APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"

[Damocles]

That's the point. Those folks aren't anything other than individual folks who can't or don't know how to fix the system on their own. That's why government is needed.

Total garbage. They are the people who actually work and understand the industry. The people with expertise rather than the Senators who often never even read what they vote for or against.

Create away but let's cover the people until we see the creation. What can possibly be wrong with that approach?

Again, cover only the small percentage without coverage that want it, rather than attempt to force all people into the same box. Nothing is wrong with that approach, everything is wrong with the goal of forcing people into government care because that is what you personally want. The Japanese only cover those without gainful employment with government care, yet they have universal coverage. This is something worth looking into.

Let's not twist things now. I never said or implied anyone was talking about taking people off SS. I said that at the time SS was being discussed I'm sure there were people, just like there are today, who believed government shouldn't get involved. I'm sure there were well-meaning folks who didn't want to see the elderly dying from starvation and homelessness but it was the government which finally addressed the problem.

And they created a program that even today people say isn't adequate and barely provides for subsistence. We could have done better, but created panic legislation. Amazingly that same fear seems to drive opponents of improvements to the current system.

Nobody wants to see people without proper medical care, however, generations have been talking about it and nothing was done. It was left up to the individual to create something special, to think outside the box. Unfortunately, all we're left with is an empty box.

This is total nonsense. CHIPS and other programs were created, more people are covered than ever before and it improves with each new generation, all without forcing everybody into a one size fits all mediocrity. We can and will improve the situation without government centralized care, if we allow ourselves to do it.

Your argument is based in your imaginary world where no improvement has ever come. It's just garbage based in straw men.

Rubbish. It is certain people who feel they're entitled to special services and because they have a bit of money are demanding special services. I have no problem with that. If someone has 50 grand lying around and wants to spend it on medical services, be my guest as long as they don't start thinking they're too important to contribute to the universal plan.

Every country that has a universal plan started out with the same system as is in place in the US. They know the bogeyman quite well. That's why they now have a universal plan.

This isn't true. Not every nation that has such a plan started out with the conglomeration of systems we have in the US, in fact none of them did. None of them had the unique circumstances of 50 states with differing solutions.

And what fixing has that other party ever done? As I said before we're out of the gate. Now the issue has to be addressed regardless of which party is in power. The "we'll think about it" era has passed. Things will be happening and in order to change that concrete ideas will be required. At the very least the health bill will force the politicians/government to DO, not just talk.

The "other party" has allowed choice into places where choices didn't exist, and created the means by which coverage today is far better and covers more people than ever before without attempting to take from everybody and force them into one size fits all mediocrity. I prefer any other choice to one that leads us into such an unsatisfactory system from the amazing system we have today.

(Shakes head.) Why do you think certain parties in Canada had to go to court to open paying clinics/practices? The majority of the population does not want the universal system eroded. They do not want doctors playing both sides of the field.

They went to court because their system wasn't working and they needed people to be able to get care in a timely fashion. The government made it illegal for them to open such clinics and hasn't changed that law. They work towards making their system more like ours because their system was unsatisfactory.

If you don't think Canadians value their system then you haven't done your homework. They've made it abundantly clear to all political parties not to mess with the current system. Fine tune, yes. Any attempt at major alterations and the party in power is history.

And yet every "tuning" leads them to a system more like ours. Slowly but surely we will find their system more like ours. Incrementalism works both ways.

Again, show me one country with a universal plan that has a politician campaigning on dismantling or radically changing it. If universal plans were so bad there would be a rush of politicians jumping on the wagon. Alas, such is not the case.

You already brought that one up. Opening paying clinics in Canada is something their politicians are arguing and it is a major change from the time they made them illegal. You even brought up the argument their fear monger opponents use against them, that it will be a system like "the US system"...

All they have to do is pick up a newspaper. Do they ever see a politician campaigning against a universal medical plan? Do they ever see people clamoring for a return to a "pay or suffer" system? If not, why not?

Answered previously.

Again, this is not rocket science. While the people may not be celebrating they know damn well it's better than any other system.

They know it isn't working, and the change they seek leads them inexorably towards a system more like ours. Both in the UK and Canada. France's is already much like ours with multi-tiers and even a class that can't afford the supplemental insurance or copays and are therefore uncared for...

One of the systems we should study would be the Japanese system. It isn't centralized in government, yet provides health care for everybody. Instead of Europe maybe we should look to Asia for inspiration.

 

[Lao Tse]

Good job dealing with all that hoe's insanity, damo.

 

[Damocles]

Good job dealing with all that hoe's insanity, damo.

Thanks.

 

[Canceled1]

Total rubbish. They don't become something other than human because they work someplace. That's just your own imaginary bogeyman.




The government has the ability to promote the solution through the means of the private citizen, it is necessary to think a little outside your box if you want to create something that will lead the rest of the world, thankfully our forefathers did and up until now we have been able to maintain that capacity as a society. Society must not follow if they plan on leading, they must not copy if they are to create.

The government is rarely the source for anything good, it is why we chose to limit its power in the US specifically outlining places where it shall not go.


We fully comprehend this, however there are other consequences of the action of the government at that time. Nobody here has argued that we take old people off of SS except that same imaginary bogeyman you continue to argue.


Rubbish, they are being altered to systems more like the US system not because they are "cherished" but because they are often failing and are mediocre.



Like you and what anybody writes here? You simply ignore it and go on arguing with the bogeyman in your brain rather than what people say.




