Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
No, you claimed the left wants single payer health care. I said union members don't want to give up their ultra plush plans to go on a single-payer plan.
You're fooling yourself if you think the left supports single-payer. Both right- AND left-wingers are against it.
Exactly. When single payer was first proposed, Democrats had to abandon such ideas in order to get Democratic votes to get it to pass the Senate
It is expensive because you do not have Free Market health care, and you haven't had it since 1933 when the American Hospital Association interfered.
The market does not function well for healthcare delivery. Thats orthodox economics. Happily, you've provided some corraborating numbers further down
"Technological Change Has Been the Largest Driver of Health Care Cost Growth, and with Health Insurance Coverage and Increasing Income, is Likely the Largest Source of Uncertainty for Health Care Cost Projections"[/quote]
Quite true. Yet -as you've helpfully supplied numbers for further down- other nations manage to provide healthcare at much lower costs without compromising quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Socialism is a Property Theory. .
Socialist countries today are coutries like Cuba and North Korea. I think you're confusing the concept of socialism with the similar sounding "social policies."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
...cancer...
Cancer is an area the US does well in and the UK poorly. If you have to compare the US best to the UKs worst, you're not doing well. Cancer isn't even the biggest killer. When you look at all the killers including the top, people in the UK live longer and have more years in good health. And that sure isn't from lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
1 out of 5 Brits died waiting for medical treatment....and they pay 19% of their income for the privilege of dying while waiting.
People do die while waiting for medical treatment. There is a concept invented just to measure deaths that could have been prevented if they'd gotten appropriate healthcare: Amendable mortality. The US does quite badly in it, and would give its eyeteeth to have the UKs results.
Notice how the US best group does worse than the UKs worst?
Or for a more pithy illustration:
"If the U.S. had achieved levels of amenable mortality seen in the three best-performing countries—France, Australia, and Italy—84,300 fewer people under age 75 would have died in 2006–2007."
The Laws of Economics apply to everything, as in every thing, and that includes health care. If you don't like it, too bad, so sad, because the Laws of Economics don't really give a damn what you think.:
Perfectly true. I'd advice you to read your own writing, both here and further down. Health Care Economics is an actual field of study. It traces its roots to Kenneth Arrows Nobe-prize winning work on uncertainties. You can read the health care paper here. Its not too difficult for such a ground-breaking paper.
Also, talk to an economist specializing in health care. The health care field has absolutly inelastic demand, massive information asymmetry, and is crawling with externalities. It is well known, both from theory and real-world observation that health care does not behave like other products in a market.
Remember: The Laws of Economics apply to everything, as in every thing, and that includes health care. If you don't like it, too bad, so sad, because the Laws of Economics don't really give a damn what you think.
Talk to a health care economist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
His numbers are very conservative, but then he probably assumes you don't mind dying on a waiting list.
His numbers has the US spending up to 20 000 $ per person on what other nations manage on 4000 $ per person. And I assume, with the US still having more people die waiting for healthcare than other nations. Population adjusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent. -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
And this is bad how? They spend less money, cover everyone, and get better results than the US. Less people die on waiting lists. (like in most of the developed world) Some years the system runs a surplus that is returned to the public purse. It would be a dream come true for the US.
The reason the US does so badly on Amendable Mortality (which, btw is not related to lifestyle, that is preventable mortality) is that the US rations healthcare by ability to pay rather than medical need. That is a much harsher and more ferocious practice than elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
A variety of activities are funded through VHA’s three appropriations accounts for medical care:
You're arguing against a different system by refering to performance of the current system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
Thats slightly different figures than I've seen before, but they support my point quite nicely.
The average cost of healthcare seem to be close to half of what the US spend!
Also note something else? You know which countries are running market economics in healthcare there? The US, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Kinda cluster towards the expensive top, don't they?
And whats more, Norway and Luxembourg are very high-cost coutries in general. So lets look at healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP, shall we?
Notice how Norway and Luxembourg dropped right down? While the market-based ones stay up there?
Remember: The Laws of Economics apply to everything, as in every thing, and that includes health care. If you don't like it, too bad, so sad, because the Laws of Economics don't really give a damn what you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Would you like a different perspective?
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF General government
Romania....... 241.10
South Korea....... 473.18
Slovakia....... 690.87
Spain .......1,553.99
New Zealand....... 1,618.97
Japan .......1,747.71
Australia .......1,894.69
Finland .......2,064.81
Canada .......2,111.80
Iceland .......2,151.60
Sweden .......2,441.88
Germany .......2,537.44
Belgium .......2,565.80
Austria .......2,615.23
France .......2,646.43 United States....... 2,657.86 Switzerland .......3,114.60
Netherlands .......3,271.16
Denmark .......3,775.17
Luxembourg .......4,105.86
Norway .......4,195.13
That’s what each government spends per person.
Yes, lets look at your data there.
The United States spend more on government healthcare than all but 5 countries! That is, all those other countries get full UHC for a 100 % of the population for what the US spends on providing government healthcare to 27 % of the population!
