Quote :

"Yes, it encourages over testing. I have NO problem with this. Doctors are qualified and extremely highly trained, and I would trust THEIR judgement in what warrants a test or procedure MUCH more than I could any financial institution, private or government. "

It also means you spend much more money because despite the fact that doctors are qualified and highly trained, your system encourages them to second guess their diagnosis and perform additional and likely unneccesary tests to ensure better pay.

Quote :

"It absolutely does not encourage them to downplay symptoms, because the patient WILL return if the diagnosis isn't correct. "

The patient will return either way, but if the doctor downplays symptoms long enough, he gets his bonus and could concieveably argue that it's a new problem or a resurgence of the old problem.

Quote :

"And no, it rewards a doctor for proper diagnosis and treatment. If a person goes to three doctors and they all diagnose the same problem, even with different treatment options (especially experimental treatments) then they would all potentially be rewarded for the proper diagnosis. This system also encourages doctors to get second opinions from other doctors without the need for a patient to seek secondary opinions. "

Ok, so how about this. The better half had an injury in her childhood, and was taken to the hospital after the pain did not subside over the course of the day. After an examination, including x-rays and multi doctor diagnosis, it was determined that the issue at hand was not serious, just an issue aggrivated by the injury sustained. Pain killers were issued with usual "call us if it gets worse" warning. At this point, it was a correct and succesful diagnosis based on the qualified and highly trained judgement of doctors. There were no indications whatsoever that any further complications existed and all involved were satisfied with the diagnosis.

Until the next day when the pain got worse. At which point local hospital escalated the issue to major state hospital which examined, could find no cause for the issue and thus decided that exploratory surgery was in order. The surgery revealed major internal trauma which would not have been discovered by any x-ray and was indeed only discoverable via this exploratory surgery.

Why should the first set of doctors not be rewarded for their performance. Under their judgement (and reasonably so) there was no major issue at hand, nor indication that a major issue would be possible (the injury sustained was minor, it was freak coincidence that created the major trauma). Exploratory surgery is not only expensive but also life threatening (relative to not doing exploratory surgery), and it was only by freak circumstance that it was neccesary in this case. Yet your system would have encouraged the first doctors to perform that surgery on all people, and in this specific instance punished them for not performing it, despite their qualifications and training.

Quote :

"And yes, it encourages doctor shopping. I also have no problem with this either. It acts a check and balance for good care. A doctor who consistently mis-diagnoses, who isn't personable, who has a record of mishaps and problems would be much more easily identified and removed from the system. A patient with a rare condition has a much better chance of being properly diagnosed in an open treatment system."

This isn't what I meant, though I should have phrased it better. There are many hypocondriacs in this world, and many more people who are simply convinced they know more than their doctor. Your system encourages these people to shop arround until they find a doctor that gives them the answer (and drugs) they're looking for. It also encourages doctors to be That Doctor, since they will be the one that gets the patient to stop comming back and get the bonus that all the others were denied.

Quote :

"on the same subjective basis, my father was denied by 4 different HMO's over the course of 6 years for a hip replacement. He has had to walk with a cane for almost 40 years and has needed a hip replacement since the mid 1980's. "

And yet he still had the option to try elsewhere or pay out of pocket.

Quote :

"I am the one with common sense. One is a degenerative condition, the other is a result of accidental trauma. One person can still walk, the other one can't. One person can live through it, the other will likely die of infection and will never heal without immediate treatment. Do I REALLY need to go further? "

And the single mother is the one that's out of work and thus unable to provide for herself or child. See I can pull at heart strings too.

Quote :

"Yes you can. In EVERY social system, there is still supplementary insurance that a significant portion (15-20%) of people purchase for exactly the reasons you are arguing for. And you are also once again in dreamland with this mythical "find a better HMO or pay out of pocket" argument."

oh goody, so now I can pay for my medical treatment TWICE! How is this a good thing? Question: Why does universal healthcare require supplementary insurance?

Quote :

"Once, god forbid, you do come down with a major medical condition, there is NO OPTION. You can't get other insurance, you either pay whatever rate your HMO determines or you are dropped. That's the reality. And you tell me how many people can afford to pay the average 12-20 thousand dollars a general surgery costs out of pocket? VERY few. "

Yet your father managed to shop at 4 different HMOs in 6 years? Furthermore, shopping around can be done before hand. As far as 12 to 20 thousand dollars, how much is the average new car these days?

Quote :

"She could either wait it out, or purchase a supplemental plan / pay out of pocket and go at her own leisure to a private practice or a dual system pracitce. The beauty of a universal system is that IF she did deteriorate while waiting, aka the pain goes up, the other teeth or jaw becomes a real potential problem, she would then be considered a critical care patient and would make this a non-issue again."

So your options are she pays twice, waits until it becomes an emergency (the very issue you puport to avoid) or pays out of pocket completely as if she had no insurance in teh first place. How does this make medical care better?

7/11/2007 10:32:37 PM

Quote :

"People who choose not to have insurance run the risk of having to pay an assload if something bad happens. I do think there should be less regulations with insurances and allow people to shop for it, just like auto ins. "

This makes two big assumptions. 1) That everyone has the free choice to get insurance. If you have any of about 500 conditions, you cannot get private insurance in the US. And as you age, your premiums skyrocket regardless of your actual health.

2) There are very few regulations on insurance now. It's an inherent conflict of interest. As a for-profit entity, it's in the HMO's best interest to do as little as possible. Auto insurance is entirely different, because premiums are based on objective data, and have a statute of limitations on offenses. Even if you fuck up royally, after 5-7 years your premiums drop back to normal. And as you age your premiums go down with automobile insurance.

7/11/2007 10:35:45 PM

Quote :

"It also means you spend much more money because despite the fact that doctors are qualified and highly trained, your system encourages them to second guess their diagnosis and perform additional and likely unneccesary tests to ensure better pay."

Yes, it does encourage second opinions. No, it does not encourage unneccesary tests to ensure better pay. This is where a doctor's training comes into play. You ASSUME a doctor will perform every test imaginable if given the option, but this is not true. There obviously has to be SOME accountability over time for procedures, I'm not saying there should be a capless system.

Quote :

"The patient will return either way, but if the doctor downplays symptoms long enough, he gets his bonus and could concieveably argue that it's a new problem or a resurgence of the old problem."

Precisely why the patient has the option to seek other physicians. Also this would be a doctor breaking the hippocratic oath. Which, in a system like this, such abuse would be quickly identifiable in the few cases it happened. But that's the point, a doctor under a system like this has no benefit in falsifying or lying about a diagnosis, because a patient will just go elsewhere.

Quote :

"Yet your system would have encouraged the first doctors to perform that surgery on all people, and in this specific instance punished them for not performing it, despite their qualifications and training. "

Doctors are never punished for missing a diagnosis. As I said, a fair base salary (in the UK its about $120-190k a year) is paid. And this all goes back to proper training and ethics. In a system where oversight and balance is controlled by the PEOPLE, breaking ethical boundaries is much more easily policed. Neither of us are doctors and so all of your "hypothetical situations" are conjecture at best, and without the consultation of a M.D. neither of us are qualified to say if the procedure would have been any different.

Quote :

"This isn't what I meant, though I should have phrased it better. There are many hypocondriacs in this world, and many more people who are simply convinced they know more than their doctor. Your system encourages these people to shop arround until they find a doctor that gives them the answer (and drugs) they're looking for. It also encourages doctors to be That Doctor, since they will be the one that gets the patient to stop comming back and get the bonus that all the others were denied. "

And yet somehow, in every country with this kind of policy, this isn't a problem. Because this is an extremely small population percentage and it's pretty easy to identify a person with this kind of condition over time, and send them for psychological treatment. And once again, you are making the ethics versus greed argument. As if this doesn't already exist and run rampant. In a plan where there is OVERSIGHT, doctors who do abuse the system can be MUCH more easily identified and removed.

Quote :

"And yet he still had the option to try elsewhere or pay out of pocket."

Try elsewhere? Where in the hell are you talking about? There aren't but a couple of dozen major HMO's to even apply to. And most rejected him before the application process even started. And unlike you apparently, my family can't afford a 40-80 thousand dollar extremely invasive procedure. Yet he would still have these same options in a universal system in addition to getting the actual procedure.

Quote :

"And the single mother is the one that's out of work and thus unable to provide for herself or child. See I can pull at heart strings too."

How is she out of work? We just established what the difference is. If she in INCAPACITATED its not an elective procedure anymore. People deal with pain every day, that's life. I don't even know what you are trying to logically argue here.

Quote :

"oh goody, so now I can pay for my medical treatment TWICE! How is this a good thing? Question: Why does universal healthcare require supplementary insurance?"

it doesn't require it. its another OPTION, for people like you who want immediate care for non-critical treatment.

Quote :

"Yet your father managed to shop at 4 different HMOs in 6 years? Furthermore, shopping around can be done before hand. As far as 12 to 20 thousand dollars, how much is the average new car these days?"

It's been done. You try getting insurance when you have had cancer twice, been exposed to agent orange while serving your country and being in your 60's.

And you can get a loan for a car, because it's a tangible asset. You cannot get a loan for surgical treatment. Another completely ignorant argument. You can't defer costs for major medical procedures, which is another huge problem.

Quote :

"So your options are she pays twice, waits until it becomes an emergency (the very issue you puport to avoid) or pays out of pocket completely as if she had no insurance in teh first place. How does this make medical care better?"

No, the options are she waits until her apointment, and IF during the waiting period it becomes more serious (this is a big IF, and once again goes to the ethics and training of our medical professionals) then she will be treated. Or, she can choose to have it taken care of immediately at her own expense (which is, in your story, what she did anyway). It doesn't make the care better, it's the same level of quality, with MORE care for everyone.

7/11/2007 10:58:53 PM

haha, your premiums go down bc statistically speaking you are at less of a risk to USE the insurance with auto ins. However, as you age you are more likely to use the medical insurance so you pay more.

