# Some arguments against the current healthcare reform bill



## Christopher (Aug 7, 2009)

There are several talking points that people use (particularly Democrats) to justify the current healthcare reform bill  (HR3200) which I would like to provide reasonable arguments against.  I will be quoting from the following Wiki article throughout to provide some backup for my arguments.  Before anyone questions Wiki as a source, check the sources cited by the Wiki in the article first.  Ok, the site will not allow me to post the link until I have 15 posts.  The Wiki article I am talking about here is titled "Health care in the United States".

The first talking point I would like to address is regarding the ranking of the US healthcare system, such as the ranking the World Health Organization provides.  Democrats are saying we have a system with a low rating compared to other countries and this is true and they want try and get our system rated higher.  What is not told is how the rating system works.  There is more weight on covering all citizens than there is on the citizen satisfaction.  From the article:


> One study found that there was little correlation between the WHO rankings for health systems and the satisfaction of citizens using those systems.[84] Some countries given the highest ratings by WHO were ranked poorly by their citizens. Others note that the WHO analysis does reflect system "responsiveness", and argue that this is a superior measure to consumer satisfaction, which is influenced by expectations.[85]


How can countries have some of the highest healthcare ratings, yet their citizens are completely dissatisfied with the system and rate it poorly?  That makes no sense.

Another part of this rating system is the price per capita paid or the total cost as a percentage of GDP.  The US does pay the highest per capita and highest percentage of GDP for healthcare spending.  However, once again the entire context of why we spend so much for healthcare is not told by the Democrats or others that are for the current bill.  Let&#8217;s examine why our costs have increased.  It is not just the greedy health insurance companies.  Another quote:


> In 2006, the United States accounted for the three quarters of the world&#8217;s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. [8][7]


The fact is we spend three time more per capita on medical innovations than Europe does (see the article for reference to this).  Another quote to provide more context here from the CBO quoted in the Wiki article:


> About half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.[27]


This gives us a good indication as to why health care spending has increased, yet we do not seem to hear this from those for the current bill.  Another interesting fact is that the US seems to be shouldering much of the cost of these technological advances.  As an example from new drugs developed:



> During the 1990s, the price of prescription drugs became a major issue in American politics as the prices of many new drugs increased exponentially, and many citizens discovered that neither the government nor their insurer would cover the cost of such drugs. In absolute currency, the U.S. spends the most on pharmaceuticals per capita in the world&#8230;
> The U.S. government has taken the position (through the Office of the United States Trade Representative) that U.S. drug prices are rising because U.S. consumers are effectively subsidizing costs which drug companies cannot recover from consumers in other countries (because many other countries use their bulk-purchasing power to aggressively negotiate drug prices).[166] The U.S. position (consistent with the primary lobbying position of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) is that the governments of such countries are free riding on the backs of U.S. consumers. Such governments should either deregulate their markets, or raise their domestic taxes in order to fairly compensate U.S. consumers by directly remitting the difference (between what the companies would earn in an open market versus what they are earning now) to drug companies or to the U.S. government. In turn, pharmaceutical companies would be able to continue to produce innovative pharmaceuticals while lowering prices for U.S. consumers.


Other countries are riding on the backs of U.S. consumers.  So, they get to keep their costs down since they do not have to front the developmental costs, yet the US takes a hit on its rating system because of it.  That does not seem too fair, does it?

OK, let&#8217;s turn to the talking points about saving money.  I understand that the majority of the funding for technological advancements and research is privately funded.  Yet, the main point of the current health care reform bill is to reduce health care costs, correct?  Is the government going to fund all of the research and development of innovations with their health care plan?  If not, how are they going to save anything on this when it constitutes half of the growth in health care cost?

Another argument used is that preventative care will save a lot of money.  While it may save some cost, there are offset costs with people who never become ill.  From the article:



> Increased spending on disease prevention is often suggested as a way of reducing health care spending. Research suggests, however, that in most cases prevention does not produce significant long-term costs savings. Preventive care is typically provided to many people who would never become ill, and for those who would have become ill is partially offset by the health care costs during additional years of life.[35]


Another fact from the article is that the government already pays around one half of all the health care costs.  The US government alone ranks in the top ten in total spending for health care.



> Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending.[43] Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[44]


This is mostly for Medicare, Medicaid. SCHIP, etc.  This represents a large portion of health care spending, so how is the government going to decrease these costs?  Let&#8217;s not forget the fact that the government intervention with these programs has already caused cost increases in the private sector.  Again, from the article:



> Low reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid have increased cost-shifting pressures on hospitals and doctors, who charge higher rates for the same services to private payers, which eventually affects health insurance rates.[71]



I am for health care reform and know it needs to be done; I just completely disagree with the current reform bill and the way in which it will substantially increase government control.  Mainly because this will lead to fewer choices, and lower quality of care down the road.

