""If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, told conservative activists. Obama seized on DeMint's remarks as evidence the GOP's opposition is based less on disputes of the specifics of health reform but more on politics.

"This isn't about me," Obama said. "We can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now."

Source: http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1809667

Why hasn't anybody from the American press ever asked ANY member of the U.S. Congress how much there Health insurance costs them each month and how much Healthcate lobbyists have contributed to their election campaigns? I sincerely think that if the American public knew, the U.S. Capital would be in flames and the second American revolution would be in the streets....

Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): and how much Healthcate lobbyists have contributed to their election campaigns?

Health Professionals:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H01

Pharma:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04

Health: Long-Term Contribution Trends:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...t2.x=11&goButt2.y=3&goButt2=Submit

Lately it seems to dominate the Dem party but over the last 20-years or so it varies. It seems to depend on who controls congress (hardly surprising).

Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter): Why hasn't anybody from the American press ever asked ANY member of the U.S. Congress how much there Health insurance costs them each month and how much Healthcate lobbyists have contributed to their election campaigns? I sincerely think that if the American public knew, the U.S. Capital would be in flames and the second American revolution would be in the streets....

The critical point right now is to kill the "Public Option". If that were off the table, there are large numbers of Republicans who would love to adopt meaningful reform - There are a few good points in the current bill that can be built on. We can simplify but at the same time strengthen regulations to make universal health care a reality while still keeping government bureacrats out it. As I've said here for years (and recently I heard Bill O'Reilly promote it recently as well) the Swiss model is one we can look carefully at for an example of a successful Universal Health Care policy that is 100% private.

The current plans are expensive disasters waiting to happen.

The republicans are only working to preserve one of the best health-care systems in the world.

I wish them the best in their efforts.

The democrats are rushing to get a plan in before the election cycle, and are rushing. Those of you who think that they are on the right path really need to be careful of what you wish for.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): We can simplify but at the same time strengthen regulations to make universal health care a reality while still keeping government bureacrats out it.

You do realize that in the Swiss system government sets price controls on everything.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): The republicans are only working to preserve one of the best health-care systems in t

My wife is a nurse in the US. There are many dozens of Canadian, Australian, English and New Zealand born health care professionals working in her hospital. Why? Because the US health care system pays the best and get some of the best health care professionals in the world. We frequently compare the Obama system to Canada. My grandmother lived in Canada for 20 years and I worked there. If you have a very simple problem it probably is better than the US system. You won't get seen as fast, but, say you have a complex problem, economics will decide when, where and who you see and how you are treated.

I live on the border, many of my friends are Canadian, some have told me that it takes months or years just to get a family physician if you don't already have one. If you need a procedure, x-ray, ultrasound, Cat Scan in the US you get it, yesterday. That just isn't the case in Canada. Not long ago a family from Toronto had to ship their newborn to Buffalo because all the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit beds in...well all of eastern Canada were full.

Why do nurses in Vancouver and Vancouver Is. go on strike? They do because they don't get paid enough, or the gov't health care system wants to subsitute RN's for LPNs. Don't believe me? The BC health care system is rediculously underfunded, do a google search and you'll see they are many millions in the red.

Don't worry as enough Democrats see how much of a turd these ideas are they can defeat it without Republican help.

Having lived for well over a decade in European nations, I would never trade the US system for the 'European model' a single day. I like to be in charge of my own care, and not rely on the government to decide the who, when and what care one receives.

The public option is just a disaster and fortunately several democrats feel that way. The GOP wants to fix the system, not tear it down and rebuild it with something that is irreversible as is Obamacare. Why won't President Obama talk about tort reform? Tear down rules that prohibit insurance companies from crossing state lines. Why not work on the 15% that don't have health insurance instead of forcing the 85% who do to change? How about working out a bill that is open and transparent before voting on it. As has been the news today, Medicare/Medicaid took a year and a half to work out. It's still been a disaster financially but at least they gave it some thought unlike what the President, Pelosi, and Reid are foisting on an suspicious public.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The critical point right now is to kill the "Public Option".

I'm on Medicare (and VA Health) and find it just as good as when I was paying massive amounts of money to private companies.

I've had CT scans, a heart cath and recently a gallbladder removed. Not once did I pull out the wallet.

If private insurance is so much better than public insurance why does Medicare Advantage (rub by private insurance companies) cost so much more per person than the government program? they follow the same rules for care, but private insurance costs a lot more. Why?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): The republicans are only working to preserve one of the best health-care systems in the world.

The Republicans are working to preserve the most expensive health care system in the world.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): The democrats are rushing to get a plan in before the election cycle, and are rushing.

Actually the Obama team got a quick start AFTER the last election. The one they won. McCain said it best - elections have consequences. The last election might just mean that the current medical rip off is about to be straightened up a bit.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): Those of you who think that they are on the right path really need to be careful of what you wish for.

I've already got government care and my worst nightmare is to be thrown back into the over-priced world of private insurance rip offs.

