March 23, 2012 at 7:25 pm #602621
Just thought I’d start this thread for convenience. Please, take it away…March 23, 2012 at 7:28 pm #752358
Maybe this is a good place to start (purely for continuity’s sake):
We have a problem ‘X’ with literally thousands of variables.
The current solution and existing situation ‘A’ takes into account all of these variables. Solution ‘A’ doesn’t work correctly.
The proposed solution ‘B’ refutes solution ‘C’ because of variables 47, 93,264 & 1,486. Solution ‘B’ ONLY takes into account variables # 1, 3, 246, 597 & 1,169 to justify it’s legitimacy.
The proposed solution ‘C’ refutes Solution ‘B’ because of variables 2, 12, 673 & 941. It ONLY sites variables 998, 1,345, 651 and 45 as it’s reasons for legitimacy.
All other variables are not referenced for whatever reason (I suspect either convenience, ignorance or most likely a combination thereof).
Proponents of solution B & C say any mention of the facts stated above are counter-productive.
I call BS on that.
What I propose is acknowledging your ignorance and debate the philosophical points to frame the discussion. Come to some semblance of a consensus and then let those in the know figure out how to make the numbers work. Don’t use incomplete and simplistic numbers based on a broken system to justify a stance. Also, realize you are not qualified enough to figure the numbers out when a consensus is achieved.March 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm #752359March 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm #752360
copy. post 343 Is the War on Women an organized effort.. or something sort of like that..
“you believe government can do ANYTHING more efficient than the private sector”
before you decide what i think
don’t you think it would be good to ask me?
because that would not be an accurate reflection of what i think at all..
just a reflection of what you think a person like me would think
i think we have forgotten about the health care part of health care and turned it into multiple profit centers driven by financial interests that have little or nothing to do with delivering a quality product.
Our outcome stats prove that.
there are several ways to fix that
but none of them include pandering to the current structure
LOL.. so adding all those profit centers adds to the efficiency of the system thereby controlling costs?
The stats don’t support that assertion at all :(
if they did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”March 23, 2012 at 8:38 pm #752361
Okay, I’ll stay out of the tall grass and keep it simple for you.
What makes you think that giving or healthcare system over to the government wil make it better than it is now? II admit it can be improved, but giving the reins over to the Gubmint will yeild results similar to the Departent of Education.
Name a country where your system is working well today.March 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm #752362
Hey, at least we got 16,000 new IRS agents out of the deal.
What’s not to love?March 23, 2012 at 10:29 pm #752363
…..According to the Department of Health and Human Services, no fewer than 1,200 waivers and exemptions to the sweeping new law have been granted by the Obama Administration. Among those who have been granted exemptions or fully waived from implementing the law among workers or members are:
United Federation of Teachers
Jack in the Box
Teamsters locals nationwide
Pavers and Road Builders District Council
Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers
Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida
Aspen Skiing Co.
Downstream Casino Resort
Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises
~interesting, no?~March 23, 2012 at 11:15 pm #752364
I could not name a single country where there is a perfect system. I could not name a single country where there is a healthcare system without a significant multitude of problems. Nor could anyone else on this forum or anywhere in the world for that matter. Also, I would add healthcare is not a one-size-fits-all issue.
What I CAN do is name 36 countries that are rated better than ours with regard to health care. Are all of these countries doing financially well right now? Most definitely not. There are a number of things to do with that, not the least of which are funding the health of their citizens. I think we can all agree on that. To point to a single reason why any modern country is floundering is a simplistic argument and doesn’t do justice to the realities of each situation.
Let’s forget what everyone thinks the numbers are for a second. Why not just start with a list of basic questions and see where everyone honestly stands.
1) Do you agree that no matter what system is chosen, there will be a number of people who will “fall through the cracks” so to speak? If so, what percentage is REALISTICALLY acceptable?
2) Do you feel that healthcare is a right? If not, are you willing to accept the consequences of a large number of people being chronically sick creating a strain on the rest of our society/economy? What would you do with these people?
3) Why is insurance for health not mandated, but insurance for driving an automobile is? Don’t both have a direct impact on the well being of everyone?
4) Is there anything the government does well? With 315 million people to account for, what level of efficiency can we expect from our government?
5) With regard to insurance companies, do you trust your health to private corporations? Do you feel they have your best interest in mind?