The Democrats are selling us their plan without giving us the entire context, such as all the reasons why we have higher costs.  They are telling we will still have a &#8220;choice&#8221; which is not going to be true in the long run either.  The government system will continue to shift more of the cost onto private insurers to the point that the majority will not be able to afford them either.  They will continue to put insurance companies out of business with seemingly &#8220;more affordable&#8221; coverage.


----------



## Meister (Aug 7, 2009)

You have a good grasp on the issue.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

I already did this on another thread.  Noticeably, the leftists preferred to stick to the threads where they could shout soundbytes and talking points and didn't have to try to refute actual information.


----------



## Christopher (Aug 7, 2009)

Meister said:


> You have a good grasp on the issue.



Thanks.  This is one of the most important issues facing us right now.  I think we all ned to be informed on it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Christopher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You have a good grasp on the issue.
> ...



Just so you don't hold your breath waiting for some segments of the population to become informed, or even recognize that they should.


----------



## Christopher (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I already did this on another thread.  Noticeably, the leftists preferred to stick to the threads where they could shout soundbytes and talking points and didn't have to try to refute actual information.



I believe you.  I posted something similar to this in another forum and received nothing but silence from the left as well.  I have to say they are good at just ignoring the logical, reasonable arguments against their agenda and using the "angry right-wing mobs" to help justify their position.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 7, 2009)

So what do you think about our HealthCare system. Because actually its not only the Medicaid and Medicare that increase costs. Let me tell you something when someone goes to the emergency room and has no insurance he or she gets a bill, now they can pay it or not. Now when they dont pay the hospital takes a hit then they charge people with insurance more money. That is one of the major reasons for the raise in costs. Now this information I got straight from the local hospitals way before this health care issue even came up. There has to be a way to cover them too, there is always a way if we work together instead of fighting/yelling we could come up with something that works for everyone. But there are no valid counter proposals that address the issue.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I already did this on another thread.  Noticeably, the leftists preferred to stick to the threads where they could shout soundbytes and talking points and didn't have to try to refute actual information.


You obviously want poor people dying in the guttter!!


----------



## veritas (Aug 7, 2009)

> How can countries have some of the highest healthcare ratings, yet their citizens are completely dissatisfied with the system and rate it poorly? That makes no sense.



Well actually it does if the study is measured on multiple points, like the one you cited since only people that have access to the system were polled. It stands to reason that covering entire populations would be given more weight than leaving large portions off to fend for themselves.




> Another part of this rating system is the price per capita paid or the total cost as a percentage of GDP. The US does pay the highest per capita and highest percentage of GDP for healthcare spending. However, once again the entire context of why we spend so much for healthcare is not told by the Democrats or others that are for the current bill. Lets examine why our costs have increased. It is not just the greedy health insurance companies.



Some of the reasons are not pretty. Like say you have been taking quinine for severe foot and leg cramps. Quinine is cheap, effective and has a long track record. So the drug companies stop making and selling it and then offer their new alternative, which is $300/mo. Guess what, the insurance company won't pay for the new drug. Your best bet is to develop a taste for tonic water.

I wrote elsewhere that there are several major innovations in artificial hips that are cheaper, less invasive and require much less recovery time. They are approved, but the tool that is used to insert them and makes them so much better is not. The tool is reusable, autoclavable and would never wear out. Small technicality, right? Not really, it's anti-trust medical supplier tactics. This goes on with just about everything.

Let's say you have a colostomy. Running low on bags? Not so fast, you have to have a prescription for bags, so that means an unnecessary visit to the doctor so you can buy bags so you have something to crap in. 

That's just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> So what do you think about our HealthCare system. Because actually its not only the Medicaid and Medicare that increase costs. Let me tell you something when someone goes to the emergency room and has no insurance he or she gets a bill, now they can pay it or not. Now when they dont pay the hospital takes a hit then they charge people with insurance more money. That is one of the major reasons for the raise in costs. Now this information I got straight from the local hospitals way before this health care issue even came up. There has to be a way to cover them too, there is always a way if we work together instead of fighting/yelling we could come up with something that works for everyone. But there are no valid counter proposals that address the issue.



There are a lot of reasons for increasing costs and increasing healthcare spending, and most of them are a lot more complicated than people want to believe, because people like a quick, simple "fix".

