Obama's Universal Healthcare Question

[auditor0007]

I've seen polls that claim that 82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care, and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%.

If these studies are true, what is the reason for the $600 Billion Obama Healthcare Proposal, other than socialization?

From a personal point of view, most of us look at how much we pay for our health insurance. Many with employer funded plans only spend $200 to $300 per month for their entire family. They don't see the entire cost of what they are actually paying. That employer is paying an additional $1000 per month for their coverege. On top of that, both the individual and employer pay into Medicare. On top of that, more tax money goes to Medicaid and other state run programs.

The bottom line is that we are currently spending $7200 per year per person in the US. If we charged this amount to every individual, 50% of Americans could not afford it. What does that mean? It means that the wealthier you are, the more you are paying, because you are indirectly subsidizing everyone else. Essentially, if you make a decent living, your total healthcare bill is over $10,000 per year per family member.

If we continue with our current system, it will simply implode. That is the bottom line.

First, I have seen studies that compare the US to other nations, and give the amount per capita at about $5000.

But the question is, how will our healthcare change if the government takes over. Will it be along the line so Brit or Canadian, where those who need it go to the US or, as many Brits do, to India?

As I see it, it is a perfect example of Liberal vs. Conservative philosophy.Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. The two sides of the issue should be carefully studied.
Listen to those in countries with socialized medicine.
Calculate who and how many would actually benefit.

The last time the issue was explored, Ms. Clinton's ideas lost.

My numbers were outdated. They were numbers for 2006 or 2007. New figures show us at over $7800 per person per year.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

As I said, the costs are spiraling out of control. Before long, very few will be able to afford healthcare. It won't matter if we have the "best" healthcare, because only the very few will be able to afford it. When healthcare reaches 30% of GDP, it would be like paying $14,000 per year per person currently.

The end result will be that then entire system implodes and we are left with the worst healthcare system money can buy.

 

[auditor0007]

I've seen polls that claim that 82-85% of Americans are satisfied with their particular health care, and also studies that shoot down the "47 million Americans are without healthcare" figure, and place place it at under 8%.

If these studies are true, what is the reason for the $600 Billion Obama Healthcare Proposal, other than socialization?

From a personal point of view, most of us look at how much we pay for our health insurance. Many with employer funded plans only spend $200 to $300 per month for their entire family. They don't see the entire cost of what they are actually paying. That employer is paying an additional $1000 per month for their coverage. On top of that, both the individual and employer pay into Medicare. On top of that, more tax money goes to Medicaid and other state run programs.

The bottom line is that we are currently spending $7200 per year per person in the US. If we charged this amount to every individual, 50% of Americans could not afford it. What does that mean? It means that the wealthier you are, the more you are paying, because you are indirectly subsidizing everyone else. Essentially, if you make a decent living, your total healthcare bill is over $10,000 per year per family member.

If we continue with our current system, it will simply implode. That is the bottom line.

My problem with the cost comparisons between our system and others is that I don't see a breakdown of how much of the total cost is due to drug prices. Every country that has a universal health insurance program sets drug prices much lower than the US price, and that means that the US is paying for nearly all the drug research of all the companies around the world. Since we can't adopt the same policy these countries have without effectively ending research, it makes no sense to compare our costs to others without first subtracting the cost of drugs from both sides.

Similarly, nearly all of the supposed cost reducing items in the Obama plan, such as electronic record keeping and preventative health procedures could be enacted or encouraged by the government now, so when comparing our current per capita costs to the projected per capita costs of the Obama plan, all these items that are not dependent on changing our health insurance system should be added back into the cost of the Obama plan. If you also add in the per capita cost of covering pre existing conditions and of subsidizing tens of millions of additional insurees, I suspect the per capita cost of the Obama plan will be higher than than our present plan.

A further consideration is the quality of health care now and what it might be under the Obama plan. If you have health insurance now in the US you have access to healthcare second to none in the world, and we would naturally expect that people with health insurance would have better health outcomes than people without health insurance. Yet advocates for the Obama plan would compare the health statistics of nations with universal health insurance to our population of both insured and uninsured people. For these statistics to give a fair comparison of the quality of health care only our insured citizens should be used in the comparison.

