Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
wingman
Topic Author
Posts: 4170
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:14 pm

Here are two interesting pieces to consider as Trump and the GOP "closely coordinate" their plans for Healthcare legislation next week. Trump is ordering an immediate repeal while Paul Ryan is cautioning the President-elect to pull his Cheeto face out of his ass (in less confrontational language of course). It begs two immediate questions- one, how do you repeal the ACA and guarantee universal coverage in the same breath? and two, where is this mythical alternative GOP healthcare plan we keep hearing about? Details are scarce and no one seems willing to share a copy, or any evidence whatsoever that the GOP has done anything except scratch its collective ass and sniff its fingers for the past 6 years. Admittedly these powder puff piece come from such fake news organizations like the WashPo, NBC and the WSJ but I have included some actual projections from that notoriously partisan government hack outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office.

Enjoy!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... f211f31978
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... emiums.pdf
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:31 pm

wingman wrote:
Admittedly these powder puff piece come from such fake news organizations like the WashPo, NBC and the WSJ but I have included some actual projections from that notoriously partisan government hack outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office.


Ah, the Age Of Orange and The Post-Fact world, where, if one simply says "fake news!", it makes it so.

I'll add some more from one of those "fake news" sites, that shows that this "close coordination" between Congress and Trump is so much crap.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/ ... index.html
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23951
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:51 pm

This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:13 pm

seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do.


This is the essence of modern liberalism: the inability to distinguish between the state and society. If Republicans are against the government doing something, then it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done by someone else.

Jesus didn't call on Caesar to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He called on the people to do it.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23951
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:50 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do.


This is the essence of modern liberalism: the inability to distinguish between the state and society. If Republicans are against the government doing something, then it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done by someone else.

Jesus didn't call on Caesar to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He called on the people to do it.


And Republicans keep saying they are the people of Jesus and love Jesus and Christianity is theirs, so they need to act like it. Matthew 7:15-20
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:11 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
Jesus didn't call on Caesar to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He called on the people to do it.

This is a classic RW mixing of two subjects into a conclusion that looks good on the surface but really is meaningless.

Jesus and Ayn Rand don't mix.
Jesus was a Jew and he was calling for revolution against the Sadducees aka the Temple priests who operated with Roman support.
This has nothing to do with your small government mantra.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:17 am

salttee wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Jesus didn't call on Caesar to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He called on the people to do it.

This is a classic RW mixing of two subjects into a conclusion that looks good on the surface but really is meaningless.

Jesus and Ayn Rand don't mix.


Yes, I think it's well understood human beings are insoluble compounds.

salttee wrote:
Jesus was a Jew and he was calling for revolution against the Sadducees aka the Temple priests who operated with Roman support.
This has nothing to do with your small government mantra..


Nor does it have anything to do with Seb's big government mantra. Which is precisely my point.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:26 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do.


This is the essence of modern liberalism: the inability to distinguish between the state and society. If Republicans are against the government doing something, then it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done by someone else.

Jesus didn't call on Caesar to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He called on the people to do it.


Jesus didn't call on Caesar to take away from the poor and give to the rich, either, like the GOP is doing. Everything conservatives want in this era is to take what little the poor and middle class have and give it to the wealthy and corporations. If you deny that, you're lying to themselves.

The government of the United States is supposed to help its citizens, not hurt them. When they take away food stamps and welfare from the truly needy, they're doing just that. The economic disasters in states run by the GOP, like Kansas, Louisiana, Alabama and others states is proof of that. The policies in those states hurt the majority of people for the benefit of the few. That isn't what the U.S. is supposed to be about.

DfwRevolution wrote:
Nor does it have anything to do with Seb's big government mantra. Which is precisely my point.


And if you're telling me the GOP is for limited government, you're out of your mind. They are all for big government when it comes to the sexual proclivities of its citizens, or when a woman decides her body is her business, not the government's, or when the POTUS-E threatens to limit the press to do their job in reporting on what our government is doing.

And you can't even argue that the GOP is for fiscally limited government anymore. There hasn't been a Republican that's been for fiscal discipline since Gerald Ford was President. That boat sailed when Ronald Reagan became President and exploded the deficit. That's simply another lie that can't be refuted by conservatives.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:58 am

wingman wrote:
one, how do you repeal the ACA and guarantee universal coverage in the same breath?

You don't.

Set up a schedule to reduce and eliminate Medicare reimbursement for healthcare providers. Rates for simple procedures and treatments can disappear overnight while those for more complicated things would be phased out over a decade or more. If providers want to continue to make a profit on government healthcare, in the short term anyway, they have to provide care more efficiently which of course puts them in a better position to compete in a free market. Providers that can run their business purely off of working for privately insured or out-of-pocket patients would be just fine.

seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do

Do you believe that it's good for people to get some exercise each day?

DfwRevolution wrote:
This is the essence of modern liberalism: the inability to distinguish between the state and society.

It's not that, it's the inability to distinguish between the state and the individual in spite of the fact that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are pretty clear on the matter.

Someone talking about "society" is almost always a con-artist trying to scam someone into thinking that everyone agrees with them, and more importantly that it matters, and bully someone else into doing their bidding.

Hillis wrote:
Jesus didn't call on Caesar to take away from the poor and give to the rich, either, like the GOP is doing. Everything conservatives want in this era is to take what little the poor and middle class have and give it to the wealthy and corporations.

Which rights of the poor and middle class are going to be violated?

Hillis wrote:
That boat sailed when Ronald Reagan became President and exploded the deficit. That's simply another lie that can't be refuted by conservatives.

Well you can't make up for Jimmy Carter's (and Ford's before him) shortcomings for free.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:20 am

The Republicans wanted to take the problem of healthcare on immediately, good for them. A little egg on their face is well deserved. When all the millions have none, let us hope the outcasts speak in the mid-terms. Especially those with preexisting conditions. Even Trump expressed displeasure about the goals today concerning healthcare. Maybe he does want two terms? :bouncy: :box:
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:24 am

You'd think the GOP would have something *anything* ready to trot out re: healthcare replacement, since they've been squawking about repeal and replace for years. Many GOP apologists say they have "several" plans that are even better than Obamacare--well let's hear it then. Should be easy to lasso some talking points together and run them through the talk shows for a smell test. But instead, they're babbling incoherently while their new grifter in chief is as libbing about universal healthcare where everyone is "beautifully covered". Now the flea in Trump's brain is wagging the tail, which is wagging the dog, which is chasing its tail. Soooo...what is the plan here?
salttee wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Jesus didn't call on Caesar to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He called on the people to do it.

This is a classic RW mixing of two subjects into a conclusion that looks good on the surface but really is meaningless.

Jesus and Ayn Rand don't mix.
Jesus was a Jew and he was calling for revolution against the Sadducees aka the Temple priests who operated with Roman support.
This has nothing to do with your small government mantra.

Welp apparently Jesus would be super into our pussy grabbin con man. 80% of evangelicals voted for him and have anointed him as their moral and ethical compass as well as mirror image.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23951
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:56 am

BMI727 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do

Do you believe that it's good for people to get some exercise each day?


What does that have to do with anything?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:56 am

Last week (I think) Trump was putting both feets on the brake telling that a plan was needed to ensure coverage would not be lost etc., while the GOP in congress was in full repeal mode. Now the roles are reversed. This is becoming very hard to follow.
 
doug_or
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:15 am

Well this thread went off the rails even quicker than I would have predicted.
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:21 am

Word is they are working on us all going back to having coupon coverage. You know where your health insurance pays so little it's like using a grocery store coupon.

watch for the lifetime maximum to return, so those with pre-existing conditions will have to change their insurance companies every three months.
unless they are planning on doing away with pre-existing coverage.


one last thing, if you have minor surgery, and find out that your insurance company didn't cover anything, please remember not to have a hearth attack.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:42 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
Should be easy to lasso some talking points together and run them through the talk shows for a smell test.

It isn't the talk shows that are the obstacle, it the actuary types and the people who actually know about how health care works and what it costs.
The Republicans are up against reality now (well some of them, we still have one of our resident neocon geniuses above telling us exactly how to do it in a half a paragraph.) Before all they had to do was point out how terrible Obamacare is and how Obama is a Kenyan anyway, and let Paul Ryan take care of the details.

Now they have to deliver the goods. And once all the numbers are crunched they either go with Obamacare under whatever name they chose or they hand 20 million or so people over to the nation's emergency rooms to provide health care. Where's Paul Ryan? He's supposed to be the guy who is good at financial stuff.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4294
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:02 am

BMI727 wrote:
Providers that can run their business purely off of working for privately insured or out-of-pocket patients would be just fine.

What you are advocating will only work for hospital in regions that have medium to large amounts of money. Hospitals in less affluent regions will not survive no matter how well run they are, because their local clientbase do not have the financial resources for private insurance and/or out of pocket medical expenses.

This will affect these regions double as hard. Not only short term because access is limited, but long term as the medical infrastructue will disappear. Replacing lost infrastructure is always an uphill struggle. You only need to look at lost railways, tramlines, mental institutions etc.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:16 am

seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do.


you got that wrong, they are talking about Jesus from San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The small business owner that entered the country legally and brought a few million US$ starting capital with him, sexually abuses his workforce and hates everything LGBT. And hates Mexicans.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled wasn´t convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world his name is Jesus Christ.

best regards
Thomas
 
bgm
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:20 am

I guess that's why all the crazies were clinging to their guns - it's the cheaper alternative to healthcare.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18742
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:05 pm

salttee wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Should be easy to lasso some talking points together and run them through the talk shows for a smell test.

It isn't the talk shows that are the obstacle, it the actuary types and the people who actually know about how health care works and what it costs.
The Republicans are up against reality now (well some of them, we still have one of our resident neocon geniuses above telling us exactly how to do it in a half a paragraph.) Before all they had to do was point out how terrible Obamacare is and how Obama is a Kenyan anyway, and let Paul Ryan take care of the details.

Now they have to deliver the goods. And once all the numbers are crunched they either go with Obamacare under whatever name they chose or they hand 20 million or so people over to the nation's emergency rooms to provide health care. Where's Paul Ryan? He's supposed to be the guy who is good at financial stuff.

I get that but they should at least have some salient points that they can trot out to get the PR machine whirring... Right now it's patently clear that the GOP and Trump are on different planets in terms of healthcare. I'd just think that by now after years of bitching and moaning we could at least say "the GOP plan is X Y Z with some further details to be ironed out".
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8707
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:15 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
I'd just think that by now after years of bitching and moaning we could at least say "the GOP plan is X Y Z with some further details to be ironed out".

