By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama Health care plan.

mrstickball on 16 March 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
Lord Flashheart brought up a very good point. If the government is responsible for the physical safety of the population, why shouldn't it also be responsible for health?

As far as I can see, much more people die from bad health than from external threats that the military takes care of...

Government does have the FDA. There is a difference between protecting people, and providing for people.

I am all for the government making sure doctors will not kill me because they are incompetent, or the FDA making sure a meat processing does not poison me.

These are ways government protects the health of it's people. Paying for a healthcare service however, is not the same thing.

If there was some magical way the government could provide healthcare to everyone, and it not mean someone is not forced to work in the service of others, I would be for it.

The government makes nothing. For them to provide for someone, first they have to take it away from someone else. That, I will never be for.

So you would rather people go without help and be put in debt or jail for not being able to cover the cost or hope some charitable soul helps them is better than say diverting funds away from your armed forces to provide basic healthcare?

In a natural disaster if someone is injured does your government not help them? or do they have to show their insurance details first?

Depends on the natural disaster. In 90% of disasters (mainly hurricanes, floods, ect), the insurance companies help with payments and local churches help with recovery efforts. The government is not needed in most cases. Or in your country, did the government come out and have to pay for snow removal around your house earlier this year when it snowed a lot?

A health country is a more productive country. How can you say peoploe should be forced to find their own health care but not the same for education? or the roads. Maybe everyone should pay for the upkeep of the road outside their house and if they don't want to then fine.

Actually, Mafoo and I agree that people should find their own education too. Our education system in the US sucks as well, because there is no competition among teachers and schools, and we have wound up paying more money for less education than most other countries.

I don't understand how people can say a basic human need, health, is up to the person and not essential and the gov should stay out of, my taxes are better spent elsewhere but then quite happily have the gov pay for something you don't really need like roads with your money?

Human need is a matter of perspective. We did not even have a tenth of the healthcare services in 1900 that we do today. What is a person entitled to? A 100 year lifespan, no matter what?

Education, health, food and a home are essentials for people to survive and if someone has problems with that then there should be some way of getting it. If there is a broken system or no system in place then it's down to the gov to do their job and provide it or put it in place for the population.

Yet for two of those four, the government does not control 100% of the services (food, homes), do they? Yet you are arguing that they do that for health in America. See, here is the problem:

The government does not fix food prices, nor home prices, because it is a good that has rapidly reduced in price over the past 100 years. 100 years ago, food costs made up 40-50% of a households annual budget. Due to revolutions in agriculture, that percentage has reduced to 10-15%. Homes can be in a similar situation - free markets allow supply and demand to be met, and everyone wins. However, with healthcare and education, prices and quality can suffer immensely under government control. In America, our education system costs more than almost any other country in the world, and we rank in the top 30s for math and sciences. Therefore, we get a horrible return on investment.

You do not understand our system. We have government health care. Medicare has about 40 million recipients, at a cost of $7,500 per person. That is almost twice the national average for private health care insurance (which is about $4,500 per person). If the government expands its role in health care, it will be enrolling new people at the $7,500 rate, not the $4,500 rate.

Nothing in the governments new health care bills addresses that issue. Health care costs are not expensive because the government does not run it, but because there are many issues surrounding the industry. I have outlined them before in this threat (AFAIK), and will gladly do it again.

So if the government does force its hand in making more people enrolled in a public system, our costs will go up not down. When that happens, more money will be taken away from everyone - rich, poor, middle class. We may have to pay out 25% of our annual GDP in health care, just to cover a system where everyone has health care. Simply because the system is broken and needs fixed.

Mafoo does not advocate that we do nothing. There are very practical fixes that can reduce the cost for people to get health care - government and public sectors included. We both want health care reform. We want them to reduce the costs of care, so more people can afford it first. Once the cost has dropped down, then we can look at how best to handle mandatory health care, or other systems. For example, in America, we require everyone that drives to have auto insurance. However, the insurance is cheap, readily available, and incredibly competitive. No one complains about the system, because it works fantastically. We could do the same with health care if we fixed it FIRST, then looked at how best to take care of those that need health care.

Of course no-one here will ever be homeless, hungry, out of work for a long time or seriously unhealthy over an extende period with no insurancw.