LOL. First it must take effect, then people must realize how crappy it is (it is spectacularly crappy, specifically designed to fail in an attempt to blame "free markets") before it will ever be changed by those that "created" it. Thankfully the fact that people will be paying into a system that hasn't even taken effect yet will cause a bit of a "stir" and the other party will very likely be the party that will "fix" the mess your party created.



Nobody is "fighting to keep them" that is imagination again. Where are the people taking to the streets to "keep" their mediocre system? The reality is as they become more like the US system people are relieved that their system will be able to continue a few more years. The only place we see and hear people taking to the streets to keep their current system is here.



No politician traveled and "studied" these plans,. Which one of them has taken a trip to Europe and spent years studying the impact of the health care programs? Zero. Not even one. In the Senate there may be one or two that have spent even as much time as I have in Europe let alone studied these things. They are simply citizens like you and I who are elected to represent us, they do not become more knowledgeable than any other person who pays attention simply by getting elected, and many remain in total ignorance as they promote an agenda based in that same ignorance.



To paraphrase Obama, "These meetings will be held on CSPAN so that the citizen can see what deals are made".

The time is now to demand that the elected actually do what they say they would. That is the change that we need right now.

Nobody is "fighting to keep them" that is imagination again. Where are the people taking to the streets to "keep" their mediocre system? The reality is as they become more like the US system people are relieved that their system will be able to continue a few more years. The only place we see and hear people taking to the streets to keep their current system is here.

They're busy fighting "other battles".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=player_embedded#"]YouTube- NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England[/ame]​

You can bet your boots we will be saying the same thing about many things once the Obamabots get done.

 

[apple0154]

Sorry, but I am kinda old fashioned - I read books for the most part.

But here is a good read: "The Economics of Public Spending" by Gareth D. Myles and Ian Preston

and another: "Economics of Health and Public Policy" by Rita Ricardo-Campbell


And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.

By 1960 France's health care expenditures had risen to almost 4% GDP while the U.S. barely topped 2%. At this time, again coincidentally at the same time France pushed through a significant expansion of their system, France's expenditures take another upward swing. And, lo, a few years later, at the same time the U.S. implemented Medicare/medicaid, U.S. expenditures also take a significant upward swing. By the year 1990, France's expenditures start to level off but continue to rise until they were spending approximately 6% of their GDP on healthcare in 2000. Likewise U.S. expenditures continue to rise, but were still below 5% GDP as of 2000, when the graph ends.

The figures for Germany are quite similar, except their upward swings occur at different dates coinciding with their implementation and modifications. Ditto Britain, ditto Japan.

So, according to this graphical comparison (with supporting data tables) it would seem to me that implementation of universal care and or public option care is a significant factor in rising health care expenditures.

Now, tell us, what do YOU get out of that kind of data? I would dearly love to hear how you spin it.

You’d like my spin on it? Let me start off by saying I had a son and daughter go through the teenage years so I’m somewhat skilled at spotting the “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, try baffling them with bullshit” arguments.

Let’s go back to msg. 136 where you wrote, “And while we're speaking of refusing to do any research, have you looked up the health care situation abroad and in the U.S. prior to most of Europe going to universal plans? If so, how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans? We spent twice as much before universal plans became common, we spend twice as much now. So much for the conclusion that the reason they spend half as much is that universal plans are less expensive.”

I interpret that to be saying, generally speaking, universal plans make little difference in either savings or costs as the relationship between what the countries with universal plans spend/spent and what the US spends/spent has remained relatively constant.

Then comes the switch. You wrote in msg. 139, “And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

Let’s put that into perspective. A guy earning $100,000/yr pays $10,000 for health care. 10% of his income. He loses his job and finds another that pays $50,000/yr. Because he has some savings he opts to keep his health plan hoping he’ll find a better job. Now he is paying 20% of his income (his personal GDP, if you will) for health care. Has his health care risen 100% or has his income decreased by 50%?

What type of health care did European countries have under communist occupation? How could their GDP not drop considering countries were not only rebuilding after the war but were undergoing basic restructuring? Simply put their ability to generate funds (GDP) had been severely hampered. Factories, farms, etc were not producing anywhere near their prior levels.

So, according to this graphical comparison (with supporting data tables) it would seem to me that implementation of universal care and or public option care is a significant factor in rising health care expenditures.

Of course it is. It is going to cost more to treat 100 people than it would to treat 75 people assuming all other factors are equal and that’s the rub, as they say. All other factors are far from equal. What one spends on health care is not necessarily the same as what it costs to treat them.

Does one require a room with a view in a building with expensive furniture and wall hangings in the lobby situated on 10 acres of manicured lawns with ponds filled with fish and a gazebo for socializing? Does one require a private room? A private nurse?

If the argument against universal care is cost/taxes, which it seems to be, the best indicator is what it costs the average person and not a portion of the GDP. A quick survey of the countries with a universal plan show that life expectancy is on par with the US and the costs among the countries with universal plans are very similar. Stated another way it costs approximately $3000US to $3500US to keep the average human being alive and healthy. That takes into account just about any variable imaginable, from diet to profession to climate.

That’s the reality. No spin. Just facts and figures.

 

[Good Luck]

You’d like my spin on it? Let me start off by saying I had a son and daughter go through the teenage years so I’m somewhat skilled at spotting the “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, try baffling them with bullshit” arguments.

