ObamaCare? You say Why Not? I ask, "Why?"

[Bayushi]

We don't need more government health care. We as a nation cannot afford it, financially.

We don't need health care/insurance reform. We need Government reform.

Government puts onerous and often self-defeating restrictions on private firms, then tells us we need to have more government restrictions (or even government taking over the job) because the private sector isn't serving the people.

Allowing and even encouraging interstate competition, and reducing the number of mandated coverages, would go a long way to alleviating the health insurance problem. We do need insurance industry regulation, especially in a basic code of acceptable consumer protections as well as financial reserve and capitalization, but we've gone way overboard.

Obama and his colleagues have no private sector/free market experience, but they do know their Marxist indoctrination: The bourgeois is taking advantage of the proletariat, and only a strong central government can save the day.

I hope the radical Left will force Obama to insist upon single payer, and I hope the blue dog Dims will prevent it from getting approved in Crazy Pelosi's House.

It's poetic justice that seniors, who have mindlessly and selfishly supported the Dimwit Party forever, are finding themselves getting thrown under the Obamacare Bus.

This IS his signature issue. He'll stop at nothing to get something passed this year that he can hold out there as a "success". He and his minions ache for total power, and you cannot achieve that without nationalized health care.

Our foreign creditors are cancelling our line of credit. There isn't any money now to pay for this boondoggle. That's OK, because the Fed will create enough new Funny Money to cover whatever Obama needs for Obamacare and Cap and Tax.

A big dollar crash is on the way.

[Elayne]

1)  The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world.  If Germany, France and Russia can afford public health care, obviously, the United States CAN afford it financially.

2)  The overwhelming majority of Americans responded in a polls to both Fox News and CNN that they believe that Health Care reform is needed.  Since this is a democracy and the majority of the people believe it's needed, the government obviously should respond to their wishes.  If the government does not attempt health care reform, then the United States would cease to be a democracy and would become a dictatorship.  Since no part of your argument refers to government reforms that you think the US needs, I can only assume that you are referring to reforms where the government would be less responsive to the people and thus you are pro dictatorship.

3)  Clearly, the restrictions on private firms aren't self-defeating, since private firms are quite prosperous.  No where does the government say it wants to take over the private sector.  Cite examples, otherwise your argument is invalid.

4)  This argument is ludicrous.  You argue that we do need reforms, which directly contradicts your previous arguments in 2 and 3.  Then you go on to say that we've gone overboard on the reforms.  However, you just said, earlier in the same sentence, that we do need more reforms.

5)  All the members of the Obama's cabinet, including Obama himself, have attended and graduated colleges in the United States.  As no college in the US has ever included Marxist indoctrination in it's courses, your argument is false.  Tim Geithner has experience in the private sector:  He was offered a position as the Chief Executive of Citigroup in 2007.  Kathleen Sebelius, the person in charge of Healthcare, was noted in Time magazine in 2005 for completely eliminating Kansas's 1.1 billion dollar debt without raising taxes.  This was done in an economic lull and accomplished primarily through fiscal responsibilty.

6)  This argument is incoherent.

7)  Seniors are in no way affected by Obamacare.  They are already covered by Medicare, which is being left unchanged in all three versions of the bill proposed.

8)  Public Health Care is in no way related to total power:  In most of the countries with public health care, the central government is in fact weaker than the United States central government. 

9)  The United States borrowed the $787 billion dollars for the Wall Street bailout from primarily foreign investors, the largest part of which came from Communist China.  This was done under the presidency of George W. Bush.  Obama has not produced a budget since then, as his first year as president is not up yet.

10)  The unemployment rate has stabilized and stock prices have leveled out.  Most economists consider these hopeful signs.

------

Your arguments lack cogency.  Many of your points are directly contradictory.  No unified theme links one of your arguments to the next.  You don't express any facts that would support or valid your views. 

[Bayushi]

1)  The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world.  If Germany, France and Russia can afford public health care, obviously, the United States CAN afford it financially.

Germany, France, and Russia did not produce a single year's debt worth $1.85 BILLION. Germany, France, and Russia also work to produce things, unlike the United States.

2)  The overwhelming majority of Americans responded in a polls to both Fox News and CNN that they believe that Health Care reform is needed.  Since this is a democracy and the majority of the people believe it's needed, the government obviously should respond to their wishes.  If the government does not attempt health care reform, then the United States would cease to be a democracy and would become a dictatorship.  Since no part of your argument refers to government reforms that you think the US needs, I can only assume that you are referring to reforms where the government would be less responsive to the people and thus you are pro dictatorship.

