Outstanding Article

[Good Luck]

Countries with universal plans have been talking about a crisis since implementing them. When does the government ever say they have plenty of money for a project? .....Opps, I forgot about Cheney. In one interview he said the US had money for war so war was an option with Iraq.

The countries which are talking about a crisis are spending 1/2 of what the US spends. If they budget $3,000/person and the US spends $6,000/person then, sure, they will face a crisis as they haven't allocated sufficient money.

The same thing in Canada. There was a "crisis" in the early 90's. There is a crisis today. Meanwhile, the universal plan in Canada has been in existence since 1968. For over 40 years people have been receiving medical coverage even though a "crisis" is constantly looming.

Furthermore, Canada spends 1/2 of what the US spends. Imagine if Canada's budget was increased 100%.

It's no different than a household budget. If a family budgets $100/wk for groceries and the bill is constantly $120/wk then it's time to cut out the booze and cigarettes and raise the budget to $120/wk.

As long as there is one guy cleaning up a National Park it means there is one more custodian available for a hospital. As long as the government has money to erect a monument it has money for hospital beds. As long as the government has money for the multiple things it's involved in it has money for the ill.

What is more important than looking after our ill and disabled? Well, besides allocating sufficient funds to ensure a high speed internet connection so one can chat with their cyber lover, that is?

Did it possibly occur to you that just MAYBE the reason those other countries plans are always in crisis is that the 1/2 per capita expenditures factor you keep touting is INSUFFICIENT to their needs, but are KEPT artificially low by cutting costs through limiting access? While undoubtedly exaggerated, the stories of waiting lists and long lines, which include verified anecdotal evidence, came from somewhere, and are most likely at least partially true as opposed to being completely false.

And just maybe (to continue your grocery budget analogy) the $120 grocery bill is simply due to the current cost of groceries. What if there are no cigarettes and booze to cut? Do you then replace your economy grind hamburger with peanut butter? And returning back to medicine instead of diet, what is the effect of replacing "hamburger" with "peanut butter"? Can you then continue to claim an equivalent standard of health care?

And one more item while we're on the analysis of budget. Did it occur to you at any time that a large part of the 2X health care expenditures are due to high end "non-necessities" as you describe them, such as private rooms, which you have stated should not be paid for by a public plan? Thus, eliminating the "non-necessities" level expenditures (ie: use minimum level medical coverage and extrapolate) how do U.S. health care expenditures then compare to other nations? You yourself insist that we can keep cost under control by eliminating such luxuries. So why not do so? Provide minimum level coverage, either direct pay via medicaid or government subsidized policies, for those without coverage, and let the rest of the system alone - a system that works quite well when talking about the 85% of the people who have health coverage?

 

[apple0154]

Spin what away? I am simply using all available information to analyze a claim made by proponents of universal care.

The claim, which is easily verified as true, is countries with universal care plans spend approximately 1/2 on health care, per capita than the U.S. spends. The repetition of this basic statistic is, quite obviously, to claim that the REASON the U.S. has twice the per capita health care cost over other nations is BECAUSE those other nations have universal care plans. Is that a correct assessment of WHY you (and many others) continually bring forth that particular statistic?

The problem is a single statistic has zero value in determining any type of relationship, let alone a cause-effect relationship. So let's look at additional health cost ratios, controlling the universal care variable, which is the one we want to study, right? If you look back 50-60 years, before most of those countries had a universal health care plan, and compare per capita health care expenditures, the, lo, U.S STILL outspends them by a factor of almost 2-1.

So, BEFORE universal care was implemented, The U.S. outspends other countries in health care by a factor of almost 2-1. AFTER universal care is implemented, the U.S. outspends those same countries by almost 2-1 per capita, for a ZERO difference.

So, given ALL the facts, where does the conclusion that Universal Care is cheaper come from?

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to link a graph or article? A quick Google did not turn up any comparison charts.

FYI: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

 

[apple0154]

You yourself insist that we can keep cost under control by eliminating such luxuries. So why not do so? Provide minimum level coverage, either direct pay via medicaid or government subsidized policies, for those without coverage, and let the rest of the system alone - a system that works quite well when talking about the 85% of the people who have health coverage?

That would be the ideal solution but we all know what the response would be to that. Stealing money from the rich.

Any time there is talk of a program to help the poor we hear the same thing. That's why programs have to be universal like old age pensions (SS). People are greedy or jealous or whatever term one wishes to use. If they contribute to a program they want something out of it even if they don't need it. They can't just help the poor. They won't support programs directed strictly at the poor. That is the whole problem.