They're not gonna do that because they promised a full repeal. So even if some provisions are popular among Americans and they'd be glad to keep them, by repealing parts of the law, they're not really fulfilling their promise. They're up against a wall: they either say they'll modify the ACA (in a way, keeping it) or they'll tear it down (with or without a replacement). In this case, all they sold was repeal and replace (but then, they've been working on a replacement alternative since they took over the House so it begs the question as to why they still haven't done anything decent).
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:32 pm

petertenthije wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
Providers that can run their business purely off of working for privately insured or out-of-pocket patients would be just fine.

What you are advocating will only work for hospital in regions that have medium to large amounts of money. Hospitals in less affluent regions will not survive no matter how well run they are, because their local clientbase do not have the financial resources for private insurance and/or out of pocket medical expenses.

This will affect these regions double as hard. Not only short term because access is limited, but long term as the medical infrastructue will disappear. Replacing lost infrastructure is always an uphill struggle. You only need to look at lost railways, tramlines, mental institutions etc.


Since BMI727 could care less about that fact, he'll say it's irrelevant because it doesn't affect his life. Problem solved. :roll:

The truth is that, even after knowing about what Obama wanted to do with Healthcare, the GOP still does not have a viable option to put on the table. They simply don't. Their only options would be a cut-and-paste of what used to exist, which left millions upon millions not to even be able to get health care, and where those who do have health care will have fewer benefits. It's a perfect example of why the GOP simply is not fit to govern, as they don't have any ideas about anything, except "let's cut taxes". What they come up with will be far, far worse than ACA, and there are a few pundits that are starting to say they may not even end up getting rid of ACA, because they really don't have a plan of their own.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:43 pm

wingman wrote:
where is this mythical alternative GOP healthcare plan we keep hearing about?


There is none. Never was, never will be.

The GOP wouldn't even know where to start, even if they truly did want to set up something, which they don't.
They're only interested in letting businesses and corporation profit off a degenerating healthcare system in which costs are spiraling out of control and from which more and more Americans are excluded.

But of course, the fanatics on the right will now openly tell you that they don't care if people lose their insurance or even lives since altruism is out and selfishness is in apparently. But they will tell you how much money repealing the act will save the country... except it won't. On the contrary. It will very likely cost quite a lot and add to the deficit (bigly).

http://fortune.com/2015/06/19/obamacare-repeal-cost/
http://crfb.org/papers/cost-full-repeal-affordable-care-act

Now, every bill from the House is normally cost-analysed by the Congressional Budget Office... except the republicans are trying very hard to pass a measure that would prevent the CBO from doing a standard 10 year cost analysis on repealing ACA specifically. Gee, I wonder why?... Wasn't this the new age of transparency?

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/06/gop-doesnt-want-public-know-how-much-obamacare-repeal-will-cost-study-shows-it-could

"The very same rules package (pdf) in which the GOP had attempted to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics also contains a provision that exempts repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, from the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) 10-year cost analysis."

And of course, let's not mention what it cost the taxpayer for the GOP to try to vote ACA down about 60 times (!) over the years, but I'll do it anyway:

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare-repeal-votes/

Sure, $80 Million is chump change compared to the sums at stake, but I seem to remember a few here trying to defend the GOP when it attempted to snuff the ethics committee by saying it would save $15 Million...


At this stage, I can't even understand why anybody thinks the GOP is driven by anything other than blind hateful rhetoric and scorn for everything that is even slightly different from their extreme political doctrines based on an alternate reality they created themselves.
Not to mention, of course, the drive to pander to powerful lobbies run by the elite for their mutual and immediate profit, at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
It beggars belief. The Italian mafia has nothing on these guys.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:02 pm

Francoflier wrote:
wingman wrote:
where is this mythical alternative GOP healthcare plan we keep hearing about?


There is none. Never was, never will be.

The GOP wouldn't even know where to start, even if they truly did want to set up something, which they don't.
They're only interested in letting businesses and corporation profit off a degenerating healthcare system in which costs are spiraling out of control and from which more and more Americans are excluded.

But of course, the fanatics on the right will now openly tell you that they don't care if people lose their insurance or even lives since altruism is out and selfishness is in apparently. But they will tell you how much money repealing the act will save the country... except it won't. On the contrary. It will very likely cost quite a lot and add to the deficit (bigly).

http://fortune.com/2015/06/19/obamacare-repeal-cost/
http://crfb.org/papers/cost-full-repeal-affordable-care-act

Now, every bill from the House is normally cost-analysed by the Congressional Budget Office... except the republicans are trying very hard to pass a measure that would prevent the CBO from doing a standard 10 year cost analysis on repealing ACA specifically. Gee, I wonder why?... Wasn't this the new age of transparency?

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/06/gop-doesnt-want-public-know-how-much-obamacare-repeal-will-cost-study-shows-it-could

"The very same rules package (pdf) in which the GOP had attempted to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics also contains a provision that exempts repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, from the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) 10-year cost analysis."

And of course, let's not mention what it cost the taxpayer for the GOP to try to vote ACA down about 60 times (!) over the years, but I'll do it anyway:

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare-repeal-votes/

Sure, $80 Million is chump change compared to the sums at stake, but I seem to remember a few here trying to defend the GOP when it attempted to snuff the ethics committee by saying it would save $15 Million...