Not regulated? I live on the border, and we get into a total FUBAR with trying to manage bc/bs of NC and Va. They coverage is different, the reimbursement is different. And they often decline payment bc they are of a different state. However, after a day on the phone we can finally get our 50 bucks.

So you are telling me that insurance companies charge more for higher risk people? You serious clark?(in my best cousin eddie)

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:05:59 PM

^ I dont even know how to respond to anything in your post. If anything it's more evidence of how fucked up and retarded our system is, that it takes a day on the phone to get a 50 dollar reimbursement.

It's not even that they charge more for higher risk people. As soon as you actually DO get something, the ONLY way to get coverage is through an employer with group insurance. Which, effectively is a small-scale variation of a universal healthcare plan.

7/11/2007 11:12:20 PM

Quote :

"Yes, it does encourage second opinions. No, it does not encourage unneccesary tests to ensure better pay. This is where a doctor's training comes into play. You ASSUME a doctor will perform every test imaginable if given the option, but this is not true. There obviously has to be SOME accountability over time for procedures, I'm not saying there should be a capless system. "

And where praytell is this accountability going to come from? When you have issue with the government paid for care, who do you go to?

Quote :

"Precisely why the patient has the option to seek other physicians. Also this would be a doctor breaking the hippocratic oath. Which, in a system like this, such abuse would be quickly identifiable in the few cases it happened. But that's the point, a doctor under a system like this has no benefit in falsifying or lying about a diagnosis, because a patient will just go elsewhere. "

There absolutely is a bennefit because you're rewarding doctors for having patients that don't come back for the same issue. At some point you have to declare that the issue was succesfully diagnosed, then all the doctor has to do is hold of the patient until then and they get their bonus. Unless you're planning on taking back bonuses and then you get into the issue of punishing doctors for what may have been a reasonable diagnosis at the time.

Quote :

"Doctors are never punished for missing a diagnosis. As I said, a fair base salary (in the UK its about $120-190k a year) is paid. And this all goes back to proper training and ethics. In a system where oversight and balance is controlled by the PEOPLE, breaking ethical boundaries is much more easily policed. Neither of us are doctors and so all of your "hypothetical situations" are conjecture at best, and without the consultation of a M.D. neither of us are qualified to say if the procedure would have been any different. "

1) Why is 120 - 190 a fair salary?
2) Oversight and balance by the people and policing ethical violations? Are we talking about the same government here? The one that's spending a few billion a month on a war most people don't want? The same one that can't even educate our children? Are we talking about the same people? The ones that need a doctor to tell them if they are overwieght and out of shape they need to eat better and exercise more? You have far more faith in this system than I. Personally I trust a company more than the government. I know the company's motive, profit. Praytell, what motivates the government? What incentive to improve when they can just tax you more?
3) No situation I have brought up is hypothetical. They are all very real situations which are or have happened to real people.

Quote :

"And yet somehow, in every country with this kind of policy, this isn't a problem. Because this is an extremely small population percentage and it's pretty easy to identify a person with this kind of condition over time, and send them for psychological treatment. And once again, you are making the ethics versus greed argument."

And where the government is involved, I assure you that greed will win over ethics every time.

Quote :

"As if this doesn't already exist and run rampant. In a plan where there is OVERSIGHT, doctors who do abuse the system can be MUCH more easily identified and removed. "

Again, oversight from where? Furthermore, of course it exists. In the current system however, it's mitigated by the fact that these people usually can't afford to visit every doctor in the state until they find one to give them their drugs. Under your system, it's free, so they can visit as many times as they like.

Quote :

"Try elsewhere? Where in the hell are you talking about? There aren't but a couple of dozen major HMO's to even apply to. And most rejected him before the application process even started. "

A problem with the insurance system as set up (also note, a problem with government involvement in our current medical system). I don't argue we need more competition in the health insurance sector, and aparently neither do you, yet your proposed system would kill that competition.

Quote :

"And unlike you apparently, my family can't afford a 40-80 thousand dollar extremely invasive procedure. "

Mine can't either. If it isn't critical though, and if he can live through the pain, why should other people pay for it anyway? Question: Why is it acceptable to make him wait months or even years under a system where someone else pays for it, but it's not acceptable to make him wait until he can pay for it?

Quote :

"How is she out of work? We just established what the difference is. If she in INCAPACITATED its not an elective procedure anymore. People deal with pain every day, that's life. I don't even know what you are trying to logically argue here. "

I'm arguing that definitions of critical surgery vary from person to person. I'm sure an painter would find that optical surgery, while elective to most people, would be quite critical to him.

Quote :

"it doesn't require it. its another OPTION, for people like you who want immediate care for non-critical treatment. "

But I don't get my money back from the government for the services I didn't use.

more later

7/12/2007 10:52:04 AM

Quote :

"And you can get a loan for a car, because it's a tangible asset. You cannot get a loan for surgical treatment. Another completely ignorant argument. You can't defer costs for major medical procedures, which is another huge problem."

Do you own property? Cars, homes, boats? Then you have assets with which to secure a loan. If you have no insurance, most hospitals offer payment plans, and in some cases will even do the work for free or extremely reduced costs.

Quote :

"No, the options are she waits until her apointment, and IF during the waiting period it becomes more serious (this is a big IF, and once again goes to the ethics and training of our medical professionals) then she will be treated. Or, she can choose to have it taken care of immediately at her own expense (which is, in your story, what she did anyway). It doesn't make the care better, it's the same level of quality, with MORE care for everyone."

But why should she have had to wait at all? Why create a system like that? Why a system where a relatively simple procedure could turn into a major issue simply because it's the only available option? Sure she can buy supplemental insurance, but again, then she's paying TWICE for the same issue. Why bother with the government insurance in the first place? Arguably she could have afforded even BETTER service if the money she paid into the system could have been used for purchase of private medical insurance.


The bottom line is, if the government really wanted to make sure that people were covered, they would put policies in place that make it conducive for insurance companies to compete and provide better coverage. Make medical payements tax deductable. Stop taking money out of my paycheck to pay for other people's health. Consider: The money that the government takes out of my paycheck each month for other people combined with the money that my company pays for my medical insurance, combined with the additional money I pay for my medical insurance would buy me an insurance plan that is far and beyond what I have now. But, because of the way the taxes are done, I can't afford my own health care because my company would give me less money for it (no tax break for them), I would be taxed on it (no tax break for me) and I can't get the money the federal government takes out back. In short, I'm stuck with one provider, with no bargaining power because the government takes the money that I could use for my health to pay for someone elses.


Another thought to consider, immediately after the federal government started putting massive ammounts of tax money into the medical system, medical spending as a percentage of GDP jumped to astronomically higher rates than the rest of the world, and has stayed there. It was also at that point when out of pocket expendatures saw a massive decrease. So government spending replaced private spending, and total expendatures went up dramatically. Who would have thunk?

7/12/2007 12:39:24 PM

Quote :

"Make medical payements tax deductable."

this is already the case.

7/12/2007 12:41:23 PM

only if medical payments are over a certain % of your income

if the government cared about affordability, they could also make premiums tax deductible for people who pay their own medical insurance, not just for people who use a payroll deduction

7/12/2007 1:31:35 PM

Quote :

" You cannot get a loan for surgical treatment."

Not always the case

http://www.carecredit.com/

7/12/2007 2:01:15 PM

Words.... too many words....



I have no real experience with regards to private versus public healthcare. None of us really do. We can debate idealogy and fling internet links in each others' faces until we're red in the face... and we'll wind up right back where we started.

So, lets establish some common ground - The current state of healthcare in the US sucks.

The status quo isn't working. Too many people don't have health insurance. They don't have it because they can't afford it.

Why is this? I hear conservatives saying "market forces" are the answer. It's fair to say that this strategy isn't working. Is the answer to remove government influences and control in healthcare? Or is the answer to socialize healthcare completely? Right now we've got one foot in and foot out. We're using a quasi-socialized medicine policy with private healthcare coupled with Medicare and Medicaid.

This "hybrid" system has led us to where we are now.

I want to hear about proposed solutions, and not idealogical rhetoric. If you believe socialized healthcare is a bad idea, give us your ALTERNATIVE. If you don't have a proposed plan to reform healthcare, you've got no grounds to criticize other proposals.

We can all agree SOMETHING needs to be done. Move the debate away from idealogy and move it towards practical solutions.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : d]

7/12/2007 2:31:18 PM

medicare and medicaid is often contracted out to different insurance companies, btw.

Im am curious as to why you think healthcare SUCKS.

There are plenty of people who choose not to have healthcare. This is america, and they still have that choice...at least for the time being. LOL

7/12/2007 2:52:04 PM

Quote :

"if the government cared about affordability, they could also make premiums tax deductible for people who pay their own medical insurance, not just for people who use a payroll deduction"

Cut that shit; don't perpetuate irrational behavior. The government should start taxing benefits in addition to cash wages, it's the only way to correct the appalling incentives.

7/12/2007 5:18:49 PM

^ That would suck royaly, then not only would my out of pocket payments increase, but I would be taxed more, essentialy having even less money to pay for my healthcare. The point is to get the government out, not give them more incentive to be involved.

Quote :

"this is already the case."

As 1 said, only above a certain point, or if you put it into a use it or lose it account. Why not just be completely tax deductable. If it's a medical care bill, let me deduct it.

7/12/2007 6:14:34 PM

A point that SiCKO didn't address was the cost of specific health care items and procedures to governments with socialiced medicine versus the cost to us as American consumers for those same items and procedures.

7/12/2007 6:48:06 PM

Quote :

"And where praytell is this accountability going to come from? When you have issue with the government paid for care, who do you go to?"

Your lawyer, same as every other country and same as with the current system.

