It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. - Thomas Sowell
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. - Thomas Sowell
that statement is just wrong man. there's much less overhead like 3 percent for medicare and that is just on the amount of money that is given to administer the money (like paying 15 to 30 percent to private companies). See you think that this bill is the govt taking over health care, it's not. There still are those pesky companies making money off of us, in fact this bill at least makes them pay 80-85 percent of the money they take from us on actual health care! OMG imagine that. Vs Medicare which is 97 percent! It also takes some 500B from medicare part D which is not medicare it's the private insurance version of medicare which makes seniors pay MORE than what they would pay for regular medicare.
You as a veteran should really appreciate what the SOCIALIST health care system has to offer. I mean you belong to a socialistic system. There is a big difference between having the govt pay for the salaries of doctors and the hospitals than the govt administering the cost (like insurance companies do now). And what would you rather the govt pay for, wars and bombs or making sure their citizens have a chance to be healthy and educated? The money has to go somewhere, I personally think that bombing people and spending money on needless war is a waste especially when it hurts the country. NO nation has lasted that kept on bombing and pushing war, they all die.
You know those lines at the DMV? The highly skilled people who run it? Now just imagine the same at the insurance Exchange....... And the IRS.......... And the doctor's office................. And you're sick as a dog. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can imagine government having less overhead and/or being more efficient. Canadians come here for efficient care. Where will we go?
For those opposed to the Affordable Care Act, I have a few questions.
The United States has had one of the most expensive health care delivery systems in the world, but lags far behind other developed nations in quality of care and cost of delivery, primarily because no hospital can refuse service to those in need of care. While this is not the only factor in the high cost of health care, it is one of the largest.
Because there is a very large portion of the population that has not been covered by medical insurance, and who also do not have the means to pay for medical care because their wages are so low, so We the Taxpayers end up paying for much of the medical care of those who cannot pay themselves. This population accounts for a huge portion of the inflated and excessive costs in the American system. Additionally, millions are often bankrupted by medical costs that they cannot meet, which adds a huge social cost that only we Americans experience, compared to citizens of other developed nations.
Do you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care for all comers, even if they cannot pay? If you do not, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to see people die for lack of health care if they are too poor to pay for it.
If you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care to all comers, but do not want universal coverage of the population as a whole, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to continue with the status quo before the Affordable Health Care Act. What would you suggest to mitigate the costs of the un-insured on We the Taxpayers?
If you see the logic and necessity for universal coverage, but are opposed to the Individual Mandate (a market-based solution instead of a socialized single payer solution) for all those who can afford it, how would you solve that problem?
then it must be assumed that you would prefer to continue with the status quo before the Affordable Health Care Act.
There are more ways to fix the healthcare system than a top-down, heavy handed approach. The way you and the rest of the Left want to go about it is like using a hatchet to do open heart surgery - brute force it all the way. If the chest doesn't open on the first whack, keep whacking at it, if things don't work in the insurance market, use more gov't force to make it work
There are better ways - for one, allow purchase of insurance across State lines. I can buy car or life insurance from just about anywhere in the nation, but for some retarded reason, I can't buy it if it's provided by a company 10 miles away in another State; now why is that? Every State can establish minimum baselines of coverage (or no baseline at all) - then the consumer can pick and choose, not only from every insurance company, but from every State.
Say NY mandates that any insurance offered in NY must provide X, Y and Z, while NJ only mandates X and Y, Calif mandates A-Z, and Utah doesn't mandate any baseline coverage. Rather than being stuck in one of those, wouldn't it be better to allow a citizen in State Z to buy insurance from NY if they like X,Y, and Z, or buy it from Calif if they want A-Z, or buy it from Utah if they don't want anything. The difference between your approach and mine, you'd rather have the Gov't come in and force it's vision on everyone, I'd rather leave it up to teh States to decide what hte minimum coverage is, then allow citizens to buy in-State or out of State, depending on what they want and what they can afford. Or, in the alternative, just allow people to get on the Federal healthcare system. Pooling is a good idea, so long as it's voluntary; forcing people to get insurance is unconstitutional, unless you call it for what it is - a tax.
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. - Thomas Sowell
In this quote, Thomas Sowell (not a TV comedian whose name I have heard, so not to be trusted) is obviously comparing apples to oranges. Apple: all people cannot afford to pay for insurance for doctors, hospitals, and medications. Orange: we propose to compel all people to buy insurance for doctors, hospitals, medications, and long term care, regardless of pre-existing conditions, administered by a proven inefficient bureaucracy, which is rife with expensive fraud.