Given your immense debts to foreign creditors, I wonder how long you can sustain that.

That just doesn't happen.

Americans have a piss poor system which isn't working unless you're rich and are objecting to a possible alternative using fox news excuses to justify it.

We are not objecting to a better system. We are objecting to a worse system, which has been proposed by the democrats in congress, and backed by the president.

It boggles the mind. I've seen this before when govs don't want to bring in a change which could possibly help and they feed propagander to the masses who lap it up and repeat it verbatum.

You know, Hugo Chavez said the same thing about food distributions to the poor in their country. Look how well that went. Not every government controlled sector is benevolent.

I'm not saying that the new system will work I'm just questioning the attitudes of the american public. No-one has given a good enough reason why having the gov change the system is bad. Are you all telling me that the current system was not put in place by the gov? and they had no hand in it?

I do not think your well informed about the American public. The public has seen what congress is trying to do with the bill - load it with a lot of crap, and favors - and distains the bill. They want something simpler, and more malleable to work with, which is totally understandable. The American public absolutely wants health care reform - why do you think the Dems have been working on it? However, the American people do not want a 2,700 page overhaul of the system, changing virtually everything. They want a 10 page bill that gets the ball rolling on reducing costs. The American people never wanted universal health care, government take overs, or mandatory insurance. They just want to pay less for health care - and they are not getting that with the bills that are currently being circulated through congress.

Please help me to understand your attitudes. I really want to thats why I'm asking.

Hopefully that helps your understanding



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Lord Flashheart on 16 March 2010
mrstickball said:
Lord Flashheart said:

So you would rather people go without help and be put in debt or jail for not being able to cover the cost or hope some charitable soul helps them is better than say diverting funds away from your armed forces to provide basic healthcare?

In a natural disaster if someone is injured does your government not help them? or do they have to show their insurance details first?

Depends on the natural disaster. In 90% of disasters (mainly hurricanes, floods, ect), the insurance companies help with payments and local churches help with recovery efforts. The government is not needed in most cases. Or in your country, did the government come out and have to pay for snow removal around your house earlier this year when it snowed a lot?

The area I live in didn't get any snow but why would they pay to remove the snow. Bad analagy. They don't pay to unblock my drains or paint my house. They did send the army in to help with the flooding or gritters and snow ploughs during the freeze.A charity just wouldn't have had the resourses to do that. It's the local gov in New york that provides those services not charities and not insurance providers.

A health country is a more productive country. How can you say peoploe should be forced to find their own health care but not the same for education? or the roads. Maybe everyone should pay for the upkeep of the road outside their house and if they don't want to then fine.

Actually, Mafoo and I agree that people should find their own education too. Our education system in the US sucks as well, because there is no competition among teachers and schools, and we have wound up paying more money for less education than most other countries.

And the people that couldn't afford it?What do they do?I doubt if it was all private it would be cheaper. Look at the extortionate cost of private schools. Poor areas wont get enough funding (if they do now) and the quality will be lower. 

I don't understand how people can say a basic human need, health, is up to the person and not essential and the gov should stay out of, my taxes are better spent elsewhere but then quite happily have the gov pay for something you don't really need like roads with your money?

Human need is a matter of perspective. We did not even have a tenth of the healthcare services in 1900 that we do today. What is a person entitled to? A 100 year lifespan, no matter what?

A person is entitled to whats available in that country. But without health how will you work to provide for yourself? You need health. How will you enjoy life to the fullest you can? Don't you deserve to have treatment if it's there? Would you want to sit and suffer because you don't have the right policy forced upon you by your job with no say or choice in the matter? Without health you can't live.

Education, health, food and a home are essentials for people to survive and if someone has problems with that then there should be some way of getting it. If there is a broken system or no system in place then it's down to the gov to do their job and provide it or put it in place for the population.

Yet for two of those four, the government does not control 100% of the services (food, homes), do they? Yet you are arguing that they do that for health in America. See, here is the problem:

The government does not fix food prices, nor home prices, because it is a good that has rapidly reduced in price over the past 100 years. 100 years ago, food costs made up 40-50% of a households annual budget. Due to revolutions in agriculture, that percentage has reduced to 10-15%. Homes can be in a similar situation - free markets allow supply and demand to be met, and everyone wins. However, with healthcare and education, prices and quality can suffer immensely under government control. In America, our education system costs more than almost any other country in the world, and we rank in the top 30s for math and sciences. Therefore, we get a horrible return on investment.