Put all of this together and it means that for all that has been written about the comparative costs and benefits of various health insurance systems, we really don't have honestly meaningful statistics with which to compare the costs or health outcomes of our system to other systems or to the Obama plan. What this suggests is that we should attempt to fix what we believe needs fixing in our system incrementally so that we don't lose what we value by trading it in for an ideologically biased system that cannot present unbiased statistics to support its claims.

The whole idea of other countries capping prescription drug prices is BS and our government and the pharmaceutical companies allow it, because they know Americans will foot the bill. Americans are subsidizing the rest of the world when it comes to prescription drugs. There is a simple way to put and end to this. We cap prescription drug prices also to the average of what the rest of these countries pays for those drugs. Tell the drug companies to force higher payment from those countries with caps or they don't get the drugs. Make them pay their fair share.

The argument is that we may then go without certain new drugs. That is a possibility in the short run, but in the long run, those countries will pay more. We subsidize the entire world when it comes to drugs as well as military spending, although that is a separate issue. It's time for them to pay their fair share.

 

[johnrocks]

The government doesn't deliver the healthcare. The doctor does.

It works under Medicare and Medicaid.

If you want to call a program with 30 trillion in unfunded liabilities working then yes, Medicare is a wonderful success story.

 

[auditor0007]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your fucking body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

We already do; that's why we have the highest healthcare costs in the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From a personal point of view, most of us look at how much we pay for our health insurance. Many with employer funded plans only spend $200 to $300 per month for their entire family. They don't see the entire cost of what they are actually paying. That employer is paying an additional $1000 per month for their coverege. On top of that, both the individual and employer pay into Medicare. On top of that, more tax money goes to Medicaid and other state run programs.

The bottom line is that we are currently spending $7200 per year per person in the US. If we charged this amount to every individual, 50% of Americans could not afford it. What does that mean? It means that the wealthier you are, the more you are paying, because you are indirectly subsidizing everyone else. Essentially, if you make a decent living, your total healthcare bill is over $10,000 per year per family member.

If we continue with our current system, it will simply implode. That is the bottom line.

First, I have seen studies that compare the US to other nations, and give the amount per capita at about $5000.

But the question is, how will our healthcare change if the government takes over. Will it be along the line so Brit or Canadian, where those who need it go to the US or, as many Brits do, to India?

As I see it, it is a perfect example of Liberal vs. Conservative philosophy.Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. The two sides of the issue should be carefully studied.
Listen to those in countries with socialized medicine.
Calculate who and how many would actually benefit.

The last time the issue was explored, Ms. Clinton's ideas lost.

My numbers were outdated. They were numbers for 2006 or 2007. New figures show us at over $7800 per person per year.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

As I said, the costs are spiraling out of control. Before long, very few will be able to afford healthcare. It won't matter if we have the "best" healthcare, because only the very few will be able to afford it. When healthcare reaches 30% of GDP, it would be like paying $14,000 per year per person currently.

The end result will be that then entire system implodes and we are left with the worst healthcare system money can buy.

I'm not convinced that we will be left with the worst. Although only anecdotal, the stories of individuals in England who buy pliers to pull their own teeth because they cannot get to see dendists, or heart patients who go to India (to see Cardiologists, many of whom are US trained), Canadians who cross the border when severely ill, etc, make me think that we would be embarking on the wrong path.

BTW, have you seen some of the quotes from Daschle's book, which serves as the model in the Obama plan, that tell the elderly that have to put up with their aches and pains because they've lived a good life? Sorry, but these are peple who have served us, and deserve more.
What makes you think that the Obama Plan will prove cheaper in the long run? I think we are simply looking at rationing healthcare, and I think if you have the money you should be able to use it as you see fit.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'm not convinced that we will be left with the worst. Although only anecdotal, the stories of individuals in England who buy pliers to pull their own teeth because they cannot get to see dendists, or heart patients who go to India (to see Cardiologists, many of whom are US trained), Canadians who cross the border when severely ill, etc, make me think that we would be embarking on the wrong path.

BTW, have you seen some of the quotes from Daschle's book, which serves as the model in the Obama plan, that tell the elderly that have to put up with their aches and pains because they've lived a good life? Sorry, but these are peple who have served us, and deserve more.
What makes you think that the Obama Plan will prove cheaper in the long run? I think we are simply looking at rationing healthcare, and I think if you have the money you should be able to use it as you see fit.

I wonder how those who want to implement this will feel when it's their turn to be the elderly?

