Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[Bfgrn]

There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.

I don't have a problem addressing that issue. But preventing 45,000 deaths does not require a new massive government beauracracy. Preventing 45,000 deaths does not require making 330 million Americans buy health insurance.

You are being lied to by Republicans. It does not create any new bureaucracies. The current private insurance system is not being replaced. Republicans made a collective decision that they would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

The individual mandate is a Republican idea. It's genesis was the Heritage Foundation during the Clinton health care debates. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Len Nichols of the New America Foundation: "the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats basically passed the 1993 Republican health care proposal. That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News

 

[Bern80]

There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.

I don't have a problem addressing that issue. But preventing 45,000 deaths does not require a new massive government beauracracy. Preventing 45,000 deaths does not require making 330 million Americans buy health insurance.

You are being lied to by Republicans. It does not create any new bureaucracies. The current private insurance system is not being replaced. Republicans made a collective decision that they would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

The individual mandate is a Republican idea. It's genesis was the Heritage Foundation during the Clinton health care debates. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Len Nichols of the New America Foundation: "the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats basically passed the 1993 Republican health care proposal. That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News

Who or what party came up with the mandate doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional. Those smart guys mentioned who wanted to figure out how to close the gap are probably right from a practical stand point. But they are wrong from a principle stand point and some of you really need to start seeing the forest for the trees and the kind genearl precedent it sets to grant government the authority to make the citizenry.

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican and not a conservative. So you're not going to be able to play gotcha with me by pointing out who came up with these ideas and implying I'm required to agree with them because of the side of the aisle you think I'm on. NOTHING trumps individual liberty. Mandating that everyone purchase health insurance may be the best way to close the gap, but the simple fact is it takes away freedom and is not an authority granted to the fed by the constitution. So that option is off the table and these great minds are going to have to figure out what the next best option that comports with the constitution and sustains individual liberty is.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't have a problem addressing that issue. But preventing 45,000 deaths does not require a new massive government beauracracy. Preventing 45,000 deaths does not require making 330 million Americans buy health insurance.

You are being lied to by Republicans. It does not create any new bureaucracies. The current private insurance system is not being replaced. Republicans made a collective decision that they would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

The individual mandate is a Republican idea. It's genesis was the Heritage Foundation during the Clinton health care debates. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Len Nichols of the New America Foundation: "the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats basically passed the 1993 Republican health care proposal. That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News

Who or what party came up with the mandate doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional. Those smart guys mentioned who wanted to figure out how to close the gap are probably right from a practical stand point. But they are wrong from a principle stand point and some of you really need to start seeing the forest for the trees and the kind genearl precedent it sets to grant government the authority to make the citizenry.

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican and not a conservative. So you're not going to be able to play gotcha with me by pointing out who came up with these ideas and implying I'm required to agree with them because of the side of the aisle you think I'm on. NOTHING trumps individual liberty. Mandating that everyone purchase health insurance may be the best way to close the gap, but the simple fact is it takes away freedom and is not an authority granted to the fed by the constitution. So that option is off the table and these great minds are going to have to figure out what the next best option that comports with the constitution and sustains individual liberty is.

Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.

 

[Bern80]

Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.

Hey you're catching on. Good for you. But why would I need to sign a do not treat form for not buying health insurance? Couldn't I just pay for it if I wanted to? Don't I and the hospital have the right to negotiate payment for services? You would be suprised (though you shouldn't be) how willing accounts recieable at a hospital is willing to deal directly with the customer. It makes there jobs 10 times easier than dealing with insurance companies. So much so that procedures cost less generally if you pay the provider directly rather than having it billed through insurance.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you people don't see the forest for the trees. You are so used to the way things are that you assume an insurance model is the only way health care services can possibly be paid for. Think outside of the box. A 20-30 year old could do better financially by sticking money in HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses. Insurance is not the only way.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.