It would be simple to evaluate ones need for financial help when it came to medical expenses. It's no different than running a credit check. The car dealer and the bank knows whether or not you can afford something.

Ones ability to pay for medical expenses could easily be determined but, again, we run into the "stealing from the rich" if such a system was implemented.

The person able to afford a private room and a private nurse won't willingly give up either one in order for a less fortunate person to have a bed in a ward so the government is left with one option, universal medical.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Did it possibly occur to you that just MAYBE the reason those other countries plans are always in crisis is that the 1/2 per capita expenditures factor you keep touting is INSUFFICIENT to their needs, but are KEPT artificially low by cutting costs through limiting access? While undoubtedly exaggerated, the stories of waiting lists and long lines, which include verified anecdotal evidence, came from somewhere, and are most likely at least partially true as opposed to being completely false.

And just maybe (to continue your grocery budget analogy) the $120 grocery bill is simply due to the current cost of groceries. What if there are no cigarettes and booze to cut? Do you then replace your economy grind hamburger with peanut butter? And returning back to medicine instead of diet, what is the effect of replacing "hamburger" with "peanut butter"? Can you then continue to claim an equivalent standard of health care?

And one more item while we're on the analysis of budget. Did it occur to you at any time that a large part of the 2X health care expenditures are due to high end "non-necessities" as you describe them, such as private rooms, which you have stated should not be paid for by a public plan? Thus, eliminating the "non-necessities" level expenditures (ie: use minimum level medical coverage and extrapolate) how do U.S. health care expenditures then compare to other nations? You yourself insist that we can keep cost under control by eliminating such luxuries. So why not do so? Provide minimum level coverage, either direct pay via medicaid or government subsidized policies, for those without coverage, and let the rest of the system alone - a system that works quite well when talking about the 85% of the people who have health coverage?

 

[Good Luck]

That would be the ideal solution but we all know what the response would be to that. Stealing money from the rich.

Any time there is talk of a program to help the poor we hear the same thing. That's why programs have to be universal like old age pensions (SS). People are greedy or jealous or whatever term one wishes to use. If they contribute to a program they want something out of it even if they don't need it. They can't just help the poor. They won't support programs directed strictly at the poor. That is the whole problem.

It would be simple to evaluate ones need for financial help when it came to medical expenses. It's no different than running a credit check. The car dealer and the bank knows whether or not you can afford something.

Ones ability to pay for medical expenses could easily be determined but, again, we run into the "stealing from the rich" if such a system was implemented.

The person able to afford a private room and a private nurse won't willingly give up either one in order for a less fortunate person to have a bed in a ward so the government is left with one option, universal medical.

Talk about lame assed excuses for backing a stupid piece of legislation. Since when do you worry about the whines of the uber wealthy? Especially since they will be seeing their taxes go up regardless of how badly your jackass party fucks the health care system.

OTOH, as I have stated many times before, if your political masters were willing to look into and address the factors driving health care costs upward at a precipitous rate, then the rest of the problem will pretty much automatically adjust itself, affordability of decent health care drops to cover 95% instead of 85%, and that bottom 5%, already on medicaid (which becomes cheaper also) don't have to worry.

Anyone with two brain cells would look at the way health care costs have risen compared to general inflation and go "WTF?" But the liberals don;t even TRY to look at that factor in the health care crisis. Probably because they are fully aware it is their precious government interference with over regulation and sometimes conflicting requirements over the health care field that are the primary force behind the unusual cost spikes.

Maybe your masters don't WANT to take the smart path, since that would preclude them from having the excuse to take over entirely. How else can one explain them taking extraordinary, outright corrupt extremes to pass a piece of legislation that is so obviously doomed to utter failure? Your masters want to take over, and will use any method and excuses they can manufacture to do so. And there you are, with your lemming like brain cheering them on. They told you that universal care is the only possible answer, so you blindly repeat their assertions, repeat their lies, repeat their deliberately misleading statistics, without any personal research or a single original thought of your own.

 

[apple0154]

Talk about lame assed excuses for backing a stupid piece of legislation. Since when do you worry about the whines of the uber wealthy? Especially since they will be seeing their taxes go up regardless of how badly your jackass party fucks the health care system.

OTOH, as I have stated many times before, if your political masters were willing to look into and address the factors driving health care costs upward at a precipitous rate, then the rest of the problem will pretty much automatically adjust itself, affordability of decent health care drops to cover 95% instead of 85%, and that bottom 5%, already on medicaid (which becomes cheaper also) don't have to worry.

