If you support Universal Health Care, what happens when (minimum wage, school, politician)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Somehow not any of these people have the ability to see what happens when more and more people stop working so as not to have to pay taxes to supply others who don't work with health care.

How many mortgage-paying, grocery-buying, car-driving, college education and retirement fund feeding people do you expect to quit their jobs over implementation of a UHC system? I would personally hazard a guess that it will be even fewer than the number of public hospitals in Japan.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

If you dont think that the government nationalizes things as they fail, then your totally out in left wing kook ville ignoring the obvious. (Could you be from the middle of DC? mmmm) . Lets begin to name things like GM

So, you're indicating that the current US health care system has failed, I take it? You're certainly not identifying any proposed health care plan that includes the nationalization of anything, which was the actual point. You're instead trying veer off again into auto industry issues and the days when automakers trooped into Washington to beg for help in staving off their then imminent demise.

Originally Posted by pghquest

In the offset, you also did not respond to what happens when doctors and hospitals can not afford to pay their bills because the government deems a ICD-9 procedure is worth X, and the hospitals costs are X + Y?

Assuming the US were to end up with a system such as Japan's where the costs of procedures at ICD-9-like levels of detail are negotiated between the government and providers every two years, the evidence for X being too low would be presented and if valid, X would be raised. The Japanese MOH has no interest in driving providers out of business.

Originally Posted by pghquest

If you dont think its happening today you have no knowledge on the topic.. Obamas own plan calls for MORE cuts and the ONLY possible outcome is financial hardship on hospitals etc...

Can you clarify as to how Obama's mere plan is causing procedures to be underpriced today? Wouldn't the plan have to be finalized and implemented before it could have such effects?

Meanwhile, the whole point behind health care reform is to cut costs. Costs don't do anyone any good. Care does. If the providers of care are not properly paid, that's a problem. If a bunch of insurance company interlopers, overseers, and paper-pushers are not paid, it is not a problem.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Really? Thats what you've come down to?

Yes, I pretty rotuinely raise the BS flag over evidence supposed from stories perhaps or perhaps not told by someone's nephew's barber's brother-in-law.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Do you undertand that the whole argument for a UHC is due to "anecdotal" stories about people who are denied care at hospitals, all of which are lies, and those without insurance, have to file bankruptcy or have their credit ruined? Isnt that the way its supposed to be? If your not responsible, there are consequences, now your claiming that anecdotal reports are unreliable when in reality, its the WHOLE argument for a UHC? Ooh brother, the spinning never stops from you..

No, I don't understand that at all, and neither should anyone else. The arguments against the current system and in favor of UHC alternatives are well-researched and well-documented. The trends and implications of remaining with the current system have been well-studied and well-analyzed. None of this work produces anything that would speak in favor of sticking with the current system. The right-wing principally opposes UHC systems of any sort out of their mindless fear and distrust of a quite imaginary ogre that they call socialism. The rest of us would like to get on with the important matter of fixing health care.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

20% = FAIL. The question asked was What UHC country had to buy up all their hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies as part of implementing their plan? You suggested Japan in response, claiming that it has "a lot" of public hospitals, which turns out to be 20%, none of which had to be bought out as part of implementing their UHC system. You paddle again in irrelevant backwaters, knowing that the main current swamps you.

So you would support the government taking over 20% of our hospitals? I mean really, what are you trying to proclaim that that would be ok? Shhh, dont tell everyone but saganista now supports nationalizing 20% of our hospitals because its not "a lot" of them...

Originally Posted by saganista

The better thing would have been for you to answer what the rate of post-transfusion blood testing is in the US, since you seemed to find it quite scandalous that only 12% of Japanese hospitals are reported to follow the practice. You don't know the answer, so instead seek to take cover from it by raising a new and unrelated question. You only meant to impugn Japanese health care through naked innuendo. You never had an intention to back any of it up.

Hate to tell you but I'm not a reporter and didnt write the story. If you disagree with it, maybe a letter to the editor might be a better suggestion than arguing with me over facts that I have nothing to do with.

Originally Posted by saganista

How much further is one expected to go?

You tell me, first you proclaimed that my OP is bs, and then when I tell you how other countries and in particular doctors in this country are already facing financial crisis due to governmental cut backs on payments, you then proclaim that its acceptable because "only 20%" of them are public. Again, you tell me how far its expected to go, thats the reason for this thread!!!

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

Assuming the US were to end up with a system such as Japan's where the costs of procedures at ICD-9-like levels of detail are negotiated between the government and providers every two years, the evidence for X being too low would be presented and if valid, X would be raised.

Wow, so the government will "negotiate" prices instead of just dictating them like they currently do with proceedures? I didnt see that in Obamas plan, can you point it out to me? Who will the doctors and hospitals decide will do the negotiating? How will that be determined? I'm really interested in hearing about all of these new plans to allow negotiations instead of dictating of rates..

