

We have that system now.

I don't know what system you're referring to but I'm obviously not a part of it. The actual affect of this health care bill for me and many others (who don't know it yet) is that any medical insurance I would ever be even remotely interested in buying will be outlawed, plus a nice tax penalty.

So what we end up with will not please anyone but the insurance companies.

Who did you think would benefit from a law forcing everyone to buy the most expensive version of their product? The same version that they can't sell now because most people don't want or need it?

It is sad that the Republicans have decided that power is more important than obligation and have refused to participate in an honest debate.

Honest debate would start with recognizing which side is the one seeking power here.

This is a turning point for liberty in the U.S. We are on the verge of giving government more power over people's lives than Caesar (and King George) could have imagined in his wildest fantasies.

As far as the Republican Party, they're finally taking a stand for liberty against the insurance industry and Democrats, but it's probably too little too late.

And finally, my favorite tea party pic:

 

[Al68]

It is a smart move by the Democrats for getting their way, if you can't create single-payer or a public option, then do the next best thing, regulate the insurers to the degree that you have essentially government healthcare through a group of "private" insurers.

This is a good point. They are achieving their main goal of establishing government power over health care. The rest is details that can be tweaked later.

And this isn't just regulation. Government is creating a system and outlawing all insurance policies that aren't part of the system. Private insurers will be nothing more than agents of government, which is what Democrats apparently already consider all private companies to be anyway. This is obvious in everything they say. Why else would they have this bizarre belief that private companies are "supposed" to do the bidding of government?

Or what amounts to the same thing: There is simply no room for private companies in their worldview.

 

[Proton Soup]

if democrats are so anti-corporation, then why did Obama backpedal and throw out the idea of removing the anti-trust exemption from insurance companies?

 

[Al68]

Ours is a government of the people and by the people.

Yes, but private companies are not agents of the government and neither am I. Government is an agent of the people, not the other way around.

 

[AverageJoe]

You're right! And we should also cut those emergency services provided by the government because that money could be put toward research grants and, after all, we don't want to be selfish. Oh, and while we're at it, we should probably cut the money our state governments use to pave roads, light streets, etc. because in many cases, they aren't even a matter of life and death.

That's such a straw man argument it's not even amusing. (This is a federal issue, not state. :P)

Not to mention the fact that I sincerely doubt people will support a tax hike in order to fund scientific research grants, especially given the number of people that oppose a tax hike in order to provide universal healthcare!

It's called investments. They are proven to work and it's something that the layman can understand as useful.

People (myself included) feel that health insurance costs would be greatly reduced if a) technology was faster and more efficient and b) useless pencil pusher bureaucrats and politicians weren't getting a paycheck for a job that wasn't needed in the first place.

Reduce the whole cost of actually getting better (the major multiplier) and all of the cost inherently drops.
At this point when the overall cost is less than the cost to fund the military, universal health care is far, FAR more reasonable to be commonwealth funded and at which point would barely be a major issue as it is now.

The whole deal with this health care thing is that it's really expensive. So just strive to make it less expensive off the bat instead of pushing money around and taking money that people have worked hard for.

Is this not logical?

 

[Al68]

if democrats are so anti-corporation, then why did Obama backpedal and throw out the idea of removing the anti-trust exemption from insurance companies?

Because he obviously thinks trusts are good if they're controlled by government. This whole health care bill is the creation of a giant single trust run by government. And they want to force people to buy their product? Rockefeller would be sooooo jealous.

 

[jgens]

That's such a straw man argument it's not even amusing. (This is a federal issue, not state. :P)

So you're alright with having a huge state bureaucracy and pushing huge amounts of funds through state programs, but whenever the federal government becomes involved it's suddenly unnecessary, extravagant, and overly selfish? What if states were to increase your taxes and provide universal healthcare coverage, would you be alright with it then? My point is that government is government and arguing that one branch of government shouldn't provide a service because it might be construed as selfish is silly.

 

[jgens]

It's called investments. They are proven to work and it's something that the layman can understand as useful.

Whether the layman can realize that it's an "investment" which might turn out to be useful is beside the point. Very few layman (and members of congress for that matter) will approve of a tax increase whose sole purpose would be to provide grant funds for scientific research.

 

[AverageJoe]

@jgens You're putting words in my mouth. I live in Massachusetts where we already have something similar to what Obama wants to install and for what it's cost the state has most assuredly not justified the ends.