Anyone with two brain cells would look at the way health care costs have risen compared to general inflation and go "WTF?" But the liberals don;t even TRY to look at that factor in the health care crisis. Probably because they are fully aware it is their precious government interference with over regulation and sometimes conflicting requirements over the health care field that are the primary force behind the unusual cost spikes.

Maybe your masters don't WANT to take the smart path, since that would preclude them from having the excuse to take over entirely. How else can one explain them taking extraordinary, outright corrupt extremes to pass a piece of legislation that is so obviously doomed to utter failure? Your masters want to take over, and will use any method and excuses they can manufacture to do so. And there you are, with your lemming like brain cheering them on. They told you that universal care is the only possible answer, so you blindly repeat their assertions, repeat their lies, repeat their deliberately misleading statistics, without any personal research or a single original thought of your own.

Show me a country that found a better way other than a universal plan. Do you believe the hundreds of millions of people in the dozens of countries that have universal medical didn't consider different ways?

Take all the time you want to think of different ways but for the time being let's get medical coverage for the people.

All those countries with universal plans are still thinking about different ways to cut costs, however, the difference is the citizens are covered while the politicians are doing the thinking.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Show me a country that found a better way other than a universal plan. Do you believe the hundreds of millions of people in the dozens of countries that have universal medical didn't consider different ways?

Take all the time you want to think of different ways but for the time being let's get medical coverage for the people.

All those countries with universal plans are still thinking about different ways to cut costs, however, the difference is the citizens are covered while the politicians are doing the thinking.

You mean people are dying while the politicians are navel gazing.

 

[apple0154]

You mean people are dying while the politicians are navel gazing.

Wrong guess.

 

[Damocles]

Show me a country that found a better way other than a universal plan. Do you believe the hundreds of millions of people in the dozens of countries that have universal medical didn't consider different ways?

Take all the time you want to think of different ways but for the time being let's get medical coverage for the people.

All those countries with universal plans are still thinking about different ways to cut costs, however, the difference is the citizens are covered while the politicians are doing the thinking.

Why don't we work to cover those with need rather than to force people into whatever box you think is best for them? Rather than making a program with the goal of forcing all people into government care, let's just cover the few that aren't covered yet want coverage. It will cost less and give us the time to come up with the better solution than the same tired mediocrity that you want to emulate.

 

[Good Luck]

It's the "Let's jump in with both feet, because all the other lemmings did it. Worry about learning to swim later." approach.

You still cannot comprehend that the U.S. has a significantly different infrastructure, economic, political and social, than any European nation. We're a lot different than Japan, also. Trying to make a quick monkey-copy of their ideas and apply it to our situation would be like copying the tranny from a volkswagon and applying it to a Mack truck. It won't work.

Frankly, no I do NOT believe those countries with universal plans seriously considered other options before implementing theirs. The narrow span of time across Europe when country after country implemented theirs, most of which took place in the re-build years after WWII, indicates a rather unrehearsed domino effect than separate countries seriously considering a number of options before delving in. They went with the prevailing socialist economic theories of the 40s and ran with it.

 

[Good Luck]

Why don't we work to cover those with need rather than to force people into whatever box you think is best for them? Rather than making a program with the goal of forcing all people into government care, let's just cover the few that aren't covered yet want coverage. It will cost less and give us the time to come up with the better solution than the same tired mediocrity that you want to emulate.

I already suggested that. He said it wouldn't work because the wealthy would bitch too much about their taxes.

 

[Damocles]

It's the "Let's jump in with both feet, because all the other lemmings did it. Worry about learning to swim later." approach.

You still cannot comprehend that the U.S. has a significantly different infrastructure, economic, political and social, than any European nation. We're a lot different than Japan, also. Trying to make a quick monkey-copy of their ideas and apply it to our situation would be like copying the tranny from a volkswagon and applying it to a Mack truck. It won't work.

Frankly, no I do NOT believe those countries with universal plans seriously considered other options before implementing theirs. The narrow span of time across Europe when country after country implemented theirs, most of which took place in the re-build years after WWII, indicates a rather unrehearsed domino effect than separate countries seriously considering a number of options before delving in. They went with the prevailing socialist economic theories of the 40s and ran with it.