You do not understand our system. We have government health care. Medicare has about 40 million recipients, at a cost of $7,500 per person. That is almost twice the national average for private health care insurance (which is about $4,500 per person). If the government expands its role in health care, it will be enrolling new people at the $7,500 rate, not the $4,500 rate.

Nothing in the governments new health care bills addresses that issue. Health care costs are not expensive because the government does not run it, but because there are many issues surrounding the industry. I have outlined them before in this threat (AFAIK), and will gladly do it again.

So if the government does force its hand in making more people enrolled in a public system, our costs will go up not down. When that happens, more money will be taken away from everyone - rich, poor, middle class. We may have to pay out 25% of our annual GDP in health care, just to cover a system where everyone has health care. Simply because the system is broken and needs fixed.

Mafoo does not advocate that we do nothing. There are very practical fixes that can reduce the cost for people to get health care - government and public sectors included. We both want health care reform. We want them to reduce the costs of care, so more people can afford it first. Once the cost has dropped down, then we can look at how best to handle mandatory health care, or other systems. For example, in America, we require everyone that drives to have auto insurance. However, the insurance is cheap, readily available, and incredibly competitive. No one complains about the system, because it works fantastically. We could do the same with health care if we fixed it FIRST, then looked at how best to take care of those that need health care.

I see what you mean about the cost rising for everyone but will it? Isn't thsat scare mongering? How much of your food is subsidised by the gov? Regulated by them? I agree that and this goes for health care it shouldn't be gov run but you pay your taxes. Where is that money going. The gov should step in if its failing like it looks like it is. It should be there to offer out the money for these services as it's your money.

Car insurance is different. I've paid mine for over a decade and never needed it. That's why its so cheap, well not here but thats rip-off britain for you, they only pay out now and then and will do everything not to. With health care you might not need it now but you will eventually. And quite often especially as you get older. You keep claiming on you car insurance and what happens to your premiums?

Maybe a better way of putting it is you need the funding. If a bit comes from everyone they can pool the money and invest it wisely. You hope. but with people investing in one insurance and others in another you don't get the same level of funding and premiums go up. You don't get the same level of investment. Do the hospitals only get the money after they've treated someone? I guess I'm wary of insurance brokers being in charge of the funds. They aren't an honest bunch at the best of times and always looking to save money.

Of course no-one here will ever be homeless, hungry, out of work for a long time or seriously unhealthy over an extende period with no insurancw.

Given your immense debts to foreign creditors, I wonder how long you can sustain that.

Every country has huge debts abroad. By that reasoning every country will go bankrupt and fall.

That just doesn't happen.

Americans have a piss poor system which isn't working unless you're rich and are objecting to a possible alternative using fox news excuses to justify it.

We are not objecting to a better system. We are objecting to a worse system, which has been proposed by the democrats in congress, and backed by the president.

I hear a lot of republican vs democrats and it seems to be if you're one side then anything the other proposes is wrong without question and vice versa. Is that why you don't like it?

It boggles the mind. I've seen this before when govs don't want to bring in a change which could possibly help and they feed propagander to the masses who lap it up and repeat it verbatum.

You know, Hugo Chavez said the same thing about food distributions to the poor in their country. Look how well that went. Not every government controlled sector is benevolent.

I doubt any are.

I'm not saying that the new system will work I'm just questioning the attitudes of the american public. No-one has given a good enough reason why having the gov change the system is bad. Are you all telling me that the current system was not put in place by the gov? and they had no hand in it?

I do not think your well informed about the American public. The public has seen what congress is trying to do with the bill - load it with a lot of crap, and favors - and distains the bill. They want something simpler, and more malleable to work with, which is totally understandable. The American public absolutely wants health care reform - why do you think the Dems have been working on it? However, the American people do not want a 2,700 page overhaul of the system, changing virtually everything. They want a 10 page bill that gets the ball rolling on reducing costs. The American people never wanted universal health care, government take overs, or mandatory insurance. They just want to pay less for health care - and they are not getting that with the bills that are currently being circulated through congress.

