I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare

[Robo]

Mr. Robo, state goverments are as big and evil and stupid as federal government.

Name one with hundreds of state representatives and 100 state senators and a 21 trillion dollar state debt.

 

[Robo]

It's so funny watching Conservatives discover the power of single payer entities.

Tell me something, why would a state want to collectively pool together with another state to negotiate? And why not just have all 50 states collectively negotiate together for rates? You realize this argument you're making is an argument in favor of single payer, right?

On the contrary, I would oppose single payer in my state, but I would accept the constitutionality of it. There is no constitutional authority for the feds to operate a single payer program. You can argue that would be the best, but for the feds to do it constitutionally the feds would need a constitutional amendment. I think single payer would be a disaster for the United States. A couple of states have considered it and researched it for their state and rejected it because of the cost. To imagine the feds could do it cheaper is a nightmare of imagination for me.

 

[LV426]

Read amendment 10! that's where it says it's a state's power and nowhere in the Constitution is such a power authorized to the feds

General welfare.

 

[LV426]

Lot's of things are "national issues." That doesn't mean the feds have the constitutional authority to create programs concerning them.

When it comes to the General Welfare, it sure as shit does. Health care is general welfare.

The feds have the power of "regulating" the commerce of healthcare and provide for healthcare science. Allof that is covered by Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.

Congress has the power to levy taxes to provide for the General Welfare. Health care would be general welfare.

 

[LV426]

Medicare and Medicaid have no authority in the Constitution to be delivered and operated by the feds, (see amendment 10)

Both provide for the general welfare. Congress has the power to levy taxes to provide for the General Welfare. There's no argument to be made against health care being general welfare.

 

[Nordberg]

If that were true, we'd be buying insurance for 5 bucks a person. The fallacy of that thinking is proven by the fact that the cost of insurance is directly attached to the quality. Single payer insurance is cheaper as the left preaches from the rafters. That's why Canadians come to America for critical operations to keep from dying in Canada on a "waiting list." That's why the UK ships their overload of critical operations off to India so they won't die on the UK's waiting list. And though the UK's single payer is cheaper there's a critical shortage of doctors because the government controls the doctor's fees. Also to be noted is the fact that every single payer country has much higher taxation than the United States and the fact that those countries almost to absolution depend on the United States to provide their National Defense for them. they contribute a fraction of their GDP for their national defense and every single one has cumbersome waiting list. If you believe that's the best healthcare then convince the folks to give it a go in your state, or have the national constitution amended to authorize the feds to do it here constitutionally.

You swallow falacies by the truickload. Over a million Americans do Medical Tourism every year. They abroad for healthcare for financial reasons and get equal or better care. American healthcare is rated at the bottiom among industrial states.

Americans do not get quick healthcare either. I call my doctor and I have 3 or 4 weeks before I can get in. Call a specialist and it can be months to get seen.

This says that healthcare in countries with universal healthcare should logically be longer wait times because of the take care of all their citizens. Remove a quarter of their people from healthcare and it gets faster.http://www.drsforamerica.org/blog/the-waiting-times-myth However many countries now have guarantees for wait times. They are addressing the problem.

I live outside Detroit and many Americans have gone to Canada for hernia operations and for eye surgeries. You just get used to that.

 

[LV426]

If that were true, we'd be buying insurance for 5 bucks a person.

How do you figure that?

Do you understand the concept of health insurance? Doesn't seem like you do. Do you understand the function an insurance company serves? Again, doesn't seem like you do.

That's why Canadians come to America for critical operations to keep from dying in Canada on a "waiting list."

This is a lie. An insidious lie. They're not coming here for "critical" operations, they coming here for elective procedures. And when they do come here, are they enrolling in health insurance? No. They're spending money out of pocket.

 

[LV426]

Again, I repeat, "ANY INSURANCE WORTH IT'S PREMIUMS, IS COVERAGE ANYWHERE YOU GO."

Like Medicare or Tricare; both government-provided, and both have portability.

NEXT!

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Healthcare was limited to nothing more than Midwives, a good bottle of white lightning, and volunteer people who knew anything about home remedies and could pull a bullet out of you, put a bandage made out of rags on you, hope for the best, and stitch you up- to our forefathers!

What a joke!