I would still prefer a study of Japan's system to Canada's or European systems. They do not centralize their care in the government, and that is a major improvement to the direction we are currently headed. Germany's system began with their last Kaiser and was strengthened during WWII by Hitler.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That would be the ideal solution but we all know what the response would be to that. Stealing money from the rich.

gotta love the irony....we're sitting here watching you cram something down our throats that we do not like......you admit that his suggestion would be the ideal solution but you refuse to consider it because we wouldn't like it?.....obviously this will be followed by the assertion that we never make suggestions.....

 

[apple0154]

gotta love the irony....we're sitting here watching you cram something down our throats that we do not like......you admit that his suggestion would be the ideal solution but you refuse to consider it because we wouldn't like it?.....obviously this will be followed by the assertion that we never make suggestions.....

Sufficient numbers of people would oppose it under the old "socialist label". I explained that before. That's why SS is universal. When people pay taxes for something they want something out even if they don't need it. The only way to shut them up is to make it universal so they can't claim "distributing the wealth" or "Socialist pigs!"

Of course it would be easy to determine ones ability to pay a medical bill just as it's easy to determine if one can afford a car or a house. How long did it take to fill out the form for a mortgage?

While some banks like to make a big deal out of it by saying they'll call you in a few days it takes a matter of minutes to find out. Your salary vs your expenses. If you're self-employed a copy of your income tax and a few other inquiries.

It could be quickly determined if one can afford a medical procedure and if they couldn't afford it assistance would kick in but then we come back to the "distributing the wealth" argument. Why should someone pay for someone else if they're not getting anything out of it themselves?

It comes down to what Senator Harkin said about crossing a boundary. It's not about HOW to fix the problem. It's about whether or not it should be fixed or even if there is a problem.

That's why I said Damocles is correct when saying, "let's just cover the few that aren't covered yet want coverage." Simple. Logical. Efficient....but then that old socialist scare is thrown up.

That's the problem.

 

[Good Luck]

Sufficient numbers of people would oppose it under the old "socialist label". I explained that before. That's why SS is universal. When people pay taxes for something they want something out even if they don't need it. The only way to shut them up is to make it universal so they can't claim "distributing the wealth" or "Socialist pigs!"

Of course it would be easy to determine ones ability to pay a medical bill just as it's easy to determine if one can afford a car or a house. How long did it take to fill out the form for a mortgage?

While some banks like to make a big deal out of it by saying they'll call you in a few days it takes a matter of minutes to find out. Your salary vs your expenses. If you're self-employed a copy of your income tax and a few other inquiries.

It could be quickly determined if one can afford a medical procedure and if they couldn't afford it assistance would kick in but then we come back to the "distributing the wealth" argument. Why should someone pay for someone else if they're not getting anything out of it themselves?

It comes down to what Senator Harkin said about crossing a boundary. It's not about HOW to fix the problem. It's about whether or not it should be fixed or even if there is a problem.

That's why I said Damocles is correct when saying, "let's just cover the few that aren't covered yet want coverage." Simple. Logical. Efficient....but then that old socialist scare is thrown up.

That's the problem.

That is a pure bullshit excuse and you well know it. In fact, it is comical how pathetic your arguments have become. Your current argument can be condensed to:

"We have to go to a government controlled universal plan (ie: a socialist type plan) because trying to only cover those in need while leaving the rest of it alone will be viewed as being too socialist."

So your solution is to force your plan down everyone's throat, because too many people would not like an alternative that only helps the needy while leaving the rest of the system alone.

What is becoming apparent is you are totally set on total government control of the health care system just as your political masters are. They, too, dismissed out of hand any and all ideas that do not involve an eventual total government take over - then blast out with hypocritical rhetoric about obstructionism and lack of cooperation.

 

[apple0154]

So your solution is to force your plan down everyone's throat, because too many people would not like an alternative that only helps the needy while leaving the rest of the system alone.

Close. Not necessarily forcing. It's not about the "people would not like an alternative that only helps the needy". It's that such an alternative would never pass. The point is unless everyone is included nothing is going to happen.

That's why programs like SS and Medicare and welfare are government run. People have to be sure they will benefit themselves if they are expected to contribute. Otherwise, it's the old "transfer of wealth" refrain.

We've been over this numerous times. If it was just a case of helping the needy there never would have been social programs. The needy would have been helped before the government had a chance to do anything.

On the other hand if the government decided to help only the needy and expected everyone to contribute that would float like a lead balloon.

Let's be serious here. People bitch about a person collecting welfare. Try passing off a $40,000 or $50,000 hospital bill. Yea, that's going to go over...NOT!

 

[Good Luck]

Close. Not necessarily forcing. It's not about the "people would not like an alternative that only helps the needy". It's that such an alternative would never pass. The point is unless everyone is included nothing is going to happen.