I'm not for overly-complicating things but maybe this needs a complete overhaul and 10 pages wont do that. I'll resist the "duming down for Americans" bit ;-P but change isn't easy and you have Obama. He can do anything and yes we can and all that. Thats why you voting for the messiah./jk So you want to pay less but you don't want mandatory insurance, gov take over or universal health care. You do have to pay you know. Unless you want a system where you pay as needed I don't see how you'll get that. And that system is expensive. It sounds like if the reason yanks don't want reform is because the proposal is too long then maybe it should be done without them. Did they really expect it to be bullet points?

Please help me to understand your attitudes. I really want to thats why I'm asking.

Hopefully that helps your understanding

Actually it does help. Still not convinced but I'm more glad than ever we have our own broken system but I do have a slightly better understanding.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Lord Flashheart on 16 March 2010

Sorry everyone for the long post



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

mrstickball on 16 March 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
mrstickball said:
Lord Flashheart said:

So you would rather people go without help and be put in debt or jail for not being able to cover the cost or hope some charitable soul helps them is better than say diverting funds away from your armed forces to provide basic healthcare?

In a natural disaster if someone is injured does your government not help them? or do they have to show their insurance details first?

Depends on the natural disaster. In 90% of disasters (mainly hurricanes, floods, ect), the insurance companies help with payments and local churches help with recovery efforts. The government is not needed in most cases. Or in your country, did the government come out and have to pay for snow removal around your house earlier this year when it snowed a lot?

The area I live in didn't get any snow but why would they pay to remove the snow. Bad analagy. They don't pay to unblock my drains or paint my house. They did send the army in to help with the flooding or gritters and snow ploughs during the freeze.A charity just wouldn't have had the resourses to do that. It's the local gov in New york that provides those services not charities and not insurance providers.


A health country is a more productive country. How can you say peoploe should be forced to find their own health care but not the same for education? or the roads. Maybe everyone should pay for the upkeep of the road outside their house and if they don't want to then fine.

Actually, Mafoo and I agree that people should find their own education too. Our education system in the US sucks as well, because there is no competition among teachers and schools, and we have wound up paying more money for less education than most other countries.

And the people that couldn't afford it?What do they do?I doubt if it was all private it would be cheaper. Look at the extortionate cost of private schools. Poor areas wont get enough funding (if they do now) and the quality will be lower. 

I don't understand how people can say a basic human need, health, is up to the person and not essential and the gov should stay out of, my taxes are better spent elsewhere but then quite happily have the gov pay for something you don't really need like roads with your money?

Human need is a matter of perspective. We did not even have a tenth of the healthcare services in 1900 that we do today. What is a person entitled to? A 100 year lifespan, no matter what?

A person is entitled to whats available in that country. But without health how will you work to provide for yourself? You need health. How will you enjoy life to the fullest you can? Don't you deserve to have treatment if it's there? Would you want to sit and suffer because you don't have the right policy forced upon you by your job with no say or choice in the matter? Without health you can't live.

Education, health, food and a home are essentials for people to survive and if someone has problems with that then there should be some way of getting it. If there is a broken system or no system in place then it's down to the gov to do their job and provide it or put it in place for the population.

Yet for two of those four, the government does not control 100% of the services (food, homes), do they? Yet you are arguing that they do that for health in America. See, here is the problem:

The government does not fix food prices, nor home prices, because it is a good that has rapidly reduced in price over the past 100 years. 100 years ago, food costs made up 40-50% of a households annual budget. Due to revolutions in agriculture, that percentage has reduced to 10-15%. Homes can be in a similar situation - free markets allow supply and demand to be met, and everyone wins. However, with healthcare and education, prices and quality can suffer immensely under government control. In America, our education system costs more than almost any other country in the world, and we rank in the top 30s for math and sciences. Therefore, we get a horrible return on investment.

You do not understand our system. We have government health care. Medicare has about 40 million recipients, at a cost of $7,500 per person. That is almost twice the national average for private health care insurance (which is about $4,500 per person). If the government expands its role in health care, it will be enrolling new people at the $7,500 rate, not the $4,500 rate.

Nothing in the governments new health care bills addresses that issue. Health care costs are not expensive because the government does not run it, but because there are many issues surrounding the industry. I have outlined them before in this threat (AFAIK), and will gladly do it again.