Hardly. We need LESS regulation, as the regulations we have now largely prohibit insurance companies from interstate commerce. Which just means that the Insurance Corp in whichever state establishes a monopoly, and can do whatever the hell they want, charging as much as they want.

Also, obviously, TORT REFORM is needed. Medical expenses wouldn't be so damned high if people weren't constantly suing doctors over any and every perceived slight.

3)  Clearly, the restrictions on private firms aren't self-defeating, since private firms are quite prosperous.  No where does the government say it wants to take over the private sector.  Cite examples, otherwise your argument is invalid.

See above.

4)  This argument is ludicrous.  You argue that we do need reforms, which directly contradicts your previous arguments in 2 and 3.  Then you go on to say that we've gone overboard on the reforms.  However, you just said, earlier in the same sentence, that we do need more reforms.

There's nothing wrong with Health Care. There wouldn't be anything wrong with Health Insurance if it weren't for government meddling with the market. The market is hardly a free market if the government over-regulates it.

5)  All the members of the Obama's cabinet, including Obama himself, have attended and graduated colleges in the United States.  As no college in the US has ever included Marxist indoctrination in it's courses, your argument is false.  Tim Geithner has experience in the private sector:  He was offered a position as the Chief Executive of Citigroup in 2007.  Kathleen Sebelius, the person in charge of Healthcare, was noted in Time magazine in 2005 for completely eliminating Kansas's 1.1 billion dollar debt without raising taxes.  This was done in an economic lull and accomplished primarily through fiscal responsibilty.

The colleges teach what they're told to teach by their boards or regents(as in California). It is well known that many University professors are unabashedly socialist/communist. People can believe as they wish, but that does not mean they are allowed to tell us what or how to think.

I went to a relatively 'moderate' university, and yet we still had our share of Socialist/"Progressive" politicians in Professor's clothing.

6)  This argument is incoherent.

Hardly. If they try to force the issue, and are rebuffed, the voters will know who to send packing come their next election bid.

7)  Seniors are in no way affected by Obamacare.  They are already covered by Medicare, which is being left unchanged in all three versions of the bill proposed.

It has been said on numerous occasions that Medicare payments to doctors would be reduced with the new "Public Option". Which, in turn, means less physicians will accept Medicare, just like very few currently accept Medicaid. I'd know, I rely on Medicaid(permanently disabled), and when I had to find a primary care physician in Washington State(city of Vancouver), it took me a good thirty-one telephone calls to find one that would even accept medicaid. However, the search was not yet over as that one was no longer accepting new Medicaid patients.

8)  Public Health Care is in no way related to total power:  In most of the countries with public health care, the central government is in fact weaker than the United States central government.

If you hadn't noticed, none of those nations have the GDP of the United States, either, much less the tax income from said GDP.

9)  The United States borrowed the $787 billion dollars for the Wall Street bailout from primarily foreign investors, the largest part of which came from Communist China.  This was done under the presidency of George W. Bush.  Obama has not produced a budget since then, as his first year as president is not up yet.

And yet he's racked up $1.85 billion in deficit from this year alone? Something tells me you're not quite up with everything yet. And that number is from the WHITE HOUSE.

10)  The unemployment rate has stabilized and stock prices have leveled out.  Most economists consider these hopeful signs.

Source? Every source I've seen reveals we're losing up to 700,000 jobs a month.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Akiko, do you honestly feel that healthcare was fine the way it was going?  I know that you are currently on a course against Obama’s Healthcare plan, but that seems a bit naïve.  Medical costs are rising constantly for reasons that no company or hospital can explain.  This goes beyond malpractice action and beyond inflation or covering those without insurance.  Medication costs have skyrocketed along with costs to make use of equipment that hospitals are now insisting must be used regularly.  An example would be telemetry, which ten years ago was considered a specialist use.  Now most hospital units have access to telemetry monitoring for any number of basic reasons.  Telemetry costs upwards of 1000 dollars a day per patient. 

The Republican party had eight years to do something about rising healthcare costs, increased cost for prescription drugs and fewer jobs offering medical coverage.  President Bush meet with the top auto makers in this country and was told that each year they spend more on their employee’s healthcare than on steel.  Yet those in power, including the Democrats, did nothing to counter this trend.  Small business owners have complained regularly that they cannot offer healthcare benefits.  We lose many companies to oversee contracts because of both reduced wages and government supported healthcare.  Remember that not only does the individual bear the burden of healthcare, but so does the company sponsoring them.

