By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
i_p_freely said:
If I was American and voted republican then Ron Paul would be my choice... although if I was American, I probably wouldn't vote republican. Past Presidents and current candidates give the republican party a bad name, in my opinion. And the whole healthcare thing too.

Past Democrats have done the same thing.  Both parties are guilty of the same things.  If you really want to get historical about it.   Additionally,  Ron Paul has no other options in the way that this country is setup.  Your only hope of winning is by fitting into the cookie cutter dynamic of a two party system.   

As for the healthcare thing?  Please.  Why should I have to pay for someone elses medical problems, lifestyle choices and mistakes?   And even if I did, why would I want some suit in Washington to decide how that money gets spent?  The same guys who vote to give themselves pay raises during the worst recession since the Great Depression?    Do you realize how ass backwards that is?      This whole concept of socialized medicine is hitting a peak because people are most vulnerable currently than they have been in over 60 years.  It's another way for the government to take control of your life.



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Vertigo-X said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n5I0E75G8-g

 

What the... I'm actually LIKING this guy?! O_O


The fact that he spent his career within the insane asylum called "The Republican Party", the most ridiculed political party of our time, is evidence enough that he is not a very intelligent political leader. Other hints:

1. He's a Libertarian.

2. Wants to cut all funding to environmental projects.

3. Wants to cut funding to healthcare.

 

In fact, the only good things he stands for, Obama already mostly took care of last year; most importantly, ending the war in Iraq and greatly securing Afghan society. You can almost guarantee that Obama has a much better, and more sober plan for the future that won't f*** up the rest of the world. Ronulans! Put down the Kool-ade and come home from Jonestown.

1. Wait, what? You think being a libertarian is a bad thing? Exactly what do you think a libertarian is? My last post or so gives a pretty good definition of it and frankly, I find it really hard to see what's so bad about being libertarian...

 

I think the poster who phrased it hit the nail on the head for liberalism, too. Some people say that Congress being able to pick and choose which laws it will obey on a whim is a good thing. I respect their opinions but I think it's a bad thing. What's next? The government itself deciding to disregard the entire Bill of Rights?!



The BuShA owns all!

Vertigo-X said:
Jumpin said:
Vertigo-X said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n5I0E75G8-g

 

What the... I'm actually LIKING this guy?! O_O


The fact that he spent his career within the insane asylum called "The Republican Party", the most ridiculed political party of our time, is evidence enough that he is not a very intelligent political leader. Other hints:

1. He's a Libertarian.

2. Wants to cut all funding to environmental projects.

3. Wants to cut funding to healthcare.

 

In fact, the only good things he stands for, Obama already mostly took care of last year; most importantly, ending the war in Iraq and greatly securing Afghan society. You can almost guarantee that Obama has a much better, and more sober plan for the future that won't f*** up the rest of the world. Ronulans! Put down the Kool-ade and come home from Jonestown.

1. Wait, what? You think being a libertarian is a bad thing? Exactly what do you think a libertarian is? My last post or so gives a pretty good definition of it and frankly, I find it really hard to see what's so bad about being libertarian...

 

I think the poster who phrased it hit the nail on the head for liberalism, too. Some people say that Congress being able to pick and choose which laws it will obey on a whim is a good thing. I respect their opinions but I think it's a bad thing. What's next? The government itself deciding to disregard the entire Bill of Rights?!


I'm not claiming anything about anyone in particular with this but ...

It has been my experience that many people accept the status quo based on the intentions that politicians claimed it was built on. No matter whether a program works or not, and even if it makes things dramatically worse, they will support the program based on these intentions alone. Libertarians regularly question the existance of bad programs and agencies along with wasteful spending, and this puts them at odds with anyone who blindly supports these institutions.



Onibaka said:
Jumpin said:

1.  What's wrong with being a libertarian? It excludes the well being of the larger portion of society in order to benefit the people who have the greatest investments (those who run the corporations and who can afford to buy up everything) and not the people who actually work. It ignores environmental issues, and issues of healthcare, and instead turns both into a business - which ignores everything that does not lead to a profit. It's essentially an evil ideology, and we know from history that Laissez Faire economics always fail.