Our forefathers didn't know dick about healthcare!

 

[LV426]

Are you claiming that your auto insurance is worthless after you leave your state?

No, but most health insurance plans are not portable and those that are are prohibitively expensive for most. Most employers don't offer plans that do that, and most people get insurance through their employer. All you're doing is helping me make a case for single payer.

A healthcare policy that won't cover you in another state should be inexpensive, huh? Say about a dollar a person per year?

Not sure from where you're getting these weirdo figures. Like most of what you post, it's just off the top of your head and there's no base support of knowledge.

THINK MAN! We're not talking here about particular diseases, we're talking about "HEALTH INSURANCE."

Which goes to pay for the treatment. So...health insurance by itself in a vacuum does nothing. Health insurance in the context of reimbursement to providers is truly what we're talking about here. It's a part of the process you are not involved with, and happens after you receive your care.

So what difference does it make to you who reimburses your doctor? And why do you think your health care is affected by who reimburses your doctor after you receive it?

 

[LV426]

On the contrary, I would oppose single payer in my state, but I would accept the constitutionality of it.

This is nonsense.

This is what happens when someone inadvertently makes the case for single payer, but doesn't want to admit it.

 

[LV426]

There is no constitutional authority for the feds to operate a single payer program

Provide for the General Welfare. It's right there in the General Welfare clause. To date, none of you have made a coherent argument that health care is not the general welfare.

 

[LV426]

You can argue that would be the best, but for the feds to do it constitutionally the feds would need a constitutional amendment.

No they don't. They didn't for Medicare. They didn't for the VA. Why? Because both fall within the General Welfare clause. A clause, to this date, none of you have been able to explain why health care doesn't fall within the general welfare. You keep falling back on a crackerjack positions, but none of them have any legal standing or thought behind them.

I think single payer would be a disaster for the United States.

That's because you don't understand, on a fundamental level, what health insurance is, what insurance companies do, and how any of it relates to your actual health care.

Fundamentally, your brain is simply unable to comprehend the concept of health insurance. The wiring in your brain is all fucked up.

A couple of states have considered it and researched it for their state and rejected it because of the cost. To imagine the feds could do it cheaper is a nightmare of imagination for me.

The reason it doesn't work on a state level is because of out-of-state workers and providers. You need the entire nation to be in the same insurance pool in order for it to work.

 

[Robo]

Jesus Christ, what a fucking idiot.

Apparently, you've never heard of television and the internet, which brings national problems directly to the individual. So the concept that state and local control is better because it's physicalyl closer proximity to voters is a crock. I can be physically close to someone across the country via Skype. So this argument is garbage.

Well friend, actually, as I was referring to "closer" I was referring to the fact that state government and it's state representatives was "CLOSER" to the people of their State relative to STATE laws and regulations and programs and by that very fact more responsible to the people of their particular state FOR BEING ELECTED AND REELECTED IN ELECTIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENT POSITIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENT. Folks know more about what's going on in their state and who doing it. Folks know less about what's going on in Washington and who's doing it.

So before, you said that states could collectively pool together to negotiate. Why would a state do that? Could it be because that would give more bargaining power to the state? So what would be the ultimately impact on the bargaining power if all 50 states collectively pooled together to negotiate? You realize that is what single payer is, right?

Because that's not what the federal government does. The feds don't give a flying bleep about the collective of all 50 states. Half or more of the people in all 50 states could be opposed to, let's say, single payer. It wouldn't matter one twit if their Washington representatives wanted single payer, they could pass it and shove it down the people in those states throats. If more than half the people in a particular state was opposed to single payer for that state, they likely wouldn't elect politicians that were for it and they likely wouldn't reelect them if they passed it and had to deal with the taxes and other issues connected to it. Politicians in Washington are much less responsible to the folks of their state because they can hide behind the majority in the Congress and blame everything on them knowing most folks in their state will never check to see how they voted.

 

[LV426]

Well friend, actually, as I was referring to "closer" I was referring to the fact that state government and it's state representatives was "CLOSER" to the people of their State relative to STATE laws and regulations and programs

But this argument is predicted on the ludicrous belief that the internet doesn't exist. Your proximity argument makes no sense because I can just log onto Skype and get a first-hand view of a live video feed from across the country.