For the record, both federal and state government make funds available to hospitals and clinics to cover the costs of indigent patients.  I doubt if it's enough to cover costs incurred by illegal immigrants, but that's another issue.  The point is, this area already has government intervention in it, so it hardly indicates a need for radical overhaul of the entire healthcare system.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I already did this on another thread.  Noticeably, the leftists preferred to stick to the threads where they could shout soundbytes and talking points and didn't have to try to refute actual information.
> ...



Yeah, well, it makes people-watching from the windows of my luxury penthouse apartment more interesting when the rabble is dropping like flies.  Of course, it's harder for my chauffeur to maneuver my solid-gold limo around the bodies.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> cunclusion said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you think about our HealthCare system. Because actually its not only the Medicaid and Medicare that increase costs. Let me tell you something when someone goes to the emergency room and has no insurance he or she gets a bill, now they can pay it or not. Now when they dont pay the hospital takes a hit then they charge people with insurance more money. That is one of the major reasons for the raise in costs. Now this information I got straight from the local hospitals way before this health care issue even came up. There has to be a way to cover them too, there is always a way if we work together instead of fighting/yelling we could come up with something that works for everyone. But there are no valid counter proposals that address the issue.
> ...



Thing is the costs are not just from indigent or illegal immigrants there are regular americans low income, and others who cannot afford insurance in the same boat. Shoot I use to be one of them. Use to only go to the hospital emergency room when got too sick to even work. One year had over $6,000 in hospital bills was working minimum wage couldnt afford to pay it so called hospital and told them gave them my financial information.


----------



## Christopher (Aug 7, 2009)

veritas said:


> > How can countries have some of the highest healthcare ratings, yet their citizens are completely dissatisfied with the system and rate it poorly? That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with many of your points, except for the rating system.  I think the quality of care as rated by the citizens who use it should be of higher consideration.  Hospitals already do not deny anyone emergency health services.  I agree there are problems with the current system, however, everything you mention here still do not justify government becoming a monopoly in the health insurance business.


----------



## Christopher (Aug 8, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> So what do you think about our HealthCare system. Because actually its not only the Medicaid and Medicare that increase costs. Let me tell you something when someone goes to the emergency room and has no insurance he or she gets a bill, now they can pay it or not. Now when they dont pay the hospital takes a hit then they charge people with insurance more money. That is one of the major reasons for the raise in costs. Now this information I got straight from the local hospitals way before this health care issue even came up. There has to be a way to cover them too, there is always a way if we work together instead of fighting/yelling we could come up with something that works for everyone. But there are no valid counter proposals that address the issue.



I think our health care system needs reform, as I've said.  I did not say that it is only Medicaid and Medicare which increase costs.  This combined with the fact that one half of all increase in costs over the last decade were from techonological advances seems to make up the majority of cost increases, though.  Yet, the current bill does not seem to address these.

I agree, there has to be a way to make it work right.  If both sides would listen to each other.  I would prefer it included a free market solution because making the government an even bigger insurance provider will only make things worse.


----------



## garyd (Aug 8, 2009)

For what must be the 49th time, three things primarily drive health care costs, technology access and lawyers. Obama care does not appear willing to address any of them in the short term.  Of course in the long term Access will be what gets short shrift. It always does.


----------



## traviscarr (Feb 25, 2010)

*Boobies!!
*Now that I have your attention.I'm dumfounded by the group of millionairs that have deemed themselves the voice of the american people. I say deemed themselves because the resources needed to run for congress is well beyond the means of the common man, so voting is commenserate to going to a resturant and being able to choose between a shit sandwich and a fecal matter burrito, you would probabaly choose none of the above but you certainly had nothing to do with the menu.

Health care reform is completely unnecesary if you are well to do, are elderly enough to already be on government healthcare, or are lucky enough to have a government job. Those people dont need it so fuck you if you cant afford it.

I listen to the media and I've been listening to this televised healthcare forum and their seem to be two factions : dems who want change but are too big of pussies to really make a true concise plan without so many concessions pandering to republicans or anyone else they may offend that whatever they come up with will be virtually useless. The other factions being the republicans are even better! they would just as soon lie and exxagurate the facts about the current plan than come up with their own. They are rich they already have coverage why not make up rumors of govornment death panels, what they dont know is that those who are uninsured would welcomne a deathpanel compared to having no resources which is certain death.  

I have a great idea : american Idol has such a great phone voting system in place why dont we utilize it to find out what the common man thinks. lets pick an episode date and have those in favor of public health call an even number and those opposed vot odd. That will, if nothing else give a more truthful picture of what the "common man" wants.

PS fuck the profiteering upperclass taking bread from the common mans mouth. Until I am rich then fuck the other guys


----------