Let’s go back to msg. 136 where you wrote, “And while we're speaking of refusing to do any research, have you looked up the health care situation abroad and in the U.S. prior to most of Europe going to universal plans? If so, how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans? We spent twice as much before universal plans became common, we spend twice as much now. So much for the conclusion that the reason they spend half as much is that universal plans are less expensive.”

I interpret that to be saying, generally speaking, universal plans make little difference in either savings or costs as the relationship between what the countries with universal plans spend/spent and what the US spends/spent has remained relatively constant.

Then comes the switch. You wrote in msg. 139, “And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

Let’s put that into perspective. A guy earning $100,000/yr pays $10,000 for health care. 10% of his income. He loses his job and finds another that pays $50,000/yr. Because he has some savings he opts to keep his health plan hoping he’ll find a better job. Now he is paying 20% of his income (his personal GDP, if you will) for health care. Has his health care risen 100% or has his income decreased by 50%?

What type of health care did European countries have under communist occupation? How could their GDP not drop considering countries were not only rebuilding after the war but were undergoing basic restructuring? Simply put their ability to generate funds (GDP) had been severely hampered. Factories, farms, etc were not producing anywhere near their prior levels.



Of course it is. It is going to cost more to treat 100 people than it would to treat 75 people assuming all other factors are equal and that’s the rub, as they say. All other factors are far from equal. What one spends on health care is not necessarily the same as what it costs to treat them.

Does one require a room with a view in a building with expensive furniture and wall hangings in the lobby situated on 10 acres of manicured lawns with ponds filled with fish and a gazebo for socializing? Does one require a private room? A private nurse?

If the argument against universal care is cost/taxes, which it seems to be, the best indicator is what it costs the average person and not a portion of the GDP. A quick survey of the countries with a universal plan show that life expectancy is on par with the US and the costs among the countries with universal plans are very similar. Stated another way it costs approximately $3000US to $3500US to keep the average human being alive and healthy. That takes into account just about any variable imaginable, from diet to profession to climate.

That’s the reality. No spin. Just facts and figures.

Just facts and figures and a big mommy government bias.

For instance, you say that universal plans have as good care as the U.S. plan. And you trot out the equality in life expectancy as proof. Yet you fail to adjust for the (supposed) fact that millions in the U.S. do NOT have adequate access to health care. So, according to your own figures, when all the people with NO health care are averaged in with all the people WITH health care under our system, we still end up having the same average life expectancy as a system where everyone is covered. Get it? We manage to keep up with the universal plans in net life expectancy, using our "broken" system that leaves so many without care.

It would be interesting if we could find a study that compares only those with health care in the U.S. to the universal plans.

And you really don't know squat about economics, do you? A period of rebuilding would be a BOOM in the economy, not a depressed economy. Isn't that the idea behind rebuilding our infrastructure to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But your ignorance does bring out why using health care expenditures as a portion of GDP is a more valid statistical analysis than using per-capita figures.

The use of per-capita expenses, which is the comparison you keep trotting out, is fine IF you are comparing congruent economies. However, you are not comparing congruent economies. There are many differences between the economy oif the U.S. and the economies of European countries.

When there is a disparity in economies, comparing expenditures as a part of GDP is far more valid. Because European economies invariably have a higher mean unemployment rate, different mean incomes, more control of industry by their governments, etc. a simple per-capita comparison does not work. Is it a fair comparison to say it costs a person in country A $300/mo for health care, while a person in country B it costs $600/mo; while ignoring the average middle-income person in country A earns less than half the average middle-income person in country B? (No, I am not implying there is that much difference between the U.S. and Europe, those figures are for illustration only showing why a per-capita comparison is an invalid statistical analyisis.)

Thus, in the case of disparate economies, a more accurate picture results from comparing expenditures in terms of GDP, thus adjusting for the differentiation in base economies. It is also more valid as the GDP method of comparison automatically adjusts if the differentiation between economies fluctuates over time, allowing one to track relative changes over time.

I won't even go into the continual complaints you have about private rooms and "luxury" furnishings, except to say no one is suggesting that any type of assistance plan, be it universal or based on the Medicaid approach, is going to be paying for "luxury" health care.

So I must ask why you keep bringing private rooms and such up in your arguments. I do not want to assume what you're aim is (though I think I have a good idea). But until I know for certain what your point is, I cannot address it. You DO mention that what one spends on health care may not directly equate to what it costs to treat them. And that is true, which is most likely the largest factor in the disparity between what the U.S. spends per capita and what European countries spend. We do like our luxuries. But what is your point for bringing that up, except to further diminish your own argument that universal plans are cheaper with no degradation in quality?

And yes, it DOES cost more to treat 100 people than 75. But it is YOU who keep claiming that universal plans are LESS EXPENSIVE. I show you that the reality is public or universal plans end up INCREASING health care spending, and you say "OF COURSE"! Again, you bite your own tail. Are universal plans less expensive or not? Your previous defense of universal plans was based on the statistic that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care than do European countries. I showed the fallacy of using that claim to defend universal plans by showing you that the U.S. has ALWAYS spent twice as much per capita (another indication that per-capita spending is an invalid statistic.) The meaning of that comparison completely flies over your head.

Then I show you health care expenditures based on public or universal plans actually go up when expressed in terms of GDP, and your response is "OF COURSE! It costs more to cover 100 people than 75." So which is it? Are universal plans, as you originally claim, less expensive, allowing them to cover everyone for less? The numbers show otherwise. And if they are NOT cheaper, how do you continue to justify a government takeover of our current system? Why will that work better than simply providing minimum necessary coverage for those in need while leaving the rest of the system to work on its own, since, by your own figures, it works every bit as well as your beloved universal care systems?

