U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-25-2009, 03:34 PM
 
8,848 posts, read 8,947,562 times
Reputation: 6014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Funny how EVERY country which has "public options" are more satisffied with that system, than we are with our bloated private sector trainwreck.

But you are giving Mr. Obama way too much credit:

Listen to what he spoke about at his press conference:

It was the deficit, not the public need for health care.

Money, not people.

Just like any Corporatist would focus on.
You keep stating they are satisfied but what proof do you have to support this? And if they were satisfied with their country's health care system, why do their leaders and wealthiest travel to the United States for their health care. Apparently, their health care system is good enough for the masses but just not those who can afford to travel to the United States. Yes, I'm sure we all want that type of health care. We all understand the need for health care but we shouldn't settle on a socialized bureaucratic system. I for one don't want to have to wait 6 months to see a specialist and have the government tell the doctor what he or she can and can't order. And that's not an exaggeration, I have Canadian patients who tell me it takes 3-6 months to see a cardiologist and the quality of treatment was terrible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-25-2009, 03:42 PM
LML
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,067 posts, read 5,040,226 times
Reputation: 4970
I only wish that were true...that Obama wants a single payer plan. That would make me very happy. Unfortunately, I don't believe that's true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2009, 03:43 PM
 
Location: California
24,467 posts, read 14,816,823 times
Reputation: 16422
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
You keep stating they are satisfied but what proof do you have to support this? And if they were satisfied with their country's health care system, why do their leaders and wealthiest travel to the United States for their health care. Apparently, their health care system is good enough for the masses but just not those who can afford to travel to the United States. Yes, I'm sure we all want that type of health care. We all understand the need for health care but we shouldn't settle on a socialized bureaucratic system. I for one don't want to have to wait 6 months to see a specialist and have the government tell the doctor what he or she can and can't order. And that's not an exaggeration, I have Canadian patients who tell me it takes 3-6 months to see a cardiologist and the quality of treatment was terrible.
Whats really interesting is how people complain about "what will happen" when discussing something we don't even have yet. Nobody knows "what will happen" and we can't even guess based upon happens in other countries becasue all the variables and players are different. Heck, we don't even have a plan in place yet so we can hardly yell about "waiting 6 months" or whathaveyou.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2009, 03:55 PM
 
8,848 posts, read 8,947,562 times
Reputation: 6014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
Whats really interesting is how people complain about "what will happen" when discussing something we don't even have yet. Nobody knows "what will happen" and we can't even guess based upon happens in other countries becasue all the variables and players are different. Heck, we don't even have a plan in place yet so we can hardly yell about "waiting 6 months" or whathaveyou.
It seems like many have not actually thought about the model but instead just hang onto the President's words. I will explain this model since it's apparent many do not understand how insurance companies work. A government sponsored health option will entice the majority of Americans to select that since it will be the cheapest. Private insurance will have to drop their premiums to compete. They will do this by reducising reimbursement for physicians and by authorizing less tests and procedures which will cause patients to suffer. Much like Medicare, private insurance companies will model their policies after this new government sponsored option. When the majority of Americans sign up with this govt. sponosed health plan, they will be able to dictate what services should be provided much like the VA determines management since so many soldiers and veterans are covered under their policy. In essence, this will be socialized health care. This is why the majority of Americans regardless of party affiliation is opposed to Obama's plan which is reflected in the polls. And this is why Obama's plan as it is currently written will not receive the majority in the House to win because Americans see it for what it is: socialized health care. People want increased access to healthcare but not socialized health care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2009, 04:30 PM
 
786 posts, read 580,499 times
Reputation: 184
The Barack Obama of 2003 is way different from the Barack Obama of 2009; and I don't mean that in a good way. He used to support single-payer but now he says that he doesn't support it because he wants to expand on the employer based system that we have now instead of doing a complete overhaul.

I wish he would support single-payer; it's a much better system than privatized health care. Once you take away the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, the single-payer system is much more efficient and the people get a lot better health care for less money. We pay 17% of our GDP on health care and we have 47 million uninsured. Countries like Canada, France, Italy, Norway, Sweeden and the UK pay 10% or less of their GDP toward health care, have no one uninsured and all have a much better performing system according to the WHO. 31% of our health care costs go to administrative costs, overhead, and paperwork because of all the billing and huge profits that are inevitable in a privatized system. Canada has 1% overhead costs, which is why they can insure everyone for a lot less money. Medicare has 3 percent overhead costs while a typical insurance company has overhead costs over 15%. Health insurance companies in the United States can have overheads as high as 35%. Of the $2.4 trillion that we spend per year for health care in, $800 billion of this goes to the activities of the for-profit system. In other words, one of every three dollars that we spend on health care goes to corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing and the cost of paper work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2009, 04:49 PM
Status: "Corn well over knee high!" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
67,308 posts, read 54,882,833 times
Reputation: 18706
Even though I am a proponent of health care reform, and perhaps even single payer, I find those overhead statistics suspicious. For example, does Canada include all the money it spends collecting the taxes as overhead? Or does that go into a different budget?

Also, I have read articles written by people in the UK that use our health care expenditures as a reason why the UK should spend more on health care.

I have worked for several medicare-certified home health agencies, and I can tell you each agency and each individual nurse spends a fair amount of indirect time on the medicare patients. More than on the medicaid pts in this state, and more than on the pvt. insurance pts as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2009, 07:09 PM
 
786 posts, read 580,499 times
Reputation: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Even though I am a proponent of health care reform, and perhaps even single payer, I find those overhead statistics suspicious. For example, does Canada include all the money it spends collecting the taxes as overhead? Or does that go into a different budget?

Also, I have read articles written by people in the UK that use our health care expenditures as a reason why the UK should spend more on health care.

I have worked for several medicare-certified home health agencies, and I can tell you each agency and each individual nurse spends a fair amount of indirect time on the medicare patients. More than on the medicaid pts in this state, and more than on the pvt. insurance pts as well.

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program
Look at the part under Won't this be just another bureaucracy.

Regarding your question about tax collecting, I honestly don't know. But even if it isn't part of the overhead, they still won't be anywhere near the 31% that we spend on overhead with our privatized system.

The UK probably should be spending more on health care. I used the GDP stats to make a point; countries with single-payer get better results than we do for alot less money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2009, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,000 posts, read 8,338,205 times
Reputation: 3451
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
I agree with you to a point. The anti-abortion philosophy is full of contradictions. A babies life is important but not the sick or poor. I am a huge proponent of single payer coverage. The business man in me knows a combination of tax reform and single payer makes financial sense. But I'm not sure that I would want to see abortions as part of the package. Maybe it could be part of a private supplemental policy.
If single payer is funded by everyone, why would you deny women the right to have an abortion?
Doesn't she pay taxes like everyone else?

Abortion, as far as I know, isn't covered by private health insurance and I wouldn't have a problem with it NOT being covered by single payer system provided that a woman can get her birth control free (birth control pills, IUD, sterilization, etc).
I would also like sterilizations to be able to be performed regardless of a woman's age. I am sick of doctors telling many of my child free counterparts they are too young to be sterilized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top