The last eight years have seen rising medical costs, shortening of the federal budget for medical costs and forcing people to bear the burden more and more.  People do not have a choice when it comes to their healthcare provider.  If they are self-employed, then yes they might have a choice.  If they, like the majority of Americans, have employment from another company than they take whatever insurance their company offers.  A popular option now is for many companies to offer temp position, PRN positions or any other job that offer more pay but no healthcare benefits.  This is because it is cheaper for those companies to pay their employees more (around 10 to 20 dollars more where I work) rather than cover their medical expenses.  There are no options for the public by and large, especially in this employer’s economy.

While I may not agree with what Obama’s plan has in totality, he is at least acknowledging that there is a problem.  That realization needs to happen and something does need to occur.  Healthcare needs to be addressed now because it has been stuffed under the rug for far too long.

[Oniya]

Source? Every source I've seen reveals we're losing up to 700,000 jobs a month.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

Look at the last line in the table: 

	Jan|	Feb|	Mar|	Apr|	May|	Jun|	Jul|
2009|	7.6|	8.1|	8.5|	8.9|	9.4|	9.5|	9.4|

[Serephino]

You keep talking about how much President Obama is spending.  So um... you would rather he sat back and did absolutely nothing like President Bush did most of his term and let everything fix itself?  Yeah, that worked well....

You get Medicaid because you're permanently disabled?  LUCKY YOU.  It may take you a bunch of phone calls, but at least you have something. 

I'm disabled too.  I'm bi-polar.  Since that's a mental disorder they figured it was fixable.  There was just one problem with that...  THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY RESOURCES TO FIX IT WITH!  Nope, nothing...  Someone told me the state was supposed to give me Medicaid because I was disabled, but when I inquired about that, I was told the Social Security office couldn't tell the states what to do.  Umm... since when was the State government higher up than National government? 

So basically, I was labeled crazy and released into the world with just barely enough to live on.  I couldn't see a psychiatrist, and even if I did I couldn't afford medication.  So I had to learn to function all on my own without any help from anyone.  There were a lot of violent fights and one suicide attempt in the process.  I still find it hard to function sometimes, though I'm doing better with the aid of meditation, herbal supplements, and support from friends.

Oh no... there's nothing wrong with private health care at all...  I mean, every time I've looked into health insurance all they wanted was $150/month with a $500 deductible.  I can barely afford food, but that's totally reasonable.

And when I had a gallstone it was great that insurance companies would accept me, but not cover the gallbladder surgery because it was a pre-existing condition.  I mean, I was only slightly jaundiced.  My skin wasn't yellow yet and I could keep down raw vegetables and water...  I had a few months before it became life threatening.

See there are the really poor who can get state aid, and the middle class  who can afford insurance.  But what about those in between?  And with the economy the way it is there are more and more people who are too poor to afford decent insurance, but make too much to even get Medicaid. 

It's so easy for someone who has something to sit back and say everything is fine the way it is.  But when you've been sick and had nowhere to turn....   I had to use a fricken high limit credit card to get necessary medical attention.  Right now my credit score is rock bottom because of all my medical bills from that. 

Do you have any idea how many people die each year of treatable illnesses because they couldn't get treatment?  If I hadn't had that stupid credit card I very well might have died a slow excruciating death.  Have you ever had a gallstone?  It's a living hell.  I'm actually starting to cry as I sit here and think about how helpless I felt.   

To summarize here, the current system labels someone crazy then turns them out on the street with no way to get help.  Then when said person gets very ill, the system will let them die a slow and painful death because saving their lives would cost too much.  Something needs to be done.  I don't know what, but the current system is broken.  There's no denying that.   

[Elayne]

First off, the United States does produce things.  Ford and General Motors.  Most entertainment products.

Second off, interstate commerce on health insurance in no way, shape or form has anything to do with or any impact on promoting competition.  Virtually every single HMO is owned and operated by the major insurance companies.  For instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield owns 39 sub companies.  Aetna operates Prudential Life and NYLCare.  Humana sells insurance in every state and since 1990 has acquired ownership of Michael Reese Health Plan, The Dental Concern, Carrington  and OSF Health Plans, (all in Illinois) and Physicians Corps of America, Memorial Sisters of Charity, CorpHealth Behavioral Healthcare (all in Texas).  In other words, if you buy insurance from any one of those 'competing' companies, you are in fact buying it from Humana.  This is not a secret, it is information that's on their wikipedia page and easily accessible (along with a number of other acquisitions, including multiple companies in Florida).  So don't kid yourself into thinking that interstate commerce restrictions in any way prevents the big companies from operating in every state or that lowering those restrictions would affect them in any way shape or form.