 

[cawacko]

not to get off the subject here but apple you never answered earlier what you believe the executive branch's role is with regard to the Fed.

 

[apple0154]

“For instance, you say that universal plans have as good care as the U.S. plan. And you trot out the equality in life expectancy as proof. Yet you fail to adjust for the (supposed) fact that millions in the U.S. do NOT have adequate access to health care. So, according to your own figures, when all the people with NO health care are averaged in with all the people WITH health care under our system, we still end up having the same average life expectancy as a system where everyone is covered. Get it? We manage to keep up with the universal plans in net life expectancy, using our "broken" system that leaves so many without care.”

Adequate access to health care is not solely based on life expectancy. Statistics show the US type of health care and government run health care are equal when it comes to life expectancy but there are many other medical problems that may not be life threatening and there are many problems that are left to the point where they become chronic and require a lifetime of treatment.

Compare a US resident to a resident of a country with universal health care. Both people suffer a stroke due to uncontrolled hypertension. Doctors in both countries save the respective citizen’s life. Are both plans equal? No, they are not.

In the country with a universal plan a person would receive a free check-up. If their blood pressure was high they would be placed on medication and given appointments (free) in order to follow and control it. All things being equal there will be less people suffering strokes in a country with a universal plan than there would be in the US.

The same is true for a number of diseases, diabetes being another one. If the problem is caught early and diet adjusted the person may avoid constant injections. If one feels well are the going to take $100 for a doctor’s appointment?

And you really don't know squat about economics, do you? A period of rebuilding would be a BOOM in the economy, not a depressed economy.

"The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a basic measure of a country's overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.” (dictionary.com)

You wrote in msg 139, “Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

It’s obvious you know squat about world history. Do you think France simply picked up production after the Nazis left? Everyone returned to their farms and factories and life continued on its merry way?

There was a problem producing goods and services meaning the GDP would be lower meaning the cost for medical care would be higher compared to the GDP. I explained this in msg 145 and even gave an analogy. What bubble gum machine did you get your economics degree from?

When there is a disparity in economies, comparing expenditures as a part of GDP is far more valid. Because European economies invariably have a higher mean unemployment rate, different mean incomes, more control of industry by their governments, etc. a simple per-capita comparison does not work. Is it a fair comparison to say it costs a person in country A $300/mo for health care, while a person in country B it costs $600/mo; while ignoring the average middle-income person in country A earns less than half the average middle-income person in country B? (No, I am not implying there is that much difference between the U.S. and Europe, those figures are for illustration only showing why a per-capita comparison is an invalid statistical analyisis.)

Again, as I explained previous, there are dozens of countries with universal plans. There couldn’t be a more divergent example of countries from which to choose. Rich and poor. Capitalist and communist. Large and small.

Canada with a land area of 3,855,081 sq. mi and a population of 33,487,208 spends $3173.00/per capita ($US) and France with an area of 211,208 sq. mi. and a population of 64,057,792 spends $3040.00/per capita ($US) while the land area of Canada is 18 times that of France with half the population. That’s half of what the US spends, $6096/per capita. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html)

Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Canada all within a few hundred dollars. To imply similar costs are due to their political systems/laws/customs, etc. being the same is…..well, just silly. Universal plans work.

So I must ask why you keep bringing private rooms and such up in your arguments. I do not want to assume what you're aim is (though I think I have a good idea). But until I know for certain what your point is, I cannot address it. You DO mention that what one spends on health care may not directly equate to what it costs to treat them. And that is true, which is most likely the largest factor in the disparity between what the U.S. spends per capita and what European countries spend. We do like our luxuries. But what is your point for bringing that up, except to further diminish your own argument that universal plans are cheaper with no degradation in quality?

There is no degradation in medical quality which is why I bring it up. People talk about death panels and not being able to get medical care when what they’re really worried about is how is everyone going to get a private room. When they talk about a huge increase in costs they’re thinking $6,000/person instead of $3,000/person.

How many hospital beds can be purchased for the price of building and maintaining one private room?

My point is I’m addressing the “we don’t have enough resources” objection. There are plenty of resources. The solution is managing them properly. And in case you feel I’m heading in the direction of class warfare (IF you are) I’ll clear that up right now. As I mentioned in msg 145 everybody has to pay for the expensive furniture and wall hangings. A truly ill individual does not give a damn what furniture or wall hangings or other “luxuries” are available. They want medical attention and they want it at a reasonable price and government run programs address that matter. Get rid of the Persian rug and get a few more beds.

Medical care is neither a luxury nor an option. Private interests treat it as such because they want to make money and that results in some people not being able to afford the basics.


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

Just facts and figures and a big mommy government bias.

For instance, you say that universal plans have as good care as the U.S. plan. And you trot out the equality in life expectancy as proof. Yet you fail to adjust for the (supposed) fact that millions in the U.S. do NOT have adequate access to health care. So, according to your own figures, when all the people with NO health care are averaged in with all the people WITH health care under our system, we still end up having the same average life expectancy as a system where everyone is covered. Get it? We manage to keep up with the universal plans in net life expectancy, using our "broken" system that leaves so many without care.

It would be interesting if we could find a study that compares only those with health care in the U.S. to the universal plans.