I'll repeat that: Most nations manage to give full coverage to everyone for less than the current setup uses on 27 % of the population!
Thats...not looking good for your argument there. And once again, the market ones are clustered at the top. As an asides, I'd question data that has Switzerland spending that much on government healthcare, my understanding is that they are almost entirely private insurance based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How about yet another perspective?
Lets!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure
Romania .......63.95
Netherlands .......237.68
France .......254.56
Slovakia .......268.80
New Zealand....... 269.41
South Korea .......271.69
Japan .......348.23
Germany....... 403.33
Iceland .......436.25
Spain .......438.35
Canada....... 471.79
Austria .......516.18
Sweden .......522.30
Australia....... 526.62
Finland .......558.77
Denmark....... 611.68
Luxembourg .......680.76
Belgium....... 681.71 United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54 Switzerland....... 1,590.18
No, I didn’t stutter…..those are out-of-pocket expenses.
And...they don't seem to be in any of the tables there. I do see similar numbers in the section on "Expenditure of providers of health care by financing agents in health care, per inhabitant" But they all have an extra digit in front of the US costs. US costs run 2600-3000 odd while the other countries are roughy in line with your numbers.
The real numbers -in your own source- has the US spending five times as much as the rest. Seriously, did you really think people in the UHC countries would spend as much out of pocket as US households? That didn't make a little red flag go up?
On those numbers in general: If you look at the summary tables, and check out health care expenditure by percent of GDP, you'll see that the US spend more than anyone else, almost 17 %. France is number 2, with just over 11 %. And the US has a bigger GDP per person than most nations there. So why doesn't a bigger percentage of a bigger GDP translate into bigger numbers? Like I said, I'd treat those numbers with caution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Any particular reason why you withheld that information from people?
They are basically what I've said all the time. I'm going to bookmark them though, as they support my point so well. US costs are massivly over the top, with the US government spending more to cover 27 % of the popualtion than all but a very few do to cover everyone. Market-based systems are much more expensive.
Remember: The Laws of Economics apply to everything, as in every thing, and that includes health care. If you don't like it, too bad, so sad, because the Laws of Economics don't really give a damn what you think.
Go through your own source: How many nations provide 100 % coverage at vastly less expense than the US? Look at their results. Amendable mortality, healthy life-years, the lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's Eurostat of the European Commission, not the left-wing OECD.
You seriously think the OECD slants data for political reasons? I'm sorry but thats pathetic.
Get the capitalists and money pigs out of healthcare. It should be non-profit 100%
uhm...no such thing as non-profit
with out 'profit' you don't pay you bills...you don't get the newest and best stuff
do you really think doctors, nurses, clinics, hospitals, supply people are going to PROVIDE A SERVICE with out compensation or the ability to make a living and GROW that very SERVICE
What's even more important: Why is U.S. healthcare so expensive in the first place?
Through exten$ive lobbyi$t effort$, this question has been completely glossed over. But it's actually the root of the problem.
Yes, true, also the never ending line of people that want something for nothing or refuse to quit smoking, watch their diet etc...also the people that love to run to the doctor when they have a common cold or their child sneezes....
Single payer just shoves the problem of paying for it "onto the other guy"....
No I'm not. The employers pay as well. Read up on singled payer.
Both the employer and the employee pay into this "sickness account".
Fair enough. Unlike some others here, I'm mature enough to admit when I have the facts wrong. Regardless, that wasn't the point I was making, so I didn't fixate on the details. I even wrote (which you cravenly decided to leave out of your bolding) "You're probably right, but it is an interesting assumption."
The point I was making in the message you replied to was this:
... try to explain why you're so much better than poor people that you deserve comfort and luxury while they suffer from disease and injury without benefiting from adequate healthcare? I'll be interested to see what you come up with.
If your comments don't first establish a caring and compassionate situation, then I couldn't care less about your details. I view that mis-focus as if you're saying that you'll sanitize the knife you use to kill off the "surplus population", as if being sanitary helps the people you're killing. Yes, that grievous since it is also a matter of life and death, albeit not as immediate or direct (hence its status as an analogy instead of a tautology).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
PLEASE explain to me what is "decent" about taking from those that work and produce, by force, and give to those that refuse to work, either because they won't further their education or they can't stop popping out kids, or they are addicted to drugs, or are just downright lazy?