 

[auditor0007]

Don't care if you propose the government providing the care or the coverage/insurance... neither is the responsibility of the government, the community, or someone else... it is your fucking body and your choice on how you upkeep it... your body is not public domain... it is private domain... hence your private responsibility

Then maybe for those people who dont have the money for insurance much less be able to pay the bill they get for going to the hospital you should pay it. Because if you dont want the government to pay for it you will.

No.. maybe thick headed liberals should get it thru their skulls that WE ARE THE ONLY ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL CARE... and that the person going to the hospital or the doctor is the one who should fucking pay for it by whatever way they have to... whether that be thru an insurance benefit, cash, loans, or whatever else... and if you want the security of insurance, then you do what is necessary to either earn enough to purchase it or to have skills that are in demand enough to warrant the insurance in a benefits package

You wanna go to the doctor for the sniffles, or a fucking sex change, or to x-ray your ass from you falling on it... YOU have the responsibility... not me... not government.. not your neighbors.. not your county... not your neighborhood.. and not Joe Poopypants on a farm in Iowa.. you gotta get a second job or a third job or whatever... so be it.. but you pay for your own care and upkeep

The problem is, this is what has driven costs through the roof. How is your way going to cut costs? That is the question we now face. It's not about fairness; it's about affordability. And make no mistake; the less affordable it becomes to the masses, the greater the increase to those who can afford it.

 

[DiamondDave]

And of course more competition with more groups being able to gain group rates would do nothing to help competition for some lower prices

Do not forget also that we have the most advanced and accessible health care available on this earth... we are not going to pay 3rd world prices... it just ain't gonna happen...

 

[auditor0007]

And of course more competition with more groups being able to gain group rates would do nothing to help competition for some lower prices

Do not forget also that we have the most advanced and accessible health care available on this earth... we are not going to pay 3rd world prices... it just ain't gonna happen...

The biggest group rate would be for everyone to contribute, something that isn't happening currently. Here is a simple fact. As we live longer, we need more medical care. As a society, we are aging, with the elderly becoming a larger percentage of the population. That in itself is driving up costs. On top of that, the way the entire system operates is also driving up costs.

I don't particularly care what system we go with, so long as we still have decent access to decent healthcare, and that costs are, at minimum, stabilized. The argument from those who are adamantly against any form of government involvement in healthcare is that the system is just fine the way it is. Well, it is not fine the way it is. This system has doubled the cost of healthcare in the last 35 years, and it is going to double the cost of healthcare again in the next 20 years if we don't make some drastic changes.

If these costs are not stabilized, it will effect every aspect of our lives and economy in a very negative way. The first thing it will do is to effectively wipe out the middle class. That would definitely lead us toward outright socialism, the thing you are most worried about to begin with. The middle class is what keeps our society on a level playing field. Make them poor, and you will see how the majority of people choose to allow government to take over more of their lives and yours. Then you will see real redistribution of wealth, and not just a slight increase in your tax rates.

I'm not some liberal wanting government to control everything, but I am realistic about what we can and can't afford. The answers we're looking for may not be complete governement control of our healthcare. However, the end result of keeping government out of healthcare completely, as you suggest, will certainly lead us to full government control of it in the end.

Instead of fighting this completely, those like you would be wise to support a solution that will keep costs down, making healthcare more affordable to everyone, while still leaving us some choice.

 

[DiamondDave]

No... because that is not a job that the government was set up to do... and lest we not forget, your body is not public domain... your care is YOUR responsibility, just like wiping your own ass is... neither may be pleasant, but you are dead wrong if you think it is someone else's responsibility

We HAVE decent access to the best healthcare in the world.... you don't like the price... well I don't like the price of milk, but I do not believe it is the government's job to take over milk production or to subsidize the price of milk with our tax dollars when it is my choice what I eat

 

[auditor0007]

No... because that is not a job that the government was set up to do... and lest we not forget, your body is not public domain... your care is YOUR responsibility, just like wiping your own ass is... neither may be pleasant, but you are dead wrong if you think it is someone else's responsibility

We HAVE decent access to the best healthcare in the world.... you don't like the price... well I don't like the price of milk, but I do not believe it is the government's job to take over milk production or to subsidize the price of milk with our tax dollars when it is my choice what I eat

I didn't say it's not our responsibility. However, you are missing the point. People choose what they want government to do and not to do for them. If the majority want some govenment involvement in healthcare, they will have that government involvement. If our decisions in any area of life destroys the middle class, what you think won't matter one bit, because you will no longer have a choice.