When liberals consider an idea, they get only as far as what they see as need. Then they jump straight to compulsion. All the arithmetic in between is irrelevant. Anyone who even suggests there may be such a thing as arithmetic is immediately deemed mean spirited, stingy, and ignorant, a tool of the wicked rich. Anyone who complains he is being forced to buy what he cannot afford is ipso facto a child in need of the Liberals' coercion to do the right thing. Both arithmetic and liberty are completely alien to the modern liberal dogma. A list of benefits... that's all you need to make a thing compulsory. Who will pay for it? Oh, the wicked rich will pay. War will cease. Numbers don't matter. What ensues when you give government this additional power? Oh, hope and change will ensue. It's all Disneyland out here.
"The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain."
Ludwig von Mises
1881-1973
Austrian economist
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
For those opposed to the Affordable Care Act, I have a few questions.
The United States has had one of the most expensive health care delivery systems in the world, but lags far behind other developed nations in quality of care and cost of delivery, primarily because no hospital can refuse service to those in need of care. While this is not the only factor in the high cost of health care, it is one of the largest.
Is the solution to a problem caused by a well-meaning government mandate that ignores the math a larger well-meaning government mandate that ignores the math? If it hurts when you do that, don't do that.
... and please stop calling it the Affordable Health Care Act when there is nothing affordable about it.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Wow. I'm constantly amazed at people with the ability to confuse feelings with the ability to identify the causes of a problem. Ignoring the key causes of the insurance problem and instead, passing unneeded healthcare reform that would add 500 to 600 billion dollars in taxes per year and potentially cause 80% of US doctors to quit (according to Forbes) is disastrous. The reason why those words are in bold is because many people identify the problem as "disease A", but insist on a "cure" for "disease X". This line of reasoning just does not make sense.The key contributors to high healthcare costs are frivolous lawsuits, illegals going to the emergency rooms for free for every little problem (therefore passing costs onto citizens for colds, fevers, etc), and needed insurance reform.
The reason why frivolous lawsuits are killing the insurance system is that our current civil suit system encourages people to sue. If you are the prosecuting party in a civil suit, you do NOT pay your lawyer until you win. If you don't win, you don't pay. However, if you're the one being sued, you have to pay your lawyer to defend you and shuffle papers. Either way, you're hemorrhaging money. So you just sue the defense until the defense is broke or they give you a settlement. Ever hear of doctors with "lawsuit insurance"? Frivolous lawsuits just tax the healthcare institute, which in turn passes the costs to patients. An easy fix to this is to go to the British system for civil lawsuits. If the prosecuting party of a civil suit loses, they pay the defense's attorney fees. Easy peasy.
As for illegals using healthcare services for free...well, that's self-explanatory to those with common sense. Their costs get passed down to citizens.
For insurance reform, this requires some explanation. Those with "unlimited" company insurance just go in for every single problem knowing that they pay very little to nothing to get everything done. Over the past few decades, healthcare institutes stopped caring about how much they're charging insurance companies since the patients don't care either. This means that an insurance system needs to be put in place where patients covered by their workplace's insurance actually have responsibilities and need to care about how much they're using.
Anyone with common sense will tell you that you don't lighten someone's load by putting another burden on top of them. All Obamacare does is ignore the key causes of high insurance cost while taxing an ever-shrinking middle class with another 500 billion dollar burden. Eventually, such a system will collapse without massive spending cuts. Add that onto the fact that 80% of doctors are seriously thinking of quitting because of Obamacare. Guess what that means? More costs to get to a doctor and longer wait time. Just hope you don't die when you need the results to your MRI, buddy.
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. - Thomas Sowell
In this quote, Thomas Sowell (not a TV comedian whose name I have heard, so not to be trusted) is obviously comparing apples to oranges.
Not quite sure if you're being sarcastic or if you're serious about this point or maybe I'm just reading your post wrong.
For those that don't know who he is, Thomas Sowell's an award-winning economist and social theorist that tends to favor a right-leaning libertarian viewpoint on politics and teaches at the Hoover Institution. Unlike most far-leftists (not you, just in general), I don't get my news from MSNBC or comedians.
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a fleet of bonus sucking fat cat insurance executives to administer it. - Thomas Sowell
There, fixed it!
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Some good points have been raised, but so far, nobody has attempted to answer any of the basic questions that I asked relating to the problem of how to deal with the costs, that everybody else is paying anyway (in the most expensive way possible) associated with the un-insured and the poor.
Should hospitals be required to accept all commers, and should our emergency rooms be operating as de-facto clinics for those without insurance or money to pay for services provided?
This really isn't a liberal/conservative debate. I'm just asking the question; if hospitals are required to accept everyone who shows, who pays for the care provided, and how do they pay?