Tort reform has only tangential applications to Healthcare.

Seeing above, tort reform still has no direct affect on healthcare reform.

If you're saying nothing is wrong with healthcare, allow me to rebut.  40 million uninsured Americans is obviously something wrong.  Tens of millions more whom are underinsured is something wrong.  Insurance companies issuing insurance then dropping customers from their rolls when they catch sick (without refunding their money in full with interest) is something wrong.  Polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans want some form of health care reform.  Not pursuing what the majority wants is undemocratic.  This isn't Communist China, the government does have to respond to the will of the people.

Your next argument is incoherent.  Cite an example of someone telling you want to think.  Of course, you can't, because it hasn't happened.  In fact, your the one telling other people what to think.  Since you went to a university with professors who were progressive, yet you yourself are not progressive, that's proof that no one indoctrinated you into anything.

So your basically saying that your argument is political shenanigans and you have no intention of engaging in logical conversation.

This argument is factually incorrect.  I checked both Politifact and FactCheck.  Both sites confirm that there will be no reduction to Medicare payments to doctors. 

National GDP has no bearing whatsoever on whether a government is a dictatorship.  Arguing that the reason why other nations with public health care are not dictatorships is because of their lower GDP is utterly lacking in logic.  North Korea, Cuba and Iran all have lower GDPs and are dictatorships.  In fact, since the majority of the world's highest GDP governments are not dictatorships, it logically would follow that a high GDP would prevent dictatorships. 

A 1.85 billion dollar deficit is incredibly low.   The deficit in 2006 was 248 billion dollars.  The deficit in 2007 was 270 billion dollars.  If the deficit in 2009 is only 1.85 billion dollars, that would in fact be an incredible victory for Obama, especially since he did not raise taxes.

Thank you Oniya for providing the source.  As you can see, unemployment has been stabilized over the last three months and we're projecting well for August.

[Callie Del Noire]

To summarize here, the current system labels someone crazy then turns them out on the street with no way to get help.  Then when said person gets very ill, the system will let them die a slow and painful death because saving their lives would cost too much.  Something needs to be done.  I don't know what, but the current system is broken.  There's no denying that.   

Not the entire system Buddy... I'm a diagnosed BiPolar as well. I got kicked out of the Navy for it. (I'm stable as long as I'm on mood stabalizers.. kills my ability to write though) I was LUCKY and know how much work it takes to get anyone to accept responsibility for it.

Of course I'm having to use Tricare as a medically retired Vet till the VA comes up with my disability.. which should be in oh.. another 9 months. I've learned a lot about health care in the last year or two myself. I have to admit the system sucks.

Of course I was one of the angry vets who was all in the President's face when he had the suggestion that the VA should bill us for our service related issues. (For me it's not that bad.. but I know folks who suffer from Gulf War syndrome and Agent Orange exposure.. it they had to bill their medical coverage plans..well they would have to choose between themselves and their family.. their issues would EAT all the coverage of any plan I've seen on the market. I think some ivory tower type came up with that idea.)

As for the healthcare plan being offered by the folks in Congress/The President. I'm still reading.. Beuracrat isn't my first, second or fifth language.. so it's slow going for me. I know when I'm not up on the facts.

[Bayushi]

This argument is factually incorrect.  I checked both Politifact and FactCheck.  Both sites confirm that there will be no reduction to Medicare payments to doctors.

When a large number of AARP members and others who rely on Medicare threw a tantrum over it, that provision in HR 3200 was dropped.

Sorry, I didn't just now get off the bus.

A 1.85 billion dollar deficit is incredibly low.   The deficit in 2006 was 248 billion dollars.  The deficit in 2007 was 270 billion dollars.  If the deficit in 2009 is only 1.85 billion dollars, that would in fact be an incredible victory for Obama, especially since he did not raise taxes.

The deficit number should have said 1.85 TRILLION, not Billion. And that is just from spending this year. In fact, I recall hearing that for the first time, our yearly deficit exceeded our GDP. I can't quote sources, as I do not have them... I don't even know if it is correct.

I am unable to edit my own posts at the moment... so let this serve notice as to the correction.

Chaotic, I'm really sorry you've had to go through that. It sounds like something broke down in communications between Social Security and the State. Yes, the state MUST provide Medicaid to all disabled individuals, at least until they are old enough to receive Medicare. And even then, I know some older folks who receive both. o.O

I encountered similar here in Oregon, in 2003. I had issues with a former roommate lying to my other roommates that I was proselytizing at him.... when I am most assuredly agnostic(I'm FREAKING LESBIAN! Obviously NOT a Bible Thumper!). I ended up on the streets, already receiving Medicaid(called Oregon Health Plan here). When I didn't send in my monthly deductible, they cut me off. Even though, by whichever statute it is, disabled individuals(especially those not yet on the Social Security rolls) were to receive Medicaid free of deductibles and copays. Regardless, the state would NOT re-enroll me. I went over a year without my blood pressure medication(needed as I have chronic High Blood Pressure now).