Quote :

"There absolutely is a bennefit because you're rewarding doctors for having patients that don't come back for the same issue. At some point you have to declare that the issue was succesfully diagnosed, then all the doctor has to do is hold of the patient until then and they get their bonus. Unless you're planning on taking back bonuses and then you get into the issue of punishing doctors for what may have been a reasonable diagnosis at the time. "

Dude, it's not my job to explain the process to you. It WORKS in Britain. It WORKS in other countries with similar incentive programs. The hysteria you have is simply unfounded.

Quote :

"1) Why is 120 - 190 a fair salary? 2) Oversight and balance by the people and policing ethical violations? blah blah unrelated political babble? You have far more faith in this system than I. Personally I trust a company more than the government. I know the company's motive, profit. Praytell, what motivates the government? What incentive to improve when they can just tax you more? 3) No situation I have brought up is hypothetical. They are all very real situations which are or have happened to real people. "

1) Go look up the average salary for GP's in the US currently. 135-177k
2) You mean the company in an oligopoly? The industry with no free market competition, and no consumer alternative? This is unlike ANY other private industry. Consumer choice in the free market allows them to seek alternatives. The alternative to the HMO is death. I do not trust a company with my life, or anyone elses. They are accountable to Wall Street, not the well-being of their customers. If an ill patient dies, it's a financial advantage to them.
3) Yes, you have taken every single "real" situation and filled it with what-ifs, potential outcomes, and complete conjecture because you have absolutely zero knowledge of the alternative.

Quote :

"And where the government is involved, I assure you that greed will win over ethics every time. "

Did you just say this? I can say, with MUCH more certainty and PROOF, that where the corporation is involved, I assure you that greed will win over ethics every time.

Quote :

"Again, oversight from where? Furthermore, of course it exists. In the current system however, it's mitigated by the fact that these people usually can't afford to visit every doctor in the state until they find one to give them their drugs. Under your system, it's free, so they can visit as many times as they like. "

Oversight comes from the non-profit running it, as well as from the consumer, because THEY can LOOK at the PUBLIC records. It's called public oversight. It happens all the time. As for your "people will go to the doctor all day every day!!!!" hysteria. Not a problem in existing countries with this kind of policy.

Quote :

"Mine can't either. If it isn't critical though, and if he can live through the pain, why should other people pay for it anyway? Question: Why is it acceptable to make him wait months or even years under a system where someone else pays for it, but it's not acceptable to make him wait until he can pay for it?"

First of all, 6 months is the longest wait for any surgery in any country, see the numbers from earlier in the thread. He's going on 6 years here. He can't walk more than a 1/2 mile a day. You want more?

Quote :

"I'm arguing that definitions of critical surgery vary from person to person. I'm sure an painter would find that optical surgery, while elective to most people, would be quite critical to him."

You aren't arguing anything. You are making completely uninformed stabs in the dark at something you don't comprehend conceptually. If you ARE SO WORRIED about the difference in terminology, go read about how it's dealt with in existing systems. There are a myriad of solutions to what is a seriously tiny tiny issue.

Quote :

"But I don't get my money back from the government for the services I didn't use."

Tell you what then. You stop paying taxes, and never leave your property. This is the most stupid ignorant statement I've yet to read in this thread. The PURPOSE of government and taxation is to provide services to the populace that should be standard for the population. Basic communication (USPS), basic mobility (Roads, Trains), basic rights (Courts), protection (Fire, Police), education (Primary, Secondary and Tertiary) etc.

To say that BASIC health shouldn't be among this list is unfathomable to me.

Quote :

"Do you own property? Cars, homes, boats? Then you have assets with which to secure a loan. If you have no insurance, most hospitals offer payment plans, and in some cases will even do the work for free or extremely reduced costs."

Way to backpedal there, moving from a credit loan to an equity loan. See there's a huge difference. If you buy a car and can't pay, they reposses the car. Buy a house and can't pay, they take away the house. You go bankrupt. Can't pay for a surgery? You die.

30% of americans do not own a home. That's the single real benchmark for an equity loan. You are leaving 80 MILLION PEOPLE out in the dark. And the number of hospitals that do reduced or free work is absolutely miniscule.

Quote :

"But why should she have had to wait at all? Why create a system like that? Why a system where a relatively simple procedure could turn into a major issue simply because it's the only available option? Sure she can buy supplemental insurance, but again, then she's paying TWICE for the same issue. Why bother with the government insurance in the first place? Arguably she could have afforded even BETTER service if the money she paid into the system could have been used for purchase of private medical insurance. "

You just said she paid out of pocket ANYWAY. You can't argue better service, because there is no basis for it. And here you are with MORE of your conjecture of "could turn into a major issue". Which is why doctors make medical decisions and not laymen.

Quote :

"The bottom line is, if the government really wanted to make sure that people were covered, they would put policies in place that make it conducive for insurance companies to compete and provide better coverage. Make medical payements tax deductable. Stop taking money out of my paycheck to pay for other people's health. Consider: The money that the government takes out of my paycheck each month for other people combined with the money that my company pays for my medical insurance, combined with the additional money I pay for my medical insurance would buy me an insurance plan that is far and beyond what I have now. But, because of the way the taxes are done, I can't afford my own health care because my company would give me less money for it (no tax break for them), I would be taxed on it (no tax break for me) and I can't get the money the federal government takes out back. In short, I'm stuck with one provider, with no bargaining power because the government takes the money that I could use for my health to pay for someone elses. "

The bottom line is, no policy changes the fact that HMO's have NO inherent interest in the well-being of their customer. Why in the hell should medical payments be tax deductible? You don't ask for your private insurance premiums back when you dont see the doctor.

I really can't even respond to the rest of this drivel, because you have absolutely no concept of what taxation is, what government is fundamentally in place to do, or why you pay tax at all.

Quote :

"Another thought to consider, immediately after the federal government started putting massive ammounts of tax money into the medical system, medical spending as a percentage of GDP jumped to astronomically higher rates than the rest of the world, and has stayed there. It was also at that point when out of pocket expendatures saw a massive decrease. So government spending replaced private spending, and total expendatures went up dramatically. Who would have thunk?"

Government spending went into Medicare/Medicaid because older people COULDNT GET HEALTHCARE, BECAUSE THE PRIVATE SYSTEM IS SO FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED A STOPGAP SOLUTION HAD TO BE ENACTED.

7/12/2007 6:57:54 PM

Quote :

"A point that SiCKO didn't address was the cost of specific health care items and procedures to governments with socialiced medicine versus the cost to us as American consumers for those same items and procedures."

Very true, and on the last page of this thread I posted those numbers.

American spends more than DOUBLE any other country on the current hybrid system we have in place now, per person in both tax and private insurance.

7/12/2007 6:59:11 PM

LOL, Noen is turning into Kris

7/12/2007 7:24:24 PM

howso?

7/12/2007 7:36:16 PM

I certainly agree that our current healthcare system has some major problems. I'm not sure how to fix these problems but I don't believe that socialized healthcare is the answer. Anyone who has ever seen the inside of a VA hospital can tell you about the bang-up job the government does with that sort of thing.

Getting back to the original topic, I generally don't agree with much of what Micheal Moore says, but I try to at least hear him out. The problem is that he comes across as such an over-inflated ass that he completely puts me off before I even get a chance to hear what he has to say. He spent half of that interview either pissing and moaning about Iraq, or blasting CNN for not agreeing with him enough before he even answered one question about the movie. He may have had some good points but by that time I didn't want to hear them, at least not from him. And for a guy who has proven to not be 100% on the level in the past, he sure spent a lot of time telling CNN that they needed to tell the truth.

I mean no disrespect to anyone who shares Moore's views on healthcare (although I'm inclined to dissagree). It's just that the guy is a polarizing figure and I tend not to like those no matter what their views are.

7/13/2007 12:13:20 AM

Quote :

"Your lawyer, same as every other country and same as with the current system. "

You ever tried to sue the government? There's a reason why the phrase "You can't fight city hall" exists.

Quote :

"Dude, it's not my job to explain the process to you. It WORKS in Britain. It WORKS in other countries with similar incentive programs. The hysteria you have is simply unfounded. "

It doesn't matter if it works, it matters if it's effective, efficient and the best deal for your money.

Quote :

"1) Go look up the average salary for GP's in the US currently. 135-177k"

Why should it remain the same though? Explain to me why tax dollars should hold up the astronomical sallaries?

Quote :

"2) You mean the company in an oligopoly? The industry with no free market competition, and no consumer alternative? This is unlike ANY other private industry."

Due to government interference among other things. And yet your solution is to have the government completely replace this oligopoly with a monopoly. Excellent idea.

Quote :

"Consumer choice in the free market allows them to seek alternatives. The alternative to the HMO is death. "

Or paying out of pocket. In fact, if more people paid out of pocket for more medical procedures, perhaps the cost of the procedures might drop to levels that the market could better bear. Again, your problem is the lack of options, and your proposed solution is to eliminate the remaining options.

Quote :

"I do not trust a company with my life, or anyone elses. "

Yet, you trust it to the government. An organization that has time and time again proven to be corrupt and influenced by forces which are contrary to the wellbeing of the people. And yet, when a company grows too corrupt, it dies (see Enron), but the government just continues to grow.

Quote :

"They are accountable to Wall Street, not the well-being of their customers. If an ill patient dies, it's a financial advantage to them."

If an ill patient dies in the government system, how is that not a financial advantage to them? It means more resources for the rest of us. Corporations are so much more accountable to the people than the government.

Quote :

"Did you just say this? I can say, with MUCH more certainty and PROOF, that where the corporation is involved, I assure you that greed will win over ethics every time. "

So we're screwed either way, but with corporations, I have a choice. If it's all the same to you, I'd like the ass rape with lube, thank you.