Quoting Canoecarrier (Reply 5): We frequently compare the Obama system to Canada. My grandmother lived in Canada for 20 years and I worked there.

And we lived in Australia for 8 years and had medical care that was as good as the US.

My wife is a physical therapist who has worked in both countries' medical systems. The basic truth is that the quality of care you get is based on how good your medical professionals are. Get a great doc, your chances are better. Same with nurses, therapists, etc. It's the skill of the professionals treating you more than the payment system.

Looking at it that way, why pay twice as much?

Who only look at Canada and the UK when looking at different payment systems? Why not look at them all (including Australia) and then work out what is right for this country?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8): they follow the same rules for care, but private insurance costs a lot more. Why?

Very simple.

Because private insurance is a for profit business. They must recoup fees to cover their cost at the very least.

Government care does not care about such as its cost recovery is provided by the check books of all American tax payers.

I'd rather be beholden and responsible for my own cares cost, then have to supplement the entire nation in expanded government plans with added taxes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8): If private insurance is so much better than public insurance why does Medicare Advantage (rub by private insurance companies) cost so much more per person than the government program? they follow the same rules for care, but private insurance costs a lot more. Why?

In part because your medicare only pays 60-70 cents on the dollar and disallows some charges. Those in turn are passed on to private insurance companies in the form of higher fees for everything. Or do you really think a bandaid costs $2.00? Then drop in all the tests that are performed so if the patient turns around and sues the doctor, and his insurance company, can show where even though it wasn't necessary they tested for it. That also jacks up the cost. Yet in all this 1000 pages of gooblygook no mention is made of tort reform or government paying dollar for dollar for the services it insures.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9): I'd rather be beholden and responsible for my own cares cost, then have to supplement the entire nation in expanded government plans with added taxes.

If you want to only pay for your health care costs then you need to go without insurance. Then be ready to find a whopper of a bill if you hit a major medical problem. Say an uninsured drunk driver runs into you and you're faced with adjusting to life as a para.

If you have health insurance you are already paying a socialized medicine tax in your monthly premiums.

Quoting DXing (Reply 10): Yet in all this 1000 pages of gooblygook no mention is made of tort reform or government paying dollar for dollar for the services it insures.

Tort reform will not reduce medical costs as much as you think. They have it in Texas, where my sister lived. Insurance cost a fortune there also - about the same as Oklahoma. And if someone really screws up it is far harder, but still possible, to take them to court.

My sister died after surgery because of a dumb nurse. Expensive private insurance, expensive private hospital, good surgeon. Very high level of general anesthetic for the surgery and a nurse that refused to let her have her cpap after returning to her room. Cause of death was lack of oxygen to the brain.

The need for tort action (which will not benefit me financially) is based on the need to punish those (the hospital and nurse) who killed her as well as ensuring that other hospitals see the problem and take action to avoid it themselves. this last reason - setting a clear example - can easily save a handful from dying for the same FUBAR, and might save more than that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11): If you want to only pay for your health care costs then you need to go without insurance. Then be ready to find a whopper of a bill if you hit a major medical problem. Say an uninsured drunk driver runs into you and you're faced with adjusting to life as a para. If you have health insurance you are already paying a socialized medicine tax in your monthly premiums.

Complete distortion. "Socialized" would imply redistribution according to one's ability to afford it. If insurance companies charged $25 to a poor person and $2000 to a rich person, for example (and what you have with state run health care). But if everyone is paying their fair share, that's just risk distribution.

How do the uninsured in the US get prevetantive care?

ie: regular physicals etc.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 13): How do the uninsured in the US get prevetantive care?

Generally, they don't.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11): Tort reform will not reduce medical costs as much as you think.

So at what level would it make sense? BTW, I'd like to know when the President says that his plan will eliminate uneeded tests, which he says are a waste of resources and add to cost, how you can say with certainty that medical costs will not be reduced. I have no definitive amount but any amount would seem to make sense.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11): The need for tort action (which will not benefit me financially) is based on the need to punish

???? It's supposed to be based on correcting a wrong. The punishment phase is where the worst of the abuse is since that is where a lawyer makes his money. If you have doctors ordering CYA tests how can you say that helping to eliminate them will not reduce cost? Those do not show up in any courtroom if no suit is filed yet they are still ordered and have to be paid for.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): As I've said here for years (and recently I heard Bill O'Reilly promote it recently as well) the Swiss model is one we can look carefully at for an example of a successful Universal Health Care policy that is 100% private.

The Swiss model definitely works better than out current system, but it's not as wonderful as people make it out to be. As a percentage of GDP spent on healthcare, Switzerland is the second highest behind the US. Costs have continued to rise about 5% per year, which is the same problem we have here. They have lots of price controls as well, which Republicans seem to be against.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): Complete distortion. "Socialized" would imply redistribution according to one's ability to afford it. If insurance companies charged $25 to a poor person and $2000 to a rich person, for example (and what you have with state run health care). But if everyone is paying their fair share, that's just risk distribution.

So taking the Swiss system as an example, the maximum you pay is 10% of your income, so it's socialist, correct?