Hey you're catching on. Good for you. But why would I need to sign a do not treat form for not buying health insurance? Couldn't I just pay for it if I wanted to? Don't I and the hospital have the right to negotiate payment for services? You would be suprised (though you shouldn't be) how willing accounts recieable at a hospital is willing to deal directly with the customer. It makes there jobs 10 times easier than dealing with insurance companies. So much so that procedures cost less generally if you pay the provider directly rather than having it billed through insurance.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you people don't see the forest for the trees. You are so used to the way things are that you assume an insurance model is the only way health care services can possibly be paid for. Think outside of the box. A 20-30 year old could do better financially by sticking money in HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses. Insurance is not the only way.

The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...

 

[Bern80]

The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...

Hasn't been my experience and I use more medical services than most. When I get a bill from the hospital for the difference of what my isnurance covered I will routinely contact the hospital and ask them if I can split the bill into multipe payments. They've never had an issue doing that for me. Didn't even charge me a late fee or interest.

Assuming you do go to the hospital unconscious what exactly do they do? Not treat you till they've found your insurance card in your wallet? I don't think so?

 

[Bfgrn]

The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...

Hasn't been my experience and I use more medical services than most. When I get a bill from the hospital for the difference of what my isnurance covered I will routinely contact the hospital and ask them if I can split the bill into multipe payments. They've never had an issue doing that for me. Didn't even charge me a late fee or interest.

Assuming you do go to the hospital unconscious what exactly do they do? Not treat you till they've found your insurance card in your wallet? I don't think so?

When anyone goes to the hospital now, they are treated. If they don't have insurance, that cost is passed on to you and me. It costs every insured citizen over $1000 per year added to our insurance premiums.

Forget the insurance card. I have a better way. I'd brand 'Do not treat until you get your $$$' into your fucking foreheads, then the ambulance driver can quickly move to someone worth saving.

The purpose of the individual mandate is to prevent people from buying insurance after they become ill or injured. The free riders. To accumulate enough money in an 'HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses' that would be able to cover a major medical emergency would cost more than an insurance policy. Very few people would do it. So that is why the hospital needs to quickly identify a way of knowing to let you die.

 

[Bern80]

The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...

Hasn't been my experience and I use more medical services than most. When I get a bill from the hospital for the difference of what my isnurance covered I will routinely contact the hospital and ask them if I can split the bill into multipe payments. They've never had an issue doing that for me. Didn't even charge me a late fee or interest.

Assuming you do go to the hospital unconscious what exactly do they do? Not treat you till they've found your insurance card in your wallet? I don't think so?

When anyone goes to the hospital now, they are treated. If they don't have insurance, that cost is passed on to you and me. It costs every insured citizen over $1000 per year added to our insurance premiums.

Forget the insurance card. I have a better way. I'd brand 'Do not treat until you get your $$$' into your fucking foreheads, then the ambulance driver can quickly move to someone worth saving.

The purpose of the individual mandate is to prevent people from buying insurance after they become ill or injured. The free riders. To accumulate enough money in an 'HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses' that would be able to cover a major medical emergency would cost more than an insurance policy. Very few people would do it. So that is why the hospital needs to quickly identify a way of knowing to let you die.

A hospital can't ask for money up front whether you have insurance or not so that's a mute and rather stupid point. I'm not trying to get out of paying for being treated here. Believe it or not we can have a system that holds people financially responsible for the services they use and not require everyone to buy health insurance.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hasn't been my experience and I use more medical services than most. When I get a bill from the hospital for the difference of what my isnurance covered I will routinely contact the hospital and ask them if I can split the bill into multipe payments. They've never had an issue doing that for me. Didn't even charge me a late fee or interest.

Assuming you do go to the hospital unconscious what exactly do they do? Not treat you till they've found your insurance card in your wallet? I don't think so?

When anyone goes to the hospital now, they are treated. If they don't have insurance, that cost is passed on to you and me. It costs every insured citizen over $1000 per year added to our insurance premiums.

Forget the insurance card. I have a better way. I'd brand 'Do not treat until you get your $$$' into your fucking foreheads, then the ambulance driver can quickly move to someone worth saving.

The purpose of the individual mandate is to prevent people from buying insurance after they become ill or injured. The free riders. To accumulate enough money in an 'HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses' that would be able to cover a major medical emergency would cost more than an insurance policy. Very few people would do it. So that is why the hospital needs to quickly identify a way of knowing to let you die.