--

My original point was this: If you're going to spend an insane amount of money, why not spend it on something that will return far more advancements in medicine, thus saving more lives and reducing health care cost overall?

Giving money away to help people. That is what the whole issue is about.
One side wants to be the humanitarian type and give money to people who can't afford stuff (which I have nothing against being humanitarian like) and the other side is saying that the system and the country as a whole is better off with people paying for things themselves.
I'm trying to make a third argument to find a central ground. If you're going to make such a large investment like what is planned, make a wise decision and try to reduce your losses.

Sure, scientific grants usually pay out at a slower rate, but you never know when you're going to find the next penicillin, MRI or DaVinci, and when you do, EVERYBODY benefits from the vast increase in technology.

So, again I ask, do you seriously believe that One thousand-billion dollars invested into science wouldn't be more effective than paying medical and insurance professionals' salaries?

 

[Proton Soup]

Because he obviously thinks trusts are good if they're controlled by government. This whole health care bill is the creation of a giant single trust run by government. And they want to force people to buy their product? Rockefeller would be sooooo jealous.

yes, a very large pie with a guaranteed percentage to the owners. old money ain't dumb. they'll probably figure out a way to come out with 15% tax free.

 

[jgens]

@jgens You're putting words in my mouth.

If I have put words in your mouth it was not my intention. I was simply confused why you implied that my post was a straw man agrument on the basis that the government funded services I named were paid for by state and not federal governments.

My original point was this: If you're going to spend an insane amount of money, why not spend it on something that will return far more advancements in medicine, thus saving more lives and reducing health care cost overall?

And again, the same could be said about the other services provided by the government. As an example with the state government, instead of pouring millions of dollars into emergency services and crime prevention and police forces, we could put that money towards scientific research about how to reduce crime rates. We'll learn more about crime, but at the same time, we do little to stop the existing issue.

One side wants to be the humanitarian type and give money to people who can't afford stuff (which I have nothing against being humanitarian like) and the other side is saying that the system and the country as a whole is better off with people paying for things themselves.
I'm trying to make a third argument to find a central ground. If you're going to make such a large investment like what is planned, make a wise decision and try to reduce your losses.

It's also important to note that your third option does not necessarily reduce your losses. For example, the money channeled into scientific research may not result in huge medical advances that significantly cut the cost of health insurance. And even if medical advances are made (which is more likely than not) how much does that actually offset our skyrocketing healthcare costs? Since 1982-1984, the cost of healthcare has almost quadrupled and something needs to be done soon to stop that trend.

Sure, scientific grants usually pay out at a slower rate, but you never know when you're going to find the next penicillin, MRI or DaVinci, and when you do, EVERYBODY benefits from the vast increase in technology.

I think that it's important to note that while these things do save lives, they also increase the cost of healthcare coverage dramatically. MRIs and other medical procedures are tremendously costly and researching more advanced technologies will not likely actually reduce the cost of healthcare.

So, again I ask, do you seriously believe that One thousand-billion dollars invested into science wouldn't be more effective than paying medical and insurance professionals' salaries?

I think that the question is to what end would investing one trillion dollars into science versus our healthcare system be more effective. Would funding scientific research result in more scientific gains? Absolutely! But what does it actually do to halt rising healthcare costs? Very little. Without reforming the nation's healthcare system, we'll still have problems with pre-existing condition clauses, outlandishly expensive mal-practice insurance, the doughnut hole, and not to mention (once again) the skyrocketing costs. So, would I like to invest a trillion dollars into science? Absolutely! But I have to ask myself, is that feasible? And the answer I always come up with is a resounding No.

Now, I do concede that this is simply my (perhaps uneducated) opinion and that there are certainly other valid ways of viewing this option. And moreover, if you do happen to have reputable data or statistics that support the conclusion that spending one trillion dollars on medical research will solve pre-existing condition issues, the doughnut hole, and the rising cost of healthcare more effectively than overhauling the nation's healthcare system, I'll be well on my way to chaning my mind!

Edit: I don't have hard evidence that suggests that overhauling our nation's healthcare system will be more effective than pouring one trillion dollars into medical research, so I do not expect you to change your mind or see this issue in the same light that I do.

 

[Al68]

My point is that government is government and arguing that one branch of government shouldn't provide a service because it might be construed as selfish is silly.