Quoting Max550 (Reply 16): The Swiss model definitely works better than out current system, but it's not as wonderful as people make it out to be. As a percentage of GDP spent on healthcare, Switzerland is the second highest behind the US. Costs have continued to rise about 5% per year, which is the same problem we have here. They have lots of price controls as well, which Republicans seem to be against.

It's not perfect, but it works, covers everyone and is 100% private, and competition thrives between the 70 or so insurance companies, which is the goal. Can it be improved upon? Yes. But I don't think the Democrats are willing to even look at it because it would not allow them to push through government health care, which I feel is their goal.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 16): So taking the Swiss system as an example, the maximum you pay is 10% of your income, so it's socialist, correct?

Mildly. The cap is meant to help those at the very bottom 10% or so of society - which is fine. My issue is you make the entire system on a sliding scale, with some paying $100 and others paying $1000, where evryone is paying a skewed amount. Everyone should pay similar amounts except for the bottom 10% or so.

[Edited 2009-07-22 15:01:01]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): Complete distortion.

Not really.

Let's say a cost of a device or treatment is $100.00 to the patient. But the hospital bumps that up to $120 in order to cover those that don't have insurance and can't pay. Then the insurance company pays on the $120 fee, less their discount. But, hey, they are in it for the profit so they move it up to $125 or $130 when it comes to calculating the increases in your monthly premiums.

You've just been phucked if you have private insurance.

You can call it what you want, but I call anything over that $100 a hidden socialized tax - and one with a nice plump profit margin added.

Personally I would prefer a system where you and I paid a percentage of your income for core coverage. In Australia it is about 2% and there is a pretty good system in place with that funding.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 13): How do the uninsured in the US get prevetantive care? ie: regular physicals etc.

We jsut turn our backs on them and hopefully they will die and not cost too much money - especially if they are a vet.

Quoting DXing (Reply 15): ???? It's supposed to be based on correcting a wrong.

When a bad nurse and a bad doc kill someone you can't correct the wrong. While the insurance companies prefer to hand out some token cash and hide the problem under the rug that will not help those that follow.

Punish them publicly and with vigor and hospitals will take notice and try to ensure they do not duplicate the problem. It is sort of like the auditing industry where a lot of standards were set because of scandals. In this case you might actually be the one that benefits long term.

Quoting DXing (Reply 15): If you have doctors ordering CYA tests how can you say that helping to eliminate them will not reduce cost?

It's not the additional tests that concern me - it is the increases in costs to cover those that don't pay that I look at. Cut that out with universal care and then the government can rightly lay down the law that those increases are illegal.

There is a lot of testing based on protocols. One is a range of standard blood tests if you go to the ER. That is where the doctors caught my wife's acute leukemia (ALL) - a basic blood test. I would love to see the A1c blood test added as a standard test - a lot of overweight (and some thin) folks would get the word that they are a diabetic.

Actually. with the overweight kids we have these days a mandatory A1c at the start of the school year for kids in the even grades (2nd, 4th, 6th . . . . 12th Grades) would probably go a long way in improving the health of kids these days.

Maybe add in a requirement that an entire family has to be tested if one person in the family has diabetes. Might save on amputations, blindness and treating kidney failure over the years.

So don't worry about over testing. Worry about intelligent testing for improving care at the individual and public levels.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17): It's not perfect, but it works, covers everyone and is 100% private, and competition thrives between the 70 or so insurance companies, which is the goal. Can it be improved upon? Yes. But I don't think the Democrats are willing to even look at it because it would not allow them to push through government health care, which I feel is their goal.

Then why is their plan almost the same? The only big difference is that a public plan would be offered as well. That would help keep costs down and hopefully reduce the rate of inflation in healthcare. The biggest issue I have with the Swiss system is that they have the same problems we do with costs rising much faster than inflation.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18): We jsut turn our backs on them and hopefully they will die and not cost too much money - especially if they are a vet.

I would suggest deleting this while you can still edit. It is flamebait.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11): If you have health insurance you are already paying a socialized medicine tax in your monthly premiums.

With private insurance I am in a much smaller pool, not with everyone in America. My rates are based on my own risk analysis, again not that of everyone else in America, while I very much have smorgasbord plan options which I can select to as I desire.

Government mandated programs (and certainly ones I have experienced in Europe) remove much of the choice I have over my own care. Now someone else decides basically when, how and what care I might or might not be entitled to, instead of me making those decisions and funding them at my prerogative.

If the GOP had the ideas to put things in place they would have done them over the almost eight years they had control of Congress. Now that they are out of control they only know how to bark and be the "loyal opposition." The most antidiverse party had no one to back them up now they want to act all all and mighty and "claim they are for the people". Naming a token black man to the head of the party won't bring in African Americans by a long short. Where was all this talk four years ago!

Quoting Max550 (Reply 19): Then why is their plan almost the same? The only big difference is that a public plan would be offered as well. That would help keep costs down and hopefully reduce the rate of inflation in healthcare.