Local means nothing in the age of inter-connectivity via the internet. You don't need to physically be in a place in order to know everything about it.

What a crock.

 

[LV426]

Folks know more about what's going on in their state and who doing it. Folks know less about what's going on in Washington and who's doing it.

Nonsense.

Laziness is no excuse.

Anyone can go on the internet and learn pretty much everything there is to know about any state, city, locality, etc.

I can log onto Google and do a search of Amarillo, TX and I will be able to find everything there is to know about it. I don't even have to go to Amarillo to know it's a dump. I can just Google it and see for myself.

 

[Robo]

The only reason it's expensive is because of the profit motive. And the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursement to your provider doesn't materially affect how your health care is delivered.

I disagree! Profits are only part of the cost. Government regulation and paperwork is a part of the cost. Malpractice insurance is another part of the cost. The fact that the federal government operates much of our healthcare and can be ripped off by insurance co's and BIG Pharma. willingly by lobbyist who contribute to politicians political campaigns is the BIGGEST part of the cost. It's a bleeping racket operated by the Washington cesspool.

 

[LV426]

Because that's not what the federal government does

This is so funny.

So on the one hand, you make an argument for single payer by articulating that states can pool together to negotiate for cheaper fees. Well, wouldn't then having the entire country pool itself together result in negotiations for the lowest possible fees? You hand the bargaining power to the patients with single payer. You lose it with myriad insurers.

I don't blame you for not knowing how negotiations work and what bargaining power is. Most Conservatives have no understanding of these things, and think that sheer volume or tenor will help carry garbage arguments. Fact is that if you want the lowest possible fees, you have to have the most bargaining strength. All patients pooled together into a single insurance pool puts the bargaining power with the patients. Because the single payer can use its leverage as the only payer in the market to extract lower fees. The reverse is the case in the current system of myriad insurers; drug companies and providers hold the bargaining power because they can play insurers off one another in order to increase their profits. So the current system isn't about care, nor is it about producing positive outcomes; it's about treating symptoms because that's how providers and insurers make their money. No insurance company wants you to be cured of your ailments. They want you to treat the symptoms because of the deals they strike, behind closed doors, with medical providers via chargemasters, and with drug companies.

 

[LV426]

I disagree! Profits are only part of the cost. Government regulation and paperwork is a part of the cost. Malpractice insurance is another part of the cost. The fact that the federal government operates much of our healthcare and can be ripped off by insurance co's and BIG Pharma. willingly by lobbyist who contribute to politicians political campaigns is the BIGGEST part of the cost. It's a bleeping racket operated by the Washington cesspool.

I have news for you, proportionately speaking, there's less fraud in Medicare than in private insurance. That's a fact. It's also a fact that overhead for CMS is just 1% of the budget, whereas for an insurer like Aetna, it's 17%.

Here's the budget for CMS, notice how administrative costs are 1% of the budget.
Here's the shareholder statement from Aetna, notice how administrative costs are 17% of the budget?

So in what world is 17% less than 1%?

Secondly, in a single payer system there wouldn't be lobbyists. There would be no need because the single payer has all the bargaining power and is accountable to taxpayers. Insurance companies are not accountable to you.

And finally, there is no argument to be made that the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements does anything to improve or enhance the care delivered to you, before that care is paid.

All we're talking about doing is changing who reimburses your doctor for treatment after your care. It's a part of the process you're not involved with, like, at all. And your doctor doesn't treat you better or worse depending on who reimburses them. And if they do, that's malpractice.

 

[LV426]

I disagree! Profits are only part of the cost. Government regulation and paperwork is a part of the cost. Malpractice insurance is another part of the cost. The fact that the federal government operates much of our healthcare and can be ripped off by insurance co's and BIG Pharma. willingly by lobbyist who contribute to politicians political campaigns is the BIGGEST part of the cost. It's a bleeping racket operated by the Washington cesspool.

How does the profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursment to your provider after you receive treatment materially affect the treatment you received?

It doesn't, because the transaction happens after you receive treatment.

So it's a part of the process that has nothing to do with your actual care, that doesn't affect your care.

To this day, no one has been able to make a compelling case that privatizing the administration of reimbursements improves health care.