So if the government does force its hand in making more people enrolled in a public system, our costs will go up not down. When that happens, more money will be taken away from everyone - rich, poor, middle class. We may have to pay out 25% of our annual GDP in health care, just to cover a system where everyone has health care. Simply because the system is broken and needs fixed.

Mafoo does not advocate that we do nothing. There are very practical fixes that can reduce the cost for people to get health care - government and public sectors included. We both want health care reform. We want them to reduce the costs of care, so more people can afford it first. Once the cost has dropped down, then we can look at how best to handle mandatory health care, or other systems. For example, in America, we require everyone that drives to have auto insurance. However, the insurance is cheap, readily available, and incredibly competitive. No one complains about the system, because it works fantastically. We could do the same with health care if we fixed it FIRST, then looked at how best to take care of those that need health care.

I see what you mean about the cost rising for everyone but will it? Isn't thsat scare mongering? How much of your food is subsidised by the gov? Regulated by them? I agree that and this goes for health care it shouldn't be gov run but you pay your taxes. Where is that money going. The gov should step in if its failing like it looks like it is. It should be there to offer out the money for these services as it's your money.

Car insurance is different. I've paid mine for over a decade and never needed it. That's why its so cheap, well not here but thats rip-off britain for you, they only pay out now and then and will do everything not to. With health care you might not need it now but you will eventually. And quite often especially as you get older. You keep claiming on you car insurance and what happens to your premiums?

Maybe a better way of putting it is you need the funding. If a bit comes from everyone they can pool the money and invest it wisely. You hope. but with people investing in one insurance and others in another you don't get the same level of funding and premiums go up. You don't get the same level of investment. Do the hospitals only get the money after they've treated someone? I guess I'm wary of insurance brokers being in charge of the funds. They aren't an honest bunch at the best of times and always looking to save money.

Of course no-one here will ever be homeless, hungry, out of work for a long time or seriously unhealthy over an extende period with no insurancw.

Given your immense debts to foreign creditors, I wonder how long you can sustain that.

Every country has huge debts abroad. By that reasoning every country will go bankrupt and fall.

That just doesn't happen.

Americans have a piss poor system which isn't working unless you're rich and are objecting to a possible alternative using fox news excuses to justify it.

We are not objecting to a better system. We are objecting to a worse system, which has been proposed by the democrats in congress, and backed by the president.

I hear a lot of republican vs democrats and it seems to be if you're one side then anything the other proposes is wrong without question and vice versa. Is that why you don't like it?

It boggles the mind. I've seen this before when govs don't want to bring in a change which could possibly help and they feed propagander to the masses who lap it up and repeat it verbatum.

You know, Hugo Chavez said the same thing about food distributions to the poor in their country. Look how well that went. Not every government controlled sector is benevolent.

I doubt any are.

I'm not saying that the new system will work I'm just questioning the attitudes of the american public. No-one has given a good enough reason why having the gov change the system is bad. Are you all telling me that the current system was not put in place by the gov? and they had no hand in it?

I do not think your well informed about the American public. The public has seen what congress is trying to do with the bill - load it with a lot of crap, and favors - and distains the bill. They want something simpler, and more malleable to work with, which is totally understandable. The American public absolutely wants health care reform - why do you think the Dems have been working on it? However, the American people do not want a 2,700 page overhaul of the system, changing virtually everything. They want a 10 page bill that gets the ball rolling on reducing costs. The American people never wanted universal health care, government take overs, or mandatory insurance. They just want to pay less for health care - and they are not getting that with the bills that are currently being circulated through congress.

I'm not for overly-complicating things but maybe this needs a complete overhaul and 10 pages wont do that. I'll resist the "duming down for Americans" bit ;-P but change isn't easy and you have Obama. He can do anything and yes we can and all that. Thats why you voting for the messiah./jk So you want to pay less but you don't want mandatory insurance, gov take over or universal health care. You do have to pay you know. Unless you want a system where you pay as needed I don't see how you'll get that. And that system is expensive. It sounds like if the reason yanks don't want reform is because the proposal is too long then maybe it should be done without them. Did they really expect it to be bullet points?

Please help me to understand your attitudes. I really want to thats why I'm asking.

Hopefully that helps your understanding

Actually it does help. Still not convinced but I'm more glad than ever we have our own broken system but I do have a slightly better understanding.