The public plan is the killer for me. Since when has the government been able to lower the cost of anything? In addition the public "option" will have the effect of crowding out private insurance - it is designed to do that by our congress, who have mandated that Private insurers can only offer deluxe, all-inclusive policies (of course at very high cost). So if I want a simple policy that only covers catastrophic illness or hospitalization expenses, and I pay for everything else myself, that option is no longer available to me.

If Congress dumped the public option, I could support this bill. Otherwise, forget it.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21): Government mandated programs (and certainly ones I have experienced in Europe) remove much of the choice I have over my own care. Now someone else decides basically when, how and what care I might or might not be entitled to, instead of me making those decisions and funding them at my prerogative.

Nonsense - while covered under the Japanese NHS scheme, I can see any doctor in the country I want to - whether the clinic or hospital is public or private. No matter where I go, the government will pick up 70% of the tab and I pay 30% (my employer and I pay a 50-50 monthly premium of around $280). Nobody tells me where I can and can't go - it's a function of how far I'm willing to go for the level of care I think I need or am otherwise referred to. I love that the entire thing is so hands-off.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): The current plans are expensive disasters waiting to happen.

  

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): The republicans are only working to preserve one of the best health-care systems in the world. I wish them the best in their efforts.

Same here, my thoughts exactly.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 3): he democrats are rushing to get a plan in before the election cycle, and are rushing. Those of you who think that they are on the right path really need to be careful of what you wish for.

  

The thing I am worried about is if such a plan is put in place that my taxes will go through the ceiling and beyond, as will everyone else's taxes. How else are we going to pay for something like that?

Maybe that's not the case tho. I keep hearing different things here regarding this issue. Some are saying that it will be universal health where the funding will come from taxes, while others are saying otherwise...

Quoting DXing (Reply 7): The GOP wants to fix the system, not tear it down and rebuild it with something that is irreversible as is Obamacare.

Good one! I think that's the best statement of this thread so far!  

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18): Punish them publicly and with vigor and hospitals will take notice and try to ensure they do not duplicate the problem. It is sort of like the auditing industry where a lot of standards were set because of scandals. In this case you might actually be the one that benefits long term.

With that idea you are helping to increase costs and unneccesary testing.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18): It's not the additional tests that concern me - it is the increases in costs to cover those that don't pay that I look at.

This is just bunk. Hospitals are required by law to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. It says nothing about them not being able to bill you and then come after you as any other creditor would if you used services and refused to pay.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18): Cut that out with universal care and then the government can rightly lay down the law that those increases are illegal.

Then why is tort reform, what you are advocating in this sentence, not in the health care reform bill?

Rather than tear down a system works for 85% of the population and for whom 70-80% poll they are satisfied, why not work on the 15% of the population, not all of whom are citizens to begin with, that aren't?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20): I would suggest deleting this while you can still edit. It is flamebait.

It's not designed to be flame bait. It recognized that those without funds don't get testing at the same level as those with money.

Like lower income African American women getting tested for breast cancer - and they have a higher risk.

If we, as a country, lets them wait too long because of costs then, yes, we are setting them up to die too soon.

There are a lot of other examples related to those without money. It's the reality of the most expensive medical system in the world that is controlled by insurance companies that want to maximize profits.

You want that to continue then it is time to acknowledge that people will die because of it.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21): With private insurance I am in a much smaller pool,

A smaller pool, but the charges that the pool has to pay is based on increased fees charged because of a lack of universal coverage. It also means you get screwed more when you get older.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24): Nonsense - while covered under the Japanese NHS scheme, I can see any doctor in the country I want to - whether the clinic or hospital is public or private. No matter where I go, the government will pick up 70% of the tab and I pay 30% (my employer and I pay a 50-50 monthly premium of around $280). Nobody tells me where I can and can't go - it's a function of how far I'm willing to go for the level of care I think I need or am otherwise referred to. I love that the entire thing is so hands-off.

Yes in Europe, I could indeed go to pretty much see anyone for my primary care. Sometimes with a wait sometimes not. Here with private insurance, I have always gotten an appointment when I wanted. Not too big of a difference except for dentist which I always found were a long wait in Europe.

But the true difficulties come when you need something outside the norm like certain test or a specialist. The wait times, and list can last for weeks of not months. Here I am often referred to some one the same day if not a couple days out. With a private for profit system there is incentive for people to become doctors and form business that specialize in all types of various fields.
I very well recall a Swedish doctor apologizing to me once, basically stating with their system he acknowledged very few pursued more specialized medical niches as there was zero incentive to get involved in such care. Takes more education, more cost, for no real reward.

Lastly there is a reason why places like UK and Germany send people out of the country for treatment, while US border towns do great business with Canadian seeking treatment.

Frankly, outside running an Army, I'm not sure the government can do much of anything better or more efficiently then private sector, and I certainly don't want them involved in my health care.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27): It also means you get screwed more when you get older.

Certainly as my risk analysis shifts as I age, my rates will shift also.

