Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

[apple0154]

Again, nobody is arguing against living wills, and such directives must be followed even today. It is silly to say that is what they are arguing against.

What most believe is that the government run program will run into cost issues and that the panel that has the job to work on "cost to benefit" analysis will cut care that they may wish to have, regardless of what their living will states.

The questionnaires, the questions doctors are being asked to discuss with patients, are being referred to as pressuring people to die. The questionnaires, for all intents and purposes, are living wills.

Some folks have stated people may change their mind if/when they become seriously ill and should not be required to make choices prior to that time. That is nonsense as it is always beneficial to make decisions before a crisis arises.

Of course there are going to be "cost to benefit" choices to be made but not specifically concerning the elderly.

A hospital may decide to purchase ultrasound machines at $50,000 a piece rather than one MRI scanner which may cost $1 million. Someone requiring an MRI will not be able to get one, however, more people will benefit from the ultrasound machines.

We are not comparing a government run program with a program having unlimited funds. If everyone could afford medical insurance and that insurance policy covered all expenses for every available treatment then, of course, it would be preferable to a government program. However, that is not the case. We are comparing 47 million non-insured to a government policy. We are comparing 47 million citizens unable to afford treatment for a major illness/accident to a policy that may have restrictions on some new, rare and prohibitively expensive treatment.

Furthermore, let's not forget the under-insured or those who, for example, have a policy that covers limb amputation, say, made necessary due to an accident crushing a leg but it does not cover the cost of the amputation if due to poor circulation caused by the pre-existing condition of diabetes.

The benefit of a universal plan is anyone requiring a procedure that is covered is entitled to that procedure regardless of age or reason. The goal is to save as many lives as possible.

Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one. For people to say a US policy will involve some devious clause/agenda to eliminate people when dozens of other countries have no such clause/agenda is fear mongering of the worst kind.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It will not if there is no money to follow the request in the wills. If my living will requests that all steps be taken to extend my life, it would not be "followed"... You seem sure that most living wills would request an end, I am not quite so sure about that.



Nobody is arguing against living wills, this is the most ridiculously disguised straw man ever.


As long as there are people who want to live, doctors will continue to prescribe procedures that may not have a high percentage of success.



Again, nobody is arguing against living wills, and such directives must be followed even today. It is silly to say that is what they are arguing against.

What most believe is that the government run program will run into cost issues and that the panel that has the job to work on "cost to benefit" analysis will cut care that they may wish to have, regardless of what their living will states.



*sigh*




Whether or not it is the "biggest cost" it is the easiest to justify and the most likely place they would start cutting costs because of that.

 

[Damocles]

The questionnaires, the questions doctors are being asked to discuss with patients, are being referred to as pressuring people to die. The questionnaires, for all intents and purposes, are living wills.

Some folks have stated people may change their mind if/when they become seriously ill and should not be required to make choices prior to that time. That is nonsense as it is always beneficial to make decisions before a crisis arises.

Of course there are going to be "cost to benefit" choices to be made but not specifically concerning the elderly.

A hospital may decide to purchase ultrasound machines at $50,000 a piece rather than one MRI scanner which may cost $1 million. Someone requiring an MRI will not be able to get one, however, more people will benefit from the ultrasound machines.

We are not comparing a government run program with a program having unlimited funds. If everyone could afford medical insurance and that insurance policy covered all expenses for every available treatment then, of course, it would be preferable to a government program. However, that is not the case. We are comparing 47 million non-insured to a government policy. We are comparing 47 million citizens unable to afford treatment for a major illness/accident to a policy that may have restrictions on some new, rare and prohibitively expensive treatment.

Furthermore, let's not forget the under-insured or those who, for example, have a policy that covers limb amputation, say, made necessary due to an accident crushing a leg but it does not cover the cost of the amputation if due to poor circulation caused by the pre-existing condition of diabetes.

The benefit of a universal plan is anyone requiring a procedure that is covered is entitled to that procedure regardless of age or reason. The goal is to save as many lives as possible.

Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one. For people to say a US policy will involve some devious clause/agenda to eliminate people when dozens of other countries have no such clause/agenda is fear mongering of the worst kind.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Again you repeat this nonsense about the questionnaires.

Seriously, you are lost in your own world that has no bearing on reality and do not intend to actually pay attention to what anybody says. You continue to argue against the straw man of "end of life counseling" even though I have clearly pointed out that end of life counseling is a good idea, that rationing would not take place there, and that many would not write their living wills as you predict.

At least pay attention to what I write so we can actually hold a conversation. I'll keep it simpler this time in the hopes that you can actually read what was written and speak to the actual subject at hand.

The negative of having a "universal" plan is that when it runs into cost issues it invariably leads to rationing, and while you can sue a corporation that 'rationed' you, you cannot sue the entity that exempts itself from lawsuits you no longer have recourse.