I'll re-start the discussion here to avoid duplication(s):

1.

Actually, my church does a lot of service when it comes to snow removal for people that are physically unable to remove the snow themselves. So I'd imagine that there are many possibilities for non-government snow removal. My point of the argument is that there are many disasters that happen that the government does not get involved in - just like how the government does not, and should not, get involved in providing health care for every single person. If it did that in the US (home of a population much larger than any other country that has universal HC), costs would be immense, and the result would be massive inefficencies. That is why I dislike the idea of further government involvement.

2. Again, I gave you solid, factual, data. Private insurance costs, on average, $4,500 per person per plan. Here is a link for you that has data about private plans. Read the data at the bottom. Note that the no-deductable plans cost immensely (about $15,000/yr for a family) while the higher deductible plans (catastrophic plans) are incredibly cheap. Comparatively, we can find out the cost of medicare by dividing the amount of money given to the program, by the number of enrolees, which is about ~$7,500 per person.

As for private school, you are grossly mistaken. In Ohio (where I live), the average cost of a private school is $5,000 per student, and on average, that student gets a better education than the government run schools which cost $8,500/yr on average. Yes, some private schools are expensive, but for the most part, they are radically cheaper. Speaking personally, I was not public schooled. I was homeschooled by my mom my entire life. My total expenses for schooling (for 11 years, graduated early with a 3.2 GPA and a 25 on the ACT) were about $5,000 - I was educated for 11 years for less than the cost of 1 year of public schooling. So there are ways out there to save money vs. public systems. I'm not arguing that the government needs to stop paying for education, but that it needs to greatly rethink its strategy.

3. Just because something is available doesn't mean your entitled to it. Are you entitled to a mansion if you cannot afford it? Are you entitled to take Peyton Manning's spot at QB simply because that position exists? Should you recieve a McClaren F1 for transportation to work? You assume that without universal healthcare, you will have countless people that die for no reason. I would argue that there are many cheap, affordable ways to keep yourself healthy and fit that can prevent dire illnesses.

You act as if every single person in America gets a crazy disease during their working years, and requires a massive spending program to ensure they survive, and can continue working...Even with our 'bad' health care system, our life expectancy is within a year or two of anywhere else in the developed world - despite having insanely high obesity.

In America, a large amount of our diseases are due to intentional choices - drug usage, smoking, overeating, and sedintary lifestyles have grave impacts on our system. We know that these things can cause problems for the system. Why then, should people be entitled to care when they have not even cared for themselves? Going further, if you have a government-run system, you are forced into government-run options. What happens if a Christian fundementalist gets into power in the US, and decides that treatments for STDs shouldn't be given? Then a lot of people are out of care. What if the budget cannot handle heart transplants because the money isn't there? Then people die. No system is perfect. That is why I want them to make the system affordable so that more people can get good insurances and health care. Once that is done, we can look at ways of helping those that need health care, and aren't getting it yet

4. See, the government doesn't have money. It is running a massive deficit. It can't give out money for health care that simply does not exist. That is another reason as to why I don't want them running health care - health care is too valuable to be dependant on a politician's whim, or a promise-making snake oil salesmen that doesn't understand that we're running a $10 trillion deficit, and cannot afford any sort of further plans that cost money. I am advocating solutions that have a high likelihood of lowering the costs of health care, therefore increasing the possibility that those that cannot afford it, can. My suggestions (and Mafoo's, and many others) cost the federal government $0.00. 

I don't get the argument about you not needing car insurance. Do you need a car insurance plan that demands regular oil changes? Free tires? The thing is, most health care plans demand things that are regular, and are not free. That is why health care costs so much - people are demanding too much, and don't understand that it can and will cost. If you have had insurance for 10 years, and not needed car insurance, why should health care be any different? I don't believe people get incredibly sick often that requires lots of insurance claims, do they? Insurance is usually meant for severe, life-threatening problems - much like car insurance is, correct? As stated, high-deductable plans in the US are quite cheap ($5,000/yr for a family of 4. Thats about 1/5th the cost of NHS in the UK). On such a plan, if a person had to have a massive surgery or treatment (such as cancer), it would be taken care of...Much in the same way that car insurance protects against major wrecks, not oil changes. 