2. He wants to remove restrictions on oil drilling, repeal federal tax on gasoline, lift restrictions on the use of coal and nuclear power, and eliminate the Environmental Protection Act.

3. I don't know about Canada, but public Health Care works everywhere else in the world. If you expect it to be absolutely perfect in the US after 1 year of implementation your deluded. If you think there is anything particular about American society where it doesn't work in the US, yet somehow works fantastically everywhere else, you're deluded. Being against public healthcare is essentially evil, and leaves hospitals and the medical profession in corporate hands - when this is something that should be eliminated throughout the entire world for the betterment of the world.

George Bush Jr's plan was to be out of Iraq in 6 weeks - and Iraq should have never been invaded in the first place - it was the leading cause to rising military expenses in the US that led to major colapses in the western economy. Obama's was the plan that worked, not Bush's. Bush failed.

 

Ron Paul has his heart in the right place, but he has to change his economic views to reflect that - not keep supporting econmomic policies that will widen the gap between rich and poor.

Are you crazy?? Public healthcare is shitty in most countries of the world. Only on select europeans contries an maybe Canada and Japan have a "good" healthcare.

But that doesn't mean that I disagree with you. If I was in USA I would voted 100% for Ron Paul, But I still fear his libertarian thing and how corporations will be even more unregulated than now.

i think he meant first world countries and not third world and since usa is first world your system sucks hard for this point. i really can't imagine how so many people in usa have no health insurance, this is crazy^^

people who have no money aren't inferiour humans and they need good health standards as well even if they can't afford them. don't giving them at least a "normal" health care situation is a huge crime for me.

and if this is the case in some other first world countries it's the same...



he looks genuine, but in america it is not the best candidate that wins but the one with the best backing.

If he would go through, then i fear for his life, as the forces that keep the warmachine going will not let him become president



Around the Network
mrstickball said:

1. The VA still spends ~$9,000 USD per veteran. You can argue the cost of their care is higher, but if you could, please provide some sort of data that would seek to equate what kind of care the VA gives that would increase costs vs. regular insurance. For every veteran that needs extensive care, there are others that just simply get checkups every year. Your article also mentions significant rationing of care for veterans. I think those numbers would speak for themselves as to the effect of a one-payer system in regards to the American system of health care. That is, that in the US, other problems are driving costs up that aren't associated with a single-payer system (to which, I've always mentioned this in health care discussions).

As for your argument about administrative costs on health care, your citation is very disingenous. Medicare spends much more in care than private insurance does, so even if it spends less on administration, it spends far more overall. Here's the chart that discusses your very argument:

 

 

2. For your argument on education, you have half of a point. Due to the government involving themselves significantly in the student loan process, they are subsidizing loans to make colleges richer. Much like they did through real estate and the Community Reinvestment Act. That is a key problem with crony capitalism and socialism in that monies are mal-invested, inflating the cost of a given service. Additionally, you never addressed my argument concerning lower education. We have the same system in place you are vouching for - full government controll of higher education - in K-12, and they still have the same problem of very high costs and stagnating returns on services rendered. Why would you want government to control these institutions when they've proven they cannot control costs or perform at a competitive level with other public systems?

 

4. Can you give a specific example of a corporation monopolizing an industry, then increasing prices? That is, unless your talking about government monopolies taking over an industry and increasing costs, then that may be a good example, and prescisely why I do not want government taking over an industry such as health care or education.

 

5. Digging in the ground involves work which is done by many different peoples. Printing money is done by one entity. That is why I have a problem with the way fiat currency is handled in the US.

Might I ask where you're getting this $9000 figure from?  All the reports I can find are from 2006 (Fortune:  VA Hospital vs. Private Sector Hospitals), which say that VA costs per patient held steady at ~$5000 between 1996 and 2006, while private care had risen to ~$6300 as of 2006.  It seems unlikely costs would have suddenly doubled over the next six years.