 

[apple0154]

Again you repeat this nonsense about the questionnaires.

Seriously, you are lost in your own world that has no bearing on reality and do not intend to actually pay attention to what anybody says. You continue to argue against the straw man of "end of life counseling" even though I have clearly pointed out that end of life counseling is a good idea, that rationing would not take place there, and that many would not write their living wills as you predict.

At least pay attention to what I write so we can actually hold a conversation. I'll keep it simpler this time in the hopes that you can actually read what was written and speak to the actual subject at hand.

The negative of having a "universal" plan is that when it runs into cost issues it invariably leads to rationing, and while you can sue a corporation that 'rationed' you, you cannot sue the entity that exempts itself from lawsuits you no longer have recourse.

When you're talking about medical insurance you can't sue the corporation that rations you. One pays for a policy that covers certain procedures. If a new procedure becomes available that may save your life but that procedure was not specified in the contract you will not be entitled to it. I explained that in my previous post regarding pre-existing conditions.

Obviously you are not aware of how universal medical coverage works. Let me explain the difference between universal coverage and the typical "for profit" (FP) insurance policy.

The typical FP medical policy is like insurance one buys for their home. One can buy home insurance for fire but it may not contain coverage for water damage. Or it may not contain coverage for hail storm damage. Or it may not contain coverage for a hurricane. Or it may not contain coverage for damage caused by lightening. And the list goes on.

The same occurs with FP medical coverage. You may be covered for a broken leg but it depends on how you broke it. For example, some policies stipulate they will not cover a broken leg if it occurred while flying ones own plane or if one had a certain blood alcohol level or if they were skydiving or if they were taking certain medications not specifically prescribed by a doctor. Universal coverage covers a broken leg regardless of how it was broken.

I have been listening very closely to what fear mongers have been saying like our buddy Palin and others ranting that medical treatment will be rationed for the elderly. That is sheer nonsense.

Let me try and make this clear. If broken legs are covered then broken legs are covered. If broken hips are covered then broken hips are covered. If an 80 year old breaks a hip in a fall universal coverage would pay for the treatment the same way it would pay for the treatment of a broken hip that happened to a 20 year old in car accident. A broken hip is a broken hip. It doesn't matter how it happened or to whom it happened. Either everyone is covered or no one is covered. There is no rationing based on age or sex or circumstance and that is what the fear mongers have been going on about.

Lastly, FP insurance companies can drop people or change coverage. It happens every day to people. One pays a yearly fee for medical coverage and when the policy comes up for renewal the FP insurance company simply changes what it will cover.

So, a person is with a FP insurance company for ten years. Basically the same coverage and costs that are adjusted for inflation. Then they're stricken with a serious disease, say, cancer or kidney disease requiring dialysis. For the last ten years they have been covered for cancer and kidney disease. Of course, they never contracted either disease.

Now they have it and their insurance policy comes up for renewal in two months. Take a guess what happens. What clauses are going to change? How is the cost going to change?

Now take a look at universal coverage. If the person has universal coverage their illness, be it cancer or kidney disease, will have no bearing on their "premiums".

Which policy would you say comes closest to what one would consider "rationing"?

 

[TuTu Monroe]

The questionnaires, the questions doctors are being asked to discuss with patients, are being referred to as pressuring people to die. The questionnaires, for all intents and purposes, are living wills.

Some folks have stated people may change their mind if/when they become seriously ill and should not be required to make choices prior to that time. That is nonsense as it is always beneficial to make decisions before a crisis arises.

Of course there are going to be "cost to benefit" choices to be made but not specifically concerning the elderly.

A hospital may decide to purchase ultrasound machines at $50,000 a piece rather than one MRI scanner which may cost $1 million. Someone requiring an MRI will not be able to get one, however, more people will benefit from the ultrasound machines.

We are not comparing a government run program with a program having unlimited funds. If everyone could afford medical insurance and that insurance policy covered all expenses for every available treatment then, of course, it would be preferable to a government program. However, that is not the case. We are comparing 47 million non-insured to a government policy. We are comparing 47 million citizens unable to afford treatment for a major illness/accident to a policy that may have restrictions on some new, rare and prohibitively expensive treatment.

Furthermore, let's not forget the under-insured or those who, for example, have a policy that covers limb amputation, say, made necessary due to an accident crushing a leg but it does not cover the cost of the amputation if due to poor circulation caused by the pre-existing condition of diabetes.

The benefit of a universal plan is anyone requiring a procedure that is covered is entitled to that procedure regardless of age or reason. The goal is to save as many lives as possible.

Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one. For people to say a US policy will involve some devious clause/agenda to eliminate people when dozens of other countries have no such clause/agenda is fear mongering of the worst kind.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The estimated 47 million uninsured consists of millions who can afford insurance, but choose not to get it. Included in the 47 million are illegals who shouldn't get it at all. Where are we going to get the doctors and nurses to cover them? This is just one example that we would have, without a doubt, the rationing of health care. It's not so simple as some on the left would like us to believe.

 

[apple0154]

The estimated 47 million uninsured consists of millions who can afford insurance, but choose not to get it. Included in the 47 million are illegals who shouldn't get it at all. Where are we going to get the doctors and nurses to cover them? This is just one example that we would have, without a doubt, the rationing of health care. It's not so simple as some on the left would like us to believe.

I see we both posted at the same time. Hmmm, must have been thinking about each other.

Moving on, government can subsidize doctor and nursing training with the stipulation they work for a universal plan after graduation for a certain length of time. In other words the government will loan the student the money for their education which they would never be able to afford on their own. In return, upon graduation they devote 2 or 3 years to universal medical care after which they can pursue whatever avenue they wish. It's a win-win situation. Not all that different than armed services personnel having access to education.

 

[Damocles]

When you're talking about medical insurance you can't sue the corporation that rations you. One pays for a policy that covers certain procedures. If a new procedure becomes available that may save your life but that procedure was not specified in the contract you will not be entitled to it. I explained that in my previous post regarding pre-existing conditions.

Obviously you are not aware of how universal medical coverage works. Let me explain the difference between universal coverage and the typical "for profit" (FP) insurance policy.

The typical FP medical policy is like insurance one buys for their home. One can buy home insurance for fire but it may not contain coverage for water damage. Or it may not contain coverage for hail storm damage. Or it may not contain coverage for a hurricane. Or it may not contain coverage for damage caused by lightening. And the list goes on.

The same occurs with FP medical coverage. You may be covered for a broken leg but it depends on how you broke it. For example, some policies stipulate they will not cover a broken leg if it occurred while flying ones own plane or if one had a certain blood alcohol level or if they were skydiving or if they were taking certain medications not specifically prescribed by a doctor. Universal coverage covers a broken leg regardless of how it was broken.

I have been listening very closely to what fear mongers have been saying like our buddy Palin and others ranting that medical treatment will be rationed for the elderly. That is sheer nonsense.

Let me try and make this clear. If broken legs are covered then broken legs are covered. If broken hips are covered then broken hips are covered. If an 80 year old breaks a hip in a fall universal coverage would pay for the treatment the same way it would pay for the treatment of a broken hip that happened to a 20 year old in car accident. A broken hip is a broken hip. It doesn't matter how it happened or to whom it happened. Either everyone is covered or no one is covered. There is no rationing based on age or sex or circumstance and that is what the fear mongers have been going on about.

Lastly, FP insurance companies can drop people or change coverage. It happens every day to people. One pays a yearly fee for medical coverage and when the policy comes up for renewal the FP insurance company simply changes what it will cover.

So, a person is with a FP insurance company for ten years. Basically the same coverage and costs that are adjusted for inflation. Then they're stricken with a serious disease, say, cancer or kidney disease requiring dialysis. For the last ten years they have been covered for cancer and kidney disease. Of course, they never contracted either disease.

Now they have it and their insurance policy comes up for renewal in two months. Take a guess what happens. What clauses are going to change? How is the cost going to change?

Now take a look at universal coverage. If the person has universal coverage their illness, be it cancer or kidney disease, will have no bearing on their "premiums".

Which policy would you say comes closest to what one would consider "rationing"?

However you can if there are regulations that require such coverage sue. It is pretensive to say the only way to fix it is with a "government option" that specifically exempts itself from all lawsuits leaving you with no recourse.

While you have been "listening to the fearmongers" I have been reading and thinking about better solutions. While you have been reading up on the DNC talking points and posting their factcheck links, I have read the bill and worked to come up with ideas and very real objections.

It would be bad to come up with false "competition" from the one entity that excludes itself from all lawsuits in the legislation itself, it is not any sort of "competition" when it takes an unfair advantage.

Nor do they ever cover the fact that this plan does not decouple your insurance from your employer. If your employer chooses not to continue the coverage you have and goes for the crappy exchange insurance you are stuck with the exchange, if they choose the government option, you are stuck with the government option. This doesn't increase the individual's choices at all, and the bottom line is it really does exempt the government option from lawsuits. Bad idea.

You may trust in the benevolence of government, but there are whole communities of Native Americans that have felt their tender mercies for generations that do not trust any sort of benevolence. It isn't that I trust corporations more, but I do have the capacity to sue if they break their contracts. Not so with the feds.