Wholly understood and logical.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28): But the true difficulties come when you need something outside the norm like certain test or a specialist. The wait times, and list can last for weeks of not months. Here I am often referred to some one the same day if not a couple days out. With a private for profit system there is incentive for people to become doctors and form business that specialize in all types of various fields.

Within the last year I needed to see both cardiopulmonary and psychosomatic specialists - referrals were quick and I was given prompt appointments - less than 24 hours in the case of the cardio. The difference here is that doctors have not been commodified and still command respect in society - thus the government pays them at the high levels people think they ought to be worth.

The other important thing is that as a consumer, I'm not paying what feels like onerous or unfair charges for their services.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28): I very well recall a Swedish doctor apologizing to me once, basically stating with their system he acknowledged very few pursued more specialized medical niches as there was zero incentive to get involved in such care. Takes more education, more cost, for no real reward.

Again, singling out an experience in Europe does not mean that government-managed care is a disaster everywhere for the common patient.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28): Lastly there is a reason why places like UK and Germany send people out of the country for treatment

There's no denying that in the arena of experimental treatments and research hospital prowess, no country has the resources or abilities of American medicine.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26): With that idea you are helping to increase costs and unneccesary testing

Sorry, but I don't think so. If that was the case then medical care in Texas would be far cheaper than in, say, Oklahoma. I think you'll find that Texas is just as expensive as Texas - or more expensive. When Texas is significantly cheaper then I'll be for tort reform.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26): Hospitals are required by law to treat you regardless of your ability to pay.

No question about that IF your condition is life threatening.

But that is not the issue. The issue is that hospitals can and do increase their costs to those that can pay in order to cover those that cannot pay.

Call that a surcharge YOU pay. I don't pay it anymore because I have Medicare But you will pay it until there is universal coverage. You'll pay it in monthly health insurance premiums and you will pay it in your co-pays. If you have health insurance from an employer then you will pay it through lower salaries or wages.

It's a surcharge. You pay it unless you're on Medicare also.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26): Then why is tort reform, what you are advocating in this sentence, not in the health care reform bill?

I'm not in favor of tort reform. It sure doesn't lower costs in Texas - I paid out the ass to have a parotid gland cut out.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26): Rather than tear down a system works for 85% of the population

And that percentage is one that is decreasing. The more it costs the more you'll see employees dropping that benefit. The more unemployment increases the lower that percentage will be.

But it probably doesn't matter as long as you are part of that percentage.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): There's no denying that in the arena of experimental treatments and research hospital prowess, no country has the resources or abilities of American medicine.

then why were total hip replacements developed in the UK?

Or micro & laparoscopic surgeries developed in Australia?

Or pap treatment for OSA?

Or discovering that a lot of ulcers are due to bacteria?

There are very smart people in a lot of countries besides the US. It is a bit of an ego trip to believe that other countries don't have our talents for discovery.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): There are very smart people in a lot of countries besides the US. It is a bit of an ego trip to believe that other countries don't have our talents for discovery.

The first heart transplant was done in South Africa as well. But ask doctors around the world and they'll still tell you the chance to take up research at your Johns Hopkins or Vanderbilt or wherever else is still seen as the most golden of opportunities throughout medicine. Nobody's saying discovery or progress is impossible outside the US - we just happen to have an incredible number of highly-regarded institutions on balance.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23): The public plan is the killer for me. Since when has the government been able to lower the cost of anything? In addition the public "option" will have the effect of crowding out private insurance - it is designed to do that by our congress, who have mandated that Private insurers can only offer deluxe, all-inclusive policies (of course at very high cost). So if I want a simple policy that only covers catastrophic illness or hospitalization expenses, and I pay for everything else myself, that option is no longer available to me. If Congress dumped the public option, I could support this bill. Otherwise, forget it.

If that's the case then why does Medicare have lower overhead costs than the average health insurance company?
The public option won't be subsidized by the government so unless it lowers costs it won't be able to compete. It will have to cover exactly the same minimums that other plans will offer so it won't have any advantage.
The problem with the simple policies that only cover catastrophic illness and hospital expenses is that they often don't even do that. I used to have one of those plans, I should post all the things that weren't covered. They don't do anything to help prevent problems that will be much more expensive later on and they are only affordable for people who are healthy.
I don't know why insurance companies should only have to cover people during their least expensive years and let the government take care of them during the expensive times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 4): You do realize that in the Swiss system government sets price controls on everything.

Just like when Republican President Richard M. Nixon signed off on wage and price controls here in the United States in the early 1970s to combate "stag-flation: Nixon made a famous comment that "we're all (Americans and Soviets) Communists now"   

Obama isn't the first American President to be a "socialist".....

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): Sorry, but I don't think so. If that was the case then medical care in Texas would be far cheaper than in, say, Oklahoma. I think you'll find that Texas is just as expensive as Texas - or more expensive. When Texas is significantly cheaper then I'll be for tort reform.