I don't think you understand why health care costs so much in the US, so I will reiterate how we can reduce health care costs without government involvement.

Here is how we can fix health care. My advocation is that the congress passes a law fixing these problems once at a time. I'm not saying that we 'don't' need a 2,700 page bill. However, passing one piece of legislation that is that massive can insert (as the bill actually does) a lot of bad legislation, among the good. Why not pass 270 bills that are 10 pages? That way, if something needs corrected, it can be done thanks to the congressmen actually debating the merits of the exact legislation, rather than a behemoth of a bill.

Anyways, here are 4 suggestions to reduce costs in health care:

  • Remove state boundaries for insurance programs. In the US, insurance companies cannot offer plans across state lines. It is highly compartmentalized, which increases costs, and decreases competition. If the government can ensure that companies can compete against each other, better plans can and will be offered.
  • Work to reduce medical malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice insurance is very expensive. If the government can limit fines on this, to ensure only the most egregious cases are paid handsomely, and not every single case, these massive costs can go down.
  • Increase the number of doctors/nurses that can care for patients. The US has the highest standards of any nation for doctors. We require 12+ years of study to become a doctor. Those costs are directly translated to higher salaries for the doctors, which in turn increases costs of health care. This needs fixed. Also, to go to an office for a simple cold requires a doctor to look at you...Should a doctor who spent 12 years of study be the right person for a 15 minute checkup on a cold? I think a nurse practitioner would be better suited for some of this stuff. Going further, you can look at any trade paper for nurses, and see that hospitals are paying huge bonuses for nurses. That money comes from somewhere, which eventually comes from the patients in the way of higher fees. If we have more nurses and doctors, then the job becomes less lucrative, as there is more competition. We'd get better health care and lower fees.
  • Remove the tax incentive from employers offering health care...Offer the incentive to everyone. Another issue is that employers get tax incentives to offer health care coverage....Why? Why should they offer insurance? Would it not be better for people to decide for their own plans? It would ensure that people have a better connection with their insurance and health care. There would be more competition for people's medical dollars, ensuring there is better care.

Those are 4 ideas that would help fix the system. The 4th plan may cost money, but I would imagine it would be very minor by comparison to a sweeping health bill.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Lord Flashheart on 18 March 2010

Your post shows me that you are deliberately seeing things in what I'm asking just to validate your hate for change instead of addressing what i'm asking.
3. is a perfect example
"3. Just because something is available doesn't mean your entitled to it. Are you entitled to a mansion if you cannot afford it? Are you entitled to take Peyton Manning's spot at QB simply because that position exists? Should you recieve a McClaren F1 for transportation to work? You assume that without universal healthcare, you will have countless people that die for no reason. I would argue that there are many cheap, affordable ways to keep yourself healthy and fit that can prevent dire illnesses.

You act as if every single person in America gets a crazy disease during their working years, and requires a massive spending program to ensure they survive, and can continue working...Even with our 'bad' health care system, our life expectancy is within a year or two of anywhere else in the developed world - despite having insanely high obesity."

Way to take what I say and blow it completely and ridiculously out of proportion to mock my argument. Well done. Yes everyone should get a McClaren F1 and a mansion.
Now I see the level you are sinking to I'm done with you and the rest of your post.
All I wanted was to understand but you wanted to treat this like I'm a democrat (I guess you are republican) and make something out of this that was unnecessary. Stick to Fox news.

Can anyone else able to keep themselves within the boundries of reality answer my questions please. That is if you aren't dieing of a crazy disease. Preferably someone who's retired.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 19 March 2010
Lord Flashheart said:

Your post shows me that you are deliberately seeing things in what I'm asking just to validate your hate for change instead of addressing what i'm asking.
3. is a perfect example
"3. Just because something is available doesn't mean your entitled to it. Are you entitled to a mansion if you cannot afford it? Are you entitled to take Peyton Manning's spot at QB simply because that position exists? Should you recieve a McClaren F1 for transportation to work? You assume that without universal healthcare, you will have countless people that die for no reason. I would argue that there are many cheap, affordable ways to keep yourself healthy and fit that can prevent dire illnesses.

You act as if every single person in America gets a crazy disease during their working years, and requires a massive spending program to ensure they survive, and can continue working...Even with our 'bad' health care system, our life expectancy is within a year or two of anywhere else in the developed world - despite having insanely high obesity."