That's why programs like SS and Medicare and welfare are government run. People have to be sure they will benefit themselves if they are expected to contribute. Otherwise, it's the old "transfer of wealth" refrain.

We've been over this numerous times. If it was just a case of helping the needy there never would have been social programs. The needy would have been helped before the government had a chance to do anything.

On the other hand if the government decided to help only the needy and expected everyone to contribute that would float like a lead balloon.

Let's be serious here. People bitch about a person collecting welfare. Try passing off a $40,000 or $50,000 hospital bill. Yea, that's going to go over...NOT!

Repeating a lame assed stupid excuse does not make it less a lame assed excuse. Especially when you are proposing a system that will be passing along that $50,000 hospital bill anyway. In fact the way medicaid is set up, along with the medical systems methods for passing on unpaid bills, we are all paying for those bills as it is.

SS does not "succeed" because it gives to everyone whether they need it or not. People with adequate (or above) retirement plans would far rather have their SS contributions available to put into their private plans since private plans invariably have far greater returns. In case you haven't noticed, there are LOTS of complaints about the SS system. In fact it was a major issue a couple elections back. There were also lots of complaints before SS was first passed into law.

Ditto medicare, only more so. People with the means to provide for their own care don't give a ripe pig fart for medicare because their private plans most often involve better benefits with far less hassle. So they provide for themselves, and bitch about having to pay into a system they would rather not, and in many cases, DO not use.

People who have good health coverage are not going to "benefit" from your system. In fact with some of the provisions, like placing a federal administration fee on self funded plans, your plan will do more harm than good to the people who currently have decent coverage. So much for your "benefit all" lies.

You keep going back to SS and medicare because they (according to your rhetoric of ignorance) "benefit" everyone whether they need it or not. But you ignore (or purposely try to keep out of the discussion) the innumerable federal assistance programs that focus only on those in need. They have programs for housing, food, transportation, child care, retraining education, rehabilitation, disability, etc. etc. etc. Every one has complaints lodged against them, from those based on your "redistribution of wealth" example, to complaints about how much they cost, to complaints like mine that focus on the way the are structured causing not only inefficiency in how the funds are distributed and spent, but also resulting in a very hard to break dependency. How did those programs get passed if it is so difficult passing assistance programs that are aimed only at the needy?

People complain about them. AND people complain about SS. AND people complain about Medicare/Medicaid. AND people complain about the Patriot Act. The only reason each and every bill put through Congress does not get complained about in large numbers is very few of we "Joe Commoners" are even aware of anything other than the more publicized bills.

Looking at the rhetoric over the years, the complaints about welfare do not NEARLY match the complaints about the democratic party's continual desire to add more and more socialist type programs. So supporting programs in the face of unpopularity isn't exactly a new item, for either party.

In short, your excuse that they cannot pass something that only covers the needy because the people will not accept it unless they can benefit also is pure unadulterated bullshit. The democrats have the votes in both houses, AND the White House. They can pass anything they want to pass. They have not even LOOKED at, indeed refuse to even consider in any way, a plan to cover only those without coverage, nor any other alternative, and have not done so since well before Hillary Clinton tried to get something going under her husband's administration. They decided long ago the only idea acceptable to their long range plans is a full blown government take over, which they are deliberately engineering with this current piece of doomed-to-failure trash.

(I can hear the rhetoric of the future now: "We TOLD you nothing short of a universal plan would work!!") In the world of politics, it is one of the more brilliant pieces of long term maneuvering I have ever seen. Pass something doomed to fail, the failure of which, in turn, will lead to the passage of what they want.

 

[Good Luck]

Not necessarily forcing.

So what DO you call passing a bill in spite of the fact that most people, including democrats, do not want passed? If it isn't forcing it on us, do tell, what lying label do you prefer?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The point is unless everyone is included nothing is going to happen.

since the current plan leaves about 20 million uninsured people out, does that mean it isn't going to happen?

 

[Topspin]

democrats in the senate are assfucking all of us that aren't poor. This isn't about healthcare it's about CLASS WARFARE.
It's the largest transfer of wealth ever, and he's already given the poor way too much.

Obama is slicker than he's been given credit for.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I would still prefer a study of Japan's system to Canada's or European systems. They do not centralize their care in the government, and that is a major improvement to the direction we are currently headed. Germany's system began with their last Kaiser and was strengthened during WWII by Hitler.

The main similarity between Japans and Germany's health care system is strong price control. They have a set price for virtually every service, procedure or medication.