Quote :

"Oversight comes from the non-profit running it, as well as from the consumer, because THEY can LOOK at the PUBLIC records. It's called public oversight. It happens all the time. "

Yes, that wonderful public oversight. Doing so well with the current administration isn't it? Amazing how much pork spending has been cut back recently. Oh, did you notice how well public oversight worked to prevent horrible flooding in New Orleans? Perhaps you mean the public records that the current government is seaking to reclassify? Those public records?

See, here's my bit, all of the above can and does happen with corporations, I agree, but with a corporation, I can go to a third party (that's the government) to get a (supposedly) fair outcome. When I have a problem with the government, however, I have to convince the government that the government is wrong. That's much more difficult.

Quote :

"As for your "people will go to the doctor all day every day!!!!" hysteria. Not a problem in existing countries with this kind of policy."

Are you saying there are no drains on the system?

Quote :

"First of all, 6 months is the longest wait for any surgery in any country, see the numbers from earlier in the thread. He's going on 6 years here. He can't walk more than a 1/2 mile a day. You want more? "

Explain to me if he is fucntioning and surviving just fine, and therefore not in critical need of surgery, why anyone else but himself should foot the bill for it any more than someone should fit the bill for a boob job for a movie star?

Quote :

"You aren't arguing anything. You are making completely uninformed stabs in the dark at something you don't comprehend conceptually. If you ARE SO WORRIED about the difference in terminology, go read about how it's dealt with in existing systems. There are a myriad of solutions to what is a seriously tiny tiny issue. "

Any solution to the problem ultimately leaves someone screwed. I thought the purpose here was to get everyone what they need when they need it.

Quote :

"Tell you what then. You stop paying taxes, and never leave your property. This is the most stupid ignorant statement I've yet to read in this thread. The PURPOSE of government and taxation is to provide services to the populace that should be standard for the population."

Wrong, the purpose of the government is and I quote:

Quote :

"form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

Quote :

"Basic communication (USPS)"

I would love to get my money back from this. The last time I used the USPS was when the USPS sent me spam.

Quote :

"basic mobility (Roads, Trains)"

1) Originaly provided by state governments (I have less issue with localized healthcare)
2) I use the roads every day, therefore I pay for them
3) There are no alternatives to this
4) Even if I did not personaly use the roads, the services which I do use use those roads and thus I am directly bennefited from those roads.

Quote :

" basic rights (Courts)"

1) Most courts are state financed
2) The purpose of the government is to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty, this is directly outlined and provided for in the "mission statement"

Quote :

"protection (Fire, Police)"

1) State provided and financed
2) This is a service provided by the government which can not reasonably exclude any one individual. It is therefore impossible to allow someone to "opt out" of police protection, and therefore only reasonable that he pay for that service.

Quote :

"education (Primary, Secondary and Tertiary) etc."

You don't seriously want to point to our education system as a shining example of government success do you? Furthermore, I've already made it clear I feel that if I want to take my kids to a private school, I believe I should get all the money that would be spent on my child's education at a public school back from the government.

Quote :

"To say that BASIC health shouldn't be among this list is unfathomable to me. "

Why? Of what bennefit do I directly recieve in having your dad have his hip replaced at my expense? What bennefit do you recieve in having my better half's teeth removed at yours? Tell me how forcing me to pay for other people's healthcare bennefits me. Or at the very least, tell me why government provided healthcare is a bennefit I could not easily be excluded from like military protection is?

7/13/2007 12:50:04 AM

Quote :

"Way to backpedal there, moving from a credit loan to an equity loan. See there's a huge difference. If you buy a car and can't pay, they reposses the car. Buy a house and can't pay, they take away the house. You go bankrupt. Can't pay for a surgery? You die. "

Who's back pedaling? You said it was impossible to get a loan to cover medical procedures.

Quote :

"30% of americans do not own a home. That's the single real benchmark for an equity loan. You are leaving 80 MILLION PEOPLE out in the dark. And the number of hospitals that do reduced or free work is absolutely miniscule."

Got any proof that the number of hospitals that do reduced work, free work OR provide payment plans or loans (nice of you to forget that part) is miniscule?

Quote :

"You just said she paid out of pocket ANYWAY. You can't argue better service, because there is no basis for it. And here you are with MORE of your conjecture of "could turn into a major issue". Which is why doctors make medical decisions and not laymen. "

She paid out of pocket because she chooses not to have medical insurance because it's cheaper to pay out of pocket at this point in her life. In the last TWO YEARS she spent a little over $1500 on medical expenses, and that includes the surgical teeth extraction, 1 attempted extraction, 2 office visits, 1 visit to urgent care, 2 personal office visits, 1 neuro specialist visit, 1 eye exam + contacts.

For those of you keeping score at home that's ~$63 a month in medical bills and on some very unusal circumstances. Cheaper than most insurance plans. Now here's the fun part, the reason the bill is so low is because she had no insurance. No-insurance discounts and eliminated most of the cost, and the neuro visit was charitable because at the time, she had no income, although, the hospital also offered payment plans which we were also willing to partake in and would have added another $500 on to the bill after interest.

Now, could the government plan have done it for less than $63 a month. Possibly, but in every instance above, except for 2, she had everything done in a week or less, much of it same day. And none of it was "critical" procedures.

Under your system, she could have waited for everything and paid less, or paid more and got it done in the same ammount of time it took her under the current system.

Quote :

"The bottom line is, no policy changes the fact that HMO's have NO inherent interest in the well-being of their customer."

Sure they do. My well being means less use of their services while paying money for longer ammounts of time. You better beleive they have an interest in that.

Quote :

"Why in the hell should medical payments be tax deductible? You don't ask for your private insurance premiums back when you dont see the doctor. "

1) I choose to pay my insurance premiums.
2) It's because it's tax deductable for my employer. If it was for me too, I could afford to shop arround for insurance, generating MORE competition. As it stands, I can not afford that because of government policies.

Quote :

"I really can't even respond to the rest of this drivel, because you have absolutely no concept of what taxation is, what government is fundamentally in place to do, or why you pay tax at all. "

No, I very much do understand. The problem is, you and I have different understandings. The difference is, where I believe your understanding comes from a difference in philosophies, you seem to think mine comes from an ignorance of medical care for the poor when you know nothing about me.

Quote :

"Government spending went into Medicare/Medicaid because older people COULDNT GET HEALTHCARE, BECAUSE THE PRIVATE SYSTEM IS SO FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED A STOPGAP SOLUTION HAD TO BE ENACTED."

Government spending increased by almost the exact rate and ammount that consumer spending decreased, and yet all of a sudden spending as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed. Why?

7/13/2007 12:50:27 AM

No, I very much do understand. The problem is, you and I have different understandings. The difference is, where I believe your understanding comes from a difference in philosophies, you seem to think mine comes from an ignorance of medical care for the poor when you know nothing about me.
Dear lord you are dense.

Quote :

"You ever tried to sue the government? There's a reason why the phrase "You can't fight city hall" exists."

Doctor, not the government. It's called malpractice.

Quote :

"It doesn't matter if it works, it matters if it's effective, efficient and the best deal for your money."

What do you think I mean't by "it works"? That would imply effectiveness. "Efficiency" in healthcare is an extremely thin double-edged sword. But just to lay it out for you, it's effective and efficient.

Quote :

" Why should it remain the same though? Explain to me why tax dollars should hold up the astronomical sallaries?"

Are you really going to argue, seriously, that doctors are OVER paid? They go through more training than any other working professional in our society, incur the most debt during the training, they have some of the highest insurance rates because of malpractice of any profession. This is an absolutely ignorant statement. And 120-190k would keep us on a level playing field. If you lower the pay, they go to other countries and lower the standard of care here.

Quote :

"Due to government interference among other things. And yet your solution is to have the government completely replace this oligopoly with a monopoly. Excellent idea."

Bullshit, plain and simple. The government has not been some tyrant causing HMO's to devolve into the state they are in. They've operated this way since day 1, it's only gotten worse and worse. And it's not instituting a monopoly. See mail carriers.

Quote :

"Or paying out of pocket. In fact, if more people paid out of pocket for more medical procedures, perhaps the cost of the procedures might drop to levels that the market could better bear. Again, your problem is the lack of options, and your proposed solution is to eliminate the remaining options. "

This is ONLY a viable option for a percentage of the young population. I guess you plan on killing yourself at 40, because once you hit middle age and especially retirement, good luck with this plan.

Quote :

"Yet, you trust it to the government. An organization that has time and time again proven to be corrupt and influenced by forces which are contrary to the wellbeing of the people. And yet, when a company grows too corrupt, it dies (see Enron), but the government just continues to grow."

You seem to forget companies like Sony, Exxon, Xerox, Worldcom, Qwest, GE, Duke Energy, Halliburton, Merill Lynch, Arthur Anderson who have all be found guilty of massive corruption and that's only mentioning accounting scandals. Yet all these companies are still in business, and doing quite well. You are making yet another argument based on your own hysteria and not on fact. Where do you think the corruption in government comes from? Private corporations. You seem to ignore the fact that most governmental corruption comes from its interaction with the private sector, not within itself. At most, internally, you can really only argue that our government is inefficient.

Quote :

"If an ill patient dies in the government system, how is that not a financial advantage to them? It means more resources for the rest of us. Corporations are so much more accountable to the people than the government."

Because the government is not a for-profit enterprise. Keeping people healthy and alive means more tax revenue, it's a self-helping system. Corporations are only accountable to their shareholders, not to the people.

Quote :

"So we're screwed either way, but with corporations, I have a choice. If it's all the same to you, I'd like the ass rape with lube, thank you."

With universal health you'd still have a choice. The FACTS are, there is no evidence what-so-ever that the quality of care is compromised in a universal system. NONE. Wait times, maybe. You are expressing an irrational and unfounded, baseless opinion.

Quote :

"Yes, that wonderful public oversight. Doing so well with the current administration isn't it? Amazing how much pork spending has been cut back recently. Oh, did you notice how well public oversight worked to prevent horrible flooding in New Orleans? Perhaps you mean the public records that the current government is seaking to reclassify? Those public records?"

More superfluous banter. I get that you have a hysterical fear of government.

Quote :

"See, here's my bit, all of the above can and does happen with corporations, I agree, but with a corporation, I can go to a third party (that's the government) to get a (supposedly) fair outcome. When I have a problem with the government, however, I have to convince the government that the government is wrong. That's much more difficult."

No see, the government is corrupted by the corporations. So if you have a problem with an HMO, you won't get anywhere in the government, because they have bought everyone off. Getting rid of the special interest (and therefore the greed money) magically removes a great deal of corruption, conflict of interest and pork barrel spending.

Quote :

"Explain to me if he is fucntioning and surviving just fine, and therefore not in critical need of surgery, why anyone else but himself should foot the bill for it any more than someone should fit the bill for a boob job for a movie star?"

He isn't. But since you can't tell the difference between a boob job and a non-existant hip socket replacement, it's not even worth arguing. You are just trolling at this point.

Quote :

"Any solution to the problem ultimately leaves someone screwed. I thought the purpose here was to get everyone what they need when they need it."

7/13/2007 3:44:23 AM

You are arguing about a painter having an eye appointment. I'm arguing about the 25 million people without the means to afford medical care, much less insurance.

Quote :

""form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity""

promote the general welfare. Maybe you missed this. I'd say health is part of the general welfare. So is a transportation system, water and sewer, et al.

Quote :

"I would love to get my money back from this. The last time I used the USPS was when the USPS sent me spam."

See here it shows just how blindly you are arguing. You don't pay anything toward the USPS. It's an independent organization overseen by the executive branch.

Quote :

"1) Originaly provided by state governments (I have less issue with localized healthcare) 2) I use the roads every day, therefore I pay for them 3) There are no alternatives to this 4) Even if I did not personaly use the roads, the services which I do use use those roads and thus I am directly bennefited from those roads. 2) The purpose of the government is to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty, this is directly outlined and provided for in the "mission statement" 2) This is a service provided by the government which can not reasonably exclude any one individual. It is therefore impossible to allow someone to "opt out" of police protection, and therefore only reasonable that he pay for that service."

1) You sir, are an idiot. Do you not realize that many universal healthcare plans are managed at the "state" level and almost completely autonomously as that? Including our Canadian neighbors and the UK.
2) You pay taxes to promote THE GENERAL WELFARE, this isn't an a-la-carte country, and no country could operate that way.
3) Yes there are, you can walk through the woods or you can travel on only private roads.
4) You are indirectly benefitted by most government programs.
2) Promoting the GENERAL WELFARE is also explicitly outlined
2) Duh. My point entirely.

Quote :

"You don't seriously want to point to our education system as a shining example of government success do you? Furthermore, I've already made it clear I feel that if I want to take my kids to a private school, I believe I should get all the money that would be spent on my child's education at a public school back from the government."

What about the person who never needs the cops, never has to call the fire department, never uses a road and is completely self-sustaining? Your CHOICE does not exclude you from your DUTY as a citizen to pay taxes to promote the GENERAL welfare. Plain and simple. You may not LIKE it, but its the only way a centralized government can operate.

Quote :

"Why? Of what bennefit do I directly recieve in having your dad have his hip replaced at my expense? What bennefit do you recieve in having my better half's teeth removed at yours? Tell me how forcing me to pay for other people's healthcare bennefits me. Or at the very least, tell me why government provided healthcare is a bennefit I could not easily be excluded from like military protection is?"

Because for all you know my dad could save your life one day, and your better half may end up helping me. Even if you never recieve a direct impact, is it not enough to know someone else's life is better? You pay for YOUR benefits. The same way you pay for your roads and your police. Whether you use them is up to you. Hopefully you never have to. I'd gladly redirect my monthly insurance premium to the government knowing it would go to help someone else get well.

Quote :

"Who's back pedaling? You said it was impossible to get a loan to cover medical procedures. "

You have yet to show me how ANYONE can. If you rent an apartment and live paycheck to paycheck, you can still get a loan on a car, but you sure as hell can't get one for surgery, much less on a chronic condition, based on your proposals so far.

Quote :

"Got any proof that the number of hospitals that do reduced work, free work OR provide payment plans or loans (nice of you to forget that part) is miniscule?"

It varies from state to state. Feel free to pull up some numbers to negate my assertion. Also you might want read this: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/25/business/hospital.php
As it shows how this free and reduced care directly increases YOUR cost when you do need medical attention.

Quote :

"She paid out of pocket because she chooses not to have medical insurance because it's cheaper to pay out of pocket at this point in her life. In the last TWO YEARS she spent a little over $1500 on medical expenses, and that includes the surgical teeth extraction, 1 attempted extraction, 2 office visits, 1 visit to urgent care, 2 personal office visits, 1 neuro specialist visit, 1 eye exam + contacts. For those of you keeping score at home that's ~$63 a month in medical bills and on some very unusal circumstances. Cheaper than most insurance plans. Now here's the fun part, the reason the bill is so low is because she had no insurance. No-insurance discounts and eliminated most of the cost, and the neuro visit was charitable because at the time, she had no income, although, the hospital also offered payment plans which we were also willing to partake in and would have added another $500 on to the bill after interest. Now, could the government plan have done it for less than $63 a month. Possibly, but in every instance above, except for 2, she had everything done in a week or less, much of it same day. And none of it was "critical" procedures. Under your system, she could have waited for everything and paid less, or paid more and got it done in the same ammount of time it took her under the current system."

So #1 you lucked out, #2 she is effectively paying 63 a month at the most healthy point of her life, and #3, under a universal plan (its not my system), worst case she would have paid the same amount, best case she would have the same amount of money in her pocket.

I hope you don't ever plan to have kids, because without insurance you are going to be in for a big ass hit on that one. And if you get insurance, you are going to pay out the ass in premiums. I hope you also realize if you get her pregnant first, you won't be able to get her insured.

Quote :

"Sure they do. My well being means less use of their services while paying money for longer ammounts of time. You better beleive they have an interest in that. "

No, they dont. Because as soon as you DO have a problem, you premium skyrockets. They kick you from both ends, so they profit regardless and independent of your condition. They could give a damn if you are healthy or not as long as you keep paying.

Quote :

"1) I choose to pay my insurance premiums. 2) It's because it's tax deductable for my employer. If it was for me too, I could afford to shop arround for insurance, generating MORE competition. As it stands, I can not afford that because of government policies."

It's deductible for your employer because of the other things they have to pay for, namely workers comp, unemployment and payroll taxes. Promoting the health of their employees has a direct lessening effect on the demands of the government, hence the break. And no, you don't generate more competition. DO you even know what an oligopoly is?

Quote :

"No, I very much do understand. The problem is, you and I have different understandings. The difference is, where I believe your understanding comes from a difference in philosophies, you seem to think mine comes from an ignorance of medical care for the poor when you know nothing about me. "

No, you don't. It's apparent, because I keep having to routinely hammer into you public works programs are for. And you have no concept of why a-la-carte services and privatization does not work for so many of our public institutions. The difference is, I have an opinion based in reality and research, you have an opinion based on fear, selfishness, and a lack of understanding or background. It comes from an ignorance of a lot more than medical care for the poor, seriously ill, terminally ill, and aged.

Quote :

"Government spending increased by almost the exact rate and ammount that consumer spending decreased, and yet all of a sudden spending as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed. Why?"

Because you are leaving 50 million people out of the loop. And when you neglect the poor, its the well off who pay MORE for it. Provide care for everyone and the NET effect is less cost per person.

7/13/2007 3:44:45 AM

Even if a socialized system would fix the problems in our health care system, Does anyone have any real faith that our government is capable of effectively supporting one?

I certainly don't. All of the truly intelligent people who would be capable of creating a socialized system are smart enough to stay the hell away from the public sector.

When is the last time that our government (whether federal or state) has had real success with any large scale effort that directly benefits the public?

7/13/2007 7:46:42 AM

Quote :

"Even if a socialized system would fix the problems in our health care system, Does anyone have any real faith that our government is capable of effectively supporting one? "

[no]

Quote :

"When is the last time that our government (whether federal or state) has had real success with any large scale effort that directly benefits the public?"

eisenhower interstate system

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 9:25 AM. Reason : 

7/13/2007 9:24:19 AM

This shit is getting too long so I'm only going to hit on the major points:

Quote :

"Doctor, not the government. It's called malpractice. "

The doctor is on the payroll of the government, therefore I am fighting the government.

Quote :

"t's not instituting a monopoly. See mail carriers. "

You do know that with the exception of "extremely urgent" mail, the USPS is the only agency company or group allowed to carry mail in the US right? Sounds like a monopoly to me.

Quote :

"At most, internally, you can really only argue that our government is inefficient."

Right, so inefficiency + corruption > corruption? That's my point. Do you think this healthcare system is going to magically appear out of thin air with no dealings with the private sector?

Quote :

"Corporations are only accountable to their shareholders, not to the people."

The shareholders are the people, and they have much more direct control over the company than the people have over the government.

Quote :

"With universal health you'd still have a choice. The FACTS are, there is no evidence what-so-ever that the quality of care is compromised in a universal system. NONE. Wait times, maybe."

No, I have no choice to go at it alone and save myself money because my money is being siphoned into a tax system that I'm not using at all. Furthermore, wait times are part of the quality of care.

Quote :

"More superfluous banter. I get that you have a hysterical fear of government. "

Not fear, severe mistrust. Or are you arguing that none of the above was due to a failure in public oversight?

Quote :

"Getting rid of the special interest (and therefore the greed money) magically removes a great deal of corruption, conflict of interest and pork barrel spending. "

Because the government is clearly free from special interest, greed, corruption and conflict of interest right? Or are you again proposing that this magical healthcare system will be able to avoid the private sector entirely?