What an incredible pile of refuse. First, you assume that everyone needing assistance is irresponsible. How incredibly self-serving and nonsensical. You obviously never got to know many poor people. You're wrong, and what's worse, you know it, because there is no way to go through life in our society without seeing story after story of good people to whom society has dealt a poor hand. If you really are that ignorant of the real plight of those less fortunate in our society, then start your education here: http://www.globalpost.com/video/5720...ed-glenda-bell
Second, even if your comments weren't so grievously ignorant of the true plight of the poor in our society, they would still reek of deception and hypocrisy, because I'm sure you know that the right-wing who are the most fervent supporters of that kind of anti-poverty bs you support are also the first people to refuse to allow any standards to be set to differentiate those that truly "refuse" or are truly "irresponsible" from the rest. The idea that society would have to take responsibility for making sure that they have living wage jobs that they could access, and even educational opportunities that they could access - as you posited - would scuttle the ridiculous notion underlying your nonsense that there aren't structural impediments in our society imposed by society that would have to be removed. They would resent the fact that the exploitation they engage in for their own comfort and luxury would have a cost stemming from social conscience to be fair and just in their consideration of those less fortunate, ensuring that they are truly ignoring opportunities that are accessible to them, before effectively leaving them to die in the streets.
Third, and most important. The idea that you consider petty considerations, like money, more important than critical considerations, like life and health, shows the utter lack of merit and worth in the perspective that you promote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
5. If you really wanted to "care" for those uninsured, they simply should have been added to medicare roles- problem solved easily and quickly. But of course, that was never the objective.
Of course it was, but the reality is that the right-wingers you support would have filibustered such a remedy, for the reasons that artisan4 outlined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Therefore, my perceptions are colored by years of experience.
As a provider. Not as someone in need. It seems to me that, locked in your physician's ivory tower, you've done nothing to even start building a body of knowledge about the experience of living as a poor person in our society. All you seem to care about is how it affects you, as you get ready to enjoy a mightily comfortable retirement compared to that which Glenda Bell (see above) has to look forward to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Your statement is dishonest and full of cheerleader vapid rhetoric.
Rather, my statement is honest and full of character and social conscience, showing clearly the immoral nature of what you support. And that seems to have embarrassed you. Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Anyone who has ever been involved with church charity knows a large part goes to the needy.
If you want to have any credibility whatsoever with this line of discussion, present independent data showing precisely what percentage of "the donations to charity by Republicans" that goes directly to feeding, clothing, sheltering, educating, or providing healthcare to the poor. Make sure that overhead, the costs of fund raising, the cost of religious operations, etc., aren't included. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
As I correctly pointed out. The dems want to help USING OTHER PEOPLES MONEY
Bull. The Democrats aim to use society's resources to make up for society's impediments. Not other people's money. Society's money. Stop lying about money. Society provides the monetary system. Society provides the labor marketplace where you gain employment. Society provides the commercial marketplace where you sell your products and services. Stop complaining about the reasonable rent society assesses for using what society offers, so society can pay its own bills. Your failure to acknowledge society's moral obligations doesn't impress anyone other than others who support immoral marginalization of those less fortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Government is NOT righteous.
The self-serving nonsense you promote is NOT righteous.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 27 days ago)
11,788 posts, read 5,795,007 times
Reputation: 14213
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Typical right-winger: "All that matters is satisfying my desires. To hell with basic human decency."
Unfortunately, that statement is false - I'm against ACA and not a right winger but I have concerns on how this is going to be paid for and how this is going to affect my children down the road.
The gov't is exempt due to FEB, many of the unions are exempt - car companies, state unions, teachers, police ect... ACA was suppose to be funded by premiums for these Cadillac plans that many in these unions have. Now that we have exempted them - where is the money coming from? In 10 years when I hopefully won't be working - this expense falls on my children.
We do care about basic human decency - unfortunately there are too many questions that go unanswered. If we can't pay for it - there will be more uninsured down the road with Obamacare than there are now and those are the people we're thinking about.
Unfortunately, that statement is false - I'm against ACA and not a right winger
But embracing a right-wing perspective on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731
but I have concerns on how this is going to be paid for and how this is going to affect my children down the road.
We all do. Mature adults weigh the risks. We can refine and improve ACA over time. We can adjust to changing circumstances. No fear about the future rationalizes throwing those less fortunate over the cliff today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731
We do care about basic human decency
Bull. Caring about human decency would result in acknowledgement of the need for ACA right now, because there is human health and human lives at stake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731
unfortunately there are too many questions that go unanswered.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing (in this case: nothing, for twenty years and more) and expecting things to change. After all this time, any reasonable human being would have concluded that the questions you're referring to will never have answers that are not arrived at through the process of Plan-Do-Check-Act... Repeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731
If we can't pay for it - there will be more uninsured down the road with Obamacare than there are now and those are the people we're thinking about.
That's a big if. You don't know what ideas we'll have in the future regarding funding, what changes there will be in society that could make things better or worse; what changes in attitudes will relieve or exacerbate the stress. We simply don't know what the future will bring. That's the point. And despite seeking the answers in advance, for decades, they're not forthcoming. We've effectively proven that answers will not come that way. What we do know is that the vast majority of Americans want Guaranteed Issue. They want preexisting condition coverage. They want a ban on lifetime caps. They want to cap windfall profits. They want Age Rating.
And most importantly: What we do know is that people living without adequate healthcare now are less productive in society, live palpably inferior lives, and suffer from premature death at a higher rate than those with adequate healthcare.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