Yeah, the U.S. Constitution's obsession with federalism is completely pointless. It makes no difference whether each state makes its own law or if all the power is concentrated in one place. What's wrong with centralized power, anyway? It's not like an all powerful central government could ever become corrupt and a danger to individual liberty. Stupid constitution!

 

[jgens]

Yeah, the U.S. Constitution's obsession with federalism is completely pointless.

I'm not making an argument about what the Constitution does or does not say. My point is that it's still "extravagent" and "selfish" if a state delegates funds in the same way that the federal governemtn delegates funds. For AverageJoe's first post, it shouldn't matter whether that money is spent by the federal or state government because again, it's still "selfish".

On a more light-hearted note, it shouldn't matter what the Founding fathers wrote in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because we pick and choose what we want to follow anyway!

 

[Skyhunter]

On a more light-hearted note, it shouldn't matter what the Founding fathers wrote in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because we pick and choose what we want to follow anyway!

Hey! Thats just like the Bible.

 

[Skyhunter]

Japan only has 127m people as compared to the USA's 308m. I'd say we're not doing half bad as is.

When I say twice as much, I mean as a percent of GDP, not gross expenditure divided by population. If you were following the discussion you would have known that.

 

[Skyhunter]

I believe that bill is paying for itself,

Why would you believe that?

It is adding $400 billion to the deficit this decade. The Senate bill reduces the deficit by $130 billion.

The Republicans tried to participate but they were shut out of much of the debate.

Sure, that is why they had 161 amendments of the 721 they offered accepted.

Are they shut out now?
I hope so. They didn't vote for either bill, and won't vote for the final bill so their input is unnecessary.

They refused to participate in honest debate, instead they declared this to be their political issue, "Obama's Waterloo", and chose the political strategy of NO! If they don't want to participate fine. I say treat them like they treated the Democrats when they were in power.

There is no interest in the Republican party to do anything about healthcare, because if they do it will be a political win for the Democrats. They blew their chance for real reform with Medicare part B. Now they just want to obstruct any efforts by the Democrats because it is a political loss for them. Their strategy was dilute, delay, and dither until the mid-terms.

The public option was not a substitute for single-payer, it was to make the inroads for conversion to single-payer. It would be impossible to just write a bill to just "convert" the system to a formal single-payer system.

This is bizarre reasoning. Writing the bill would be easier than the actual implementation. What stands in the way is the insurance industry.

A public option was thus unacceptable to conservatives and moderate Democrats for two reasons:

1) It makes the way for single-payer

So if the best way to provide universal healthcare at a reasonable price is single payer... that is unacceptable why?

If an unsubsidized public insurance option can provide better health insurance than a private corporation... this is frightening to conservatives why?

2) We already have Medicare and Medicaid bankrupt. It would be utter insanity to think we could fund a brand new program and it too would not hemmorhage money.

Medicare and medicaid are not bankrupt.

Also the idea of using a public option to increase competition and choice is unnecessary, when there are other, much simpler ways to go about doing that.

Such as?

If the bill passes, the Democrats will likely get a form of single-payer healthcare, but by proxy. The bill is liked by the health insurance companies because, even though they are giving up a lot of control to the government, they are getting guaranteed profits by being turned into a form of utility.

That is an absurd assessment. You cannot have hundreds of payer and a single payer at the same time.

It is a smart move by the Democrats for getting their way, if you can't create single-payer or a public option, then do the next best thing, regulate the insurers to the degree that you have essentially government healthcare through a group of "private" insurers.

Requiring insurance companies insure everyone and return a higher percentage of premiums for healthcare, is hardly government run healthcare. It is health insurance reform. The reason the Dem's will win when this passes is because of the no pre-existing conditions and no cap on treatment.

The current healthcare system is among the best in the world, but it has a lot of inefficiencies that have been built up over the years that we need to reverse.

The current healthcare infrastructure is among the best in the world.

The system is arguably one of the worst.

 

[Nebula815]

Why would you believe that?

From what I understand (although haven't found a source yet) that it is paying for itself, and has come out costing less than was anticipated.

[quoteIt is adding $400 billion to the deficit this decade.[/quote]

Yes, but that is okay ultimately if the bill can pay for itself. The idea was it would do so via increasing competition between drug companies, which was still a gamble.

The Senate bill reduces the deficit by $130 billion.

No it won't. There is no way to increase coverage and increase spending and simultaneously shrink the deficit and no healthcare bill has ever shrank the deficit. There is no way to know how the bill will work ultimately, except that it likely will not at all do what people want. It is longer than War and Peace.