Have you looked at the population difference between OK and TX? There are 19+ million in TX and 3+ mil in OK. That doesn't even begin to get into what insurance regulatory differences there are, and there are certainly more illegals in TX than OK helping to drive up costs. So along with no tort reform and unnecessary tests to cya the doctor it's no wonder TX is not appreciably lower than OK. I fail to understand how you think any universal system will lower cost for anyone if these base issues are not addressed. You are adding to the rolls without doing anything to control cost.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): But that is not the issue. The issue is that hospitals can and do increase their costs to those that can pay in order to cover those that cannot pay.

Correct, which is where any healthcare laws should be directed, decreasing cost through opening up insurance markets, enacting tort reform, and relegislating medicare and medicaid so that the programs actually reflect their true costs instead of passing on some of their costs to private insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): But you will pay it until there is universal coverage.

I'll pay more when you add 10-12 million illegal immigrants without doing anything to help control costs. Once the public revolts at paying any more in taxes then the only thing left, if the government still refuses to control costs is to ration care. NY state alone estimates that there is 10's of millions of dollars each year in medicare fraud. Nationwide the figure is in the billions.

http://www.newser.com/story/35403/me...e-fudged-fraud-figures-report.html

How anyone can say that the government will lower cost is beyond me. You want my vote for nationalized health care? Attack that first before going after the private market which is still working.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): sure doesn't lower costs in Texas - I paid out the ass to have a parotid gland cut out.

Given all the medical procedures you've described in the various threads you are the exception to the rule. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Obamacare will be the death of you since they will look at your medical history and at some point decide you've had your fill.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): And that percentage is one that is decreasing.

Only because government, rather than make the necessary reforms to their own programs and opening doors for private enterprise is creating the majority of medical care increases.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29): Again, singling out an experience in Europe does not mean that government-managed care is a disaster everywhere for the common patient.

Its not a single experience. It was 10-years worth of living, and enough to realize how much more I prefer the current US system.

I truly cringe when people make mention of the "European model" of health care.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 31): we just happen to have an incredible number of highly-regarded institutions on balance.

Of course there are, but some innovative breakthroughs come from individuals or small groups. I keep looking at the doctors in Australia as a great example. A far smaller population than the US, but certainly no slouch in innovation and discovery. Looking at the Nobel Prize in Medicine a few years ago for the discovery that bacteria can cause ulcers - two Pathologists in Perth figured that out. About as far from world renown centers of medicine.

Or using a reverse vacuum to treat obstructive sleep apnea. A major advancement that doctors are still learning about.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): You are adding to the rolls without doing anything to control cost.

Again, I believe in the SURCHARGE that is added to costs to cover those that cannot pay for their care. If you pay for your care you are paying that surcharge.

If you can eliminate the NEED for the surcharge then you can reduce costs - without denying care.

A simply cannot understand why people have a problem with the surcharge concept, even though they have been paying it since they started paying for their own care.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): Given all the medical procedures you've described in the various threads you are the exception to the rule.

One of the joys of growing old is the increase in medical bills you face. There were many years when I was younger and had no bills - or only pediatrician bills. And I can't remember a time when we were not insured in one form or another. The most intelligent approach I've seen was in Australia.

And "government insurance" doesn't have to mean denial of coverage. There was no question about my heart cath and the gallbladder stone clearly shows up on ultrasound. My wife's aunt in the UK had 2 hip replacements in her 80s and her husband had one. My sister in law (in her 60s) has recently had her 2nd knee replacement.

The only difference is that you are going to pay a lot more if you need these treatments under private health.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 36): you are going to pay a lot more if you need these treatments under private health.

I really don't see how you blame this on the form if insurance, instead of the insured party.

There are all types of policies, from minimal coverage with high deductibles, to the Rolls Royce of plans. Its up to you to choose what you feel works best for you.

Myself and my family have what I consider quite good plans, very minimal outlays even in events of hospitalization I get all this for a rate which I am quite comfortable paying with a resulting feeling that I am definitely getting value for my money.

Its no different then buying other insurance like car, or life, there are all types of plans and one is free to choose what is the best value for them.

I'm wholly opposed for any government intervention to by deciding for me what these plans should look like, what they should cost, or force me to fund additional tax dollars to cover some utopic dream and largest new government bureaucracy in recent generations.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21): Government mandated programs (and certainly ones I have experienced in Europe) remove much of the choice I have over my own care. Now someone else decides basically when, how and what care I might or might not be entitled to, instead of me making those decisions and funding them at my prerogative.

Now I live in a European health care system, have utilized it quite a bit in recent years, and I've never experienced what you describe I should have.
If "funding at my prerogative" is your stated main objective, then why buy any insurance cover at all?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35): Its not a single experience. It was 10-years worth of living, and enough to realize how much more I prefer the current US system. I truly cringe when people make mention of the "European model" of health care.

There's no single "European model" other than the principle of a public commitment to a comprehensive care in the population. It really should be called "western European" model.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 32): If that's the case then why does Medicare have lower overhead costs than the average health insurance company?

As a financial professional, I'd like to see evidence of that. I just don't believe it.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 32): The public option won't be subsidized by the government so unless it lowers costs it won't be able to compete.