At this stage, I can't even understand why anybody thinks the GOP is driven by anything other than blind hateful rhetoric and scorn for everything that is even slightly different from their extreme political doctrines based on an alternate reality they created themselves.
Not to mention, of course, the drive to pander to powerful lobbies run by the elite for their mutual and immediate profit, at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
It beggars belief. The Italian mafia has nothing on these guys.


Best post of this thread. Lays out very well what the GOP is about on this matter, and, in fact, in most matters where they actually have to think. Again, they've had 8 years to come up with something, and there's really nothing. That can only mean that they either don't really care about the issue, and just wanted to bitch at whatever Obama did, or they're simply not intellectually capable enough to come up with any real, concrete idea of their own. Personally, I think both are true. They just can't seem to think beyond the words "tax cuts", "vouchers", and "free market". Nothing else even registers with them.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:11 pm

We need to go to socialized, rationed care for all low-cost procedures. High cost items should be handled under disability laws. The ACA is a disaster and so is the lack of any insurance structure at all. The ACA makes everybody pay and still, the middle class is prevented from getting any care. Time to throw it into the dumpster. With the money saved, a basic plan can be rolled out.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:58 am

seb146 wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

Surely you must be in favor of the government forcing people to exercise because it is good for them. Show up at the local police station or post office to get your daily workout in. Refusal to do so should be met by fines or imprisonment. Do you agree with that?

petertenthije wrote:
What you are advocating will only work for hospital in regions that have medium to large amounts of money. Hospitals in less affluent regions will not survive no matter how well run they are, because their local clientbase do not have the financial resources for private insurance and/or out of pocket medical expenses.

So? Markets vary and demand different products at different price points. None of that is a problem. Should I find it scandalous that there are as many Porsche dealers in Connecticut as in Oklahoma, Kentucky and Oregon combined?

petertenthije wrote:
Not only short term because access is limited, but long term as the medical infrastructue will disappear.

Who cares? There's a reason we don't have ten lane freeways in Wyoming and a maglev in Alaska.

Hillis wrote:
Since BMI727 could care less about that fact, he'll say it's irrelevant because it doesn't affect his life. Problem solved

Precisely, although I'm late to the party. The laws of economics and the laws of physics and thermodynamics from which they are derived found this irrelevant long before I or any other human came along.

The key to fixing the healthcare market is really pretty simple: those who benefit should bear the costs. When you have a market where the people who benefit from a product or service are different than the people paying for it and/or don't have a reason to care how much it costs bad things will happen. Costs explode, inefficienies grow and go unpunished, the environment is ripe for corruption and sometimes the whole economy suffers greatly. It happened with the housing market and now it is happening with both higher education as well as healthcare. It is no coincidence, of course, that all three of these situations were precipitated by government meddling and bad policy.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23951
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:45 am

BMI727 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

Surely you must be in favor of the government forcing people to exercise because it is good for them. Show up at the local police station or post office to get your daily workout in. Refusal to do so should be met by fines or imprisonment. Do you agree with that?


I am not going to play your "Obama's going to take our guns!" game. You know perfectly well what you are suggesting is just nonsense. Because the right only wants everything to make as much profit as possible, the huge majority of us have to suffer. Lead tainted water, children starving, cancer deaths, heroin overdoses, black lung disease.... the list goes on. Your silly hyperbole is just that: silly. We have told you time and again: get out of your parents' basement and live in the real world for a year. Use your own money to pay for things like rent and food and transportation and health care and see how you fare.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:59 am

BMI727 wrote:
The key to fixing the healthcare market is really pretty simple: those who benefit should bear the costs.


They do. That is why public universal healthcare systems run cheaper on per head and per total price basis.Having universal healthcare and low crime rates also seem to be correlated somewhat.

Precisely, although I'm late to the party. The laws of economics and the laws of physics and thermodynamics from which they are derived found this irrelevant long before I or any other human came along.


And the laws of math, in the shape of game theory, model very well how any system with many of your kind can´t be stable and will break down. There is a limited number of selfish jackasses a system can bear before it collapses. That is why even the most stupid animal seems to have social and altruistic traits. Because having those increases the chances of survival.

best regards
Thomas
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:44 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
This is the essence of modern liberalism: the inability to distinguish between the state and society. If Republicans are against the government doing something, then it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done by someone else.


Maybe the issue is that devout Christians would not vote for a man or woman who would cut care for the sick, poor, hungry, etc.

Voting for greed over Christianity is the hidden test for so called Christian Conservatives.

BMI727 wrote:
The key to fixing the healthcare market is really pretty simple: those who benefit should bear the costs.

Sorry to bust your bubble, buy the key to holding down health care costs is to end Cost Shifting. If you can't figure that out then go the a large city ER one afternoon or night and look at the folks waiting 5 hours to be taken care of. Now guess how many have health insurance3 and will ensure the hospital is fully paid.

The rest of the folks will be taken care of at a big cost and that cost will be shifted to insurance companies and their policy holders. If you don't address cost shifting then you will not hold down medical inflation.

From my experience living and working in Australia I can point out some simple realities:

1. Eliminating cost shifting with universal coverage has allowed then private health insurance companies to be very successful, to the point that the government started a private insurance companies and competes with the other private companies.