The debate is about how much gov't is acceptable and what the role of the gov't is. At it's core, it's a debate on two very different methods of governing - it's a debate that goes to the very heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
The debate is about how much gov't is acceptable and what the role of the gov't is. At it's core, it's a debate on two very different methods of governing - it's a debate that goes to the very heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
The questions I'm asking are not ideological. The response does not have to be ideological either. That is a choice. Big problems will not be solved if those considering solutions choose ideology over pragmatism. Ideology (and superstition) are banished from the scientific method for a reason.
Sorry about that. My long post was more a response to Pheebs and his assertion that Obamacare is somehow a "cure-all" that will reduce spending by increasing spending. However, if you read about the top 3 causes of the insurance problem and solutions, one can reasonably conclude that by tackling and solving the actual causes of the problem, you can drastically reduce the cost of healthcare across the board.
With the biggest causes taken care of, healthcare will be much cheaper and be at a much more manageable cost whether you go through Medi-care, Medic-aid, or insurance. The reason why people are getting turned away by hospitals is because these three providers can't handle all patients with all conditions with our current insurance system. By handling the problems, less tax dollars will be spent through Medicare and Medicaid. This means that the poor, elderly, and disabled will be more likely to be covered while at the same time reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
Also, the biggest issue with our current situation is that insurance costs are going up while people ignore the causes. With costs drastically cut across the board, the middle class will be much more likely to be able to afford health insurance. There you go. Poor, elderly, disabled, and middle class can all be covered.
The biggest issue is that most people refuse to tackle the real issues that make insurance costs skyrocket. Most people on the right simply don't consider these issues. Most people on the left don't care about the issues and just want someone else to pay for them. Most civil suit lawyers also adamantly refuse to reform in order to stop frivolous lawsuits (guess where they get their money?) and most leftists simply won't take illegals that are passing all their costs on taxpayers out of the equation.
Sure, there are other problems and some other solutions that can be used. However, creating a system that ignores the problems, causes 80% of doctors to disappear, and costs more than 1 trillion every two years (and that's assuming that that covers everything) in taxes is just ridiculous.
Some good points have been raised, but so far, nobody has attempted to answer any of the basic questions that I asked relating to the problem of how to deal with the costs, that everybody else is paying anyway (in the most expensive way possible) associated with the un-insured and the poor.
there has been discussion on this. xmarco and wwhwang both offered ideas on it and with this one paragraph you have dismissed what they had to say. yes, it is a very basic question, but it has very complex answers. there will not be just one "fix all" that will bring the costs down. Obamacare adresses one side of the issue, and that is "out of pocket" however, there is no actual reduction of cost.
on a related note, i have yet to see you answer the question that i often raise on this subject on how are we going to fix it without violating rights. ...a task that is way harder to accomplish than it sounds, and also has no simple answer.
those are the sides of the coin, and we need to see them both at the same time. reduce actual cost, not violate rights.
JDH:
Should hospitals be required to accept all commers, and should our emergency rooms be operating as de-facto clinics for those without insurance or money to pay for services provided?
This really isn't a liberal/conservative debate. I'm just asking the question; if hospitals are required to accept everyone who shows, who pays for the care provided, and how do they pay?
that is a very difficult, and good question.
got nothin more to add on that.
as far as cost issues here are my $0.02... the biggest problem that i can see with modern health insurance is that it is no longer doing what it was designed to do. insurance is designed to cover the unexpected, the catastrophic, the accident. insurance was not designed to cover the routine. it was not designed cover the basics. a visit to the Doctor for an annual check up costs way more than the co-pay. how much more? i dont know. and therein lies the problem. why shop around for cheaper offices when all your copay is going to be is $20 ant any office you go into? over time the doctors charge more but that copay stays the same. and its like that for more than just a check up. insurance is not only doing more than what it was designed to do, but it is keeping us from finding the best value and understanding what we are getting.
so yes, insurance companies are standing between us and out doctors.
the health care bill does not solve this issue either.
The debate is about how much gov't is acceptable and what the role of the gov't is. At it's core, it's a debate on two very different methods of governing - it's a debate that goes to the very heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
The questions I'm asking are not ideological. The response does not have to be ideological either. That is a choice. Big problems will not be solved if those considering solutions choose ideology over pragmatism. Ideology (and superstition) are banished from the scientific method for a reason.
It's not ideology, it's a fundamental difference in governing philosophy. Liberals and conservatives will never come together, because their philosophy for how people should be governed are at odds with one another. To put it simply, someone is right, and someone else is wrong, when it comes to deciding how much Gov't should play a role.
As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them
...on a related note, i have yet to see you answer the question that i often raise on this subject on how are we going to fix it without violating rights.
...a task that is way harder to accomplish than it sounds, and also has no simple answer.