Yeah, right.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 32): The problem with the simple policies that only cover catastrophic illness and hospital expenses is that they often don't even do that. I used to have one of those plans, I should post all the things that weren't covered. They don't do anything to help prevent problems that will be much more expensive later on and they are only affordable for people who are healthy.

That's the idea. Don't you think that basic health insurance should be like car insurance - that you might only call on it 2 or 3 times in your life when you land in the hospital? The idea of insurance getting involved everytime your kid scrapes his knee or you get the flu is what's driving up the costs. Just like you might choose to fix that busted headlight on your own instead of calling the insurance company, you should be paying for regular or small medical costs out of your own pocket.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 32): I don't know why insurance companies should only have to cover people during their least expensive years and let the government take care of them during the expensive times.

That's one of the many reforms that need to be done. Premium policy must get revised, acceptance with existing conditions, etc. There is plenty to do. But kill the government option.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): As a financial professional, I'd like to see evidence of that. I just don't believe it.

This is the best source on it I could find. It's hard to compare Medicare to private insurance because the people they insure are older and more expensive, so naturally they have higher costs, but their overhead is still lower.
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006...dicares-true-administrative-costs/

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): Yeah, right.

How will it be subsidized? It doesn't say anything about subsidizing the public option in the bill. If it were going to be subsidized by the government I would not be in support of it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): That's the idea. Don't you think that basic health insurance should be like car insurance - that you might only call on it 2 or 3 times in your life when you land in the hospital? The idea of insurance getting involved everytime your kid scrapes his knee or you get the flu is what's driving up the costs. Just like you might choose to fix that busted headlight on your own instead of calling the insurance company, you should be paying for regular or small medical costs out of your own pocket.

Have you looked at any of the mini-medical/limited benefit plans? That's what I had. It covers a certain number of medical occurrences per year and beyond that you're on your own. It covered a day or two in the hospital at most, I think up to $5k or $10k, but it provides nothing once you reach the cap. It basically makes it look like you're insured when you really aren't. If something had happened to me the insurance wouldn't have paid for it, the costs would have been passed on to you.
They also had tons of things that weren't covered, like any injury sustained while under the influence of alcohol.

I have no problem with paying for the regular or small costs out of my pocket, there should be some sort of incentive to pay for things yourself.
The problem with your car insurance comparison is that it's a completely different industry. Car insurance exists to cover your expenses when something bad happens, not to prevent bad things from happening like health insurance.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 40): This is the best source on it I could find. It's hard to compare Medicare to private insurance because the people they insure are older and more expensive, so naturally they have higher costs, but their overhead is still lower.

Interesting. I have to read it in more detail, but a quick read seems to indicate that once you include all the medicare-related costs which are covered elsewhere in the government books, and handicap the payouts properly, Medicare is no more efficient at best and may be subject to more fraud. It's a huge subject to study.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 40): Have you looked at any of the mini-medical/limited benefit plans? That's what I had. It covers a certain number of medical occurrences per year and beyond that you're on your own. It covered a day or two in the hospital at most, I think up to $5k or $10k

That's not what I had in mind. I'm thinking of a plan which does not cover your little expenses for a doctors visit for a sore throat, of even perscription drugs to treat that sore throat. It would be a plan that covers your costs up to $10-20 million if you had something really serious happen to you, a severe injury, or cancer. True catastrophic insurance. The type that you might need once in a lifetime, if ever.

The type of policy you pointed out, I don't know what the point of that would be.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41): I'm thinking of a plan which does not cover your little expenses for a doctors visit for a sore throat, of even perscription drugs to treat that sore throat.

The problem is that even a trip to the doctor for a sore throat, plus a prescription could easily cost $100-200. For a family of four, those types of costs will be quite burdensome....particularly as the majority of Americans will eventually be working in low-wage service jobs.

And if you don't cover basic preventative services, people will simply not have the exams done. Then, when things go wrong, it will end up costing a lot more.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41): True catastrophic insurance. The type that you might need once in a lifetime, if ever.

But in reality, almost everyone will need it at least once if not more. Most people in their lifetimes will either be involved in a serious accident, get cancer, have a heart attack, have a stroke or some other serious illness.

Your idea might be more appealing if basic care wasn't already so expensive that half of all Americans are price out.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): As a financial professional, I'd like to see evidence of that. I just don't believe it.

Doubt you would believe it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): That's the idea. Don't you think that basic health insurance should be like car insurance - that you might only call on it 2 or 3 times in your life when you land in the hospital?

Look at the other side of the coin. I had a 13 year old Mazda MX-3 that got beaten up by hail. The insurance company looked at it & said it wasn't worth fixing up. Gave me a check for a fraction of the repair costs, said it was junk and left.

ANyone who has been denied by a health insurance company knows how that feels.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): There is plenty to do.

Conservatives had 8 years to do it and failed to act. Now it's Obama's turn. Like McCain said, "Elections have consequences."

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39): But kill the government option.