6) What is the morality of a for-profit healthcare system? What about a not-for-profit system?
7) Why do the choices have to be either private or public systems solely? Can there be no effective way to combine the best of both? (This may be an unfair question as I don’t think anyone here has the economic background most likely necessary to effectively tackle it).
8) What are the problems with our system currently? What are we getting right?
9) Is it fair to say what works for one country/economy should work for all?
I’m sure there are plenty of other questions, but these I think really get at the basis for most of what I’ve heard spouted off on these forums. People seem to get going on a topic and veer off into uncharted waters quoting numbers to bridge the gap between arguments. Why not address the basics and see if there can be any hope of finding a common ground?March 23, 2012 at 11:29 pm #752365
That’s way too many questions for someone to answer.
I just want to write something snarky that pushes my point of view. It’s not going to take into account anything you said that’s well thought out or address your questions.
I just want to grind the axe.
Ha! Tables are turned!
Okay WorldCitizen, one question at a time to keep it simple, otherwise you’ll get a 5 page response from me again.
Pick one to start, and we’ll go with it.March 23, 2012 at 11:39 pm #752366
Well, this is so interesting..
“. Don’t use incomplete and simplistic numbers based on a broken system to justify a stance.”
Would that we could GET the true numbers, the actual facts. But those things were, and are, deliberately being obfuscated. since essentially all of our elected representatives didn’t get to read it, and CBO was told how to score it.. we know it was passed in profound ignorance. In fact half the legislators were locked out of the room. No law will stand constructed that way. We will get multiple bites of the apple. We can’t even tell you what the projected enrollments are. Sebelius has refused to release all the exemptions she gave out to assure passage. It’s that basic.
So, we go to the heart of the issue. Under the commerce clause. can the federal government compel a private citizen to enter into a contract with another private party, involuntarily? That’s the first bite of the apple.
The dissent will never quiet. We won’t get used to it. We will never accept it. This will dwarf the national dissent that accompanied Roe v. Wade…. Is health care a right? Not in our constitution it isn’t. You want to make it a right? Fine.. do it the right way. Constitutional Convention. If the states which precede the federal government determine that they will surrender these powers… so be it. Do it the right way.
You aren’t listening. There is as much trust that the federal government is working for our interests as is our insurance. It’s no comfort to pass the torch to another equally self interested party.
Washington State mandates automobile insurance. Not the federal government. Our state insurances come in 50 varieties. In fact, we could easily not require any. It is a state right.March 23, 2012 at 11:52 pm #752367
Okay, Kootch, let’s start with that:
Can the government compel a private citizen to purchase an insurance policy from a private company?
Answer: We’ll find out in the next few months. But my understanding is that there’s no precedent for it.
It is certainly not one of the enumerated powers, and the WSJ raised a very good question in its editorial earlier this week:
Can the government mandate buying a private insurance policy so that they can then regulate that insurance market which is “interstate commerce”?
My view: The Federal Government should not mandate that I buy a private product, even if it is for the good of the country.
My state can mandate that, although I may choose not to live in that state if it did so.
And my bet is that the Supreme Court overturns the mandate. But I wouldn’t bet more than $10 on it.March 24, 2012 at 12:02 am #752368
WorldCitizen….therein lies the entire premise of a nanny state. The hell we can’t become qualified to assess the economics of this legislation. They want you to to be an ignorant citizen.. a bumper sticker voter. And we have em aplenty. CBO did raise the cost projections to 1.7 trillion … double what the Obama administration said it would cost. CBO said in clear terms, shifting medicaid funds to Obamacare and counting the treasuries (40 per cent borrowed money) as trust income AND the 400 billion transferred to Obamacare is then counted as income for Obamacare was double counting revenue. Executives go to jail for that. If you believe the education barrier is too high, and yo can’t understand it… you have no business supporting it. You don’t know what you are supporting if that is the case. Do I have confidence in my fellow citizens to do the due diligence? No. For gods sake… 30 per cent of my fellows are classified as “not proficient” in basic literature. I refuse to be flotsam to drift in and out with the tide of federal whims.March 24, 2012 at 12:11 am #752369
We should go back in time… and issue a national voter competency test… oh, we can’t.. it’s not a constitutional requirement to vote. See how that works?March 24, 2012 at 12:49 am #752370
“Is health care a right? Not in our constitution it isn’t.”
there alot of things that our govt does that is not in our constitution. But you didn’t answer the rest of the question.