Quote :

"He isn't. But since you can't tell the difference between a boob job and a non-existant hip socket replacement, it's not even worth arguing. You are just trolling at this point."

Elective surgery is elective surgery my friend, or are we finally agreeing that there are different perceptions of elective and critical or even just plain important.

Quote :

"You are arguing about a painter having an eye appointment. I'm arguing about the 25 million people without the means to afford medical care, much less insurance."

Of those 25 million, how many NEED the care, and how many CHOOSE not to pay for the care?

Quote :

"promote the general welfare. Maybe you missed this. I'd say health is part of the general welfare. So is a transportation system, water and sewer, et al."

Right, general welfare. A system which screws part of the public for the bennefit of a smaller part of the public is not for the general welfare.

And you do know that you can privately provide your own water and waste systems right?

Quote :

"See here it shows just how blindly you are arguing. You don't pay anything toward the USPS. It's an independent organization overseen by the executive branch. "

Close. It's mostly funded by it's own activities however it does recieve compensation from congress for various activities it is required to do. If it were entirely self funded, it would be a perfect example of a government system which people can either chose to pay for or not pay for.

Quote :

") You sir, are an idiot. Do you not realize that many universal healthcare plans are managed at the "state" level and almost completely autonomously as that? Including our Canadian neighbors and the UK."

If it's federal tax money, it's not state run. As for the general welfare bits, see above.

Quote :

"You have yet to show me how ANYONE can. If you rent an apartment and live paycheck to paycheck, you can still get a loan on a car, but you sure as hell can't get one for surgery, much less on a chronic condition, based on your proposals so far. "

Oddly enough, by better half did just that while living paycheck to paycheck on a waitressing job.

Quote :

"They could give a damn if you are healthy or not as long as you keep paying. "

Then why do they cover preventative care?

Quote :

"And no, you don't generate more competition. DO you even know what an oligopoly is? "

If more people had more means to choose you don't think there would be more competition?

7/13/2007 9:33:38 AM

Here's an idea that I would support:

Rather than scrapping the entire system as it currently exists, what if a government controlled insurance company was formed that would compete in the same market as profit-based providers.

If, as you socialists claim, too much profit and too little service is the problem, the state owned insurance company, focused on servicing the population rather than the shareholders, should be able to undercut the for-profit insurance companies while still providing better services to their policy holders as well. Eschewing profit as a mission, it should be able to offer more affordable policies for a large portion of those without medical coverage.

It's not a be-all-end all type of solution, but it can address one of the large problems with the healthcare industry.

7/13/2007 10:02:47 AM

Now thats an idea I could see supporting. I've actually always wondered why, if profit is the big problem here, why there aren't non profit insurance companies, similar to how a Credit Union functions like a non profit bank. I presume it in part has to do with regulations on who and how health care and insurance can be provided.

7/13/2007 12:07:24 PM

michael moore is a ranting morbidly obese fool

7/13/2007 12:32:20 PM

^.

theres no way i'm reading the rest of this thread.

7/13/2007 1:59:51 PM

Quote :

"I've actually always wondered why, if profit is the big problem here, why there aren't non profit insurance companies, similar to how a Credit Union functions like a non profit bank. I presume it in part has to do with regulations on who and how health care and insurance can be provided."

Blue Cross Blue Shield NC is non-profit Lots of them are "non-profit" which doesn't mean much (just spend the money or retain it). I agree that it is a good idea.

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : NC]

7/13/2007 2:10:46 PM

Taking the non-profit status to another level would be a government run organization (rather than a non-profit which is still a private business) that competes in the free market.

If a government run healthcare organization can do a better job than what we have today, why not have it compete? IF it's executed properly, at worst it can bring the price of health care down by forcing the insurance companies to lower their prices and and at best, provide better service too.

And maybe some of you will get your wish, and the big insurance companies will be unable to compete and be driven out of business.

7/13/2007 3:19:21 PM

That is essentially what universal health care does, except at a larger scale. It won't work as a government run opt-in program though. Because it won't change the inherent flaw with the system now. That is, healthy people with high income won't buy it until it's too late to qualify (ie after a major injury), and those in poverty will still be the huge drain on the system they are now, because they won't be able to purchase it.

It's not a monopoly as dipshit 1337 b4k4 keeps blabbering. There is nothing preventing private service from continuing.

The whole concept of universal care, in monetary terms is:

-By covering everyone equally, you lower the amount of bleed money spent on people who would otherwise receive substandard care (homeless, destitute people), which is already happening now as a way for hospitals to lessen their losses to free care patients.

-The healthy person who has private health insurance now pays about the same amount, but rids themselves of deductibles, copay, et al.

-The chronically ill, elderly, children and invalids all get coverage that already comes out of our pockets via state programs and medicare.

-With the current HMO group insurance limits gone, no more company insurance, which means more money in the pockets of the employee and the potential for more tax break on the consumer end.

Really the only ones who "lose out" under a universal system are the people like 1337 b4k4 proposes who have no insurance and don't realize that they are going to get assraped with their premiums as they age. And even they end up paying LESS over their lifespan than by waiting until middle age to get coverage.

7/13/2007 6:34:10 PM

Healthy people lose out in a universal system. They end up having to pay extra taxes so that the government can pay medical bills for everyone else.

Quote :

"If anything it's more evidence of how fucked up and retarded our system is, that it takes a day on the phone to get a 50 dollar reimbursement."

Bad example. History shows that government red-tape is almost always much worse than dealing with private service companies.

Quote :

"With the current HMO group insurance limits gone, no more company insurance, which means more money in the pockets of the employee and the potential for more tax break on the consumer end."

Company insurance plans are cheaper for an employee than a single-payer system would be.

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 6:57 PM. Reason : 2]

7/13/2007 6:56:39 PM

Quote :

"The doctor is on the payroll of the government, therefore I am fighting the government. "

You can think this all you like, but you sue the doctor, not the organization. However you want to phrase it, it doesn't change how the actual legal proceeding would go, or who's insurance will pay the settlement.

Quote :

"You do know that with the exception of "extremely urgent" mail, the USPS is the only agency company or group allowed to carry mail in the US right? Sounds like a monopoly to me. Close. It's mostly funded by it's own activities however it does recieve compensation from congress for various activities it is required to do. If it were entirely self funded, it would be a perfect example of a government system which people can either chose to pay for or not pay for."

I'm aware of the definition. And you still have yet to explain to me the thriving urgent mail and freight industries.

And no, not close. The USPS makes ALL, 100% of it's money through postage. It is a perfect example of a government system that works. As an example of a working, social program. People don't live or die by not having the USPS though, they do with healthcare.

Quote :

"Right, so inefficiency + corruption > corruption? That's my point. Do you think this healthcare system is going to magically appear out of thin air with no dealings with the private sector? The shareholders are the people, and they have much more direct control over the company than the people have over the government. "

See problem #1 is that you corporate corruption and government corruption are like a cake and a fat kid. You can't compare them in the simple terms you are trying to. One feeds the other. Corporate corruption is on a massive scale larger than the government.

The shareholders are an tiny portion of the people. And you are delirious if you think the common man has any influence over a major corporation. Their actions are governed by the investment banks and mutual funds, not the end consumer. And even worse are the companies like Kaiser Permanente (incidentally the largest in the US) who operate multiple independent branches both for-profit and not-for-profit. Because when you run a non-profit, guess who has oversight on it's actions? It sure isn't the common man, and as long as they meet the federal accounting guidelines, it isn't the government either.

Quote :

"No, I have no choice to go at it alone and save myself money because my money is being siphoned into a tax system that I'm not using at all. Furthermore, wait times are part of the quality of care."

And as has already been established in this thread, the US has some of the longest wait times in the world for GP care, which is the majority of care. Much longer than universal plan countries. And for the worst case scenario, elective surgeries, it's still, on average, not a considerable difference.

Quote :

"Not fear, severe mistrust. Or are you arguing that none of the above was due to a failure in public oversight?"

They were due to a myriad of different problems, many of which have to do with the current administration and not the government as a body. Not to mention, I'm talking largely about state-run policy, not city or national bodies, so this is superfluous to the argument.

Quote :

"Because the government is clearly free from special interest, greed, corruption and conflict of interest right? Or are you again proposing that this magical healthcare system will be able to avoid the private sector entirely?"

I'm suggesting that it could have a positive effect yes. No to part 2. There needs to be a lot of fundamental reform with corporate lobbying.

Quote :

"Elective surgery is elective surgery my friend, or are we finally agreeing that there are different perceptions of elective and critical or even just plain important."

One is cosmetic surgery with ZERO health benefit. The other is a preventative surgery to prevent a degenerative condition from getting worse. You can't get a boob job in a national system either. You have yet to show me how this magical perception makes a difference. I hope you do though, because even if you do, please explain how waiting 6 years instead of 6 months is a good thing for any degenerative condition?

Quote :

"Of those 25 million, how many NEED the care, and how many CHOOSE not to pay for the care?"

Actually it's 47-50 million that dont have it, the 25 is pulling out the people who can't afford it in any way shape or form. And that number is only a temporary, and shrinking, population because as you age it's no longer a viable option.

Quote :

"Right, general welfare. A system which screws part of the public for the bennefit of a smaller part of the public is not for the general welfare. And you do know that you can privately provide your own water and waste systems right? "

Except it's not. The number of people who would be "screwed" as you put it, which I define as paying more under the new system versus the current one would be a major statistical minority. See that 25million people up there? There's your max "screwed" population, which is 10% MAX of the general population. So yes, it is for the general welfare.

And do you know that if you live in any municipality with central services you pay for those regardless in property taxes? My guess is, like all of your arguments so far, you don't actually understand the institutions you are rallying against. You always have the CHOICE to go with a private option IN ADDITION.

Quote :

"If it's federal tax money, it's not state run. As for the general welfare bits, see above."