Sure, that is why they had 161 amendments of the 721 they offered accepted.

Are they shut out now?
I hope so. They didn't vote for either bill, and won't vote for the final bill so their input is unnecessary.

They refused to participate in honest debate, instead they declared this to be their political issue, "Obama's Waterloo", and chose the political strategy of NO! If they don't want to participate fine. I say treat them like they treated the Democrats when they were in power.

While the Republicans were not kind to the Democrats when in power, to say they have refused to participate in honest debate over this current bill is incorrect. And yes, it is a major political issue, because it is likely the all-time worst piece of legislation in this nation's history.

There is no interest in the Republican party to do anything about healthcare, because if they do it will be a political win for the Democrats.

No it won't. The Republicans expanded Medicare a large degree, but they turned into establishment corrupt politicians, which is why they didn't bother with enacting real change in healthcare.

But that doesn't mean the Democrat's alternative is something we should do.

They blew their chance for real reform with Medicare part B. Now they just want to obstruct any efforts by the Democrats because it is a political loss for them.

They are not "obstructing any efforts by the Democrats." You're making it sound as if the Democrats are recommending minor reforms to enact real change we can make here and there that will be effective and the meanie Republicans are obstructing every single one.

The Democrats are trying, in one massive bill, to change one-sixth of the economy. That is a terrible idea and it has nothing to do with helping people.

This is bizarre reasoning. Writing the bill would be easier than the actual implementation. What stands in the way is the insurance industry.

Yes, you do not just try to convert the whole thing to single-payer, you do it gradually.

So if the best way to provide universal healthcare at a reasonable price is single payer... that is unacceptable why?

It is not the best way to provide universal healthcare at a reasonable price, and it takes away freedom from the people. If government is "paying for your healthcare," then it gets to dictate things (right now for example, in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to the food industry and restaurants how much salt they can use). There is no reason why health insurance and healthcare cannot be handled mostly by the private sector. The current system is plagued by a group of inefficiencies that have been built up over the years.

Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems and are trillions in deficit as is.

If an unsubsidized public insurance option can provide better health insurance than a private corporation... this is frightening to conservatives why?

It wouldn't. It would be forced to be subsidized. Government would not be able to run a health insurance corporation at a profit.

Medicare and medicaid are not bankrupt.

As said, they're both trillions in deficit, so they are near it.

Such as?

Remove the law preventing people from being able to purchase health insurance across state lines, end the WWII-era price control that is the tax credit for employer-provided health insurance and add a corresponding cut in say the payroll tax so there is no net tax increase, allow small businesses to pool their risk, tort reform, states need to work to reform their mandates on health insurance companies (health insurance should cover catostrophic issues, like home and car insurance do, not things like marriage counseling, hair loss treatment, and so forth (it varies state-to-state), maybe remove the anti-trust law exemption the health insurance companies enjoy, etc...and do these one at a time so people can debate the merits and drawbacks of each one, and you get short, understandable legislation.

That is an absurd assessment. You cannot have hundreds of payer and a single payer at the same time.

You have a big trust formed that is controlled by the government.

Requiring insurance companies insure everyone and return a higher percentage of premiums for healthcare, is hardly government run healthcare. It is health insurance reform. The reason the Dem's will win when this passes is because of the no pre-existing conditions and no cap on treatment.

If people are required by law to purchase health insurance, it will be an infringement on human freedom as far as I am concerned (I think that requirement is in one of the versions, House or Senate), and the degree of control the government will exert over the health insurance companies, they will be essentially a quasi-arm of the government.

BTW, you cannot just "require" health insurance companies to cover everyone, not unless you are willing to subsidize them. They have to make a profit.

That is why programs like Medicare and Medicaid and even the Massachusettes universal care program and the one Tennessee tried all skyrocketed in cost far beyond what was projected.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...9/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/tenncare_lessons_for_modern_health_care_reform_97570.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046457087135327.html

Our states are policy laboratories. That is a big benefit we have over other nations. We have fifty policy laboratories in this nation. If something doesn't work on the state level, probably not a good idea to try it on the federal level. The states are microcosms of the nation.

If Massachusettes and Tennessee both tried universal care programs, and both ultimately did not accomplish their objectives, and cost far more than anticipated, and then Medicare and Medicaid also cost too much, and then California wanted a universal care program, but abandoned the plan because it would have bankrupted the state, why should anyone believe a MASSIVE bill as they are trying to pass now will somehow work the way they envision it?