Are your rights violated because you are required to carry a drivers license or a government issued ID in order to drive a car or to vote? Are your rights violated because you are required to purchase automobile insurance if you drive a car on the public roads? I think not. You may disagree, but having these documents do not prevent freedom of movement or the obligation of voting. Being required to purchase your own insurance if your employer does not provide it is much the same, in my view. As it has kept the cost of auto insurance relatively low, this will go a long way to keep costs down, in a market-based solution.
Should hospitals be required to accept all comers, and should our emergency rooms be operating as de-facto clinics for those without insurance or money to pay for services provided?
If hospitals are required to accept everyone who shows, who pays for the care provided, and how do they pay? that is a very difficult, and good question.
nothin more to add on that.
In my view THIS IS THE QUESTION. This is where the problem starts, and this is where the solution also begins.
The debate is about how much gov't is acceptable and what the role of the gov't is. At it's core, it's a debate on two very different methods of governing - it's a debate that goes to the very heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
The questions I'm asking are not ideological. The response does not have to be ideological either. That is a choice. Big problems will not be solved if those considering solutions choose ideology over pragmatism. Ideology (and superstition) are banished from the scientific method for a reason.
It's not ideology, it's a fundamental difference in governing philosophy. Liberals and conservatives will never come together, because their philosophy for how people should be governed are at odds with one another. To put it simply, someone is right, and someone else is wrong, when it comes to deciding how much Gov't should play a role.
As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them
If "liberals and conservatives" can never come together, even when the interests of the entire Nation are at stake, then we should abandon our Democratic tradition of Deliberative Representative Government, because that form of government cannot function without a pragmatic approach to problems and a willingness to compromise.
Remember what happenes to a House Divided.
There are very few problems that can be solved with a strict adherence to a "I'm right and you're wrong" dogma. The world is not black and white, it's lots of varrying shades of grey.
"...As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them ..."
If you believe they should have access to our health care system so that the poor aren't allowed to die , do you believe that access to health care is a fundamental human right?
The debate is about how much gov't is acceptable and what the role of the gov't is. At it's core, it's a debate on two very different methods of governing - it's a debate that goes to the very heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
The questions I'm asking are not ideological. The response does not have to be ideological either. That is a choice. Big problems will not be solved if those considering solutions choose ideology over pragmatism. Ideology (and superstition) are banished from the scientific method for a reason.
It's not ideology, it's a fundamental difference in governing philosophy. Liberals and conservatives will never come together, because their philosophy for how people should be governed are at odds with one another. To put it simply, someone is right, and someone else is wrong, when it comes to deciding how much Gov't should play a role.
As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them
If "liberals and conservatives" can never come together, even when the interests of the entire Nation are at stake, then we should abandon our Democratic tradition of Deliberative Representative Government, because that form of government cannot function without a pragmatic approach to problems and a willingness to compromise.
Remember what happenes to a House Divided.
There are very few problems that can be solved with a strict adherence to a "I'm right and you're wrong" dogma. The world is not black and white, it's lots of varrying shades of grey.
Put it this way - for the most part, liberals want a Gov't answer to the healthcare question, which typically involves more regulations, more intervention; conservatives want less regulation, less intervention. We both want oversight and accountability for where the money is going, but we see the problem from different angles - someone is wrong in this debate. Maybe not 100% wrong, but wrong enough that there are going to be lots of pissed voters when the dust settles and someone is declared the winner
Really, at it's core, it's the same old Keynesian vs Friedman debate; Gov't stimulus/spending vs the invisible hand of the free market; sure, there are some overlaps, but for the most part, there can only be one right answer
Firstly, Wwhang: I have a lot of respect for Thomas Sowell, and what he said is essentially correct, as is what I said. Either way, those of us who work for a living, and PAY for Everything, are saddled with a top heavy bureauocracy in both scenarios.
Secondly, JDH is right about the varying shades of gray. I'm not sure what the answer should be, but I can tell you that right now we're all paying for those who can't, one way or another. This is an issue very close to me, as I've got many years of experience as an RN, mostly in ER. I can't count how many times I've sat with a parent who had the newest cell phone, 2 packs of premium cigarettes in their pocket, telling me that they can't afford Motrin for their kid.
We pay in a variety of ways. Flexible billing is popular. For instance, my knee replacement bill totalled nearly $80,000. Probably should have been about twelve thousand, but they're billing me for all those people who couldn't or wouldn't pay their own way. Also, at the end of life, Medicare ends up paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by...minutes?, days?, maybe a month or so? The upside is that this keeps hospital doors open. The downside should be obvious, your/my tax dollars are spent in a futile effort.