And that was the point I was trying to make: that while it is expected that costs for veterans would be more than that for your average patient, this is not the case for the VA, as far as I can tell.

As for rationing care, the only reason care was rationed at any point is because of the sudden influx of patients after we entered Iraq.  A system that covers the entire nation would be far more stable, with a sudden and significant influx of patients being unlikely.  Though it's not like private care systems could handle that any better.

Also, my source for Medicare administrative costs wasn't disingenuous.  I specifically said that administrative costs per patient were higher for Medicare patients than private care patients.  It's admin costs as a percentage of total costs that are higher for private care patients vs. Medicare, which isn't really that meaningful.

I'll try and respond to the rest of your post when I get more time.



makingmusic476 said:
mrstickball said:

1. The VA still spends ~$9,000 USD per veteran. You can argue the cost of their care is higher, but if you could, please provide some sort of data that would seek to equate what kind of care the VA gives that would increase costs vs. regular insurance. For every veteran that needs extensive care, there are others that just simply get checkups every year. Your article also mentions significant rationing of care for veterans. I think those numbers would speak for themselves as to the effect of a one-payer system in regards to the American system of health care. That is, that in the US, other problems are driving costs up that aren't associated with a single-payer system (to which, I've always mentioned this in health care discussions).

As for your argument about administrative costs on health care, your citation is very disingenous. Medicare spends much more in care than private insurance does, so even if it spends less on administration, it spends far more overall. Here's the chart that discusses your very argument:

 

 

2. For your argument on education, you have half of a point. Due to the government involving themselves significantly in the student loan process, they are subsidizing loans to make colleges richer. Much like they did through real estate and the Community Reinvestment Act. That is a key problem with crony capitalism and socialism in that monies are mal-invested, inflating the cost of a given service. Additionally, you never addressed my argument concerning lower education. We have the same system in place you are vouching for - full government controll of higher education - in K-12, and they still have the same problem of very high costs and stagnating returns on services rendered. Why would you want government to control these institutions when they've proven they cannot control costs or perform at a competitive level with other public systems?

 

4. Can you give a specific example of a corporation monopolizing an industry, then increasing prices? That is, unless your talking about government monopolies taking over an industry and increasing costs, then that may be a good example, and prescisely why I do not want government taking over an industry such as health care or education.

 

5. Digging in the ground involves work which is done by many different peoples. Printing money is done by one entity. That is why I have a problem with the way fiat currency is handled in the US.

Might I ask where you're getting this $9000 figure from?  All the reports I can find are from 2006 (Fortune:  VA Hospital vs. Private Sector Hospitals), which say that VA costs per patient held steady at ~$5000 between 1996 and 2006, while private care had risen to ~$6300 as of 2006.  It seems unlikely costs would have suddenly doubled over the next six years.

And that was the point I was trying to make: that while it is expected that costs for veterans would be more than that for your average patient, this is not the case for the VA, as far as I can tell.

As for rationing care, the only reason care was rationed at any point is because of the sudden influx of patients after we entered Iraq.  A system that covers the entire nation would be far more stable, with a sudden and significant influx of patients being unlikely.  Though it's not like private care systems could handle that any better.

Also, my source for Medicare administrative costs wasn't disingenuous.  I specifically said that administrative costs per patient were higher for Medicare patients than private care patients.  It's admin costs as a percentage of total costs that are higher for private care patients vs. Medicare, which isn't really that meaningful.

I'll try and respond to the rest of your post when I get more time.

http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_department_of_veterans_affairs.pdf

As per the VA's own information:

$40 billion USD for health care

5.5 million veterans served in 2008.

= Approx. $7,272.72 in FY 2008.

 

For 2012:

$54.4 billion USD for health care

5.6 million (est) veterans served in 2012

or 6.2 million (est) vets and non-vets served in 2012.

= $8,799 cost per patient is projected for 2012. Source: http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2012_Budget_Rollout.pdf

Again, that shows that average cost of care in 2012 is certainly much higher than your citation. This data is directly from the VA.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_department_of_veterans_affairs.pdf

As per the VA's own information:

$40 billion USD for health care

5.5 million veterans served in 2008.

= Approx. $7,272.72 in FY 2008.

 

For 2012:

$54.4 billion USD for health care

5.6 million (est) veterans served in 2012

or 6.2 million (est) vets and non-vets served in 2012.

= $8,799 cost per patient is projected for 2012. Source: http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2012_Budget_Rollout.pdf

Again, that shows that average cost of care in 2012 is certainly much higher than your citation. This data is directly from the VA.

Ah, so for 2012, you took the total budget ($132 billion) and multiplied it by the percent spent on medical programs to get $54.4 billion?

I did the same for 2006 (data can be found in the report on the right hand side here) and got $6236 per patient per year, which is much higher than the $5000 reported by numerous news sites. I wonder how they're calculating the figure compared to how we're calculating it.  And honestly, this makes me wonder how people are calculating the cost per person for private care as well.

I've also run the numbers for 2007.  The VA spent $37.3 billion on "medical care & research" in FY07, and they treated ~5.600 million veterans, which amounts to ~$6600 per person, or an increase of almost $400 per person for the year.    Though if they used whatever method they used in 2006 to calculate that $5000 figure, the 2007 figure might be lower.  I guess they excluded research and calculated strictly medical care?

I'm having trouble tracking down any specific figures for private medical care in the US for 2007 or later, though I have found figures for the average cost of medical care in the US for 2007, amounting to $7290 per person:

http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/

The figures are from National Geographic.  If accurate, then according to the latest data I can find the VA spends less than the average per person per year, and thus presumably less than then that spent by private care.  Do you happen to have figures for a later year?

And I can't find any data detailing cost of care for veterans vs regular citizens, but I don't think it'd be dangerous to assume that veterans are more likely to have physical handicaps or suffer from mental conditions such as PTSD than the average US citizen, given many of our veterans have spent time in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Any such people would, theoretically, require more care than the average person, thus raising their total costs for the year.  It doesn't change the current data we have available, but it's something to keep in mind.



makingmusic476 said:

http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_department_of_veterans_affairs.pdf

As per the VA's own information:

$40 billion USD for health care

5.5 million veterans served in 2008.

= Approx. $7,272.72 in FY 2008.

 

For 2012:

$54.4 billion USD for health care

5.6 million (est) veterans served in 2012

or 6.2 million (est) vets and non-vets served in 2012.

= $8,799 cost per patient is projected for 2012. Source: http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/Fy2012_Budget_Rollout.pdf

Again, that shows that average cost of care in 2012 is certainly much higher than your citation. This data is directly from the VA.

Ah, so for 2012, you took the total budget ($132 billion) and multiplied it by the percent spent on medical programs to get $54.4 billion?

I did the same for 2006 (data can be found in the report on the right hand side here) and got $6236 per patient per year, which is much higher than the $5000 reported by numerous news sites. I wonder how they're calculating the figure compared to how we're calculating it.  And honestly, this makes me wonder how people are calculating the cost per person for private care as well.And I can't find any data detailing cost of care for veterans vs regular citizens, but I don't think it'd be dangerous to assume that veterans are more likely to have physical handicaps or suffer from mental conditions such as PTSD than the average US citizen, given many of our veterans have spent time in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Any such people would, theoretically, require more care than the average person, thus raising their total costs for the year.  It doesn't change the current data we have available, but it's something to keep in mind.


The problem is, everyone is quoting the CBO number.

The CBO number isn't "Spending per patienet" it's spending per enrollee.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8892/maintext.3.1.shtml

A few things to consider  about VA Healthcare

Reason's it's cheaper then it looks

1) Like you said, people are more likely to be injured in the wars and such, though oddly the largest expendeutre per patient is actually. "Major disability not caused by/during service.

Reasons it's more exepnsive then it looks.

1) Cheap to No Copay.   The Most expensive Copay for some priority groups is $15... and it's even waived in many cases... and all VA plans have Copays

Which means someone could have a cold and go in for that cold just for some antihistimines or something, spend 1 time at the doctors office and then basically that's "1 patient" while a lot of private insureres have straight "No Copay" plans because they're cheaper.  As such people are less likely to bother the doctor over trivial things

2)  VA bills other insurance companies.  When you enroll in VA health insurance coverage you've got to submit your other health insurance needs.  So if my Dad were to use a VA hospital, they would bill his Blue Cross insurance for anything non combat related.  As such, for a lot of people, the VA is doing nothing but paying off the Copay's Deductables of other inusrance.

For example If my dad was hospitlized and it cost him $100,000 dollars, he had a 5,000 deductable and a 5,000 50% shared plan after that... his Private Insurance total treatment cost would be $99,000 and his VA total treatment cost would be $10,000

3) The VA doesn't count management, nor legal nor anything else really, while when it comes to health insurance I believe they straight count EVERYTHING it cost, right down to lawyers.  (Which the VA also gets for free.)

Reason VA coverage isn't as good as you'd think.

1) The VA is only currently good because it was previously awful, in like, the most horrifying ghastly way possible.  Like around 1994, they found 3 dead bodies of patients who were aloud to wander outside of a VA hospital... two had been missing for months.

One had been missing for 15 years. 

They were stuck between major reforms and shutting down the VA all together, and what fixed up the VA?   Well they union busted, and got the right to fire doctors they viewed as incompetant, they decentralized the system because the overall federal bueraucracy was costing all kinds of money, they instituted performance based market incentives for executives.

Which generally is the problem with government run programs... they're happy to roll with slowly declining mediocrity (Or in this case, rat infested pure awfulness) until their jobs are at stake.

EDIT:  Which can be seen by the fact that Kizer, the guy who made the changes ended up getting blocked from recomfirmation because he redistributed funding based on veteran populations.   Those states losing VA funding were pissed even though they had less veterans then they did previously, and made him pay.



Rpruett said:
i_p_freely said:
If I was American and voted republican then Ron Paul would be my choice... although if I was American, I probably wouldn't vote republican. Past Presidents and current candidates give the republican party a bad name, in my opinion. And the whole healthcare thing too.

Past Democrats have done the same thing.  Both parties are guilty of the same things.  If you really want to get historical about it.   Additionally,  Ron Paul has no other options in the way that this country is setup.  Your only hope of winning is by fitting into the cookie cutter dynamic of a two party system.   

As for the healthcare thing?  Please.  Why should I have to pay for someone elses medical problems, lifestyle choices and mistakes?  

If you pay for health insurance, thats exactly what you're doing! Where do you think the money goes? Only you pay huge amounts each year for it since costs are so high - France for example uses the fact that it buys medicine, equipment in huge bulk to drive down costs. Pharmacy companies have 2 choices - dont sell in France or sell there stuff cheaper.

And even if I did, why would I want some suit in Washington to decide how that money gets spent?  The same guys who vote to give themselves pay raises during the worst recession since the Great Depression?   

Better some guy in Washington who has (or should have) the best interest of people in mind rather than a greedy corperation out to make a profit and find any way to not pay out for a procedure. 

Do you realize how ass backwards that is? This whole concept of socialized medicine is hitting a peak because people are most vulnerable currently than they have been in over 60 years.  It's another way for the government to take control of your life.

At least where i'm from the Government doesn't say who can have what procedure - a doctor does. And they cant refuse anyone care. It's not backward. Whats backward is a private system thats way overpriced compared to any other system with no real benefits.

If its backward, why not privatise the police force? the fire service? the army?

Going off topic a bit now. Ron Paul is a clever guy and even though I dont agree with everything he does hes the best republican candidate in my opinion.



This is not an exit.