2. Dramatic cuts is US monthly premiums would happen. I was going to Australia so often after moving back that I purchased private insurance there as well as the policy I had here. My US policy was $550 per month for me and the same for the wife. My Aussie policy was $88 per month and included Dental, which was missing on the US policy.

3. The Cost Shifting Tax could be less because it would apply to booth individuals and companies. Companies would be paying against profits so in bad years they would not have to pay. Think about that - companies having bad year will not include the costs of over priced health insurance when looking at how many people they have today off. That can be a big deal for many.

4. The quality of care is just as good as you get in the US. Considering that the US ranks about 27th in terms of outcomes it is relatively simple for a civilized country to beat our performance for a lot of conditions. In terms of "Bang for the Buck" the performance in the US is a joke.

For Trump the performances overseas is a simple test on how well his "plan" will perform. If he doesn't address cost shifting with core universal care side by side with private insurance then his plan (or the GOP's plan) will simply be more of the same.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15803
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:30 pm

The USA health care structure has to change. The ACA was a start and while well intended it is not enough and still too expensive.
For many developed countries, there health care structures developed from the rise of industrialization, sometimes via 'charity' hospitals run by religious groups like the Catholic Church then city governments creating 'public' hospitals that still exist in some cities like NY City. For some countries like Canada, the 1930's Great Depression meant the government had to take over medical services and hospitals as very few could afford basic health care needs and private/religious charity care didn't have enough money.
To me the USA needs to move to a new structure. It likely should include:
Premiums and deductibles are based on income with variances as to the costs of living in different areas.
A tax, like with Social Security and Medicaid with a fixed percentage of income paid for by the worker and employer.
One plan for all with the same 'gold' standard not the current mess of only able to go to certain hospitals, even if not the closest one or limited in doctors or other service providers one can see by their insurance co's.
Strict limits on overhead costs, especially for executive salaries for insurers, hospitals, drug companies and service suppliers.
Tax structures that assure affordable overhead costs to service providers.
Make it so a person becoming a doctor doesn't have to borrow obscene amounts of money to pay for tuition and fees.
Ban almost all marketing of prescription drugs and service providers.
Sound regulation of costs of drugs and medial services so that providers get fair compensation but costs to consumers is reasonable.
Tort reform to discourage frivolous and phony lawsuits and defense costs to service providers.
More urgent care facilities next to hospitals to triage between those really needing emergency room care and give prompt care to those that have no doctor or at standard business hours.
To reduce obesity and related costly medical conditions by improving our diets, discouraging 'bad' foods, encouraging exercise.
Checks on doctors and service providers to discourage frivolous, excessive and unnecessary procedures and drugs.
Greater use of physical therapy instead of drugs.
Reduce errors and malpractice with their costs in money and people's lives.
Expand the use of Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners and non-doctor specialists to reduce costs, improve care and allow doctors to focus on their role.
Standardize billing and payment structures, forms and approval processes to reduce overhead costs.
We also have to face the reality that our ability to provide certain extreme medical care exceed our ability to pay for it but is in conflict with moral demands. It is great we can have a child born prematurely on the cusp of the ability to live outside a mother's womb when only a decade ago, that baby would have died, but the costs can be over $1 Million and likely paid for by government or an insurer. The same could be said about an 80 year old with cancer and even in remission means a poor quality of life and huge costs. We have to find a new balance but not create 'death panels'.
Until we deal with our medical structure in the USA, we will continue a decline in quality of life for all of us.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:42 pm

seb146 wrote:
I am not going to play your "Obama's going to take our guns!" game.

Fine but then you can't say that conservatives are against helping the poor. You're an intellectually bankrupt charlatan.

seb146 wrote:
Use your own money to pay for things like rent and food and transportation and health care and see how you fare.

I fare just fine.

tommy1808 wrote:
That is why public universal healthcare systems run cheaper on per head and per total price basis.

Cheaper per head and the total price is irrelevant. You could have the most efficient socialized medicine system ever conceived and if I'm healthy and don't receive any care then I'm overpaying no matter what. When you are pooling the costs then someone is getting screwed unless everyone consumes exactly the same amount of care.

tommy1808 wrote:
That is why even the most stupid animal seems to have social and altruistic traits. Because having those increases the chances of survival.

I'm not making an argument against altruism, I'm making an argument that all altruism should be voluntary.

Ken777 wrote:
If you can't figure that out then go the a large city ER one afternoon or night and look at the folks waiting 5 hours to be taken care of. Now guess how many have health insurance3 and will ensure the hospital is fully paid.

The key is that the inner city hospitals should not be forced to serve those who cannot pay. If they want to that's great and they can fund it however they like, but forcing them to do it will break the system. It is a bad assumption to say that the system must take care of everyone. It doesn't.

ltbewr wrote:
Strict limits on overhead costs, especially for executive salaries for insurers, hospitals, drug companies and service suppliers.

That's none of the government's business.

ltbewr wrote:
Sound regulation of costs of drugs and medial services so that providers get fair compensation but costs to consumers is reasonable.

Sure let's violate property rights. What could possibly be morally wrong about that?

ltbewr wrote:
To reduce obesity and related costly medical conditions by improving our diets, discouraging 'bad' foods, encouraging exercise.

And abdicate personal freedom too? Wow, you're on a roll.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:13 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Cheaper per head and the total price is irrelevant. You could have the most efficient socialized medicine system ever conceived and if I'm healthy and don't receive any care then I'm overpaying no matter what.