The reality is when costs come into play, and the cost to benefit analysis comes in, there will be rules placed on how you can and what care you can get from the government option. It simply is not an infinite fund and such decisions will be made by the one entity that exempted itself from any recourse by your family should they break any of the trust you put in them. It's a poor excuse of a "plan" that doesn't deal with the direct cost issues and pretends at a competition that cannot exist and leaves the user with no recourse, a powerful means of control, a database full of your most sensitive information controlled by the same entity and party that used another "inaccessible" government database to imprison people during WWII.

Seriously, it is demented to trust that the government will never overplay its hand and to trust in their permanent benevolence. There is nothing like putting your health care into the hands of people who would play politics with it.

 

[apple0154]

However you can if there are regulations that require such coverage sue. It is pretensive to say the only way to fix it is with a "government option" that specifically exempts itself from all lawsuits leaving you with no recourse.

I have difficulty understanding your logic. You mention if certain regulations are in place then one could sue but it's the government that determines the regulations. You're counting on the government to put regulations in place and enforce them but you don't trust the government.

If I can use an analogy it's like saying if my neighbor burglarizes my home I can call the Police and have them arrested but I don't trust having a Police man/woman as a neighbor because they will probably burglarize my home.

It would be bad to come up with false "competition" from the one entity that excludes itself from all lawsuits in the legislation itself, it is not any sort of "competition" when it takes an unfair advantage.

I agree it's not fair competition. The point is there shouldn't be competition (profit motive) when it comes to health care. The only reason the government is taking that route is because it's a slow process to change things over due to the special interests. The goal is a universal plan.

Nor do they ever cover the fact that this plan does not decouple your insurance from your employer. If your employer chooses not to continue the coverage you have and goes for the crappy exchange insurance you are stuck with the exchange, if they choose the government option, you are stuck with the government option. This doesn't increase the individual's choices at all, and the bottom line is it really does exempt the government option from lawsuits. Bad idea.

Again, it's one way to slowly change things. It's not meant to be a permanent solution. It's a transition phase.

You may trust in the benevolence of government, but there are whole communities of Native Americans that have felt their tender mercies for generations that do not trust any sort of benevolence. It isn't that I trust corporations more, but I do have the capacity to sue if they break their contracts. Not so with the feds.

I agree the government has done many things wrong but if you take note the things were done to "small" groups. (Native Americans, Japanese during the war, etc) A universal plan prevents that very thing from happening as everyone is treated the same as I showed with the broken hip example.

The reality is when costs come into play, and the cost to benefit analysis comes in, there will be rules placed on how you can and what care you can get from the government option. It simply is not an infinite fund and such decisions will be made by the one entity that exempted itself from any recourse by your family should they break any of the trust you put in them. It's a poor excuse of a "plan" that doesn't deal with the direct cost issues and pretends at a competition that cannot exist and leaves the user with no recourse, a powerful means of control, a database full of your most sensitive information controlled by the same entity and party that used another "inaccessible" government database to imprison people during WWII.

Seriously, it is demented to trust that the government will never overplay its hand and to trust in their permanent benevolence. There is nothing like putting your health care into the hands of people who would play politics with it.

Again, I come back to the dozens of countries which have universal plans. Is there one country that has used their system for ulterior purposes? As for recourse check out the fate of politicians who tried to tamper with universal medical plans in their respective countries. They either apologized profusely or went into oblivion.

Speculation. Conjecture. And worse. Dozens of countries have some form of universal medical, some having it as long as half a century. Can you point to one, just one, that would add credence to your "concerns"?

 

[Damocles]

I have difficulty understanding your logic. You mention if certain regulations are in place then one could sue but it's the government that determines the regulations. You're counting on the government to put regulations in place and enforce them but you don't trust the government.

If I can use an analogy it's like saying if my neighbor burglarizes my home I can call the Police and have them arrested but I don't trust having a Police man/woman as a neighbor because they will probably burglarize my home.



I agree it's not fair competition. The point is there shouldn't be competition (profit motive) when it comes to health care. The only reason the government is taking that route is because it's a slow process to change things over due to the special interests. The goal is a universal plan.



Again, it's one way to slowly change things. It's not meant to be a permanent solution. It's a transition phase.



I agree the government has done many things wrong but if you take note the things were done to "small" groups. (Native Americans, Japanese during the war, etc) A universal plan prevents that very thing from happening as everyone is treated the same as I showed with the broken hip example.



Again, I come back to the dozens of countries which have universal plans. Is there one country that has used their system for ulterior purposes? As for recourse check out the fate of politicians who tried to tamper with universal medical plans in their respective countries. They either apologized profusely or went into oblivion.

Speculation. Conjecture. And worse. Dozens of countries have some form of universal medical, some having it as long as half a century. Can you point to one, just one, that would add credence to your "concerns"?

It doesn't matter how "small" of a group they were that the government did something to, seriously that's just plain directly foolish. The smallest group is the group of one, and it is still wrong, and even more so if they exempt themselves from any accountability for their action.

And we can take that same list of other nations and show the ones that have rationing at a higher level than we currently are used to, and the ones that are bankrupting themselves and working backwards towards more private care.

And your police officer analogy sucks, a police officer is an individual... however we can use cops in a better analogy. Even showing the difference between the individual cop that may live next door and the government action he may participate in.

A better analogy is when the government busts into an old lady's home and shoots her down when she acted within her rights to protect herself. It wasn't individuals that messed that up, it was the government, the same government that exempts itself from the same accountability we expect and require from those we hold contracts with. That same officer that lives next door to you could easily be among that group mentality that the government shares that would allow them to make the mistake that took innocent life based on bad information. While you can trust that individual to not bust into your house, you cannot trust the government entity to even ensure your safety let alone to carefully ensure they are busting into an actual drug dealers house. It doesn't matter at all that it happened to a minority of people, it happened, it was wrong.

And it is a "transition phase" towards a single payer system, the same kind we see bankrupting itself up north, the same kind we see limiting the technology available to the French, the same kind we see causing rationing in Britain and Germany... All of them lend credence to my concerns. But mostly the past of the US government lends credence to it. It is not benevolent, it does not do the right thing unless forced. Geebus, just visit a reservation or two in South Dakota... see what the benevolent government care does for a community.

We can do better than this, and the first step is removing that "first step" in the wrong direction and using a bit of our American Ingenuity to come up with that better solution rather than following others into mediocrity and unsatisfactory "options" that become the only option. Nothing is more permanent than a sweeping government program, and nothing is less satisfactory.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Did Obama say "I want to kill old folks"? Not in those exact words, no. But he didn't say "I want to usurp the Constitution" either, which he obviously is willing to do. LOL

And there you have it folks....since this chuckling chowderhead couldn't prove his contention, he desperately tries to salvage his BS and avoid admitting he's wrong by sheer conjecture on what Obama "didn't say"?

This is how pathetic willfully ignorant neocon parrots and clowns are to slam ANYTHING that comes out of the Obama White House. Hell, there are things to legitimately criticize in a logical way, but Southie and his ilk want to any and every accusation and allegation to be taken as bonafide fact & truth...no matter how many times it's debunked by facts and logic.

And so, I leave the clown to laugh on.....which is about all he's good for.

 

[apple0154]

It doesn't matter how "small" of a group they were that the government did something to, seriously that's just plain directly foolish. The smallest group is the group of one, and it is still wrong, and even more so if they exempt themselves from any accountability for their action.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Universal medical means there won't be any "small" groups. The operative word is "universal". That's why I specifically mentioned a broken hip. Elderly people tend to be prone to broken hips but if broken hips are covered then they're covered for everyone. An elderly person will not be denied a hip operation from a fall any more than a 20 year old would be denied an operation after an accident.

Again, I think the problem is you're comparing universal medical coverage to private medical coverage where exceptions are rife.

And we can take that same list of other nations and show the ones that have rationing at a higher level than we currently are used to, and the ones that are bankrupting themselves and working backwards towards more private care.

Let's be clear about what private care is all about. If we compare universal medical care to a public highway private care would be a privately financed toll highway. One has a choice. They can wait in traffic (universal medical wait times) or pay to reach their destination quicker (private care). The point is everyone can get from point "A" to point "B". Some will pay to get there quicker.

As for bankruptcy that's just nonsense. It's simply a matter of allocating sufficient funds to medical care. It's absurd to suggest that in this day and age we can't look after our ill. Besides, countries with universal medical care spend less per capita than the US. In some cases up to 50% less.

We can do better than this, and the first step is removing that "first step" in the wrong direction and using a bit of our American Ingenuity to come up with that better solution rather than following others into mediocrity and unsatisfactory "options" that become the only option. Nothing is more permanent than a sweeping government program, and nothing is less satisfactory.

But "we" can't do better. That's been proven. Nixon tried 35 or 40 years ago and there was talk of universal medical care long before that. Hillary tried 15 years ago, as well. As Obama said we can’t wait any longer. Obama’s route to universal medical may not be the shortest or the most efficient but at least it’s a start and a start is what’s needed.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It doesn't matter how "small" of a group they were that the government did something to, seriously that's just plain directly foolish. The smallest group is the group of one, and it is still wrong, and even more so if they exempt themselves from any accountability for their action.

And we can take that same list of other nations and show the ones that have rationing at a higher level than we currently are used to, and the ones that are bankrupting themselves and working backwards towards more private care.

And your police officer analogy sucks, a police officer is an individual... however we can use cops in a better analogy. Even showing the difference between the individual cop that may live next door and the government action he may participate in.