And you really don't know squat about economics, do you? A period of rebuilding would be a BOOM in the economy, not a depressed economy. Isn't that the idea behind rebuilding our infrastructure to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But your ignorance does bring out why using health care expenditures as a portion of GDP is a more valid statistical analysis than using per-capita figures.

The use of per-capita expenses, which is the comparison you keep trotting out, is fine IF you are comparing congruent economies. However, you are not comparing congruent economies. There are many differences between the economy oif the U.S. and the economies of European countries.

When there is a disparity in economies, comparing expenditures as a part of GDP is far more valid. Because European economies invariably have a higher mean unemployment rate, different mean incomes, more control of industry by their governments, etc. a simple per-capita comparison does not work. Is it a fair comparison to say it costs a person in country A $300/mo for health care, while a person in country B it costs $600/mo; while ignoring the average middle-income person in country A earns less than half the average middle-income person in country B? (No, I am not implying there is that much difference between the U.S. and Europe, those figures are for illustration only showing why a per-capita comparison is an invalid statistical analyisis.)

Thus, in the case of disparate economies, a more accurate picture results from comparing expenditures in terms of GDP, thus adjusting for the differentiation in base economies. It is also more valid as the GDP method of comparison automatically adjusts if the differentiation between economies fluctuates over time, allowing one to track relative changes over time.

I won't even go into the continual complaints you have about private rooms and "luxury" furnishings, except to say no one is suggesting that any type of assistance plan, be it universal or based on the Medicaid approach, is going to be paying for "luxury" health care.

So I must ask why you keep bringing private rooms and such up in your arguments. I do not want to assume what you're aim is (though I think I have a good idea). But until I know for certain what your point is, I cannot address it. You DO mention that what one spends on health care may not directly equate to what it costs to treat them. And that is true, which is most likely the largest factor in the disparity between what the U.S. spends per capita and what European countries spend. We do like our luxuries. But what is your point for bringing that up, except to further diminish your own argument that universal plans are cheaper with no degradation in quality?

And yes, it DOES cost more to treat 100 people than 75. But it is YOU who keep claiming that universal plans are LESS EXPENSIVE. I show you that the reality is public or universal plans end up INCREASING health care spending, and you say "OF COURSE"! Again, you bite your own tail. Are universal plans less expensive or not? Your previous defense of universal plans was based on the statistic that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care than do European countries. I showed the fallacy of using that claim to defend universal plans by showing you that the U.S. has ALWAYS spent twice as much per capita (another indication that per-capita spending is an invalid statistic.) The meaning of that comparison completely flies over your head.

Then I show you health care expenditures based on public or universal plans actually go up when expressed in terms of GDP, and your response is "OF COURSE! It costs more to cover 100 people than 75." So which is it? Are universal plans, as you originally claim, less expensive, allowing them to cover everyone for less? The numbers show otherwise. And if they are NOT cheaper, how do you continue to justify a government takeover of our current system? Why will that work better than simply providing minimum necessary coverage for those in need while leaving the rest of the system to work on its own, since, by your own figures, it works every bit as well as your beloved universal care systems?

 

[apple0154]

not to get off the subject here but apple you never answered earlier what you believe the executive branch's role is with regard to the Fed.

Sorry. I missed that. In what context were you referring? Do you have a msg/post number to which I can refer? A memory jog would be appreciated.

 

[cawacko]

Sorry. I missed that. In what context were you referring? Do you have a msg/post number to which I can refer? A memory jog would be appreciated.

If was from the leadership thread we had going for awhile. I couldn't find it so I got lazy and posted it here. I wasn't trying to derail the conversation going on here.

Basically it was a discussion of whether the executive branch should jawbone the fed about rates. Is it appropriate for the President to try and tell the leader of the Fed what to do with rates or should they be kept seperate.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Adequate access to health care is not solely based on life expectancy.

I believe his point was just the opposite.....that life expectancy is based on access....

 

[apple0154]

If was from the leadership thread we had going for awhile. I couldn't find it so I got lazy and posted it here. I wasn't trying to derail the conversation going on here.

Basically it was a discussion of whether the executive branch should jawbone the fed about rates. Is it appropriate for the President to try and tell the leader of the Fed what to do with rates or should they be kept seperate.

I think when something negatively affects the country the President should either have the power to intervene or inform the population what is happening/going to happen.

While the President's power may be limited I feel his responsibility to look out for the citizen's interests is all-encompassing.

I've never taken a close look at the intricacies involved vis-a-vis the President and the Fed so that's the best reply I can give.

 

[apple0154]

I believe his point was just the opposite.....that life expectancy is based on access....

Perhaps I should clarify. Life expectancy alone is not proof of adequate access to health care. It is a measure of how good the medical expertise is but that does not necessarily involve access for non life-threatening illnesses.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Bottom line: until someone can prove that an actual illegal "bribe" took place, the neocon GOP and it's parrots are just squawking in frustrated anger that the Dems beat them out at their own game.

Or does everyone forget the "Coalition of the Coerced" that joined us in Iraq?

 

[Good Luck]

Adequate access to health care is not solely based on life expectancy.

Then why did you bring it up? Because you thought you have a "gotcha" statistic that ended up not being quite so "gotcha" as you'd planned.

All things being equal there will be less people suffering strokes in a country with a universal plan than there would be in the US.

Got any data to back that up, or is it just a "logical conclusion" about how things SHOULD be?

The same is true for a number of diseases, diabetes being another one. If the problem is caught early and diet adjusted the person may avoid constant injections. If one feels well are the going to take $100 for a doctor’s appointment?