Hmm that's funny, I never said that. Never inferred it either. I've been using a myriad of examples from every level of government. It would be state run. As for the general welfare bits, I just blew up your see above.

Quote :

"Oddly enough, by better half did just that while living paycheck to paycheck on a waitressing job."

Not major surgery, not a degenerative disease or disorder, not a life-threatening condition, not a major expense. Still waiting on you showing me how your proposal is a large scale viable alternative.

Quote :

"Then why do they cover preventative care?"

Who is they? Not all do, and you still have co-pays and deductables for it all.

Quote :

"If more people had more means to choose you don't think there would be more competition?"

They don't, there isn't, and it wouldn't matter. It's an oligopoly, which you still apparently don't understand.

7/13/2007 7:14:26 PM

Quote :

"Bad example. History shows that government red-tape is almost always much worse than dealing with private service companies. "

History shows that in countries with universal care, this is a non-issue. So yes, it's a major problem that would be solved by a universal system.

Quote :

"Company insurance plans are cheaper for an employee than a single-payer system would be."

Not always true. For some this may be the case, but across the board it would be cheaper for the consumer, because you would get more pay in your pocket and the employee benefits from tax breaks, not the company.

7/13/2007 7:18:37 PM

Quote :

"History shows that in countries with universal care, this is a non-issue."

LOL, yeah right. It's blatantly obvious that you have never tried to get medical treatment in Canada or England.

7/13/2007 7:29:08 PM

You said that in reference to the hospital getting their money from an HMO. It has nothing to do with treatment. And no I haven't, but I have decades of published literature to tell me about the people who have.

7/13/2007 9:12:52 PM

Quote :

"I'm aware of the definition. And you still have yet to explain to me the thriving urgent mail and freight industries. "

They exist in direct competition to the post office, and can be used without ever paying money to the post office. The fact that they are thriving demonstrates that while the government can provide a service, private companies offer a better and more diverse set of options.

Quote :

"And no, not close. The USPS makes ALL, 100% of it's money through postage."

A simple trip to the USPS website would save you from looking like a fool:

http://www.usps.com/financials/

Quote :

"The Board of Governors approved a fiscal year 2008 appropriation request totaling $153.4 million. This annual request to Congress, as provided under current law, includes $83.5 million in reimbursement for free services the Postal Service is required to provide, including free mail for blind persons and for overseas voting."

Quote :

"The shareholders are an tiny portion of the people. And you are delirious if you think the common man has any influence over a major corporation. Their actions are governed by the investment banks and mutual funds, not the end consumer."

You honestly believe that people have less control over companies and their impacts on their life than they do over the government?

Quote :

"They were due to a myriad of different problems, many of which have to do with the current administration and not the government as a body. Not to mention, I'm talking largely about state-run policy, not city or national bodies, so this is superfluous to the argument. "

Guess what. The "current administation" whoever that is at any time is part of the government as a body. Furthermore, just because it's "state run" doesn't make it any more or less subject to corruption than a local or federal program. For a wonderful example of a state run fuckup, how about the re-construction of 40?

Quote :

"I'm suggesting that it could have a positive effect yes. No to part 2. There needs to be a lot of fundamental reform with corporate lobbying. "

I'll tell you what. You fix the lobying issues, and then we can talk about government health care.

Quote :

"One is cosmetic surgery with ZERO health benefit. "

Self-esteem is a major mental health issue, so says the current school system. Who are you to deny someone a chance to feel better about themselves and improve their mental health just because you don't see any bennefit from it?

Am I being ridiculous? Of course. But then again, if you had told someone 50 years ago that you could sue a company and win for your own stupidity or that the courts would rule that the government could take your land and give it to another private entity to build private property to increase the tax base they would have told you that you're ridiculous too.

Quote :

"The number of people who would be "screwed" as you put it, which I define as paying more under the new system versus the current one would be a major statistical minority. See that 25million people up there? There's your max "screwed" "

No, anyone who's tax rate will go up and who will also elect to buy additional insurnace will be screwed. According to your own stats at least 15%-20% of people will purchase supplemental insurance. Factor in those who can't afford supplemental insurnace because of the increased tax burden and I figure you have a roughly 30ish% of people getting screwed by the system. You figure that roughly 25% of people can not afford current care at all. That leaves 45% of people who will either see a small bennefit or a small decrease in bennefit but who will mostly find themselves in the same situation they are now. Like I said, same ass rape, different lube.

Quote :

"Not major surgery, not a degenerative disease or disorder, not a life-threatening condition, not a major expense. "

Ever paid for treatment for a neurological disorder? Her medication alone would have cost the insurance company $1100 / month. Interestingly, the big bad evil corporations provide programs for people with limited income or other issues. A few phone calls and faxed forms and a payment plan and agreement is reached, a low cost loan is established, and treatment is availible.

Quote :

" Still waiting on you showing me how your proposal is a large scale viable alternative."

The same way that you think yours is. The power of size. If more people are given more options to obtain their healthcare and use their money as they see fit, more companies and more options will appear. If more people take their care into their own hands, the prices will reach what those people can afford to pay.

What stops the price of medical care from rising at a rate higher than the market can truely bear if the only payer is the government? The government will pay either way and if the costs go up, they can just tax the rich some more.

Quote :

"They don't, there isn't, and it wouldn't matter. It's an oligopoly, which you still apparently don't understand."

Why? How many people do you know can afford insurance outside of what their company offers? If government policy was reshaped to give people the freedom to choose between their company policy or a private system don't you think that the increase in the flow of money might just start some more competition? Or do you seriously think that the reason there are no better options out there is simply because no one wants the money that would be spent on a better option?

Look, it's clear to me that I'm not going to convince you that a national healthcare system in this country would be a bad idea, nor am I going to convince you that it's possible to care for yourself without Mamma Government holding your hand or Pappa Inurance to pay it for you. So lets just forget it.

7/13/2007 10:50:27 PM

Quote :

"They exist in direct competition to the post office, and can be used without ever paying money to the post office. The fact that they are thriving demonstrates that while the government can provide a service, private companies offer a better and more diverse set of options."

It illustrates that by providing a social service, it does not destroy the private sector, which is what you have been arguing for two pages.

Quote :

"A simple trip to the USPS website would save you from looking like a fool: http://www.usps.com/financials/ "

Hahahahaha, you even HIGHLIGHTED the parts. Did you even READ it? The US Government REIMBURSES the postal service for postage paid on subsidized services. It's not funding. It's payment for services rendered. I mean, good try though. I will reiterate, the postal service is funded by postage. When that postage is paid doesn't change the fact that it's how the service works.

Quote :

"You honestly believe that people have less control over companies and their impacts on their life than they do over the government?"

Yes. 100%. As a common man, you have 0% control over the corporate empire. You have like .01% control over your government, because you at least get to vote as a free right. I have no right to vote on changes within any company I do not own stock in.

Quote :

"Guess what. The "current administation" whoever that is at any time is part of the government as a body. Furthermore, just because it's "state run" doesn't make it any more or less subject to corruption than a local or federal program. For a wonderful example of a state run fuckup, how about the re-construction of 40?"

Guess what? The re-construction of I-40 delays and fuckups were due to incompetence on the part of the CONTRACTORS, who didn't meet their deadlines, budgets or quality standards. And who are paying for the fixes our of their pockets. But way to be wrong again, another wonderful example of how PRIVATE companies fuck over the people for a buck.

Quote :

"Am I being ridiculous? Of course. "

Enough said. I'm not going to argue with stupid drivel.

Quote :

"No, anyone who's tax rate will go up and who will also elect to buy additional insurnace will be screwed. According to your own stats at least 15%-20% of people will purchase supplemental insurance. Factor in those who can't afford supplemental insurnace because of the increased tax burden and I figure you have a roughly 30ish% of people getting screwed by the system. You figure that roughly 25% of people can not afford current care at all. That leaves 45% of people who will either see a small bennefit or a small decrease in bennefit but who will mostly find themselves in the same situation they are now. Like I said, same ass rape, different lube. "

Again, you are wrong. But I'm going to let you read about how supplemental insurance works in other systems and come back with some facts instead of your baseless opinion and completely out-of-thin-air percentages.

And that fact that you have no problem with 25+ million people do not have the means to live a healthy life says a lot about you. The fact that you care even more about the people who would be affected by a few dollars says even more.

Quote :

"Ever paid for treatment for a neurological disorder? Her medication alone would have cost the insurance company $1100 / month. Interestingly, the big bad evil corporations provide programs for people with limited income or other issues. A few phone calls and faxed forms and a payment plan and agreement is reached, a low cost loan is established, and treatment is availible. "

Funny you never mentioned that in her 63 dollars a month.

Quote :

"The same way that you think yours is. The power of size. If more people are given more options to obtain their healthcare and use their money as they see fit, more companies and more options will appear. If more people take their care into their own hands, the prices will reach what those people can afford to pay. What stops the price of medical care from rising at a rate higher than the market can truely bear if the only payer is the government? The government will pay either way and if the costs go up, they can just tax the rich some more."

Do you know why HMO's came into existance? Because people couldn't afford to bear the costs of their care out of pocket. You once again are wrong. Less than half of this country could afford to bear their own medical expenses out of pocket if there was no HMO system bearing the load. You would see deaths due to illness skyrocket as a result.

The same thing that stops the price of police, fire, and municiple employment from rising. And stop with your "tax the rich more" bullshit. The more you make, the less tax you pay as a percentage of total income. Seriously dude, you need to wake up. And before you come back trying to rebutt that, my parents worked for the IRS for years and have been in private practice for nearly a decade. The more you make, the more you can shelter.

Quote :

"Why? How many people do you know can afford insurance outside of what their company offers? If government policy was reshaped to give people the freedom to choose between their company policy or a private system don't you think that the increase in the flow of money might just start some more competition? Or do you seriously think that the reason there are no better options out there is simply because no one wants the money that would be spent on a better option?"

If through some grace of God the government forced insurace companies to make group plans open to individuals, they would likely just stop offering group plans. If they did open such plans to the public without the qualification process of individual plans, yes it would make a HUGE shift in competition and it would allow millions more poeple to be covered. However it won't happen, because it would bankrupt the companies.

There are no better options because its an oligopoly. I mean I can keep on repeating this as many times as you need me to. The barrier to entry is too high for new competition and the current players can crush small startups simply with the threat of pulling coverage from locations.

Quote :

"Look, it's clear to me that I'm not going to convince you that a national healthcare system in this country would be a bad idea, nor am I going to convince you that it's possible to care for yourself without Mamma Government holding your hand or Pappa Inurance to pay it for you. So lets just forget it."

I'm not sold on universal healthcare. Hence the point of debating it. I wouldn't be sitting here discussing it with you, especially at these lengths, if I were sure of my conviction. You have raised a number of very interesting points that have caused me to do more research to answer and I appreciate it greatly. There are some pretty big hurdles, and I definitely do not have all the answers.

However, since you think I'm some socialist health nut, I'll let you in on a couple of things. I finally got health insurance a month ago on a private, individual HSA plan through BCBS. Previous to that I haven't had insurance in almost 4 years. I'm well aware of how much less expensive it is to pay cash. I'm also aware that those savings come at a cost to the people who DO pay for their insurance. It's the exact same model as shoplifting and counterfeiting. I get mine cheaper and everyone else pays for it. I'm also keenly aware that should I have some major injury, which is entirely possible given my pasttimes and work environment, that I would be bankrupted and homeless.

7/13/2007 11:31:39 PM

Quote :

"It illustrates that by providing a social service, it does not destroy the private sector, which is what you have been arguing for two pages. "

So then tell me where the private sector for non USPS carried first class mail is?

Quote :

"The US Government REIMBURSES the postal service for postage paid on subsidized services. It's not funding. It's payment for services rendered. I mean, good try though. I will reiterate, the postal service is funded by postage. When that postage is paid doesn't change the fact that it's how the service works. "

But how that postage is paid does change how the service works. If you noticed, it was reimbursement for programs mandated by the government, for selected parts of population, paid out of congressional funds. Unless you think there's a "blind person" tax, this means that some of yours and my tax dollars are going to fund a program provided by the USPS.

Quote :

"Guess what? The re-construction of I-40 delays and fuckups were due to incompetence on the part of the CONTRACTORS, who didn't meet their deadlines, budgets or quality standards."

Shouldn't this all have been caught by public oversight beforehand?

Quote :

"And that fact that you have no problem with 25+ million people do not have the means to live a healthy life says a lot about you. The fact that you care even more about the people who would be affected by a few dollars says even more. "

It's not that I don't have a problem with it, it's that 1) I think there's a better way to deal with it and 2) I think we as a society are far to willing to say "It can't be done" when it gets much harder than filling out a form and getting a check cut from somewhere.

Quote :

"Funny you never mentioned that in her 63 dollars a month. "

Because I only covered the last 2 years. This part was pervious to that. The neuro specialist vist (which was mentioned) was in part to determine need to continue on the medication or not.

Quote :

"The more you make, the more you can shelter. "

And you shelter more because everyone else views you as a source of free money as long as they can get their congress critter behind the idea. Clearly a government funded program like this isn't going to come out of the people who will use it most, they already don't pay taxes in the first place.

Quote :

"If through some grace of God the government forced insurace companies to make group plans open to individuals, they would likely just stop offering group plans. If they did open such plans to the public without the qualification process of individual plans, yes it would make a HUGE shift in competition and it would allow millions more poeple to be covered. However it won't happen, because it would bankrupt the companies."

They don't need to force group plans to the public, just make it so that the public can equally afford their own plan (via tax deductions) or their company's plan. Look at it this way. If your company hires 5,000 people and they all can't afford anything but the company plan, that's 5,000 monthly payments the insurance company doesn't have to compete with other companies for. If those same 5,000 were suddenly given a tax restructure which made it possible for them to afford a similar private plan, all of a sudden, that insurance company has to compete for each one of those 5,000 plans individualy.

Quote :

"There are no better options because its an oligopoly. I mean I can keep on repeating this as many times as you need me to. The barrier to entry is too high for new competition and the current players can crush small startups simply with the threat of pulling coverage from locations."

And the question I"ve been asking continuously is WHY is the barrier of entry so high? How much of that is government interference?

7/14/2007 11:51:23 AM

Quote :

"Guess what? The re-construction of I-40 delays and fuckups were due to incompetence on the part of the CONTRACTORS, who didn't meet their deadlines, budgets or quality standards. And who are paying for the fixes our of their pockets. But way to be wrong again, another wonderful example of how PRIVATE companies fuck over the people for a buck."

Is this in regards to the repaving? Because if so, you are incorrect. It was all NCDOT that botched it.

7/14/2007 12:13:19 PM

^NCDOT contracts their work, it was Granite Construction who fucked up and paid up 3million bucks for the repairs. The federal government bailed them out with another 14.4 mil.

Quote :

"So then tell me where the private sector for non USPS carried first class mail is? But how that postage is paid does change how the service works. If you noticed, it was reimbursement for programs mandated by the government, for selected parts of population, paid out of congressional funds. Unless you think there's a "blind person" tax, this means that some of yours and my tax dollars are going to fund a program provided by the USPS."

You still don't get my point. Even in the face of a government imposed monopoly, private sector alternatives have thrived AND the government organization has continued to operate successfully. The USPS operates without losses, they do not need or rely on those government mandated programs to continue to operate. Your argument is that a government run social program will be corrupted, inefficient and will cost us more money. I'm showing you a government run social program that is as ethically sound as any company, efficient and costs us no money.

Quote :

"Shouldn't this all have been caught by public oversight beforehand?"

It was caught almost immediately by the NCDOT, there was no need for public oversight. If someone intentionally fucks up a contracted job, there isn't a damn thing you can do about until it's been done. That's how it works in private and public sectors. The fuckup happened over the course of less than a year and was the sole fault of a private contractor not doing what they were contractually obligated to do.

Quote :

"It's not that I don't have a problem with it, it's that 1) I think there's a better way to deal with it and 2) I think we as a society are far to willing to say "It can't be done" when it gets much harder than filling out a form and getting a check cut from somewhere."

You have yet to provide any alternative that makes any sense whatsoever. And your number two only furthers my argument that it's not that universal care isnt a good option, just that people aren't willing to understand it.

Quote :

"Because I only covered the last 2 years. This part was pervious to that. The neuro specialist vist (which was mentioned) was in part to determine need to continue on the medication or not."

Because nothing. You are trying to tell me how your no-insurance, private system is so cheap. I don't care why you left it out, but in doing so you invalidated your only decent argument so far, because it shows exactly my point, young healthy people get hit with problems too.

Quote :

"And you shelter more because everyone else views you as a source of free money as long as they can get their congress critter behind the idea. Clearly a government funded program like this isn't going to come out of the people who will use it most, they already don't pay taxes in the first place. "

No, it comes from everyone. That's the point. The police don't get paid by "who uses them the most", neither does the fire department, nor the judiciary. Yet you still don't seem to have a problem with them. And yes, poor people pay taxes. Another common myth. Maybe you missed the part about how the less money you make, the more effective tax you pay.

Quote :

"They don't need to force group plans to the public, just make it so that the public can equally afford their own plan (via tax deductions) or their company's plan. Look at it this way. If your company hires 5,000 people and they all can't afford anything but the company plan, that's 5,000 monthly payments the insurance company doesn't have to compete with other companies for. If those same 5,000 were suddenly given a tax restructure which made it possible for them to afford a similar private plan, all of a sudden, that insurance company has to compete for each one of those 5,000 plans individualy."

According to the US Census Bureau, just under 190 million people work for companies that can qualify for group insurance rates. To even qualify you have to have a minimum of 25 employees for most plans, but generally 50 employees is the real minumum. So you are still leaving 80 million people in the dark after this proposted restructure.

There ARE NO similar private plans. This is the curse of group plans. All to often people with major medical conditions are forced to make an unjust decision: keep working for their current company, regardless of pay or conditions, or die, because they get insurance on a private policy.

Quote :

"And the question I"ve been asking continuously is WHY is the barrier of entry so high? How much of that is government interference?"

That's a result of free-market economics. Very little, if any, has to do with government interference. It's a natural result of unincumbered free markets. If the government steps in early to ensure fair competition, then we might well have had a chance to see a different outcome. But they left the HMO's to themselves by and large, and this is the result.

7/14/2007 1:04:00 PM

Quote :

"^NCDOT contracts their work, it was Granite Construction who fucked up and paid up 3million bucks for the repairs. The federal government bailed them out with another 14.4 mil."

No, the NCDOT engineers had some strange ways they wanted some things done. The contractors told them that wasn't how they should do it, but NCDOT was hard headed and wanted it done their way. And to no surprise, it failed inspections. Who knows how the NCDOT fleeced Granite for 3 mil, probably something along the lines of "you'll never get another NCDOT contract again" I would imagine. I mean, why would the federal government bail out a private contractor for nearly 5x the amount of money the contractor had to pony up, if it was the contractors fault?

7/14/2007 1:15:20 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/121502/

You can read just as well as I can. There was an agreement, it wasn't done per the agreement, and they paid for it.

And as for the bailout, it's called ability to pay. 3 million was what the contractor had, so it's what they paid. The fed bailed out the rest, because the alternative was to not have a usable highway.

7/14/2007 1:21:50 PM

Quote :

"Granite Construction could not be reached for comment on Friday. The company has previously said its work crews did not receive proper instructions from DOT engineers, and it blamed the state for the problem."

My buddy has been with NCDOT since '99. You can quote news articles all you want to, I'm telling you what the story is from the inside.

7/14/2007 1:26:20 PM