So, what works? Here's an interesting story: My wifes mom had a friend who went to Canada to have her gall-bladder removed. This was a few years ago, and an uncomplicated cholecystectomy was running from 3 - 12 grand in the U.S. The Canadian doctor, NOT re-imbursed by the National Health Care in Canada, charged $900, up front, for an un-complicated surgery. Also, the patients had to get out of bed to change channels, or go get something to eat. That way they had to get up and move, which greatly speeds recovery. Since there was no money being funneled away to pay for mansions for insurance executives, or ever increasing government bureaucracy, there was no need to overcharge. The doctor and his staff all were well paid, as were the bills.
My wifes father also had a plan that worked. He never had health care insurance. He found out what it cost for himself and his family, paid that into a "Hospital money" account, and with diabetes and after surviving four heart-attacks, he paid all his bills cash after negotiating with the hospitals finance office for the lower end of the "flexible" payment schedules, arguing that 1) they WOULD be paid, and 2) He wasn't paying for a bunch of free-loaders to mooch off the system.
Lastly, I'm not really as biased against the insurance giants as it might seem, or at least I wouldn't be if they couldn't rig the game. But they can, they have, and they will continue to do so. So, given a choice between a plutocracy in which the "system" can set itself up for the profit of the few, by denying basic health care to those most in need, or a government bureaucracy which MAY be held accountable by the public, I choose accountability. Just a few thoughts.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Firstly, Wwhang: I have a lot of respect for Thomas Sowell, and what he said is essentially correct, as is what I said. Either way, those of us who work for a living, and PAY for Everything, are saddled with a top heavy bureauocracy in both scenarios.
Secondly, JDH is right about the varying shades of gray. I'm not sure what the answer should be, but I can tell you that right now we're all paying for those who can't, one way or another. This is an issue very close to me, as I've got many years of experience as an RN, mostly in ER. I can't count how many times I've sat with a parent who had the newest cell phone, 2 packs of premium cigarettes in their pocket, telling me that they can't afford Motrin for their kid.
We pay in a variety of ways. Flexible billing is popular. For instance, my knee replacement bill totalled nearly $80,000. Probably should have been about twelve thousand, but they're billing me for all those people who couldn't or wouldn't pay their own way. Also, at the end of life, Medicare ends up paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by...minutes?, days?, maybe a month or so? The upside is that this keeps hospital doors open. The downside should be obvious, your/my tax dollars are spent in a futile effort.
So, what works? Here's an interesting story: My wifes mom had a friend who went to Canada to have her gall-bladder removed. This was a few years ago, and an uncomplicated cholecystectomy was running from 3 - 12 grand in the U.S. The Canadian doctor, NOT re-imbursed by the National Health Care in Canada, charged $900, up front, for an un-complicated surgery. Also, the patients had to get out of bed to change channels, or go get something to eat. That way they had to get up and move, which greatly speeds recovery. Since there was no money being funneled away to pay for mansions for insurance executives, or ever increasing government bureaucracy, there was no need to overcharge. The doctor and his staff all were well paid, as were the bills.
My wifes father also had a plan that worked. He never had health care insurance. He found out what it cost for himself and his family, paid that into a "Hospital money" account, and with diabetes and after surviving four heart-attacks, he paid all his bills cash after negotiating with the hospitals finance office for the lower end of the "flexible" payment schedules, arguing that 1) they WOULD be paid, and 2) He wasn't paying for a bunch of free-loaders to mooch off the system.
Lastly, I'm not really as biased against the insurance giants as it might seem, or at least I wouldn't be if they couldn't rig the game. But they can, they have, and they will continue to do so. So, given a choice between a plutocracy in which the "system" can set itself up for the profit of the few, by denying basic health care to those most in need, or a government bureaucracy which MAY be held accountable by the public, I choose accountability. Just a few thoughts.
Great insight. Excellent post. The only thing I can add is this little brush with the US health care system.
I went to see my GP to have a mole removed from my forearm. Instead of doing it in his office, he sent me to a Dermatoligist, who looked at it, got a 12" Q-tip, dipped it into some liquid nitrogen, stuck it on the mole for less than 20 seconds, sent me on my way, AND BILLED MY INSURANCE FOR A SURGERY. That's one indication why we have a very expensive health care delivery system.
"...As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them ..."
If you believe they should have access to our health care system so that the poor aren't allowed to die , do you believe that access to health care is a fundamental human right?
Fundemental? Absolutely not. The only fundemental rights anyone has are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - paying for it is your business, not mine.