If one feels well, are they going to see a free doctor just for shits and grins? If so, what does that do to the overall costs of universal plans?

"The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a basic measure of a country's overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.” (dictionary.com)

You wrote in msg 139, “Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

It’s obvious you know squat about world history. Do you think France simply picked up production after the Nazis left? Everyone returned to their farms and factories and life continued on its merry way?

There was a problem producing goods and services meaning the GDP would be lower meaning the cost for medical care would be higher compared to the GDP. I explained this in msg 145 and even gave an analogy. What bubble gum machine did you get your economics degree from?

Wrong again, bubble boy. The GDP of France in 1945-46 was based on a boom economy. Maybe much of their stuff was broken down, but the very act of putting it all back together was keeping people employed at high paying jobs while output in the construction area was at an all time high. While things like agriculture and manufacturing were down, construction of roads, buildings, housing, factories, etc. etc. etc was high enough to more than make up for it.

Maybe it is you who needs a few history and economics lessons.

Again, as I explained previous, there are dozens of countries with universal plans. There couldn’t be a more divergent example of countries from which to choose. Rich and poor. Capitalist and communist. Large and small.

Which is, as explained, exactly why a per-capita based comparison of expenditures is an invalid method of statistical analysis.

Canada with a land area of 3,855,081 sq. mi and a population of 33,487,208 spends $3173.00/per capita ($US) and France with an area of 211,208 sq. mi. and a population of 64,057,792 spends $3040.00/per capita ($US) while the land area of Canada is 18 times that of France with half the population. That’s half of what the US spends, $6096/per capita. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html)

Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Canada all within a few hundred dollars. To imply similar costs are due to their political systems/laws/customs, etc. being the same is…..well, just silly. Universal plans work.

Where did I say, or even imply, that similarity if per-capita health care expenditures were due to similarity in economies? Bass ackward conclusions there, buddy. Expenditures in a universal system are the direct result of what the central controlling agency budgets - nothing less, nothing more. When expenditures are based on minimal necessary quality, then the budgets will end up looking similar. Without additional data, per capita comparisons, especially of a controlled market to a free market, is an invalid comparison. When you add in the factor that the U.S. has always spent more per capita on health care, it becomes less than useless. That is simple statistics.

There is no degradation in medical quality which is why I bring it up. People talk about death panels and not being able to get medical care when what they’re really worried about is how is everyone going to get a private room. When they talk about a huge increase in costs they’re thinking $6,000/person instead of $3,000/person.

How many hospital beds can be purchased for the price of building and maintaining one private room?

My point is I’m addressing the “we don’t have enough resources” objection. There are plenty of resources. The solution is managing them properly. And in case you feel I’m heading in the direction of class warfare (IF you are) I’ll clear that up right now. As I mentioned in msg 145 everybody has to pay for the expensive furniture and wall hangings. A truly ill individual does not give a damn what furniture or wall hangings or other “luxuries” are available. They want medical attention and they want it at a reasonable price and government run programs address that matter. Get rid of the Persian rug and get a few more beds.

So you are going to claim that personal comfort is not a factor in treatment and recovery from an illness? I'd bet the local hospice(s) in your area would have something to say about that claim. Most doctors who would STRONGLY disagree with you that removing "luxuries" like nice furnishings and privacy would not equate to lower quality in treatment - as would the VAST majority of patients. Treatment of illness - especially in-patient treatment - is far more than drugs and equipment. You base your definition of quality on the idea that ADEQUATE treatment is the top end of quality. You are, quite frankly, DENYING the fact that you are admitting the need to reduce quality of care in a universal system by claiming that "luxuries" like private rooms and good furnishings are not a factor in quality. And in that claim, you are full of shit.

The bottom line is simple: we do not have the resources to vastly increase the distribution of health care without significantly reducing the quality of health care. And yes, that INCLUDES "luxuries" like private rooms and comfortable chairs. You may not be willing to admit it, but having spent many 24+ hour watches with sick relatives and friends over the years, comfortable rooms and furnishings are anything BUT a "luxury". Additionally, the ability to visit a sick friend without disturbing a sick roommate is a benefit to both the sick friend, since visiting with loved ones speeds recovery by maintaining good spirits, AND the other sick people who are NOT being disturbed because the visitation is taking place privately. In short, these "luxuries" you speak of ARE part of quality of care. AS far as I can see, the only reason you deny it is because you know full well your beloved universal plans cannot sustain that level of quality.

Medical care is neither a luxury nor an option. Private interests treat it as such because they want to make money and that results in some people not being able to afford the basics.

So, again, leave the larger part of our system alone, since it DOES provide adequate to high quality care for the majority (85% or so), to include "luxuries" in quality of care for those policies that cover such. Focus on providing the basics for those who are without. If basics are "good enough", then let's get everyone the basics, but WITHOUT removing or limiting the ability of others to get better than the basics. And, in the mean time, to help everyone, from those who need help getting the basics to those who can pay for it anything they want out of what they keep in their left shoe, to the universal systems in other countries who are finding it harder and harder to maintain their systems: find and address the factors which have driven health care costs through the roof the last couple decades. It's not from "luxuries" - things like private rooms, nice furnishings, etc. were a mark of health care in the U.S. long before costs started to sky rocket.