If you can afford to pay x amount of dollars for healthcare but 80% of the population cannot, then the society you live and thrive in will cease to exist, and you will become nothing more than the rest of society.

So rather than just worrying about yourself, it is in your interest to be a part of the solution rather than just telling everyone else to screw themselves if they can't afford it. That goes for just about anything, not just health insurance. Socialism is almost always a result of the lower classes growing too large while the middle and upper classes shrink. This is where we are currently headed, and it is not the road we want to take.

 

[Chris]

Dave, you are missing the point.

When you buy insurance you are making yourself responsible for paying for the healthcare of everyone else who buys that insurance.

But being a vet, you probably have government healthcare anyway.

A single payer system is more cost efficient and more fair and helps American business. Even the doctors now want a single payer system.

 

[DiamondDave]

No... because that is not a job that the government was set up to do... and lest we not forget, your body is not public domain... your care is YOUR responsibility, just like wiping your own ass is... neither may be pleasant, but you are dead wrong if you think it is someone else's responsibility

We HAVE decent access to the best healthcare in the world.... you don't like the price... well I don't like the price of milk, but I do not believe it is the government's job to take over milk production or to subsidize the price of milk with our tax dollars when it is my choice what I eat

I didn't say it's not our responsibility. However, you are missing the point. People choose what they want government to do and not to do for them. If the majority want some govenment involvement in healthcare, they will have that government involvement. If our decisions in any area of life destroys the middle class, what you think won't matter one bit, because you will no longer have a choice.

If you can afford to pay x amount of dollars for healthcare but 80% of the population cannot, then the society you live and thrive in will cease to exist, and you will become nothing more than the rest of society.

So rather than just worrying about yourself, it is in your interest to be a part of the solution rather than just telling everyone else to screw themselves if they can't afford it. That goes for just about anything, not just health insurance. Socialism is almost always a result of the lower classes growing too large while the middle and upper classes shrink. This is where we are currently headed, and it is not the road we want to take.

No auditor.. because this is not a mob rule democracy.. we are a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives... big difference.... just because a majority wants something does not me that to do or should inherently get it

 

[Old Rocks]

Under a Government provided Healthcare plan what is the incentive for the Government to deliver quality goods and services? Especially if there is no competition.

For arguments sake, there can and should still be plenty of competition. Doctors would remain as private practitioners, not public civil servants. The government would only handle the administrative end of the equation.

If we look at most metropolitan areas, we have multiple hospitals that offer all the same services. They are in competition with each other yet they don't have enough patients. Most doctors work through more than one hospital. The cost of running these hospitals is astronomical, and when they are constantly duplicating services, it drives the costs even higher.

At the same time, many rural hospitals only offer limited services because they can't come close to affording what those in metropolitan areas do due to a lack of patients. Yet, those people should have as good of care as anyone. Or should everyone just move to the cities?

I understand the argument against government healthcare. However, the fact is that we already have government healthcare to a great extent. It just isn't run effectively. However, it is the reason we have as much choice as we do.

If government had zero involvement in healthcare, and doctors and hospitals had to compete strictly on people's ability to pay, we would have shit for healthcare. More than half the hospitals would be forced to close, and probably the same percentage of doctors would close shop also.

Right now we have around 50 million people who don't pay for their healthcare, yet the rest of us pay for them through increased premiums and increased taxes to cover them through government run programs. If those people were forced to pay something, it would help reduce costs. Many of these uninsured are younger people who don't feel they need insurance and choose not to pay for it.

The answer to reducing healthcare costs involves both government and the private sector. It's not one or the other. Look at it this way; we pay double what any other country does for healthcare, other than a couple exeptions. Yet we do not have double the benefit. Am I saying we should be able to cut costs in half? No. Countries that pay half of what we do have many issues with poor service. They should be paying more. At the same time, we should be able to cut costs somewhat and reduce the runaway increases. If we do not, we will no longer be able to afford healthcare period.

Here is a simple fact. In 1970, 7% of GDP went to healthcare in the US. We are now around 16% of GDP, and the increase in costs continues to surpass inflation by a good margin. If the increases don't stabilize, we will again double from 16% to 30% of GDP. If this happens, it will collapse our entire economy. Tough choices must be made, and it might even mean a slowing down of some new advancements. But the fact is, we have to be realistic as to what we can and can't afford.