A hospital can't ask for money up front whether you have insurance or not so that's a mute and rather stupid point. I'm not trying to get out of paying for being treated here. Believe it or not we can have a system that holds people financially responsible for the services they use and not require everyone to buy health insurance.

I hope the right keeps pushing to end the individual mandate, because if repealed, it will lead to the only viable option...a single payer government run program.

If you really want to learn how the insurance cartels work, here's an interview with an executive at CIGNA for 15 years.

Profits before patients

 

[Bern80]

When anyone goes to the hospital now, they are treated. If they don't have insurance, that cost is passed on to you and me. It costs every insured citizen over $1000 per year added to our insurance premiums.

Forget the insurance card. I have a better way. I'd brand 'Do not treat until you get your $$$' into your fucking foreheads, then the ambulance driver can quickly move to someone worth saving.

The purpose of the individual mandate is to prevent people from buying insurance after they become ill or injured. The free riders. To accumulate enough money in an 'HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses' that would be able to cover a major medical emergency would cost more than an insurance policy. Very few people would do it. So that is why the hospital needs to quickly identify a way of knowing to let you die.

A hospital can't ask for money up front whether you have insurance or not so that's a mute and rather stupid point. I'm not trying to get out of paying for being treated here. Believe it or not we can have a system that holds people financially responsible for the services they use and not require everyone to buy health insurance.

I hope the right keeps pushing to end the individual mandate, because if repealed, it will lead to the only viable option...a single payer government run program.

If you really want to learn how the insurance cartels work, here's an interview with an executive at CIGNA for 15 years.

Profits before patients

only viable option? You're more close minded than I thought.

 

[Bfgrn]

A hospital can't ask for money up front whether you have insurance or not so that's a mute and rather stupid point. I'm not trying to get out of paying for being treated here. Believe it or not we can have a system that holds people financially responsible for the services they use and not require everyone to buy health insurance.

I hope the right keeps pushing to end the individual mandate, because if repealed, it will lead to the only viable option...a single payer government run program.

If you really want to learn how the insurance cartels work, here's an interview with an executive at CIGNA for 15 years.

Profits before patients

only viable option? You're more close minded than I thought.

I will restate:

FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.

The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'

The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.

Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.

Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.

 

[BrianH]

You are being lied to by Republicans. It does not create any new bureaucracies. The current private insurance system is not being replaced. Republicans made a collective decision that they would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

The individual mandate is a Republican idea. It's genesis was the Heritage Foundation during the Clinton health care debates. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

Len Nichols of the New America Foundation: "the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats basically passed the 1993 Republican health care proposal. That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News

Who or what party came up with the mandate doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional. Those smart guys mentioned who wanted to figure out how to close the gap are probably right from a practical stand point. But they are wrong from a principle stand point and some of you really need to start seeing the forest for the trees and the kind genearl precedent it sets to grant government the authority to make the citizenry.

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican and not a conservative. So you're not going to be able to play gotcha with me by pointing out who came up with these ideas and implying I'm required to agree with them because of the side of the aisle you think I'm on. NOTHING trumps individual liberty. Mandating that everyone purchase health insurance may be the best way to close the gap, but the simple fact is it takes away freedom and is not an authority granted to the fed by the constitution. So that option is off the table and these great minds are going to have to figure out what the next best option that comports with the constitution and sustains individual liberty is.

Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.

What kind of shitty immature attack is that? It makes no difference what party was around during the time of the founding fathers. You weren't around at the time of the founding fathers so I guess you don't have any rights either....If you knew your history you'd know that the two parties founded from the signing of the Constitution were the Federalist and the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY. If you knew any more history, you'd know that the Democratic and Republican have "swapped" values and supporters numerous times in their existence....For example: During the civil war, Democrats were primarily supported in the South while the North primarily supported the Republican party. Now it's reversed.

Basic fact is that the current health care law is unconstitutional... I'm not saying that the health care system doesn't need regulation and some fixing, but completely overhauling the system is pretty ridiculous.