The current healthcare infrastructure is among the best in the world.

The system is arguably one of the worst.

I wouldn't say the system is one of the worst. Most Americans have healthcare, but there could be improvements made to the system definitely.

 

[jgens]

Since, these responses are getting longer and longer, and look like they may continue to do so into the foreseeable future, I'll repeat some advice I received here a while ago: When you're writing these responses, think Hemmingway, not Tolstoy.

Now, I'll just address one point

Yes, you do not just try to convert the whole thing to single-payer, you do it gradually.

I've seen a lot of claims floating around here that the healthcare reform bill just passed by both the House and Senate are somehow secretly part of the government's designs to take over the healthcare system. Now, along with these claims, I've noticed an accompanying lack of substantive evidence to support them, leading me to believe that these sort of claims and beliefs are little more than conspiracy theories.

I've also seen a lot of claims around here that the healthcare plan that Obama is pushing will force everyone under government healthcare, but I still fail to see a lack of substantive evidence that supports this. Here's an example of something that says differently.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Issues/health-Care

 

[Al68]

If an unsubsidized public insurance option can provide better health insurance than a private corporation... this is frightening to conservatives why?

Can you provide a link to any proposal for unsubsidized public insurance to compete with private companies? If Democrats wanted to compete with private insurance companies they would have done so long ago, since no law is needed for that. Obviously they have no desire whatsoever to do that ever.

Requiring insurance companies insure everyone and return a higher percentage of premiums for healthcare, is hardly government run healthcare.

It's not "government run healthcare" for the government to make the decisions? This is the kind of statement that completely precludes anything resembling honest debate.

They...chose the political strategy of NO!

When the issue is government exercising this kind of power to force people to buy the insurance industries most expensive version of their product against their will, NO is the only strategy for any decent politician.

 

[AverageJoe]

Holy crap you guys move fast.

@SkyHunter:
I apologize for missing the per capita thing, I guess I missed it.

@jgens:
It was a straw man because health care is not required to sustain civility whereas most of the things you picked do. It's comparing apples to oranges, just because it's publicly funded does not mean it's all the same thing.
Publicly funded health care vs scientific research grants, however, are in the same sphere.

As for things like MRIs and such increasing the cost, yes this is true, but it's better to be in debt than dead or unable to have the opportunity to repay said debt.
Costs being quadrupled, I'm sure is offset by the amount of lives saved to a degree, but shifting the bill to someone else really isn't reducing the cost of the bill at all.
If we are ever to rid ourselves of the need of such expensive equipment, newer stuff must first be invented. This is ultimately my point that I'm trying to articulate here. (which is what I thought the whole point of the thread was about, not debating whether or not we should pass the health care bill, but attempting to find other ways.)

About the loopholes, etc., I was under the impression that Tort Reform was intended to fix, or at least mend this problem. It seems to me that this is the kind of reform that people are looking for, not a health care revolution.
I sympathize with those people who are in a bind, being stuck with gigantic, unpayable bills, I really do, but demanding that burden on others is just as cruel as being stuck with the bill yourself. It's a harsh world and we need to find ways to make it better, not shifting blame and setting yokes.



-----

As for the Democrat vs. Republican crap, It's just that. They are all crap.
The majority of those in the parties don't represent me or anyone else I know, so why the hell should I represent them?
Unenrolled FTW.

 

[Skyhunter]

Can you provide a link to any proposal for unsubsidized public insurance to compete with private companies?

Read the House version of the bill. The public insurance plan would have to pay for itself from premium revenues and follow the same rules and regulations as a private company. The reason it is feared is because like electric cars, once people realize how much better it is, the private insurers would go out of business.

Basic healthcare should be universal single payer. Let the insurance companies have the premium plans.

If Democrats wanted to compete with private insurance companies they would have done so long ago, since no law is needed for that. Obviously they have no desire whatsoever to do that ever.

Excuse me. We are not talking about a company softball game. Please try and keep your responses below the threshold of absurd.

It's not "government run healthcare" for the government to make the decisions? This is the kind of statement that completely precludes anything resembling honest debate.

Then why are you making such absurd statements.

When the issue is government exercising this kind of power to force people to buy the insurance industries most expensive version of their product against their will, NO is the only strategy for any decent politician.

If you simply want to make hyperbolic and unrealistic claims, in order to progress your conspiracy theory, I will withdraw from this discussion with you.