“are you willing to accept the consequences of a large number of people being chronically sick creating a strain on the rest of our society/economy? What would you do with these people?”
The driving force behind Romneycare, I mean Obamacare is that millions of people cannot get healthcare, either due to costs, pre-existing conditions, or ailments not covered by insurance companies.
There obviously is a monetary number you don’t want to pay Kootch, that is well known, but is there a number of people you are willing to let private enterprise decide on their lives (or deaths).
Like WorldCitizen stated, there is no perfect system, and a group will always falls through the crack. But one of the reasons obama became president was the promise of health care for all. I would say that the current private care system is untenable, even if you think Obama is the devil. So we must, as a country first come to a consensus. Do we or do we not want to ensure that everyone can attain health care? Cuz right now it is not an individual choice, it is a choice made by an insurance company.March 24, 2012 at 1:01 am #752371
from the other thread:
dynn “would you agree to a single-payer system that people could opt-out of, as long as you were able to get the single-payer coverage you wanted?”
I would have no problem with that. What people have called Medicare for all. And as far as my understanding, a single payer system would not ban private insurers from offering a plan to whomever. Just another choice, especially for those that private insurers deem not worthy of care or life.March 24, 2012 at 1:16 am #752372
The following was lifted directly from NPR to clear up your assertion in post #11 above.
“Q: The president claimed the Affordable Care Act would cost $900 billion. But the Congressional Budget Office scored the next 10 years of the program and came to a number of $2.4 trillion. Why the discrepancy?
A: There are a lot of people who are misreading this latest cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. What it actually found is that the law will cost about $50 billion less than it estimated last year.
Now why are people saying it will cost twice as much? Because they’re looking at gross spending, not net spending. And why is gross spending so much bigger? Because the Congressional Budget Office estimates in 10 year increments. And when it first estimated how much it would cost, it includes years in which most of the law wasn’t in effect. So now that these 10 year estimates include more years when the law is in force, and the federal government will be paying for more people on Medicaid and more people getting subsidies to help them buy insurance, it will obviously cost more. But the federal government will also be collecting more money to help offset that cost, through a variety of new taxes and fees.
Thus, the overall cost is about $1.1 trillion. But it’s all paid for. Now you might still disagree about whether it’s a good idea to expand government and expand taxes and fees to pay for it. But this latest CBO estimate in no way says the cost has doubled since the law was passed. “
Now that that’s cleared up I want to reiterate my point of finding answers to basic questions, not following talking points. You don’t have the requisite info to make a good case for or against the law. You didn’t read it. Neither did I. And probably the majority of congress for that matter. Forget the politics for a second. Read, think, answer. Don’t regurgitate pre-digested spin.March 24, 2012 at 1:43 am #752373
exactly… it was a sleight of hand. CBO was told to score it with 10 years of revenue, and 6 years of implementation. However. CBO is required to give spending projections as a running 10 year forecast. Now that two years have past, we are getting closer to the actual number. It will continue to grow every year until… revenues meet actual current account payments. We are still two years away from that number. That’s the bait and switch. It’s NOT all paid for. Yea, we’ve seen some of those new fees… especially the 10% hike on medical devices… that going to lower health care costs? Or the survey after survey..that says the addition of “only” a million or two to the plan is manageable. The average family health package now costs the employer 13,000 per year. The fine for not offering health insurance is $2000. I would be laughing all the way to the bank… while dropping employees off the roles as fast as I could. The estimates are 30-40 per cent of all companies are going to drop their health care plans .. right in the lap of Obamacare. Enrollment was deliberately understated to get it passed. So we are a going to see estimates north of 2 trillion, and add the cost not of a million dropped health plans… more like 5-10 million. The numbers are pure bullshit. Maybe congress should have a Big 5 firm score it! An outside audit.. not a Democratic Party “sell it” audit.March 24, 2012 at 1:49 am #752374
good try WorldCitizen.