A better analogy is when the government busts into an old lady's home and shoots her down when she acted within her rights to protect herself. It wasn't individuals that messed that up, it was the government, the same government that exempts itself from the same accountability we expect and require from those we hold contracts with. That same officer that lives next door to you could easily be among that group mentality that the government shares that would allow them to make the mistake that took innocent life based on bad information. While you can trust that individual to not bust into your house, you cannot trust the government entity to even ensure your safety let alone to carefully ensure they are busting into an actual drug dealers house. It doesn't matter at all that it happened to a minority of people, it happened, it was wrong.

And it is a "transition phase" towards a single payer system, the same kind we see bankrupting itself up north, the same kind we see limiting the technology available to the French, the same kind we see causing rationing in Britain and Germany... All of them lend credence to my concerns. But mostly the past of the US government lends credence to it. It is not benevolent, it does not do the right thing unless forced. Geebus, just visit a reservation or two in South Dakota... see what the benevolent government care does for a community.

We can do better than this, and the first step is removing that "first step" in the wrong direction and using a bit of our American Ingenuity to come up with that better solution rather than following others into mediocrity and unsatisfactory "options" that become the only option. Nothing is more permanent than a sweeping government program, and nothing is less satisfactory.

 

[Damocles]

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Universal medical means there won't be any "small" groups. The operative word is "universal". That's why I specifically mentioned a broken hip. Elderly people tend to be prone to broken hips but if broken hips are covered then they're covered for everyone. An elderly person will not be denied a hip operation from a fall any more than a 20 year old would be denied an operation after an accident.

Again, I think the problem is you're comparing universal medical coverage to private medical coverage where exceptions are rife.



Let's be clear about what private care is all about. If we compare universal medical care to a public highway private care would be a privately financed toll highway. One has a choice. They can wait in traffic (universal medical wait times) or pay to reach their destination quicker (private care). The point is everyone can get from point "A" to point "B". Some will pay to get there quicker.

As for bankruptcy that's just nonsense. It's simply a matter of allocating sufficient funds to medical care. It's absurd to suggest that in this day and age we can't look after our ill. Besides, countries with universal medical care spend less per capita than the US. In some cases up to 50% less.



But "we" can't do better. That's been proven. Nixon tried 35 or 40 years ago and there was talk of universal medical care long before that. Hillary tried 15 years ago, as well. As Obama said we can’t wait any longer. Obama’s route to universal medical may not be the shortest or the most efficient but at least it’s a start and a start is what’s needed.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You and I disagree with the need we do not need government-controlled or provided health care.

There are better paths to universal care, and pretending that somebody walking this same path failed twice before therefore we must find a way to make this same path work is somehow logical, or even meaningful, is simple pretense.

As for "bankruptcy" just being fixed by allocating more funds, that's preposterous and shows an incapacity for understanding where the funds come from. We've already gathered so much debt that China doesn't want to give us more and has to be arm-twisted into it. If you don't have the funds and do not control the costs you simply maintain a system that will break us, but do it by hiding the cost from the consumer.

You sound like a child now. "Just write a check mommy!" It doesn't matter to the child that there is no funds in the account any longer.

 

[apple0154]

You and I disagree with the need we do not need government-controlled or provided health care.

There are better paths to universal care, and pretending that somebody walking this same path failed twice before therefore we must find a way to make this same path work is somehow logical, or even meaningful, is simple pretense.

The pretense is suggesting people will seek a better path. They won't. There are strong, special interests that don't want any path leading to universal health care and they consistently throw up road blocks like they have been doing for decades. That is the reality.

As for "bankruptcy" just being fixed by allocating more funds, that's preposterous and shows an incapacity for understanding where the funds come from. We've already gathered so much debt that China doesn't want to give us more and has to be arm-twisted into it. If you don't have the funds and do not control the costs you simply maintain a system that will break us, but do it by hiding the cost from the consumer.

You sound like a child now. "Just write a check mommy!" It doesn't matter to the child that there is no funds in the account any longer.

There are funds. The problem is they are allocated for the wrong things.

Dozens of countries have a universal plan. Why can't the US? There is no logical reason why they can't. Those other countries have had universal plans for decades, some close to half a century. According to your logic they must all be bankrupt but they are not. They simply tweak the plan as necessary.

Once on the road to universal medical other things will be scrutinized for viability.

"National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product." (GDP).http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

In 1970 both the US and Canada spent 7% of their GDP on health care while Germany and the UK spent 6.2% and 4.5%, respectively. Jump to 2004 and we see the UK spent 8.1% and Germany 10.6% with Canada spending 9.9% and the US spending a whooping 15.3% (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/runaway-health-care-costs-were-1/) while tens of millions had no coverage, at all.

Where is the logic? How can anyone say universal medical is too expensive? The figures don't lie. Besides, Obama's plan allows for private coverage. What better way to see what works best? As time passes people will observe first hand what works and what doesn't. As people change jobs and, thus, insurers or as private companies arbitrarily change coverage we'll see what the people think.

I'm sure the first time a person calls an ambulance for their elderly parent who has just suffered a heart attack or stroke and the private insurance company refuses to pay for the ambulance because they didn't get "prior authorization" we'll see folks screaming for a universal plan.

Maybe that's at the root of all this. Maybe the "anti-universalists" know that once people get a taste of universal medical private companies will be kissing their a$$ goodbye. If universal medical is so terrible private companies should be welcoming Obama's plan. If universal medical is so atrocious people will be rushing to private companies.

Yea, that's going to happen...NOT!

 

[Damocles]

The pretense is suggesting people will seek a better path. They won't. There are strong, special interests that don't want any path leading to universal health care and they consistently throw up road blocks like they have been doing for decades. That is the reality.

Rubbish. People seek it right now, they go to town hall meetings to tell them "We support health care reform, we do not support the public option."

There are funds. The problem is they are allocated for the wrong things.

Dozens of countries have a universal plan. Why can't the US? There is no logical reason why they can't. Those other countries have had universal plans for decades, some close to half a century. According to your logic they must all be bankrupt but they are not. They simply tweak the plan as necessary.

Again you argue the straw man, the US can have one and the US can have the best by avoiding the pitfalls we see in the "public option" elsewhere. And they "tweak" their plans by rationing care, such as the young lady with cervical cancer in the UK that couldn't get a pap smear because each time she met the age limitation they had extended that limitation to a further age.

Once on the road to universal medical other things will be scrutinized for viability.

Rubbish, no changes are ever allowed to a government program. Just taking a tiny percentage of new accounts and allowing them to invest in a safe option was enough to freak every Democrat alive. There will be no changing the Government Run program only strengthening it.

"National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product." (GDP).http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

In 1970 both the US and Canada spent 7% of their GDP on health care while Germany and the UK spent 6.2% and 4.5%, respectively. Jump to 2004 and we see the UK spent 8.1% and Germany 10.6% with Canada spending 9.9% and the US spending a whooping 15.3% (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/runaway-health-care-costs-were-1/) while tens of millions had no coverage, at all.

I have repeatedly stated that the first thing we need to do is survey the cause of the cost increases. You are again arguing your silly straw man.

Where is the logic? How can anyone say universal medical is too expensive? The figures don't lie. Besides, Obama's plan allows for private coverage. What better way to see what works best? As time passes people will observe first hand what works and what doesn't. As people change jobs and, thus, insurers or as private companies arbitrarily change coverage we'll see what the people think.

I don't say that it is too expensive, I say that it will be if we do not first reign in the cost. Without the incentive we have right now to find and fix that first there never will be a serious effort in that direction once the costs are hidden from the private sector through taxation.

I'm sure the first time a person calls an ambulance for their elderly parent who has just suffered a heart attack or stroke and the private insurance company refuses to pay for the ambulance because they didn't get "prior authorization" we'll see folks screaming for a universal plan.

What are you talking about? You are making stuff up as you go. The first time they are refused in the public option because of their extreme age we may see a story in the paper in regard to it, but it isn't likely. They won't even be able to sue, because it will be exempted.

Maybe that's at the root of all this. Maybe the "anti-universalists" know that once people get a taste of universal medical private companies will be kissing their a$$ goodbye. If universal medical is so terrible private companies should be welcoming Obama's plan. If universal medical is so atrocious people will be rushing to private companies.

Yea, that's going to happen...NOT!

Universal medical isn't "terrible", government run plans are inadequate, have consistently been so, and we can do better. Right now while the debate is on we have several things we need to do first.

Where you and I disagree isn't that we could cover everybody, it is how we should do it and what it would cost in more than dollars to bow down to a "government option"...

 

[belme1201]

However you can if there are regulations that require such coverage sue. It is pretensive to say the only way to fix it is with a "government option" that specifically exempts itself from all lawsuits leaving you with no recourse.

While you have been "listening to the fearmongers" I have been reading and thinking about better solutions. While you have been reading up on the DNC talking points and posting their factcheck links, I have read the bill and worked to come up with ideas and very real objections.

It would be bad to come up with false "competition" from the one entity that excludes itself from all lawsuits in the legislation itself, it is not any sort of "competition" when it takes an unfair advantage.

Nor do they ever cover the fact that this plan does not decouple your insurance from your employer. If your employer chooses not to continue the coverage you have and goes for the crappy exchange insurance you are stuck with the exchange, if they choose the government option, you are stuck with the government option. This doesn't increase the individual's choices at all, and the bottom line is it really does exempt the government option from lawsuits. Bad idea.

You may trust in the benevolence of government, but there are whole communities of Native Americans that have felt their tender mercies for generations that do not trust any sort of benevolence. It isn't that I trust corporations more, but I do have the capacity to sue if they break their contracts. Not so with the feds.

The reality is when costs come into play, and the cost to benefit analysis comes in, there will be rules placed on how you can and what care you can get from the government option. It simply is not an infinite fund and such decisions will be made by the one entity that exempted itself from any recourse by your family should they break any of the trust you put in them. It's a poor excuse of a "plan" that doesn't deal with the direct cost issues and pretends at a competition that cannot exist and leaves the user with no recourse, a powerful means of control, a database full of your most sensitive information controlled by the same entity and party that used another "inaccessible" government database to imprison people during WWII.

Seriously, it is demented to trust that the government will never overplay its hand and to trust in their permanent benevolence. There is nothing like putting your health care into the hands of people who would play politics with it.

Are you saying insurance companies and other healthcare providers don't play politics with our healthcare bucks?
Profit is the fly in the ointment between a logical healthcare system and the most expensive, least efficient, and least productive system in the modern world when over all results are considered.

 

[belme1201]

Are you saying insurance companies and other healthcare providers don't play politics with our healthcare bucks?
Profit is the fly in the ointment between a logical healthcare system and the most expensive, least efficient, and least productive system in the modern world when over all results are considered.

Let me add:
In the largest Medicare fraud case in history, Pfizer,one of your trusted PRIVATE healthcare companies, has agreed to be fined $2.3 BILLION for fraud in exchange for no criminal prosecution. I say send the bastards to jail and nationalize the company. Oh, they obviously deserve more trust than the government.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by belme1201
Are you saying insurance companies and other healthcare providers don't play politics with our healthcare bucks?
Profit is the fly in the ointment between a logical healthcare system and the most expensive, least efficient, and least productive system in the modern world when over all results are considered.

Let me add:
In the largest Medicare fraud case in history, Pfizer,one of your trusted PRIVATE healthcare companies, has agreed to be fined $2.3 BILLION for fraud in exchange for no criminal prosecution. I say send the bastards to jail and nationalize the company. Oh, they obviously deserve more trust than the government.

Bingo! And again, NO ONE IS FORCING A COMPANY TO SWITCH TO THE GOV'T HEALTH INSURANCE...NO MORE THAN BEING FORCED TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER INSURANCE COMPANY.

 

[Damocles]

Are you saying insurance companies and other healthcare providers don't play politics with our healthcare bucks?
Profit is the fly in the ointment between a logical healthcare system and the most expensive, least efficient, and least productive system in the modern world when over all results are considered.

I'm saying that there is a better solution than another inadequate government program and that we can do this thing right instead of copy already inadequate programs from elsewhere.

 

[DamnYankee]

Bingo! And again, NO ONE IS FORCING A COMPANY TO SWITCH TO THE GOV'T HEALTH INSURANCE...NO MORE THAN BEING FORCED TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER INSURANCE COMPANY.

Heath insurance is insurance, dummy.

 

[belme1201]

I'm saying that there is a better solution than another inadequate government program and that we can do this thing right instead of copy already inadequate programs from elsewhere.

Every one of their systems operates more efficiently and at less cost(mostly free) to it's people. All the systems in other major countries work better than ours, where is the mistake in changing and adopting what works for them NOW?
How about Medicare for all as another example? If not Medicare, how about th Fed Employees plan for all. It's easy to be the typical reactionary and say "no" in a thousand words to everything, but it's still a "no".
Re: Your statement about "playing politics"?
No opinion on Pfizer, from the trusted private sector?

 

[Damocles]

Every one of their systems operates more efficiently and at less cost(mostly free) to it's people. All the systems in other major countries work better than ours, where is the mistake in changing and adopting what works for them NOW?
How about Medicare for all as another example? If not Medicare, how about th Fed Employees plan for all. It's easy to be the typical reactionary and say "no" in a thousand words to everything, but it's still a "no".
Re: Your statement about "playing politics"?
No opinion on Pfizer, from the trusted private sector?

This depends on what you think is "better", I do not believe that further rationing care to a level where a young lady cannot even get a pap smear at a time where it may have saved her ability to reproduce is "better." In fact I find it entirely inadequate. If we could afford the Fed Employees plan for all I'd support that, if we first actually addressed costs and didn't gift our treasury to the Pharma companies in corporate welfare that got them so excited they started making ads...

Personally I think we could act as we do with other natural monopolies and use something more like the PUCs of states to regulate costs. But then that's an idea from an R and it should be rejected because it doesn't make the government the provider.