 

[BrianH]

I hope the right keeps pushing to end the individual mandate, because if repealed, it will lead to the only viable option...a single payer government run program.

If you really want to learn how the insurance cartels work, here's an interview with an executive at CIGNA for 15 years.

Profits before patients

only viable option? You're more close minded than I thought.

I will restate:

FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.

The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'

The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.

Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.

Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.

If close minded is not a liberal trait, then why is it always "all or nothing" with the left. They can't just change something a little; they're gonna flip a whole system whether or not the public agrees with it or not, and everyone else can "suck it."

I am about 99% sure there was plenty of corruption going on when the healthcare bill passed the senate. 3 weeks before vote, the Dems didn't have enough votes. They were 10 or 15 votes short. Then 2 weeks before they were 9 or 10 short. 1 week before they were 4 votes short. Then, by golly, they had enough votes to pass it! If that's not corruption of the system I don't know what is. They either slipped funds to states of the hold-outs or they black-mailed them into voting for the bill. (And this is totally excluding the fact that the majority of Americans opposed it.)

You want to talk about the founding fathers...here's what Tommy Jefferson says about welfare. (which is what this healthcare bill is)
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bern80]

FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.

FACT....no nation has ever tried.....including ours.

The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'

They aren't any different than any other private business. No shit they have to make money sherlock. If they can't make money they can't stay and business and they can't cover people.

The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.

Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.

Again that's the same stakes as any other consumer/business relationship. It isn't about both sides getting exactly what they want. Any business would love to be able to make more money off its product and any consumer would love to pay less for it. It's about both sides deciding what they can live with giving up.

You are still showing your narrow mindedness by claiming there are no free market solutions that benefit both. Here's a crazy idea; how about figuring out a way a to reduce the cost of services from the providers so people could pay them directly? That would be a free market solution. That is unless what you're really saying is that people shouldn't have to pay anything for live saving treatment.....

Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.

No. Your elitist liberalism requires you to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is a member of the right and close minded. I am far from a member of the right and my concern is making the system better in a way that doesn't set a precedent for essentially unlimited government power. Anyone who objectively looks at the ways to do that should be able to see a few obvious things. 1) the existence of the insurance model inherently raises the cost of services. In fact any intermidiary, private health insurance company or
government that is handling paying the service providers is going to have that result. Why? it's basic human nature. The less directly the cost effects you, the less you are going to care about it.

The TRUTH? If YOU were interested in the truth you would see a governmet solution has as many problems as our current model.

 

[sangha]

Who or what party came up with the mandate doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional. Those smart guys mentioned who wanted to figure out how to close the gap are probably right from a practical stand point. But they are wrong from a principle stand point and some of you really need to start seeing the forest for the trees and the kind genearl precedent it sets to grant government the authority to make the citizenry.

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican and not a conservative. So you're not going to be able to play gotcha with me by pointing out who came up with these ideas and implying I'm required to agree with them because of the side of the aisle you think I'm on. NOTHING trumps individual liberty. Mandating that everyone purchase health insurance may be the best way to close the gap, but the simple fact is it takes away freedom and is not an authority granted to the fed by the constitution. So that option is off the table and these great minds are going to have to figure out what the next best option that comports with the constitution and sustains individual liberty is.

Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.

What kind of shitty immature attack is that? It makes no difference what party was around during the time of the founding fathers. You weren't around at the time of the founding fathers so I guess you don't have any rights either....If you knew your history you'd know that the two parties founded from the signing of the Constitution were the Federalist and the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY. If you knew any more history, you'd know that the Democratic and Republican have "swapped" values and supporters numerous times in their existence....For example: During the civil war, Democrats were primarily supported in the South while the North primarily supported the Republican party. Now it's reversed.

Basic fact is that the current health care law is unconstitutional... I'm not saying that the health care system doesn't need regulation and some fixing, but completely overhauling the system is pretty ridiculous.

The fact that the reference was to libertarianism itself, and not any political party (ie the Libertarian Party) went right over your head. You don't see the absurdity of holding the opinion that the Founders agreed with a philosophy that they didn't know existed either. If you knew your history, you'd have known that

And whether it's constitutional is up to the courts. Your certainty reveals nothing but your detachment from the facts

 

[sangha]

FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.

FACT....no nation has ever tried.....including ours.

That's just not true, but we're used to nonsense coming from the right. If a nation tries to build a successful health care system, then by definition, it is a "govt solution" and not a "free market". The fact is, the free market has no interest in providing health care to all of our citizens. The free market only treats those it can make a profit on. A call for free market solutions is nothing more than a call to let poor people die.

The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'

They aren't any different than any other private business. No shit they have to make money sherlock. If they can't make money they can't stay and business and they can't cover people.

The right assumes, incorrectly, that health care must be a "private business" (The wingnuts also lke to make up terms when they argue)

The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.

Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.

Again that's the same stakes as any other consumer/business relationship. It isn't about both sides getting exactly what they want. Any business would love to be able to make more money off its product and any consumer would love to pay less for it. It's about both sides deciding what they can live with giving up.

Only a wingnut would think that exchanging ones' health so an insurance corp can profit is The Right Thing to do.

You are still showing your narrow mindedness by claiming there are no free market solutions that benefit both. Here's a crazy idea; how about figuring out a way a to reduce the cost of services from the providers so people could pay them directly? That would be a free market solution. That is unless what you're really saying is that people shouldn't have to pay anything for live saving treatment.....

And bern shows his narrow mindedness by continously insisting that mythical free market solutions exist, even though he can't name one single one. In wingnut world, the incentives of the free market disappear as soon as the govt issues one regulation. In wingnut world, they just know that providers can't and don't find ways to reduce costs, but that they just can't reduce them quick enough to compensate for the high costs of new technology. The wingnuts also know that those same providers would find costs saving IF ONLY THE GOVT LET THEM.

That's why bern has to make up stuff about what others say with his "That is unless what you're really saying...." bern loves to tell others what they're really saying, and he gets it wrong, even when it's clear

He's saying, we can cover everyone for far less that we currently pay. Several nations have already proven this by covering their entire nation at a lower cost while providing higher quality care than the US does.

Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.

No. Your elitist liberalism requires you to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is a member of the right and close minded. I am far from a member of the right and my concern is making the system better in a way that doesn't set a precedent for essentially unlimited government power. Anyone who objectively looks at the ways to do that should be able to see a few obvious things. 1) the existence of the insurance model inherently raises the cost of services. In fact any intermidiary, private health insurance company or
government that is handling paying the service providers is going to have that result. Why? it's basic human nature. The less directly the cost effects you, the less you are going to care about it.

And yet, despite your "persuasive" argument, you can't identify one nation with a single payer system that has seen its cost rise faster than costs have risen in the US. For all your blather about how a single payer increases costs, every single nation with a single payer plan pays less for health care than the US.

The TRUTH? If YOU were interested in the truth you would see a governmet solution has as many problems as our current model.

If you were interested in the truth, you would see that those nations with a single payer solution have fewer problems and provide better care at a lower cost for ALL their citizens. Since you're not interested in the truth, you will continue to insist that Frances' health care system cost more than the US' and that single payer systems cost more than what we have now in the US (ie the most expensive health care system in the history of the world)

 

[sangha]

Problems with socialized medicine.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Now were we to adapt one of the systems in this presentation, consider the social implications. Note that no one goes bankrupt because of medical bills in these nations. Think of how this would ruin your day when you could not feel superior to the family being turned out into the street on your block because the daddy had the audacity to have his factory shut down and moved overseas, and he was stupid enough to let someone in the family get sick after that.

Think of the enjoyment you would miss watching an old couple trying to decide between food and the drugs that keep them alive.

Ah yes, the problems of socialized medicine.

You lefties keep proving my point. There are all kinds of variables that determine whether a health care system is a quality system. You libs define a quality health care system by just one of those variables. Cost to the consumer. Low cost to the consumer = good health care system in the world of the lib. Nothing else matters.

bern is so uninterested in the truth that he will continue to repeat this lie in order to pretend that the US has the best health care and nations with single payer systems have bad health care systems. bern must be so proud that our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

The SOCIALIST "govt solution" used by the SOCIALIST govt of Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price. bern likes paying twice as much for inferior health care.

