Liberal Canadian Politician Goes to US for Healthcare

[Cancel7]

Umm health care is not quite like selling widgets....

Do they even know about people whose jobs it used to be to deny claims for health care, who have since TESTIFIED under oath about being promoted and getting salary increases, the more claims they denied? And that people died as a result?

Seriously, what planet are they living on. This is ridiculous.

 

[Timshel]

Right, because people who are lucky enough to have health insurance, through their employers, are in the position to "go elsewhere'.

No, they do not, thanks to government tax schemes encouraging the insurance to be provided via the employer.

Please. Do you guys even blah blah darla not understand, so switch to ad homs.
...

The government isn't in business. Insurance companies are.

That's debatable. But it is irrelevant. The government is not immune to the problem of limited resources and revenues, therefore they have to control costs just as any insurer would.

 

[Cancel7]

No, they do not, thanks to government tax schemes encouraging the insurance to be provided via the employer.



That's debatable. But it is irrelevant. The government is not immune to the problem of limited resources and revenues, therefore they have to control costs just as any insurer would.

Really? Because they are not doing a very good job of controlling costs right now, and I figure if we can afford Iraq we can afford health care, without having to deny life saving claims the way insurance companies do.

Can I hear the explanation for how government tax schemes have led to the US being the only Westernized country to have mainly employer-based health care coverage, rather than government bases? I know I'm going to regret asking.

 

[ib1yysguy]

String just ignored a very good refutation to his argument that "denying customers" is bad business in the health care industry by calling it an ad-homonym attack. That was very strange.

 

[TheDanold]

Well said.

I frankly think we need single payer national health insurance, to reform the way we pay doctors. Through some non-profit public entity. That's the most effective means of healthcare delivery, though nothing's perfect. I mean, insurance companies aren't providing healthcare.

Again you are replacing an optional middleman with a forced one, how is this the way to go?
And if you really think paying for profit is a worse tradeoff than paying for government inefficiency, then why is is that state entities that were privatized around the world made a profit while lowering costs for their customers?
Profit is the reason they even care about their customers, what is going to make some government bureaucrat care?

But, if we ever even get there, it will probably have to be incremental. Its not going to happen overnight. And I guess that's why Edwards/Obama/Romney/Clinton know this.

Well at least you are honest about being dishonest - the Hillary healthcare plan and other Dems is really just a step to full out nationalized healthcare.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Government inefficiency? I believe Medicare has one of the lowest overheads of any agency, along with the Social Security Administration.

 

[Cypress]

And denying service to customers is usually not a good way to increase your profits. It is a good way to lose customers. Hillary has a solution! Force everybody to buy the insurance anyway.

You will likely respond that we need single payer, but this does not change the desire to control costs by denying service, which is what the government does in every area it takes over.

Oh the horror! Of course government should control costs. Currently Medicare is operating under bare bones adminstrative costs that private insurance could only dream about. Certainly, medicare isn't perfect, but it is accountable to us through elected representatives.

Second, there is no such thing as an either/or scenario. There are many industrialized country with a hybrid universal system, which includes single payer in which the government pays the doctor, and private supplemental insurance which, those who choose can buy on the open market.

 

[Timshel]

String just ignored a very good refutation to his argument that "denying customers" is bad business in the health care industry by calling it an ad-homonym attack. That was very strange.

You consider the part where she claims all who disagree with her are somehow out of touch with reality a good refutation?

The point about the employer provisions are valid (and what I expected). I did not ignore that but pointed out that trend is the result of government. People in the real world already know that, though.

 

[TheDanold]

Really? Because they are not doing a very good job of controlling costs right now, and I figure if we can afford Iraq we can afford health care, without having to deny life saving claims the way insurance companies do.

But we can't afford Iraq or government healthcare, we have a large deficit.
A lot of those costs are out of their hands thanks to government, healthcare providers by one estimate I read, now spend over 25% of their time on paperwork, yet a lot of that is because of regulations, regulations that are forced and cannot be cut without breaking the law.

 

[uscitizen]

Right, because people who are lucky enough to have health insurance, through their employers, are in the position to "go elsewhere'.

Please. Do you guys even live in the real world? Do any of you have health insurance? Go to the doctor? I mean, you guys are real, right?

The government isn't in business. Insurance companies are.

Even with employer linked health insurance changing jobs can be a problem with pre existing conditions.....
And many/most are linked into HMO's and such which give little choice of DR's to choose from.

 

[Cancel7]

Government inefficiency? I believe Medicare has one of the lowest overheads of any agency, along with the Social Security Administration.