Fundamental rights are the stuff that wars and revolutions are fought for, that entire system of gov't are upended because they don't honor, and tyrants are put to death for; freedom from oppression, liberty, etc. Access to healthcare, in my view, is a luxury - and, much like medicare/medicaid/SS, something desperately in need of reform
phobicsquirrel
Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
Comments
just messin with ya.
in all seriousness it would be a much better site if the actual bill was easy to find and was linked to somewhere on there.
edit:
oh snap.
just found the link. im blind.
in that case, i agree. great place for info.
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. - Thomas Sowell
You as a veteran should really appreciate what the SOCIALIST health care system has to offer. I mean you belong to a socialistic system. There is a big difference between having the govt pay for the salaries of doctors and the hospitals than the govt administering the cost (like insurance companies do now). And what would you rather the govt pay for, wars and bombs or making sure their citizens have a chance to be healthy and educated? The money has to go somewhere, I personally think that bombing people and spending money on needless war is a waste especially when it hurts the country. NO nation has lasted that kept on bombing and pushing war, they all die.
I don't see how anyone in their right mind can imagine government having less overhead and/or being more efficient. Canadians come here for efficient care. Where will we go?
The United States has had one of the most expensive health care delivery systems in the world, but lags far behind other developed nations in quality of care and cost of delivery, primarily because no hospital can refuse service to those in need of care. While this is not the only factor in the high cost of health care, it is one of the largest.
Because there is a very large portion of the population that has not been covered by medical insurance, and who also do not have the means to pay for medical care because their wages are so low, so We the Taxpayers end up paying for much of the medical care of those who cannot pay themselves. This population accounts for a huge portion of the inflated and excessive costs in the American system. Additionally, millions are often bankrupted by medical costs that they cannot meet, which adds a huge social cost that only we Americans experience, compared to citizens of other developed nations.
Do you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care for all comers, even if they cannot pay? If you do not, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to see people die for lack of health care if they are too poor to pay for it.
If you believe that hospitals should be required to provide care to all comers, but do not want universal coverage of the population as a whole, then it must be assumed that you would prefer to continue with the status quo before the Affordable Health Care Act. What would you suggest to mitigate the costs of the un-insured on We the Taxpayers?
If you see the logic and necessity for universal coverage, but are opposed to the Individual Mandate (a market-based solution instead of a socialized single payer solution) for all those who can afford it, how would you solve that problem?
There are better ways - for one, allow purchase of insurance across State lines. I can buy car or life insurance from just about anywhere in the nation, but for some retarded reason, I can't buy it if it's provided by a company 10 miles away in another State; now why is that? Every State can establish minimum baselines of coverage (or no baseline at all) - then the consumer can pick and choose, not only from every insurance company, but from every State.
Say NY mandates that any insurance offered in NY must provide X, Y and Z, while NJ only mandates X and Y, Calif mandates A-Z, and Utah doesn't mandate any baseline coverage. Rather than being stuck in one of those, wouldn't it be better to allow a citizen in State Z to buy insurance from NY if they like X,Y, and Z, or buy it from Calif if they want A-Z, or buy it from Utah if they don't want anything. The difference between your approach and mine, you'd rather have the Gov't come in and force it's vision on everyone, I'd rather leave it up to teh States to decide what hte minimum coverage is, then allow citizens to buy in-State or out of State, depending on what they want and what they can afford. Or, in the alternative, just allow people to get on the Federal healthcare system. Pooling is a good idea, so long as it's voluntary; forcing people to get insurance is unconstitutional, unless you call it for what it is - a tax.
When liberals consider an idea, they get only as far as what they see as need. Then they jump straight to compulsion. All the arithmetic in between is irrelevant. Anyone who even suggests there may be such a thing as arithmetic is immediately deemed mean spirited, stingy, and ignorant, a tool of the wicked rich. Anyone who complains he is being forced to buy what he cannot afford is ipso facto a child in need of the Liberals' coercion to do the right thing. Both arithmetic and liberty are completely alien to the modern liberal dogma. A list of benefits... that's all you need to make a thing compulsory. Who will pay for it? Oh, the wicked rich will pay. War will cease. Numbers don't matter. What ensues when you give government this additional power? Oh, hope and change will ensue. It's all Disneyland out here.
"The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain."
Ludwig von Mises
1881-1973
Austrian economist
... and please stop calling it the Affordable Health Care Act when there is nothing affordable about it.
The reason why frivolous lawsuits are killing the insurance system is that our current civil suit system encourages people to sue. If you are the prosecuting party in a civil suit, you do NOT pay your lawyer until you win. If you don't win, you don't pay. However, if you're the one being sued, you have to pay your lawyer to defend you and shuffle papers. Either way, you're hemorrhaging money. So you just sue the defense until the defense is broke or they give you a settlement. Ever hear of doctors with "lawsuit insurance"? Frivolous lawsuits just tax the healthcare institute, which in turn passes the costs to patients. An easy fix to this is to go to the British system for civil lawsuits. If the prosecuting party of a civil suit loses, they pay the defense's attorney fees. Easy peasy.