And no more "too many will complain" lame assed excuses. The MAJORITY are complaining about the current bill, yet you have no problem supporting its passage.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Perhaps I should clarify. Life expectancy alone is not proof of adequate access to health care. It is a measure of how good the medical expertise is but that does not necessarily involve access for non life-threatening illnesses.

obviously correct....it also doesn't account for those blown away by stoners looking for money to buy another bongfull.......or those killed in auto accidents.....

 

[apple0154]

Then why did you bring it up? Because you thought you have a "gotcha" statistic that ended up not being quite so "gotcha" as you'd planned.

I stated life expectancy is a measurement of medical skill because you and others go on about universal medical being inferior. I understand how irritating you must find it when comparisons between the “pay and suffer” plan and a universal plan consistently show the universal plan to be either equal or superior to the “pay or suffer” system. However, if you can’t argue the facts and prefer to argue WHY I state the facts I think we're getting off track.

Got any data to back that up, or is it just a "logical conclusion" about how things SHOULD be?

Why are you discussing medical plan topics when it’s apparent you are not even aware people are advised to have their blood pressure checked as it’s known as “The Silent Killer”?

If one feels well, are they going to see a free doctor just for shits and grins? If so, what does that do to the overall costs of universal plans?

So-called “shits and grins” is known as a check-up. Yes, people will go see a free doctor, preferably once a year, regardless of how well they feel. As for what that does regarding the costs to universal plans it substantially lowers the overall cost because diseases are detected in their early stages and adjustments made. It’s called prevention.

It's obvious you haven't been doing your homework.

Wrong again, bubble boy. The GDP of France in 1945-46 was based on a boom economy. Maybe much of their stuff was broken down, but the very act of putting it all back together was keeping people employed at high paying jobs while output in the construction area was at an all time high. While things like agriculture and manufacturing were down, construction of roads, buildings, housing, factories, etc. etc. etc was high enough to more than make up for it.

Maybe it is you who needs a few history and economics lessons.

Let’s go with your logic. Two countries. One, a war-torn country and the other, not. The first one is building factories, roads, housing, etc. The second one doesn’t need to build a lot of factories and roads and houses because nothing was destroyed. Which country is better? Which country is richer? Are we to compare the two countries as equal?
Your illogic knows no bounds.

When expenditures are based on minimal necessary quality, then the budgets will end up looking similar. Without additional data, per capita comparisons, especially of a controlled market to a free market, is an invalid comparison. When you add in the factor that the U.S. has always spent more per capita on health care, it becomes less than useless. That is simple statistics.

“Annual Census Bureau estimates released in August show 47 million people, or 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance during 2006.” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

The US spends the equivalent of $6,000 per person based on the entire population even though 15% are uninsured. Countries with universal plans spend $3,000 per person based on their entire population with 100% insured.

Spin it any way you want.

So you are going to claim that personal comfort is not a factor in treatment and recovery from an illness? I'd bet the local hospice(s) in your area would have something to say about that claim. Most doctors who would STRONGLY disagree with you that removing "luxuries" like nice furnishings and privacy would not equate to lower quality in treatment - as would the VAST majority of patients. Treatment of illness - especially in-patient treatment - is far more than drugs and equipment. You base your definition of quality on the idea that ADEQUATE treatment is the top end of quality. You are, quite frankly, DENYING the fact that you are admitting the need to reduce quality of care in a universal system by claiming that "luxuries" like private rooms and good furnishings are not a factor in quality. And in that claim, you are full of shit.

The bottom line is simple: we do not have the resources to vastly increase the distribution of health care without significantly reducing the quality of health care. And yes, that INCLUDES "luxuries" like private rooms and comfortable chairs. You may not be willing to admit it, but having spent many 24+ hour watches with sick relatives and friends over the years, comfortable rooms and furnishings are anything BUT a "luxury". Additionally, the ability to visit a sick friend without disturbing a sick roommate is a benefit to both the sick friend, since visiting with loved ones speeds recovery by maintaining good spirits, AND the other sick people who are NOT being disturbed because the visitation is taking place privately. In short, these "luxuries" you speak of ARE part of quality of care. AS far as I can see, the only reason you deny it is because you know full well your beloved universal plans cannot sustain that level of quality.

Comfortable. Not luxury. As for “Most doctors who would STRONGLY disagree with you that removing "luxuries" like nice furnishings and privacy would not equate to lower quality in treatment - as would the VAST majority of patients” I’m sure they would if they can afford that. On the other hand a person denied any treatment certainly won’t get better and the idea is to ensure everyone gets treatment.

Do you ever think things through before you post? If your position was the case then people living in countries with universal plans would not be getting better because they don’t have the same luxuries but we know that’s not the case.

It appears you have problems with reality. People have the same or better life expectancy and they are more satisfied with their universal system than a “pay or suffer” system but to your way of thinking they’re actually suffering and don’t know any better.

So, again, leave the larger part of our system alone, since it DOES provide adequate to high quality care for the majority (85% or so), to include "luxuries" in quality of care for those policies that cover such. Focus on providing the basics for those who are without. If basics are "good enough", then let's get everyone the basics, but WITHOUT removing or limiting the ability of others to get better than the basics. And, in the mean time, to help everyone, from those who need help getting the basics to those who can pay for it anything they want out of what they keep in their left shoe, to the universal systems in other countries who are finding it harder and harder to maintain their systems: find and address the factors which have driven health care costs through the roof the last couple decades. It's not from "luxuries" - things like private rooms, nice furnishings, etc. were a mark of health care in the U.S. long before costs started to sky rocket.