Why? Medicare is CHEAPER than private care.

And personally I like the idea of having competition for the private health insurance companies.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41): Medicare is no more efficient at best and may be subject to more fraud. It's a huge subject to study.

I think 5% is more efficient than 16%. And I'm not stripping out costs like commissions, profits and taxes. The policy holder pays those costs so they should be included.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41): I'm thinking of a plan which does not cover your little expenses for a doctors visit for a sore throat, of even perscription drugs to treat that sore throat.

A little expense for you can be too expensive for some people. Those are the ones that go to the ER when their little problem gets out of hand. You pay for that as there is no free lunch. I believe that the public option would provide an avenue for reducing those costs as well as taking care of the lower income patients faster.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43): ANyone who has been denied by a health insurance company knows how that feels.

Many of those case have gone into court. If the insurance company did not have a legal bases to deny the claim, they have lost.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43): Medicare is CHEAPER than private care. And personally I like the idea of having competition for the private health insurance companies.

But Medicare is not as good and has the highest number of cases of denying care. It is full of fraud, and costs to the government have increased every year since it began around 1966.

Now, I do agree that compitition between insurancs companies is a good thing, and if the government gets into it on a level playing field, that might work. The problem is, when the government gets involved with anything, it never levels the playing field.

The claim is some 40M-48M people in the US are without healh care. the US has a population of over 300M people. So does that mean there are over 250M prople with health care (about 85% of the population)?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44): Many of those case have gone into court. If the insurance company did not have a legal bases to deny the claim, they have lost.

First of all, they often do have a legal basis to deny the claim, that's what the 15 pages of tiny writing in your policy is for.
Second, what about the people who can't afford to go to court, or the people who were denied care until they went to court, by which point it was too late?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44): But Medicare is not as good and has the highest number of cases of denying care.

I can't find any statistics on the percent of care denied by Medicare vs private insurance. I'm sure they have the highest number of cases overall though, they insure more people than any insurance company, so of course they have a higher number.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44): It is full of fraud

So is private health insurance. That needs to be dealt with whether we have a universal system or not.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44): and costs to the government have increased every year since it began around 1966.

They've increased at about the same rate as private insurance spending. They have also continued to cover more and more people, while private insurance has covered less and less.
The overall cost of health care has increased every year, so why wouldn't the costs to the government go up as well?
What you said sounds like Bush claiming in 2004 that home ownership was the highest ever recorded, for as long as records had been kept. While technically true, every year since records were kept has been the highest year ever (until 2006).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44): So does that mean there are over 250M prople with health care

Hopefully.

But let's look at the numbers.

First you have everyone in the military and their families.

Then everyone on VA Health Care.

Then the really, really big one: government workers.

- Federal
- State
- County
- City
- School District

Have I left any out?

Now add in health care workers, like hospital employees, who get health care that is added to the health care you pay for.

Oooops!

Can you see why I believe it can be done more effeciently, effectively, etc.?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 46): Hopefully. But let's look at the numbers.

You are trying to deflect. The numbers speak for themselves - a vast majority of Americans are insured, and according to recent polls a wide majority are happy with their coverage.

Basically what is going on is that Congress is trying to change health care for everyone instead of concentrating on the 15% who are not covered.

Is our system without faults? Hell no. I hate the fact that insurance companies can mess with your rates for the crime of getting sick, or can even throw you out for the same thing. There are a dozen things that I think can be improved on through a few intelligent regulations (and I'm not talking about 1000 pages). For those people below poverty level we have Medicaid and similar programs. Everyone should have to have insurance as part of their social responsibility. But all these things can be done without government taking things over to the level being proposed.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47): You are trying to deflect. The numbers speak for themselves - a vast majority of Americans are insured, and according to recent polls a wide majority are happy with their coverage.

But there are at least 25 million more who are underinsured. If you take them into account, plus the 15% that are already insured through Medicare, it's more like 65-70% that are covered by private health insurance. So even if polls show that 75% of people are happy with their care, that's about half of the population.
I have a problem with polls like that anyway because I don't think people would be as happy if they knew how much their insurance actually cost. For the $1000/yr I pay for mine I'm 100% satisfied. If I were paying the full $9000 for it I wouldn't be nearly as happy with it. I'd like to see a poll asking people how much their health insurance costs, I think the results would be surprising.
There are polls showing 72% support for a public plan, but I rarely see that mentioned.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47): You are trying to deflect.

I'm not trying to deflect. I'm simply pointing out that all government employees at ALL levels are getting health insurance at taxpayers' expense. If you pay taxes you are helping pay for that over priced insurance.

Don't you think it might be wise to finally look at options instead of just paying out more money every year?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47): I hate the fact that insurance companies can mess with your rates for the crime of getting sick, or can even throw you out for the same thing.

I'm so pissed at "pre-existing condition" exemptions that I believe it should be a criminal offense, with prison time mandatory.

And let's make it clear that the health insurance industry is at the heart of the problem. They are what makes ex-conservatives like me happy to see the government provide public options. Might kick their ass in line.