As for illegals using healthcare services for free...well, that's self-explanatory to those with common sense. Their costs get passed down to citizens.
For insurance reform, this requires some explanation. Those with "unlimited" company insurance just go in for every single problem knowing that they pay very little to nothing to get everything done. Over the past few decades, healthcare institutes stopped caring about how much they're charging insurance companies since the patients don't care either. This means that an insurance system needs to be put in place where patients covered by their workplace's insurance actually have responsibilities and need to care about how much they're using.
Anyone with common sense will tell you that you don't lighten someone's load by putting another burden on top of them. All Obamacare does is ignore the key causes of high insurance cost while taxing an ever-shrinking middle class with another 500 billion dollar burden. Eventually, such a system will collapse without massive spending cuts. Add that onto the fact that 80% of doctors are seriously thinking of quitting because of Obamacare. Guess what that means? More costs to get to a doctor and longer wait time. Just hope you don't die when you need the results to your MRI, buddy.
For those that don't know who he is, Thomas Sowell's an award-winning economist and social theorist that tends to favor a right-leaning libertarian viewpoint on politics and teaches at the Hoover Institution. Unlike most far-leftists (not you, just in general), I don't get my news from MSNBC or comedians.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Some good points have been raised, but so far, nobody has attempted to answer any of the basic questions that I asked relating to the problem of how to deal with the costs, that everybody else is paying anyway (in the most expensive way possible) associated with the un-insured and the poor.
Should hospitals be required to accept all commers, and should our emergency rooms be operating as de-facto clinics for those without insurance or money to pay for services provided?
This really isn't a liberal/conservative debate. I'm just asking the question; if hospitals are required to accept everyone who shows, who pays for the care provided, and how do they pay?
The debate is about how much gov't is acceptable and what the role of the gov't is. At it's core, it's a debate on two very different methods of governing - it's a debate that goes to the very heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Sorry about that. My long post was more a response to Pheebs and his assertion that Obamacare is somehow a "cure-all" that will reduce spending by increasing spending. However, if you read about the top 3 causes of the insurance problem and solutions, one can reasonably conclude that by tackling and solving the actual causes of the problem, you can drastically reduce the cost of healthcare across the board.
With the biggest causes taken care of, healthcare will be much cheaper and be at a much more manageable cost whether you go through Medi-care, Medic-aid, or insurance. The reason why people are getting turned away by hospitals is because these three providers can't handle all patients with all conditions with our current insurance system. By handling the problems, less tax dollars will be spent through Medicare and Medicaid. This means that the poor, elderly, and disabled will be more likely to be covered while at the same time reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
Also, the biggest issue with our current situation is that insurance costs are going up while people ignore the causes. With costs drastically cut across the board, the middle class will be much more likely to be able to afford health insurance. There you go. Poor, elderly, disabled, and middle class can all be covered.
The biggest issue is that most people refuse to tackle the real issues that make insurance costs skyrocket. Most people on the right simply don't consider these issues. Most people on the left don't care about the issues and just want someone else to pay for them. Most civil suit lawyers also adamantly refuse to reform in order to stop frivolous lawsuits (guess where they get their money?) and most leftists simply won't take illegals that are passing all their costs on taxpayers out of the equation.
Sure, there are other problems and some other solutions that can be used. However, creating a system that ignores the problems, causes 80% of doctors to disappear, and costs more than 1 trillion every two years (and that's assuming that that covers everything) in taxes is just ridiculous.
xmarco and wwhwang both offered ideas on it and with this one paragraph you have dismissed what they had to say. yes, it is a very basic question, but it has very complex answers. there will not be just one "fix all" that will bring the costs down. Obamacare adresses one side of the issue, and that is "out of pocket"
however, there is no actual reduction of cost.
on a related note, i have yet to see you answer the question that i often raise on this subject on how are we going to fix it without violating rights.
...a task that is way harder to accomplish than it sounds, and also has no simple answer.
those are the sides of the coin, and we need to see them both at the same time. reduce actual cost, not violate rights. that is a very difficult, and good question.
got nothin more to add on that.
as far as cost issues here are my $0.02...
the biggest problem that i can see with modern health insurance is that it is no longer doing what it was designed to do.
insurance is designed to cover the unexpected, the catastrophic, the accident. insurance was not designed to cover the routine. it was not designed cover the basics. a visit to the Doctor for an annual check up costs way more than the co-pay. how much more? i dont know. and therein lies the problem.
why shop around for cheaper offices when all your copay is going to be is $20 ant any office you go into? over time the doctors charge more but that copay stays the same.
and its like that for more than just a check up. insurance is not only doing more than what it was designed to do, but it is keeping us from finding the best value and understanding what we are getting.
so yes, insurance companies are standing between us and out doctors.
the health care bill does not solve this issue either.