Originally Posted by saganista

Can you clarify as to how Obama's mere plan is causing procedures to be underpriced today? Wouldn't the plan have to be finalized and implemented before it could have such effects?

Where did I make such claim that "Obama's" plan is causing underpriced proceedures today? The GOVERNMENT dictates these rates, and Obama is planning on cutting these rates even further. Did you see the $655 BILLION in proposed cuts, and thats just a start.

Originally Posted by saganista

Meanwhile, the whole point behind health care reform is to cut costs. Costs don't do anyone any good. Care does. If the providers of care are not properly paid, that's a problem. If a bunch of insurance company interlopers, overseers, and paper-pushers are not paid, it is not a problem.

I thought the whole point behind health care is to provide care and to stop people from "bankruptcy" due to their care? Now your telling me its to cut costs!.. Wow, the spinning never ends from liberals.

While we're at it, if the idea is to cut costs, great, tell me how your going to cut costs? I know, by cutting out WHATS PAID to hospitals, doctors etc. Thanks for confirming my OP while trying to arguine with me..

[BMiami]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

I had a heart attack on a Sunday and was in the hospital that night although it was 125 miles from my home. On Monday they did a heart cath and found some major plugging in the heart arteries. Tuesday they had me doped up so I couldn't run around and did the surgery at 7:00 am on Wednesday. I was only in emergency room in my tiny town hospital for about 30 minutes the beginning of all that. I didn't feel that I had to wait more than one day for the surgery after the cath found me over 90% plugged on three arteries and over 80% on three others. Six by-pass surgery isn't anything so great, as far as I am concerned.

I forgot to say that I am on Medicare and was then, also. I never saw a bill so guess they paid all that the hospital asked for. I will stay with what we have now because I an see me lying there waiting for younger people to get the surgery instead of first come first served. I was 72 at the time and am sure that it would have taken more than just two days in hospital to get the surgery. The EMT that rode with me thought I passed on during the ride so I doubt I would have made it waiting very long.

Did you hear the countries that Obama told the AMA people had such great single payer systems? Let me tell you that he didn't name one just said they existed. The next day Gibbs couldn't name any of them either.

First I would like to say that Im sorry you had a heart attack but happy that you survived and are alive. But what happens to people that have similar health issues and do not qualify for medicare and or do not have enough income to pay for a health plan as myself? I do pay my taxes therefore I am contributing to your healthcare but what about my own? I have nothing? Do you think that if you had no medicaid youd b alive? Or do you think you would move to Canada for the free services or do you think that our goverment would fly u out to another country while you are having a heart attack for UHC....umm no ..it would cost too much

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by geeoro

When are you going to STOP applying the Private Insurance Model to a UHC. In a Govt funded UHC the Govt does NOT act like a Insurance Company and tell the Doctor what treatment he can or can't give. Certain protocals are put in place to make sure that there is no abuse of the system and that the best treatment is used for each individual case. I keep hearing "what if the Govt doesn't allow this or that". I and my family have used a UHC for over 60 years and we have not yet met anyone who has been refused treatment.
A UHC is NOT a private health service. The Private Insurance companies are the ones who try their hardest to refuse treatment...They have said so themselves and this is what you are fighting to keep.......Expensive premiums with Insurance Companies that openly admit to wanting to give you as little as they can.

the ONLY way to pay for a UHC is with tax payer money, and the only way that it would ever work, is that it will be limited.
when the taxes to pay for UHC become prohibitive, and they shall. what will the central goverment do when "The People" either no longer are working to pay those taxes, or just stop paying those same prohibitive taxes.

When "the people" stop paying those same taxes in droves that both the democrat and republican parties rely upon for their entitlement programs, they will no longer have any power to do anything at all.

good luck with murdering or imprisoning millions of the same people that the central goverment is supposed to be working for.

guess this might be the program that breaks the camels back.

[kaimuki]

I think UHC, if implemented, will be on a much smaller scale than what we have been discussing here in the forum. The insurance companies hold the people, doctors, hospitals and politicians (well not really them, they love the money) hostage. Sadly, I think the insurance companies are far too wealthy and powerful to be removed from health care entirely.

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by allydriver

We offer the same for our "visitors", the taxpayers pick up the tab!

No, they are charged for the entire bill!!! That is why most tourists from other countries buy a short health insurance policy for their visit. Big $$$$ for insurance companies!

[saganista]

Taxpayers are us. Health care consumers are us. They are the same group, the only group pf people here. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. You will pay your fair share for taxes and your fair share for health care. The semantics don't change the situation...

[HappyTexan]

And what about the illegals ?

La Raza is making noise about them being left out.
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens

snippet:
"La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009)."