Good points, except concerning the quality of health care in the nations that have universal health care. They all have longer life spans, and much lower infant mortality than we do.

The uninsured young people very seldom 'choose' to be in that position. By the time they pay rent, food, and transportation, they do not have the money to be self insured. All too many entry level jobs carry no health benefits.

 

[Old Rocks]

And of course more competition with more groups being able to gain group rates would do nothing to help competition for some lower prices

Do not forget also that we have the most advanced and accessible health care available on this earth... we are not going to pay 3rd world prices... it just ain't gonna happen...

Accessable if you have the money. Don't give that shit about emergency room care. Indigent people have been known to die there waiting for care. And why should people have to wait until a condition is emergency room material to see a doctor? It would make far more financial sense to practice preventive care as do the other industrial nations.

 

[Old Rocks]

No... because that is not a job that the government was set up to do... and lest we not forget, your body is not public domain... your care is YOUR responsibility, just like wiping your own ass is... neither may be pleasant, but you are dead wrong if you think it is someone else's responsibility

We HAVE decent access to the best healthcare in the world.... you don't like the price... well I don't like the price of milk, but I do not believe it is the government's job to take over milk production or to subsidize the price of milk with our tax dollars when it is my choice what I eat

Our government was not set up to explore a continent, or put a man on the moon. But we did. We can also set up a universal health care system within our Constitutional laws.

Your other rather stupid analogy is ridiculous. We set up a universal education system for the betterment of our nation, a great President, Roosevelt, suggested a universal health care system nearly a hundred years ago.

 

[DiamondDave]

And of course more competition with more groups being able to gain group rates would do nothing to help competition for some lower prices

Do not forget also that we have the most advanced and accessible health care available on this earth... we are not going to pay 3rd world prices... it just ain't gonna happen...

Accessable if you have the money. Don't give that shit about emergency room care. Indigent people have been known to die there waiting for care. And why should people have to wait until a condition is emergency room material to see a doctor? It would make far more financial sense to practice preventive care as do the other industrial nations.

And why should others have to pay for your care of your private domain body? And you and every other person out there is quite capable of obtaining insurance if you want it... Turn off the direct TV and don't go out to eat and stop buying $60 tennis shoes... and zing, that goes a long way to paying the normal price for basic health insurance... hell, I'm interviewing for a contract position without benefits and researching my other options for insurance coverage... and looking at about $350 a month

It makes more financial sense for you to pay for the things you feel you need for your own personal upkeep... not for the government or anyone else to provide it for you or discount it for you at someone else's expense

And hospitals and other facilities DO have clinics available... not just emergency rooms... but nice try... not to mention the charitable help that is there to keep those things low cost... you know, CHARITY, the voluntary things people wish to do.. not the forced way of government redistribution

 

[DiamondDave]

No... because that is not a job that the government was set up to do... and lest we not forget, your body is not public domain... your care is YOUR responsibility, just like wiping your own ass is... neither may be pleasant, but you are dead wrong if you think it is someone else's responsibility

We HAVE decent access to the best healthcare in the world.... you don't like the price... well I don't like the price of milk, but I do not believe it is the government's job to take over milk production or to subsidize the price of milk with our tax dollars when it is my choice what I eat

Our government was not set up to explore a continent, or put a man on the moon. But we did. We can also set up a universal health care system within our Constitutional laws.

Your other rather stupid analogy is ridiculous. We set up a universal education system for the betterment of our nation, a great President, Roosevelt, suggested a universal health care system nearly a hundred years ago.

Hmmm... education of minors equates to personal care of adults?? Nope.. sorry.. that bird don't fly

Do I think NASA spending should be cut in times of crisis? Yep... but on the other hand.. lest you forget the industry and advances that came about because of that research

And yep.. the overrated F. Roosevelt suggested a lot of things.. implemented a lot of horrible things too that extended the depression... the man, while popular and elected all those times, did do a lot wrong and set a lot of poor precedent for big government

 

[jillian]

The only thing Roosevelt did that seems to be universally considered wrong were wage/price controls. The rest is revisionist history.

But I'm curious... if the premise that governemtn having anything todo with health coverage is bad, why do things look like this:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

 

[DiamondDave]

The WHO rankings are already debunked.... been posted many times before