Way to take what I say and blow it completely and ridiculously out of proportion to mock my argument. Well done. Yes everyone should get a McClaren F1 and a mansion.
Now I see the level you are sinking to I'm done with you and the rest of your post.
All I wanted was to understand but you wanted to treat this like I'm a democrat (I guess you are republican) and make something out of this that was unnecessary. Stick to Fox news.

Can anyone else able to keep themselves within the boundries of reality answer my questions please. That is if you aren't dieing of a crazy disease. Preferably someone who's retired.


For the life of me... I can't tell what your question is.

Lord Flashheart on 19 March 2010

It's not in there.
I asked it ages ago.
Why don't Yanks want this healthcare bill. The only reasonable answer has been the cost but then they use the cost of current insurance and medicaid as proof that this proposed as unyet implemented completely new system will cost more.

Their scare-mongering doesn't convince me.
Here's a new question as that seems to be too dififcult are there any posters on here who want this and why?
All we've had is Fox news hysteria so I would like to hear fromm the other side. If they feel comfortable answering will people let them without blindly attacking them for their point of view?



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Kasz216 on 19 March 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
It's not in there.
I asked it ages ago.
Why don't Yanks want this healthcare bill. The only reasonable answer has been the cost but then they use the cost of current insurance and medicaid as proof that this proposed as unyet implemented completely new system will cost more.

Their scare-mongering doesn't convince me.
Here's a new question as that seems to be too dififcult are there any posters on here who want this and why?
All we've had is Fox news hysteria so I would like to hear fromm the other side. If they feel comfortable answering will people let them without blindly attacking them for their point of view?

There is an easy way to show it without "scare mongering."

1) There are no real price controls in the bill.

2) It makes a law so that insurance comapnies can't deny coverage to anybody and has to charge these people the same price as everybody else.  So a perfectly fit 40 year old who takes care of himself has to pay the same amount as a 40 year old who smokes 5 packs a day and a 40 year old who has a congential heart defect and diabetes.

Since insurance companies only make about an 8% profit margin... this means all of those costs are going to have to be pushed on to the currently insured consumers.     

 

Health Insurance costs so much because Hospitals charge so much.  Hospitals charge so much because Doctors demand to be paid so much.  Doctors demand to be paid so much because medical school costs so much and your debt only rises because after you go to medical school you have to intern for a long time and the interest piles up.


In america 30 is about the earliest you'll end up beign a real doctor making "big money" that's going to pay off yoru hundreds of thousands of dollars of school loans.

 

In otherwords... you can't make healthcare affordable when there isn't anything to target.  Unversity prices are rapidly rising at ridiculious rates.



Lord Flashheart on 19 March 2010

So is that all the providers will have to charge the same for equivilent policies?
Isn't part of the problem with that that they would have to get enough people to sign up and if they don't then they go out of business?

I understand the need for price controls. Too cheap to undercut the rivals and you wont have enough money to cover the hospital charges. Too much and you price yourself out of the market. No regulation and they will charge whatever they want. If this bill doesn't have any price controls then that is a good enough reason not to want that part of it but does that one bit which can be amended spoil the rest of the bill?

Will it drive cost up? No-one has explained why yet.
It seems that at the moment a lot of people can't afford insurance as it's too expensive for them and the supposed cheap alternative is simply that. Cheap all round. I can see why people wouldn't want the US gov to control the spending if the money came from taxes but to have the money coming in from so many different sources can't be good for the system either? How much money is spent in administration charges by the hospitals jsut getting the money?

And what about the policies themselves? will they cover more for the same price as point 2 indicates.
You answer so far has been the most reasonable reason as to why you don't want it but to me it's not a good enough reason to throw it all out . I'm going to go and read up on the bill itself to find out more about it.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Lord Flashheart on 19 March 2010

So what do you make of this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8160058.stm
We would need to know how much of that 2.2trl was spent buy the gov and not private spending and see if it's more expensive than the proposed cost of the reform.
A lot if it does seem to have some good plans i.e. tackling waste fraud and abuse. We need to do that in the NHS.
Too much red tape and managers. Bring back the matrons.
The plan doesn't seem that bad. It seems those with health care are worried about having to pay too much and that seems to come from the republicans.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad