Out-of-pocket Health Care costs the leading cause of bankruptcy:

http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study...uptcy-2009.pdf

Again, please post an economic solution to how it can be implemeneted effectively in the US. The theoretical nonsense in this thread is great, but truly useless.

Alright well for the first thing I'd prefer to have a little more of an explanation as to why that matters. I'm fairly certain that many have worked in business, have had private practices and the like...

But as for the second, heres what I don't get. You keep saying price, and I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'll assume you're pro-free market.

If what the "conservatives" say is true, government health care will take months to do anything. If that's the case, why would price matter? Shouldn't the government HC fail to catch on due to its inherent bureaucratic process?

First part is you're putting a ton of faith of handling major $$$ industries in the hands of people who have shown a complete lac of the idea of fiscal responsibly and are in love with the thought of taking on debt and leaving the debt to be recalled once they are a past thought. Not exactly strong business procedures.

And I do believe government health care will fail. The problem is if it fails, we've wasted a ton of much needed $$$ and pushed ourselves further into debt for a failed result. Even worse can be if we realize the failure after forcing out the private insurers and have encompassed ourselves in this system that at that point we wouldn't be able to get out of.

I'm not sure I completely understand your last point so hopefully I touched on something...been a long night.

I wouldn't presume to understand the United States' economic, medical, social and industrial situation well enough or have nearly enough experience or knowledge to post a complete economic solution to solve your health care problem. I don't know what theoretical nonsense you're referring to; there are lots of well-working social health care programs going on in the world, which the US seems to stubbornly refuse to examine for suggestions. My point was merely to share some information on how damaging the current industry is and further my point about how I believe it is barbaric for one of the most developed and wealthy nations in the world to have such a bloated and money-grubbing system for providing basic human rights.

I'd have to say I agree with that. But I can't say my country is doing any better. But we are not as obsessed with getting into debt!

What I mean to say is this

There is a claim that government can out-insure people because it can tax for income and keep its prices low.

But thats not been the rallying cry against socialized medicine until now. What has typically been the case is claims of 4 month waiting periods for things as simple as an x-ray.

We're supposed to believe that injuries become far more serious because they aren't treated immediatly.

if thats true

then why does it matter how much this supposed ****ty health insurance costs? Even if its free the only people who would take it would be those who can't afford HMO's.

Like a national defense system, I believe that national health care is one of the few things the government should offer/do.

And from a Political standpoint, let me say this. I have zero problem with Reagan and his presidency. And he was a damn good politician but he ushered in this "us vs. the government" thought process, while simultaneously saying "the people run the government"

I'm not sure how the two work together but I'll say this. People came together and agreed upon government. This isn't some foreign interloper coming here to overthrow us and lead our lives.

Government should at the very least have its peoples protection in mind. I think the idea that Healthcare goes to the private sector is as smart as giving the Nation Defense, our military, to the Private Sector. I see an obvious parallel and I don't think many would agree we should have the Navy run by Lockheed/Martin, and the Air Force run by Boeing.

I'd be curious to hear your opinion on this one Alejo, assuming of course I was coherent this time (I can never tell when I am or not)

We agree to disagree.

Gonna go at this parts at a time.

Eh, I claim the government can out-insure people because they can price it however they please because they have no stakeholders who have an interest in turning a profit and are comfortable with the fact of taking on massive amounts of debt that they never plan on paying.

Because if you tax current health benefits it is more cost effective for these companies to no longer offer such benefits, letting their employees instead be put into these government issues programs.

Again, in theory this is a great idea. But there is no substance in to how effectively it can be enacted in our society with our economic situation. Pointing to other countries isn't an argument, as the situations are no where near similar.

So you're for a privatization of national defense?

I'd love to see where you came up with that conclusion from my post.

I didn't, but I'm asking.

No, I'm not. And I'm assuming you're going to turn this into relating healthcare and national defense, which really shouldn't hold any water.

Why not?

I suspect it won't "hold water" because you don't want it to.

Because national defense is already run by the government while healthcare isn't. Pretty simple.

Pretty simple if you're dodging logic.

You don't think we should privitize national defense because the government doesn't run healthcare. Thats rich.

Here how about this. The government has a role and its to protect its citizens. Its currently letting them drown in the streets of New Orleans while being overly concerned with the people in the streets of Iran.

I'd go out on a limb and say this is a horrible idea. Cancer kills something like 400,000 people a year, how many do foreign armies kill?

What the argument is, is convenient. The government doesn't do it currently, so it shouldn't going forward. Healthcare is something the government should at least offer.

The constitution allows private enterprise to form militias, right?

The more I follow this discussion and the adjacent "Frasier" to it's "Cheers" thread the more I start to think the amswer, as is usually the case, is somewhere in the middle.

B, (stole it from Savannah, their is nothing else that doesn't feel awkward to refer to you as) You sort of passing proposed that the government should "at least offer health care" and maybe that's the solution.

A privatized government health care check box on your tax form. If you pay the required taxes on your income the government will pick up your medical tab.

Medical practitioners would have the choice too. Take a cushy government job and make good but not exceptional money or go for the big bucks in the unruly system of today.

I always say how important options are to me, this is the granddaddy of them all.

If you choose to go it alone your taxes are lower but you have to deal with insurance companies and the doctors who are in it to make the money.

JJJ, that obviously isn't feasible. Those that can't comfortably afford healthcare would choose it, the one's that can [and their $$$ are needed to have the system "afloat"] wouldn't.

Big3, you're off on a tangent. My entire argument against socialized healthcare is the economics behind it, not the idea of it.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me there. I can't tell where you're landing in this debate.

No I'm not agreeing with you. Peer in to the great successes of the social programs the US is currently running, I'd much rather not see health care get ruined along side the others.

My point is I don't care for the whether or not socialized health care is a good idea in theory, it's more that it isn't practical in this economy in this country at all.

How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage ."

I believe Mr. Tyler had a good grasp of human nature.

America wasn't founded on socialism, it was founded on individual rights and freedoms. Not those granted by big government.

Some societies like to have a nanny government dumb down everything and take care of them.
Mediocrity is the result.
In a system where everyone has the same opportunities to improve themselves, make more money and achieve a high standard of living no one needs big government to make all their decisions for them.

A government can't destroy wealth and penalize those who achieve the most by oppressive taxing and then redistributing wealth. It won't survive. The people who achieve the most are robbed in order to "help" others who won't work?...

two more quotes, if you will.

"Anything received by someone who didn't work for it, was worked for by someone who didn't receive it"

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.

It's really not that hard to stay on topic....is it?

Universal Health Care =/= Socialism

now that that's been established there shall be no more discussion of socialism or political philosophy in a thread on health care in the United States.

...ok. No more discussion will be allowed, as you decree. hahaha

..but socializing health care in the United States, and raising taxes to do it in a (formerly) free market/free enterprise (formerly) democratic society has a lot to do with political philosophy and should be discussed and explored by Americans...regardless of what Canadians think.

Right, but a lot of people's arguments against it [i.e. mine] is that it's more how it would hurt an already aching economy and put an industry in a horrible position at a time of very high unemployment. Basically a socialized health care in theory vs. in practice. The arguments for those should be/are much different.

Bringing this up again. lol at wanting to include coverage for illegal aliens.

America is going to regret this a ton if it passes. Just search into Hawaii and Massachusetts attempts.

You know, I didn't write much in this thread prior because I honestly didn't know too much about it. But since having gone out and read up on whats being discussed, and really listening to every side The issue that every side has a problem with is "rationing."

And dispite it being the issue for each side, they cite "rationing" as the reason we need to jump from one form of rationing to the other"

The press secratry for Kathleen Sibelias (probably spelled that wrong) is claiming that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting a more expensive Public Option because of poor accounting from the previous administration.

I.e. it looks like a lot more because things (like the war) are being accurately accounted for at this point. I can't comment on whether or not thats true, but it seems like its too easy an answer to just patch things up.

If their looking for a public option, then they should (in my opinion) set up blanket coverage for a finite amount of things; Emergency Room visits, Immunizations, Pregnancies/Births, and basic blood work. This would greatly reduce a few thigns...

1. The concern that if people are really hurt, they're going to receive sub-standard care which as most Americans know is par for the course.

2. It would alleviate quite a few of the strains on current HMO's (which are superficial and propped up to justify gouging, but its gives them one less argument)

3. Speaking as someone who deals with a highly regulating government, I'll mention two things about good ol' MA.

a. we have a state mandated obligation to be medically insured. If we can't afford an HMO, there is a state plan we can opt into.

If we aren't insured we get roughly a $6K fine on our tax returns.

b. Our current auto insurance policy is what I'll call "half regulated" (you'll have to look it up) where in people aren't legally allowed to be denied coverage. If no companey wants them, their put into a lottery and given an insurance companey who can dictate their price.

Agencies are required to have X number of "lottery'ds" our they are fined.

Based on these two plans and the knowledge that the current system is coming apart at the seams because its failing to keep costs down, the Capitalistc natture of some Congressional members - as noted by experience - won't do what they are claiming it will.

I guess this leaves us with a Single-payer option, which I'm not opposed to but brings up the "horrid" idea of Rationing again.

My entire comment on that can be summed up like this:

Rationing is politicizing this debate, which is slowing the process of fixing a broken system that gouges poor, sick people.

If we don't ration, we end up writing black checks to Drug Companies for some useless pill that may possibly stop you're intestines from exploding. But the side effects are heavy. And its $40 a pill.

The horror stories you read about are people generally demanding an experiemental drug that won't bring people eternal life, but maybe another year. Maybe.

If you fund those things, who then do you deny coverage for? Or, how expensive does the tax become - which would screw the working class.

Rationing is fine - American's are just scared of dying. My time will come and I'll roll my wheelchair in front of a train before I live via tubes.

My understanding is that Obama's plans to fund the initiative isn't through raising taxes across the board but only on those earning millions and millions which essentially just does some work to negate the loopholes they're using to get out of paying what they're already meant to. Throw in the fact that a nationalised healthcare will free up the money you were spending on insurance premiums. Overall unless you're earning a heck of a lot you're looking at nothing but benefits, and if you are earning a heck of a lot you lack my sympathy. I'll look into some statistics and figures to back up my wild claims some other time.

Personally I'm very socialist when it comes to healthcare and believe if you have national healthcare you should do away with private healthcare which leaches the more the better doctors. The main reason your healthcare costs so much and keeps prices up are the ridiculous lawsuits brought against doctors, frankly that should be dealt with at the same time as this change to ensure that the doctors don't get to expect ostentatious wage packets.

The healthcare system and health insurance has to deal with many people who are sick because of smoking, drinking and bad eating habits. Public health education programs should be created (funded by increased tax on tobacco, booze and fast foods) to show people how to make healthy lifestyle choices. This is only one "long term" solution, but if it can keep more people healthy, instead of becoming heart/liver/kidney patients, it will help the system provide for those who are sick through no fault of their own. Why don't we promote "resposibilty"?

Please read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/ma...pagewanted=all

Because it isn't the government's business to tell us what lifestyle choices to make and it would be a complete misuse of tax dollars.

Is that an argument against socialised health care? Look at this pragmatically; Obama's proposition - is it killing all privatised health care and making it impossible for people to pay for their medication if they so choose? In extreme cases such as Sutent the situation will remain the same in that the rich can afford this specific health care while the poor do not. In an NHS system the fact remains that the poor can still get access to a ****load more good treatment as a result of socialised health care while for the rich it remains much the same with a very slight tax increase.

Also consider this: per capita the French (who have a socialised health service) pays 50% less than the Americans. France has the best health service in the world. America is floating down at around 37. The disparity in cost comes primarily from the risk of lawsuits bumping premiums and meaning doctors will order innumerate tests to cover their asses. Another large cost comes from the fact that it's a largely cornered market where the big business has a stranglehold on setting the price market meaning they can charge lots because people will always need health care and always scrimp those pennies to help themselves to survive. And the other massive cost comes from admin expenses ensuing from an insurance system (something ranging from between 30-45%) whereas the admin costs for Medicare are below 5%. When you give doctors a chance to be doctors, as opposed to lawsuit fearing business men, you can cut out a hell of a lot of the cost involved in your medical system and get significantly better service to boot. Without reform you health system as it stands is eating itself from the inside. If anything Obama isn't going far enough, though whether or not that's his choice or just a hope at getting something actually passed is another question.

no.

From: http://www.musicbanter.com/current-e...ealthcare.html

How would the lines be longer though? Why would you get the Public Option (they seem to be backing away from) if you had private insurance?

The lines may be getting longer with the public option because you likely wouldn't have had insurance before, but the wait sure is getting shorter.

They are longer in Canada and the UK. Why wouldn't they be here? Do you think they're going to run it better?

Boo hoo hoo. The lines are so long, we're dying while we're waiting!

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Full.pdf

Look at part II table 1. Being born in the UK or Canada means I'm expected to live longer and less likely to die during infancy, and also less likely to die below the age of 60. Also look at table 7. In both of these evil socialist systems, not only is the average citizen spending less but also the Government funding these nationalised health services is spending less per person than under the American Government.

Your system is broken and you refuse to see it because rather than look at the cold hard statistics you'd rather be blinkered by the catchword "socialism" and look at inneffective KPIs such as "queue lengths". So we have longer queues? We're still going to live longer.

The U.K. and Canada have single payer. We're not going for that here. In those two countries they have the government pay for everything.

Private insurance would still live here, and the only restriction on them was "pre-existing conditions" would not disqualify people.

Doesn't the UK have private health insurance companies alongside the NHS?

Of course private insurance would still be involved in American health care. The insurance companies have such a stronghold in the US.

I think it's hard for somebody like me, who's never paid a cent for health care, to fully understand what is going on with the American system right now. I'm simply wondering why the US is the last Western country to have universal health care and yet it is the most powerful country in the world. I have a strong feeling that it's all the far-right conservatives who are afraid that universal health care will turn the US into a socialist nation. That's ridiculous! Canada has had a few conservative federal governments and politicians since the 70's when our health care system was fully implemented, and we are still a democratic country.

Its misinformation.

I saw a poll tonight that said the reasons look like this;

1. Cover Illegals
2. Government Takeover
3. Funding Abortions
4. Death Panels

You can watch this whole discussion, and see the poll I mentioned here:

Hardball with Chris Matthews

How did A cause B here? I'm very confused by your logic.