That is correct and when you compare that to the overhead of insurance companies it becomes obvious just how efficient the government actually is.

 

[uscitizen]

But we can't afford Iraq or government healthcare, we have a large deficit.
A lot of those costs are out of their hands thanks to government, healthcare providers by one estimate I read, now spend over 25% of their time on paperwork, yet a lot of that is because of regulations, regulations that are forced and cannot be cut without breaking the law.

LOL at least 1/2 of the paperwork is required by commercial insurance companies....

 

[ib1yysguy]

You consider the part where she claims all who disagree with her are somehow out of touch with reality a good refutation?

The point about the employer provisions are valid (and what I expected). I did not ignore that but pointed out that trend is the result of government. People in the real world already know that, though.

You quoted a posting of hers specifically to respond to, then cut up one of her paragraphs and replaced it with "blah blah darla not know so switch to ad homonym." I'm guessing because you know she's right.

Here's the point she made about it being "bad business" for insurance companies (and I guess your point was that they don't actually do it because it's bad business). They do it, and they same money doing it. It's that simple.

"Do they even know about people whose jobs it used to be to deny claims for health care, who have since TESTIFIED under oath about being promoted and getting salary increases, the more claims they denied? And that people died as a result?

Seriously, what planet are they living on. This is ridiculous."

 

[Timshel]

Can I hear the explanation for how government tax schemes have led to the US being the only Westernized country to have mainly employer-based health care coverage, rather than government bases? I know I'm going to regret asking.

Our tax code is written to encourage employers to offer health insurance instead of wages. Is that enough detail or should I assume you don't know jack shit?

 

[uscitizen]

Is Jack Shit Ron Pauls running mate ?

 

[Cancel7]

Our tax code is written to encourage employers to offer health insurance instead of wages. Is that enough detail or should I assume you don't know jack shit?

You assume anyone who isn't you doesn't know jack shit, don't you? You certainly are the role model for pompous, arrogant, nasty and condescending libertarians on here. I often point you out as such.

So, because employers get a tax break for health care benefits, the United States became the only Westernized country to move to that system, rather than a government provider system? And with more and more companies saying they can't compete in the global economy because they are saddled with health care costs that companies in other countries aren't saddled with, that is why we still have this system?

Or could there be just a little bit more to it then that? What do you think?

 

[Cancel7]

You quoted a posting of hers specifically to respond to, then cut up one of her paragraphs and replaced it with "blah blah darla not know so switch to ad homonym." I'm guessing because you know she's right.

Here's the point she made about it being "bad business" for insurance companies (and I guess your point was that they don't actually do it because it's bad business). They do it, and they same money doing it. It's that simple.

"Do they even know about people whose jobs it used to be to deny claims for health care, who have since TESTIFIED under oath about being promoted and getting salary increases, the more claims they denied? And that people died as a result?

Seriously, what planet are they living on. This is ridiculous."

Did he really? I didn't even see that post.

 

[TheDanold]

Medicare is extremely inefficient and it results in deaths too, from that bastion of Conservatism the Washington Post:

"In a four-year period, 106 heart patients at Palm Beach Gardens developed infections after surgery, according to lawsuits and government records. More than two dozen were readmitted with fevers, pneumonia and serious blood infections. The lawsuits included 16 patients who died.

How did Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly, respond?
It paid Palm Beach Gardens more.

Under Medicare's rules, each time a patient comes back for another treatment, a hospital qualifies for an additional payment. In effect, Palm Beach Gardens was paid a bonus for its mistakes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300382.html

I don't know how much more ineffecient you can get than that.

 

[TheDanold]

Did he really? I didn't even see that post.

Try reading next time, your pal, the Danold.

 

[uscitizen]

Medicare is extremely inefficient and it results in deaths too, from that bastion of Conservatism the Washington Post:

"In a four-year period, 106 heart patients at Palm Beach Gardens developed infections after surgery, according to lawsuits and government records. More than two dozen were readmitted with fevers, pneumonia and serious blood infections. The lawsuits included 16 patients who died.

How did Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly, respond?
It paid Palm Beach Gardens more.

Under Medicare's rules, each time a patient comes back for another treatment, a hospital qualifies for an additional payment. In effect, Palm Beach Gardens was paid a bonus for its mistakes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300382.html

I don't know how much more ineffecient you can get than that.

Umm seperate issue Dano, poor health care caused that. not govt problems.
That hospital has a problem.

so medicare was supposed to let them die because the hospital screwed up ?