 

[sangha]

There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.

I don't have a problem addressing that issue. But preventing 45,000 deaths does not require a new massive government beauracracy. Preventing 45,000 deaths does not require making 330 million Americans buy health insurance.

It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth

 

[Bern80]

It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth

Other than the minor detail of it being essentially a monopoly. Those always work out well for the consumer.

 

[Bern80]

That's just not true, but we're used to nonsense coming from the right. If a nation tries to build a successful health care system, then by definition, it is a "govt solution" and not a "free market". The fact is, the free market has no interest in providing health care to all of our citizens. The free market only treats those it can make a profit on. A call for free market solutions is nothing more than a call to let poor people die.

The free market is nothing more than an agreement between two parties for service. You're right a free market solution is not going to treat people that can't pay for service. Even a fool like you ought to see why that can't work out very well for those providing the service. So there needs to be some form of government solution that takes care of those that cant help themselves. I don't have a problem with that.

The right assumes, incorrectly, that health care must be a "private business" (The wingnuts also lke to make up terms when they argue)

Of course it doesn't have to be. Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is. They have a financial incentive to do things as efficiently as possible. Government does not (cause deficits are no big deal). They establish the a true market value for service that is typically lower than government, because government payment of anything is a subsidy which inflates the price of services.

Only a wingnut would think that exchanging ones' health so an insurance corp can profit is The Right Thing to do.

And only selfish libs think they are entitled to life saving treatment, but the person who provided it is not entitled to be compensated for it.

And bern shows his narrow mindedness by continously insisting that mythical free market solutions exist, even though he can't name one single one. In wingnut world, the incentives of the free market disappear as soon as the govt issues one regulation. In wingnut world, they just know that providers can't and don't find ways to reduce costs, but that they just can't reduce them quick enough to compensate for the high costs of new technology. The wingnuts also know that those same providers would find costs saving IF ONLY THE GOVT LET THEM.


That's why bern has to make up stuff about what others say with his "That is unless what you're really saying...." bern loves to tell others what they're really saying, and he gets it wrong, even when it's clear

Let's see what we have here. A statement saying I put words in your mouth, preceded by a statement putting words in my mouth. You may now add hypocrite to your many distinctions.

Clarify it for me then. What should the avg. life saving trip to the emergency cost you?

He's saying, we can cover everyone for far less that we currently pay. Several nations have already proven this by covering their entire nation at a lower cost while providing higher quality care than the US does.

Again lower cost TO THE CONSUMER. Since the consumers don't want to pay with the service providers are demanding the difference is subsidized by the government and the government is finding out in nations like France it doesn't have the money to cover the difference, which is why they are having to cut back on the oh so wonderful benefits your utopia single payer system provides.

And yet, despite your "persuasive" argument, you can't identify one nation with a single payer system that has seen its cost rise faster than costs have risen in the US. For all your blather about how a single payer increases costs, every single nation with a single payer plan pays less for health care than the US.

Because whether a system is public or private is of course the only variable that determines the cost of services.

If you were interested in the truth, you would see that those nations with a single payer solution have fewer problems and provide better care at a lower cost for ALL their citizens. Since you're not interested in the truth, you will continue to insist that Frances' health care system cost more than the US' and that single payer systems cost more than what we have now in the US (ie the most expensive health care system in the history of the world)

Of course that's what you think. You think that because being a typical liberal you of course will assume no responsibility for your role in the problem. The individuals role in the problem where this nation is concerned is that most of us are not very healthy. Not because of our health care system, but because of the health choices we make. You're being truly naive if you don't think that plays a role in how much our nation spens on health care. It's also another reason why it probably isn't a great idea to absolve people of even more responsibility for taking care of themselves.

I have never insisted that France's health care system costs more than hours. All I have maintained is that they are having difficulty sustaining a level of service with their model. A model you believe to be the cure all to our health care issues. Health care costs are not rising in just the U.S. They're rising for everyone, including France.