As for your question about what to do with the uninsured, I haven't answered it because I don't know. They shouldn't be left to die, but there's got to be a better answer than to raise taxes on everyone else to pay for them
...a task that is way harder to accomplish than it sounds, and also has no simple answer.
Are your rights violated because you are required to carry a drivers license or a government issued ID in order to drive a car or to vote? Are your rights violated because you are required to purchase automobile insurance if you drive a car on the public roads? I think not. You may disagree, but having these documents do not prevent freedom of movement or the obligation of voting. Being required to purchase your own insurance if your employer does not provide it is much the same, in my view. As it has kept the cost of auto insurance relatively low, this will go a long way to keep costs down, in a market-based solution.
Should hospitals be required to accept all comers, and should our emergency rooms be operating as de-facto clinics for those without insurance or money to pay for services provided?
If hospitals are required to accept everyone who shows, who pays for the care provided, and how do they pay? that is a very difficult, and good question.
nothin more to add on that.
In my view THIS IS THE QUESTION. This is where the problem starts, and this is where the solution also begins.
Remember what happenes to a House Divided.
There are very few problems that can be solved with a strict adherence to a "I'm right and you're wrong" dogma. The world is not black and white, it's lots of varrying shades of grey.
If you believe they should have access to our health care system so that the poor aren't allowed to die , do you believe that access to health care is a fundamental human right?
Really, at it's core, it's the same old Keynesian vs Friedman debate; Gov't stimulus/spending vs the invisible hand of the free market; sure, there are some overlaps, but for the most part, there can only be one right answer
Secondly, JDH is right about the varying shades of gray. I'm not sure what the answer should be, but I can tell you that right now we're all paying for those who can't, one way or another. This is an issue very close to me, as I've got many years of experience as an RN, mostly in ER. I can't count how many times I've sat with a parent who had the newest cell phone, 2 packs of premium cigarettes in their pocket, telling me that they can't afford Motrin for their kid.
We pay in a variety of ways. Flexible billing is popular. For instance, my knee replacement bill totalled nearly $80,000. Probably should have been about twelve thousand, but they're billing me for all those people who couldn't or wouldn't pay their own way. Also, at the end of life, Medicare ends up paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by...minutes?, days?, maybe a month or so? The upside is that this keeps hospital doors open. The downside should be obvious, your/my tax dollars are spent in a futile effort.
So, what works? Here's an interesting story:
My wifes mom had a friend who went to Canada to have her gall-bladder removed. This was a few years ago, and an uncomplicated cholecystectomy was running from 3 - 12 grand in the U.S. The Canadian doctor, NOT re-imbursed by the National Health Care in Canada, charged $900, up front, for an un-complicated surgery. Also, the patients had to get out of bed to change channels, or go get something to eat. That way they had to get up and move, which greatly speeds recovery. Since there was no money being funneled away to pay for mansions for insurance executives, or ever increasing government bureaucracy, there was no need to overcharge. The doctor and his staff all were well paid, as were the bills.
My wifes father also had a plan that worked. He never had health care insurance. He found out what it cost for himself and his family, paid that into a "Hospital money" account, and with diabetes and after surviving four heart-attacks, he paid all his bills cash after negotiating with the hospitals finance office for the lower end of the "flexible" payment schedules, arguing that 1) they WOULD be paid, and 2) He wasn't paying for a bunch of free-loaders to mooch off the system.
Lastly, I'm not really as biased against the insurance giants as it might seem, or at least I wouldn't be if they couldn't rig the game. But they can, they have, and they will continue to do so. So, given a choice between a plutocracy in which the "system" can set itself up for the profit of the few, by denying basic health care to those most in need, or a government bureaucracy which MAY be held accountable by the public, I choose accountability. Just a few thoughts.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I went to see my GP to have a mole removed from my forearm. Instead of doing it in his office, he sent me to a Dermatoligist, who looked at it, got a 12" Q-tip, dipped it into some liquid nitrogen, stuck it on the mole for less than 20 seconds, sent me on my way, AND BILLED MY INSURANCE FOR A SURGERY. That's one indication why we have a very expensive health care delivery system.
Fundamental rights are the stuff that wars and revolutions are fought for, that entire system of gov't are upended because they don't honor, and tyrants are put to death for; freedom from oppression, liberty, etc. Access to healthcare, in my view, is a luxury - and, much like medicare/medicaid/SS, something desperately in need of reform