And no more "too many will complain" lame assed excuses. The MAJORITY are complaining about the current bill, yet you have no problem supporting its passage.

How many times do I have to explain the current bill is the start on the road to universal care. Senator Harkin stated the same thing. We’re passing a demarcation point. The opposition is not going to discuss/negotiate what happens after we pass that point because they don’t want to pass that point. That’s why the bill is a hodgepodge of sorts. It’s not meant to be the final word on health care. It is temporary. It requires additional work, however, after it passes everyone will know what the “project” is that they’ll be working on.

Put another way the discussion will not be the general “how do we improve health care” but the specific “how do we improve the universal plan”. Whether or not you agree with my “too many will complain” assessment people will not pay for their own medical and then pay for someone else’s. Nice thought but, again, not reality.

Just like people are free to invest their extra money in whatever they like after they’ve paid into SS people will be free to spend additional money on health care after they’ve paid into the universal plan. Simple, really.

 

[apple0154]

obviously correct....it also doesn't account for those blown away by stoners looking for money to buy another bongfull.......or those killed in auto accidents.....

Doesn't bongfull refer to marijuana? Are you saying pot smokers are mugging people?

Hmmm, times have changed. The pot smokers I used to know required extensive motivation to get off the couch and go outside. They wouldn't be doing a lot of mugging.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Doesn't bongfull refer to marijuana? Are you saying pot smokers are mugging people?

Hmmm, times have changed. The pot smokers I used to know required extensive motivation to get off the couch and go outside. They wouldn't be doing a lot of mugging.

strawfuckingman.....screw the pot smokers......

 

[Good Luck]

To address you last point, the bill under discussion is in no way a "step toward universal care" unless you want to admit it is deliberately designed to fail so miserably it will lead to a cry for anything else to take over, giving democrats the opening to push what they really want (total control). The bill under discussion does nothing more than fuck over royally the people currently enjoying adequate and above health care coverage while handing a massive profit boon to the major insurance companies. The bill literally punishes employer health care plans for being more efficient, such as putting a fee on self funded plans, which are the most cost efficient plans available. The federal health care plan is a self-funded plan - but, "coincidentally", it is the only self-funded plan exempt from the proposed federal fee. (of course...)

You bring up life expectancy as a means to try showing universal plans are up to par with our system. When it is pointed out that life expectancy is EQUAL between a system that gives health care to everyone, and a system that leaves 15% without care, you add a disclaimer about how little life expectancy means. Yet you ALSO claim that the universal care system results in fewer people going undiagnosed for high blood pressure, diabetes, and thus suffering from the health problems resulting (DO you have figures supporting that claim?) But treating those problems early, as you claim happens, would, or at least should, significantly affect average life expectancy. Yet the lack of care for lower income people in our system is STILL not enough to drag our life expectancy down below a system where EVERYONE is (supposedly) treated, including, according to you, early treatment for high blood pressure, diabetes, early detection of cancer, etc.etc.etc. If our AVERAGE life expectancy, which includes millions of people who do NOT get adequate care, is EQUAL to the everyone-gets-care system, what do you think comparing ONLY people in our system who have care to ONLY people who have care in their system (meaning everyone) would show?

The conclusion is obvious to people who aren't DNC dronebots. Either our system results in better care for those covered, and therefore it is desirable to extend that better care system to those without, OR the "everyone is covered" system isn't, in truth, covering everyone to the degree claimed. (ie: being a centralized budget item, health care is in fact more rationed to fit the budget than you will ever admit to.)

You claim that patient comfort is not a significant factor in treatment. Every hospice in the nation would call you a flat out liar. Your only purpose in labeling nice furnishings and private rooms as "unnecessary luxuries" is because you know those items are not sustainable in a universal plan. By labeling them unnecessary luxuries, you think you can get away with making the claim that losing those options do not mean lower quality of care. It's a bullshit argument. Quality INCLUDES "unnecessary" factors that make receiving treatment less unpleasant. Denying that fact simply shows how absolutely, frontal-lobotomy STUPID one must be to blindly support only one possible solution to our health care problems.

Whether or not you agree with my “too many will complain” assessment people will not pay for their own medical and then pay for someone else’s.

And you still cannot face reality, can you? It might interfere with your drug induced hallucinations of utopia.

Point one: The FACT is we ALREADY DO pay for the health care of others. Every person who pays into an insurance plan and is healthy enough to not use it much (if at all) is paying for those who DO use more than they pay in. And, added to that, every single doctor or hospital bill includes pricing that is designed to offset treating people who were unable to pay for it. Anyone with two connected neurons already knows this.

And when it comes to a universal plan, people will STILL be paying for their own care AND the care of those who cannot pay themselves. It's true whether the money comes from taxes, or forced payment of unwanted insurance premiums. And everyone with two connected neurons knows that as well. So when it comes to "people are not willing to pay for themselves and others", there is no functional difference between a system that only covers the needy and a system that forces everyone into your big government totalitarian mold. Your argument that other options cannot be considered because "people will not pay for their own care and for others" is beyond ridiculous. It is outright assininely stupid. Beyond stupid, actually. It shows the ridiculous desperation you're willing to stoop to defend your devotion to DNC socialists.

The bottom line is the assholes pushing this bill do not give a ripe pig fart about actually improving health care in this country. Their focus is control, control, and more control. Power is what they seek. And for reasons beyond my comprehension, they have a following of stupid brain dead lemmings happily willing to give up their and everyone else's liberties because they are told government will take care of them.