As always your premises are false from the start. Unless we get to execute you the moment you do need medicall care and can't pay in full, with you paying bullet, clean up and funeral, all healthcare is socialised.
The only viable way to prevent that is to block so much of your money that any conceavable treatment can be paid for by it.
Of couse you get the money back once you die and sociaty is reasonably sure from having to pay for you, but you still can't spend it.
And you would get to put much more money aside for the worst case scenario, as paying for your average risk. There doesn't have to be an exception for sociopaths, since their treatment is also paid for.

It is also totally unreasonable to pay police out of taxes, something most people never ever need in their whole life, and paying for military is plain theft in most countries, but not doing so for healthcare which almost everybody needs sooner or later.

Best regards
Thomas
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:16 pm

The by Mr Trump so much hated country spends USD 5228 per capita on healthcare that covers all people resident in Sweden.

USA spends USD 9451 per capita on healthcare.

I do not consider the Swedish healthcare to be lower quality then the US one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:21 pm

olle wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita


The chart in the article also indicated that Obama care did not increase healthcare costs, as they just keep growing steadily, and even decreased it since it is per capita and with 10% more people having healthcare, the cost per insured must have dropped.

Perfectly demonstrating how all healthcare systems are socialized regardless of being universal or not, and that universa healthcare is cheaper for all insured. A winners only situation.

Best regards
Thomas
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:25 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
As always your premises are false from the start. Unless we get to execute you the moment you do need medicall care and can't pay in full, with you paying bullet, clean up and funeral, all healthcare is socialised.

It is, but the goal it so socialize it with choice for the consumer. People should be able to choose which risk pool they wish to join and socialize medicine by grouping themselves however they wish.

tommy1808 wrote:
The only viable way to prevent that is to block so much of your money that any conceavable treatment can be paid for by it.

That is a risk pool of one and should be open as a choice to people.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is also totally unreasonable to pay police out of taxes, something most people never ever need in their whole life, and paying for military is plain theft in most countries,

In those cases people benefit from having those things even if they do not call them which is a stark contrast to medicine. It's pretty obvious that I don't benefit from surgeries I don't have.

Furthermore, you will find that both the functions of the police and military is privatized in some cases. Unfortunately, doing so on a large scale, citizen-by-citizen, basis is impractical but would be a better option.

olle wrote:
The by Mr Trump so much hated country spends USD 5228 per capita on healthcare that covers all people resident in Sweden.

USA spends USD 9451 per capita on healthcare.

Per capita doesn't mean much when some people consume vast amounts and some consume next to nothing.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:31 pm

BMI727 wrote:
It is, but the goal it so socialize it with choice for the consumer. .


I just proposed the only solution that protects the insured for having to overpay. You are free to suggest through you representative that exception can be made from peoole having agreed to be shot the first time around they can't pay for treatment, at their owned expense blocked on a trustee account, or having the amount blocked that covers all possible expenses.
You also failed to make an argument why I have to pay for police, I don't need, and military, I don't want to need, but you don't have to pay for health insurance, that you almost definatly going to need.

Best regards
Thomas
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:38 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
I just proposed the only solution that protects the insured for having to overpay.

I'm not against insurance, but I'm not for making it mandatory either. It should be up to the insured and insurers how to break up the risk pools. I don't see a problem with having risk pools not covering pre-existing conditions or having a low maximum payout.

The big change that really needs to happen is that healthcare providers must not be obliged to care for whomever shows up on their doorstep.

tommy1808 wrote:
You also failed to make an argument why I have to pay for police, I don't need, and military,

The argument is very simple. You assume that the police are not helping you unless you call them, which is unquestionably false.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:50 pm

Good healthcare for others also protect you. It's how some illnesses have been eliminated, by vaccination of (almost) everybody. Why tuberculosis is quite rare but usually gotten through contamination by some poor person that wasn't followed by a doctor. Same for many parasites, for many sexually transmitted diseases, etc.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:03 pm

In sweden I pay max around USD 200 in fees per year and max around USD 200 for medicine, for people over 18 years old who get healthcare free.

In general the health care shows that the "exensive" patients is the first 3 years of your life and the last 3 years of your life.This is true for a majority for us all. The problem is that the first 3 years our parents can pay forbut who pays for the last 3?
 
YZF101
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:12 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:01 pm

ltbewr wrote:
The USA health care structure has to change. The ACA was a start and while well intended it is not enough and still too expensive.
For many developed countries, there health care structures developed from the rise of industrialization, sometimes via 'charity' hospitals run by religious groups like the Catholic Church then city governments creating 'public' hospitals that still exist in some cities like NY City. For some countries like Canada, the 1930's Great Depression meant the government had to take over medical services and hospitals as very few could afford basic health care needs and private/religious charity care didn't have enough money. .............
Until we deal with our medical structure in the USA, we will continue a decline in quality of life for all of us.


Sorry, but I deleted a lot in the middle to keep the post shorter - not to discredit your points.

I agree - the ACA was a start. I think where it tripped up was keeping the worst part of the previous "system" in place - the insurance companies. They aren't non-profit (or not-for-profit) organizations. This needs to change.

There's not much to disagree with your points, lots there to digest.

I'll put this out there, though. Trump has surrounded himself - as expected - with some pretty seasoned people. Not policiticans (all of them) but people who are actually in the system. Yeah, Trump is a businessman, but he's also somewhat of a tactician....must be to make strategic decisions. And not everything will be as he first presented them. By design or not.

If he has the balls, and the right advice and game plan, he could put this whole thing to bed in about 6 months. Totally abolish the whole system and make it government run. He's ballsy enough to do something like that - think he would? That alone would put America so far ahead of the pack - real benefits to be seen in a few years, of course. What needs to be done, though? Shut the borders, do a hard calculation on the minimum immigration needed for the next 10 years, and make it so. Make being a legal so wonderful that they'll be lined up for years to get in. And the citizens won't want to be handing out their hard-earned healthcare to every Joe in the world.

In one fell swoop he could 'make America great'. Money? Well, less tensions around the world (militarily) would help a hell of a lot. Stopping to send money to the ME for oil, spend it in his own country. Better relations with Russia would help a great deal too.

Fanciful thinking? Maybe - hell, even centuries ago there were a group of forward thinkers who created the framework for the country to begin with. So it's not 'impossible'.

Your post was good!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23951
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:17 am

BMI727 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I am not going to play your "Obama's going to take our guns!" game.

Fine but then you can't say that conservatives are against helping the poor. You're an intellectually bankrupt charlatan.

seb146 wrote:
Use your own money to pay for things like rent and food and transportation and health care and see how you fare.

I fare just fine.

tommy1808 wrote:
That is why public universal healthcare systems run cheaper on per head and per total price basis.

Cheaper per head and the total price is irrelevant. You could have the most efficient socialized medicine system ever conceived and if I'm healthy and don't receive any care then I'm overpaying no matter what. When you are pooling the costs then someone is getting screwed unless everyone consumes exactly the same amount of care.

tommy1808 wrote:
That is why even the most stupid animal seems to have social and altruistic traits. Because having those increases the chances of survival.

I'm not making an argument against altruism, I'm making an argument that all altruism should be voluntary.

Ken777 wrote:
If you can't figure that out then go the a large city ER one afternoon or night and look at the folks waiting 5 hours to be taken care of. Now guess how many have health insurance3 and will ensure the hospital is fully paid.

The key is that the inner city hospitals should not be forced to serve those who cannot pay. If they want to that's great and they can fund it however they like, but forcing them to do it will break the system. It is a bad assumption to say that the system must take care of everyone. It doesn't.

ltbewr wrote:
Strict limits on overhead costs, especially for executive salaries for insurers, hospitals, drug companies and service suppliers.

That's none of the government's business.

ltbewr wrote:
Sound regulation of costs of drugs and medial services so that providers get fair compensation but costs to consumers is reasonable.

Sure let's violate property rights. What could possibly be morally wrong about that?

ltbewr wrote:
To reduce obesity and related costly medical conditions by improving our diets, discouraging 'bad' foods, encouraging exercise.

And abdicate personal freedom too? Wow, you're on a roll.


When all else fails, use personal attacks. The very first line of your post negates the rest of your post but, I'll humor you.

You righties are against helping the poor. All you ever do is take away from the poor. No food stamps, no education, no rent control, no health care. How is that helping? Giving them directions to an emergency room? That is your be all and end all.

And, yes, you do need to live on your own. Pay for your own rent, food, health care, transportation, entertainment... everything mommy and daddy give you now. You don't know what suffering is until you have to degrade yourself with that slop from the government in black and white packaging. If you still have the holier-than-thou attitude after six months, you have no soul.
 
cpd
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:26 am

BMI727 wrote:
The argument is very simple. You assume that the police are not helping you unless you call them, which is unquestionably false.


I could drag up so many cases where the argument is unquestionably very true.

On the topic of healthcare, I do have my own medical insurance, but I generally don't need to use it. As for going to the doctors, I rarely do that either - only if I've been involved in an accident and the wounds have become infected (ie, I need antibiotics), generally I look after myself. I'm otherwise quite healthy and fit.

I'd like a bit of a rebate from my insurance costs for not using it very often....
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:02 am

olle wrote:
In sweden I pay max around USD 200 in fees per year and max around USD 200 for medicine, for people over 18 years old who get healthcare free.

Do the taxpayers think that it's "free"?

seb146 wrote:
When all else fails, use personal attacks. The very first line of your post negates the rest of your post but, I'll humor you.

It's a personal attack that is entirely true. Now, the question for you is very simple: do you believe that anything you think is good should be mandated by the government and everything you think is bad should be banned?

seb146 wrote:
You righties are against helping the poor.

Do you really fail to see the distinction between thinking that something is good and thinking that the government should force everyone to do it?

seb146 wrote:
No food stamps

Abolishing food stamps wouldn't take from poor people, it would stop taking from taxpayers.

seb146 wrote:
no education

The US is right near the top when it comes to education funding.

seb146 wrote:
no rent control

Rent control is taking from property owners.

seb146 wrote:
no health care

What makes you so special that you are entitled to take the property of others for your healthcare needs? What do said others get from the deal?

seb146 wrote:
Giving them directions to an emergency room?

I'd give them directions to a cheap one they could afford.

seb146 wrote:
And, yes, you do need to live on your own. Pay for your own rent, food, health care, transportation, entertainment... everything mommy and daddy give you now.

Please provide the objective evidence you have to support any of that being true.

cpd wrote:
I could drag up so many cases where the argument is unquestionably very true.

If that were true you would see crime rates being roughly equal geographically and you would only distinguish a good police force from a poor one in terms of how many crimes they solve after the fact.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2676
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:16 am

seb146 wrote:
This and cutting food stamps and Social Security are the reasons why Republicans need to stop calling themselves the party of Christianity. Taking away from the poor, homeless, needy, hungry, and sick is NOT what Jesus Christ would do.


This.

And PULL YOUR CHEETO FACE OUT OF YOUR ASS. Wow! I haven't heard that one yet.
 
cpd
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:29 am

BMI727 wrote:
cpd wrote:
I could drag up so many cases where the argument is unquestionably very true.

If that were true you would see crime rates being roughly equal geographically and you would only distinguish a good police force from a poor one in terms of how many crimes they solve after the fact.


Okay, I'll start digging up all the times they are given video evidence and will not enforce their 1 metre mandatory minimum passing distances for bike riders. Cars must pass with minimum 1m distance, and so many people I know have provided clear video proof that is absolutely totally clear that the driver was very deliberately in the wrong, but they find any and every excuse to avoid doing anything. Even to the point of going to much extra effort.

One one guy says that he has the camera on his bike so that his wife can take it to the police and get something done when he is dead or in a coma. That's the way we all feel.

It takes so much effort to get them to do anything. You must follow up with their superiors and even the ombudsman to get a result. The laws are there, so enforce them for heavens sake.

Will 10 examples be enough, or do you want 20? Or 30? Or more. Because I can certainly get them.

The real shame here is that we are seeing healthcare costs rising a lot from people with very poor health who could very, very well be using active transport to replace at least part of their daily commute and becoming healthier, less dependent on the health system and also reducing traffic congestion. If the drivers could be forced to drive more safely and Police enforced the laws given to them, this might all become a reality.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:57 am

Swedish tax payers do not consider 5-6000 USD / year is for free. But we consider the system used much more cost efficient and all citizens independent of income to have a right to equal education, security (Police, military) and health care. Sweden spen 7.91% of national income on healthcare and USA pays 17,1% of GDP on healthcare and Sweden 11.9%. considering that a Swedish citizen today lives close 3 years longer then a citizen of USA the close 30% higher spending must give a quit bad result? This will even become worse while life expectancy of white middle class in US declines while swedes getting older for each generation.

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interact ... atlas.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... expectancy

http://www.wsj.com/articles/life-expect ... 1461124861

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/worksho ... aper11.pdf
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:04 am

Sorry! Sweden spend 11.9% and not 7.91% on halthcare ;-)
 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:23 am

BMI727,

After you finish masturbating to your free market fantasies (which have never and WILL never exist, but that's another thread), answer this question:

If you have a heart attack, where every second counts, are you willing to have your treatment delayed 15-30 minutes while the hospital performs a credit check or is put on hold by the insurance company to verify that you do have the ability to pay (and they would have to call, because your card may be a phony)? Do you ever think outside your free market fantasy bubble?
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:30 am

olle wrote:
Swedish tax payers do not consider 5-6000 USD / year is for free. But we consider the system used much more cost efficient and all citizens independent of income to have a right to equal education, security (Police, military) and health care. Sweden spen 7.91% of national income on healthcare and USA pays 17,1% of GDP on healthcare and Sweden 11.9%. considering that a Swedish citizen today lives close 3 years longer then a citizen of USA the close 30% higher spending must give a quit bad result? This will even become worse while life expectancy of white middle class in US declines while swedes getting older for each generation.


Americans in general are not as healthy. That's why we spend so much of GDP on it. I bet that Swedes have more personal responsibility and take better care of their own health. If that is the case, 11.9% is too high. No thanks.

LittleFokker wrote:
If you have a heart attack, where every second counts, are you willing to have your treatment delayed 15-30 minutes while the hospital performs a credit check or is put on hold by the insurance company to verify that you do have the ability to pay (and they would have to call, because your card may be a phony)? Do you ever think outside your free market fantasy bubble?


Nobody is okay with that. But similar scenarios already happen. No care until you can provide your card. Don't want to know what happens when they find you without it. Will you ever think outside your socialist fantasy bubble?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14661
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: The Great Healthcare Dilemma

Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:38 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
I just proposed the only solution that protects the insured for having to overpay.

I'm not against insurance, but I'm not for making it mandatory either. It should be up to the insured and insurers how to break up the risk pools. I don't see a problem with having risk pools not covering pre-existing conditions or having a low maximum payout.


Are you trolling or really not getting what i am saying: how do you propose to make absolutely certain that an un- oder under insured person does not under any circumstances incur helthcare related costs for the rest of society?

The big change that really needs to happen is that healthcare providers must not be obliged to care for whomever shows up on their doorstep.


Wrong. The system has to make sure that an uninsured with insufficient funds never ever under any circumstances will be treated. You could be naked and unconscious after all. And the insured right to live and treatment beats your desire to keep your money by far.

tommy1808 wrote:
You also failed to make an argument why I have to pay for police, I don't need, and military,

The argument is very simple. You assume that the police are not helping you unless you call them, which is unquestionably false.


Mankind has been around for some 100.000 to a Million years, for most of that time there where neither taxes nor police. Unquestionably police isn´t needed, but that need is a cultural construct, just as universal health insurance is. If you can demand us paying taxes for police, we can of course demand that you pay for universal healthcare.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B717fan, scottyraven and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos