Way to go Michigan!

TheHappyHippo said:
My fucking god this is the most ignorant man alive.
Click to expand...
Actually I admire the mans rhetorical style. I can see why he's succesfull in politics. Granted there are certainly factual errors in his argument. One, for example, is that we have tried to have the market fix this problem for 60 years and they have failed to even address the problem let alone fix it. Now, in order to protect American consumers and to reduce the economic drain the health care system is having on our nations economy we have problem that needs to be addressed. Our present course is unsustainable because healthcare is the single number one cause of our government spending deficits and debt. The honorable gentleman from Michigan is not dealing with reality. His form of ostrich politics leads to the following;

#1. The cost for healthcare services will continue to rise meaning we will pay more and more for less value and quality.
#2. The poorest will not have health care available.
#3. We will no longer be able to afford our social contract with our seniors and will have to abandon medicare/medicaid as with our present system it is not economically sustainable.

What's really aggravating is that I'm sure the honorable gentleman from Michigan is aware of this yet his is not offering any viable alternatives. Just attempting to undermine current efforts with partisan politics.
 
Did I miss the part where he talked about how healthcare costs in the US are the leading cause of bankruptcy, including among people with health insurance?

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.

The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy.

Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: "Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick."

Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878.

"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

ADDITIONALLY .. If you're a 50- to 59-year-old man your chances of dying in the next ten years are better if you live in the U.S. than in Europe: 7.8 percent versus 8.2 percent. However, all of the difference was due to a single factor: the higher rate of cancer deaths in Europe, which is undoubtedly due to the much higher rate of smoking.

But the situation is completely reversed if you're a 50- to 59-year-old woman. For late middle-aged women, the chances of dying in the next ten years is much higher in the U.S.: 4.7 percent versus 3.9 percent. Cancer death rates are almost exactly the same in the two regions, but U.S. women over 50 are much more likely to die of heart disease, diabetes, infectious diseases and respiratory diseases -- in short, everything that a good health care system that stresses prevention can help.

Death Risk Rankings - Carnegie-Mellon
http://www.deathriskrankings.com/other.aspx

AND .. with regards to life expectancy rates by country for 2009 .. take a look here .. keep scrolling down .. keep scrolling .. and BAM .. there's the US .. TIED WITH PUERTO RICO AT 42
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy[/ame]


Excuse me .. but did I miss the part where he spoke this truth?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually I admire the mans rhetorical style. I can see why he's succesfull in politics. Granted there are certainly factual errors in his argument. One, for example, is that we have tried to have the market fix this problem for 60 years and they have failed to even address the problem let alone fix it. Now, in order to protect American consumers and to reduce the economic drain the health care system is having on our nations economy we have problem that needs to be addressed. Our present course is unsustainable because healthcare is the single number one cause of our government spending deficits and debt. The honorable gentleman from Michigan is not dealing with reality. His form of ostrich politics leads to the following;

#1. The cost for healthcare services will continue to rise meaning we will pay more and more for less value and quality.
#2. The poorest will not have health care available.
#3. We will no longer be able to afford our social contract with our seniors and will have to abandon medicare/medicaid as with our present system it is not economically sustainable.

What's really aggravating is that I'm sure the honorable gentleman from Michigan is aware of this yet his is not offering any viable alternatives. Just attempting to undermine current efforts with partisan politics.
Click to expand...

He's not honorable and he's not a gentleman. He is a victim of the mental virus known as conservatism that eats your brains inside out.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why?.....which of his comments do you believe to be untrue?.....
Click to expand...

For starters, how about the moronic notion that giving the 85% who are overpaying for substandard health care the option to pay less for more is somehow punishing them? On what planet is that true?
 
zoombwaz said:
For starters, how about the moronic notion that giving the 85% who are overpaying for substandard health care the option to pay less for more is somehow punishing them? On what planet is that true?
Click to expand...

you make many assumptions.....one, that their current health insurance is substandard, second, that it costs more...can you back up either assumption?......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually I admire the mans rhetorical style. I can see why he's succesfull in politics. Granted there are certainly factual errors in his argument. One, for example, is that we have tried to have the market fix this problem for 60 years and they have failed to even address the problem let alone fix it. Now, in order to protect American consumers and to reduce the economic drain the health care system is having on our nations economy we have problem that needs to be addressed. Our present course is unsustainable because healthcare is the single number one cause of our government spending deficits and debt. The honorable gentleman from Michigan is not dealing with reality. His form of ostrich politics leads to the following;

#1. The cost for healthcare services will continue to rise meaning we will pay more and more for less value and quality.
#2. The poorest will not have health care available.
#3. We will no longer be able to afford our social contract with our seniors and will have to abandon medicare/medicaid as with our present system it is not economically sustainable.

What's really aggravating is that I'm sure the honorable gentleman from Michigan is aware of this yet his is not offering any viable alternatives. Just attempting to undermine current efforts with partisan politics.
Click to expand...

The point that's not discussed is that there ARE OTHER OPTIONS besides the obamacare bill.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you make many assumptions.....one, that their current health insurance is substandard, second, that it costs more...can you back up either assumption?......
Click to expand...

These are not assumptions, but fact. How can you not know that our annual per capita expenditures on health care are the highest in the world, double those of the most expensive single payer system, and at least triple most of the rest? Of the G-20 countries, all have universal health care. Except one. Us. Despite being ranked #1 in health care costs, we are ranked 30th in outcome, not only behind all 19 of the other G-20 nations, but behind 10 developing nations as well. That's what makes it substandard. NONE OF THOSE NATIONS WHICH HAVE ABANDONED MEDICINE FOR PROFIT HAVE EVER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GO BACK TO IT (and please don't try to pass off that nonsense about a for-profit system being destroyed forever and unable to come back, as that is just rank bullshit.)

When I entered college in 1969, the high-tech sector of the economy did not exist, but now it is a multi-trillion dollar sector. Whole sectors of the economy can't be destroyed forever, unless replaced by a new sector (like the carriager and buggy sector was replaced by the internal combustion engine and automobile), or regulated, like the patent medicine/snake oil market regulated by the FDA (and the second that regulation ceases, the sleazeballs come roaring back), so the notion that medicine for profit could be destroyed forever is laughable. The profit motive cannot be destroyed. If you don't believe me, ask the Russians or Chinese how their pathetic, deadly experiments in eliminating profit as a motive turned out. Commmunism was and is doomed to failure, as it is based on a precept that flies in the face of reality: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." What utter and complete bullshit. That is why the "worker's paradise" (spare me) lasted all of 70 brutal years, because you not only can't legislate or regulate the profit motive out of existence, you can't even stomp it out of existence by deadly force. The only thing you can do is to admit to its shortcomings and inadequacies in certain areas of human existence (like healthcare), and egulate it to optimize its overall effect in others.

If your goal is to deliver health care to as many citizens as possible, a for-profit system is the worst system possible, because maximizing profits depends on maximizing revenues and minimizing expenditures. It is inherent in the nature of the for profit insurance system that premiums be jacked up as much as we will allow (maximizing revenues), and coverage will be denied as much as we will allow (miminizing expenditures). The goals of affordable healthcare for as many citizens as possible, and the goals of any for-profit entity are mutually exclusive. Expecting insurance companies to moderate their policies without government intervention is not only unrealistic, but shows a complete misunderstanding of a corporation's fiduciary duties to its stockholders: it is required by law to maximize returns to its investors, so it is illegal for a corporation to voluntarily moderate its revenue increases by holding the line on premiums or voluntarily increase its expenditures by not withholding care from the sick, and anybody who expects otherwise hasn't got a clue.
 
zoombwaz said:
These are not assumptions, but fact. How can you not know that our annual per capita expenditures on health care are the highest in the world, double those of the most expensive single payer system, and at least triple most of the rest? Of the G-20 countries, all have universal health care. Except one. Us. Despite being ranked #1 in health care costs, we are ranked 30th in outcome, not only behind all 19 of the other G-20 nations, but behind 10 developing nations as well. That's what makes it substandard. NONE OF THOSE NATIONS WHICH HAVE ABANDONED MEDICINE FOR PROFIT HAVE EVER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GO BACK TO IT (and please don't try to pass off that nonsense about a for-profit system being destroyed forever and unable to come back, as that is just rank bullshit.)

When I entered college in 1969, the high-tech sector of the economy did not exist, but now it is a multi-trillion dollar sector. Whole sectors of the economy can't be destroyed forever, unless replaced by a new sector (like the carriager and buggy sector was replaced by the internal combustion engine and automobile), or regulated, like the patent medicine/snake oil market regulated by the FDA (and the second that regulation ceases, the sleazeballs come roaring back), so the notion that medicine for profit could be destroyed forever is laughable. The profit motive cannot be destroyed. If you don't believe me, ask the Russians or Chinese how their pathetic, deadly experiments in eliminating profit as a motive turned out. Commmunism was and is doomed to failure, as it is based on a precept that flies in the face of reality: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." What utter and complete bullshit. That is why the "worker's paradise" (spare me) lasted all of 70 brutal years, because you not only can't legislate or regulate the profit motive out of existence, you can't even stomp it out of existence by deadly force. The only thing you can do is to admit to its shortcomings and inadequacies in certain areas of human existence (like healthcare), and egulate it to optimize its overall effect in others.

If your goal is to deliver health care to as many citizens as possible, a for-profit system is the worst system possible, because maximizing profits depends on maximizing revenues and minimizing expenditures. It is inherent in the nature of the for profit insurance system that premiums be jacked up as much as we will allow (maximizing revenues), and coverage will be denied as much as we will allow (miminizing expenditures). The goals of affordable healthcare for as many citizens as possible, and the goals of any for-profit entity are mutually exclusive. Expecting insurance companies to moderate their policies without government intervention is not only unrealistic, but shows a complete misunderstanding of a corporation's fiduciary duties to its stockholders: it is required by law to maximize returns to its investors, so it is illegal for a corporation to voluntarily moderate its revenue increases by holding the line on premiums or voluntarily increase its expenditures by not withholding care from the sick, and anybody who expects otherwise hasn't got a clue.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to politicize healthcare, and then use the power of life and death to control society, a government option is the best choice.

Price fixing = rationing = death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top