kootch, is there anything you can post that is not a cut and paste? Ok ok, you don’t like obama, we get it.March 24, 2012 at 1:58 am #752375
JJ…. can you actually add something to the discussion? At least I try to source information. Cut and paste?…. you don’t like countervailing arguments… but where do you get your information? Or do you bother? Of course I “cut and paste” … or quote from the panorama of liberal, conservative, independent sources… it’s called active information acquisition. Really not much Obama on this… he was out of loop on this one.. this was a Democratic congress deal..he rubber stamped it. That’s why we have a republican House of Representatives… the American people held them accountable for the travesty.. by a landslide they took the franchise away. didn’t they?March 24, 2012 at 2:06 am #752376
back to the issue
“”are you willing to accept the consequences of a large number of people being chronically sick creating a strain on the rest of our society/economy? What would you do with these people?””
yes… the strain is less than Obamacare. 40% of all private physicians are not taking Medicare patients now. Yet.. the past week we saw the House defeat to cut the physician reimbursement rates. You can have every man woman child, dog cat, ferret enrolled… but if you can’t get a physician… what good is it? That is rationed health care. How many signs have ya seen.. “we are not accepting new Medicare patients at this time”?The issue was raised right here on the WSB…. you know what the hope is… the rest of us will pay for our health care … and the portion Medicare is shorting. But it sure isn’t working that way.
“Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voted 243-183 for H.R. 3962, a bill that would repeal a 21% Medicare physician fee reduction that is set to take effect in January 2010.”
Will people fall through the cracks… yes. The best way to get greater coverage is to get jobs, jobs, jobs, …. and in that regard, our growth rate of 1-2% … less than 1.2 % for 2011… won’t do it. Health benefits happen when employers are hiring and need to compete for employees with benefits. Maybe the message should go out… if you want decent health care… you need to get a decent job… that means finishing HS…acquiring a skill set that is in demand. Some won’t get the message.March 24, 2012 at 2:09 am #752377
“Name a country where your system is working well today.”
what’s the point?
You don’t have a clue what “my system” is …
and the evidence for alternate systems delivering better outcome measures for much less money are pretty widespread. Al you have to do to find that information is read the WHO .. that’s World Health Organization.. stats.
you seem to be bent on pinning me down to one country so you can shoot down the whole health care reform debate by shooting holes in that one system.
I am not playing that game
not with you
not with anyone
If you want to have an actual discussion about the reality of what is happening in this country
instead of stupidly intentionally misspelling government..
then i would be glad to talk.
i will ask you one question though..
I get your fear of government
but do you get that you are allowing an industry that’s single aim is to deliver as little health care as possible at the cheapest possible cost to itself to inflate your fear of government for it’s financial advantage?March 24, 2012 at 2:19 am #752378
kootch, worldcitizen posted 9 questions to have a healthy discussion on our state of health care in this country, you answered none (your prerogative), instead you spout the same stuff you can find on any right wing website. how about actually having a discussion instead of being a ditto head, again, we realize you hate obama, really we get it.March 24, 2012 at 2:19 am #752379
That’s a good one… the federal government providing a low cost service? Don’t you wish the federal government disbursed funds at an 85% efficiency rate? IF we got 85 cents of service for every dollar in taxes… problem solved. But it;s more like 54%…. the rest goes to government overhead. Private insurance companies don’t have the overhead of the federal government that’s for sure!!! And it never gets lower.. does it?March 24, 2012 at 2:21 am #752380
Here ya go JoB…
Here’s the industry average payout, on $1 of PREMIUM dollars:
Health insurance – $.99
Auto insurance – $1.12
Homeownrs insurance – $.87
Workers comp – $1.42
Property insurance (nonhomeowners, nonauto) – $.67
Life insurance – $.65
MOST of it’s “revenue” is made from investment income on the reserves – NOT from selling the actual policy.March 24, 2012 at 2:25 am #752381
4) Is there anything the government does well? With 315 million people to account for, what level of efficiency can we expect from our government?
part of my point in the the other thread was this, we trust our government with probably something more important/powerful than a health care system, and that is our military. We hold the most powerful weapons in the world, in the simplistic of terms – in Obama’s hands – yet we can’t trust the same system to a single payer health care plan.
How can you trust one system to start wars – yet tremble and fear whether you are going to get your prescription approved.
With the biggest military in the world, is it the most proficient, maybe not… but you trust our government with that power, not a private enterprise. (at least for now).
I think a reasonable national health care system can be created, one not based on profit, but actual needs of its citizens.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.