I could have DIED because of their negligence. When I was finally proven to be disabled, my lawyer literally YELLED at the Oregon Health Plan rep regarding my lack of coverage.

At the time, I was living at a shelter, then moved on to camping in a tent in the woods just off the Willamette River. Let's just say I got tired of being preached at.

Callie, I remember Champus Tricare. I had it and it's earlier incarnation(Champus Prime) for most of my childhood.

I'm glad that you're still being covered while the VA takes its sweet time getting around to you.

[Elayne]

If the provision has been dropped, then why are you still arguing against it?  It's been dropped.  You're using a straw man argument, arguing against a point that doesn't exist because it sounds better for your cause.

Second, as for the deficit being 1.85 trillion this year, there's two major problems with that.  One, the year isn't over yet, so we don't have a complete picture of what the fiscal year will be -- I googled it and saw at least 3 different 'projected' numbers for 2009.  Second, the deficit in 2009 is going to be very, very high.  Why?  Because it 2008, the government passed a $787 billion stimulus package and a $700 dollar bail out.  Because those things happened late in 2008 fiscal year, and because it takes time to round up and spend that much money, that money is coming due over the next two years, under Obama.  However, the actual bills were proposed last year, before Obama was even president, and it were relatively bipartisan bills.

[Inkidu]

Government run health care programs aren't the answer. That screws with the free-market system of America. I'm not saying we don't need some kind of health care reform but a universal health care system will not work in the U.S. We're too big, there are too many people who expect to not lose any degree of service in their health care. If you implemented a universal health care program the upper class wouldn't feel any change because they're rich enough to afford private health care.
The middle-class would see a large drop in quality and availability; I don't care what the spin-doctors of the politicians say. If you start giving diamond rings to everyone it's going to have to be six karats instead of twelve. The lower class would get it yes, and it's natural to take care of the less fortunate, but where do you draw the line?

I'm all for government-subsidized health care, because like housing it provides a cheap alternative. The problem is that "One size fits all" just doesn't work. I still think there are cases in France where people have to wait four months for a simple crown, because the government does fillings one month, crowns the next, and root canals another.

I don't really care about politicians or why they spend because they all do it. Obama is quickly encroaching on Bush's war spending, and with little to show for it except now the dollar is worth seventy-five cents, or has anyone else noticed the increase in food prices since the stimulus package. Now to Obama's credit he does say we have to pay it back, but how many people do you think are going to go for that?

[kylie]

The middle-class would see a large drop in quality and availability; I don't care what the spin-doctors of the politicians say. If you start giving diamond rings to everyone it's going to have to be six karats instead of twelve.

This is presuming "life goes on" with the same old cost structure as under the current system.  Much of the "why" for reforming in the first place is, there are plenty of areas where costs are super inflated by our supposedly "free" market.  Cut the costs, introduce some real competition, and the care can be distributed more widely with a fraction of the savings.

I'm all for government-subsidized health care, because like housing it provides a cheap alternative. The problem is that "One size fits all" just doesn't work. I still think there are cases in France where people have to wait four months for a simple crown, because the government does fillings one month, crowns the next, and root canals another.

I don't know about France (curious for any references), but Paul Krugman argues the best comparison to where Obama appears to be headed approximates the Swiss model.  Either way, you'll need more sourcing to convince me that there will necessarily be regular delays.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=krugman&st=Search

       In any event, with a government-sponsored option, there would be preventive and early care for some 30 million people who do not have it now.  Over time, that should add up to real savings in late-stage treatments that are no longer necessary. 

I don't really care about politicians or why they spend because they all do it. Obama is quickly encroaching on Bush's war spending, and with little to show for it except now the dollar is worth seventy-five cents, or has anyone else noticed the increase in food prices since the stimulus package. Now to Obama's credit he does say we have to pay it back, but how many people do you think are going to go for that?

The economy was headed straight for the tubes well before Obama came on stage.  And the present deficit is not of his making; chalk that one up to prior Republican administration.  If we don't spend, neither of those things are going to change.  We would be stuck with an economic structure on the verge of collapse with bad credit, and we would keep paying interest on all that debt until the rest of the world concluded we were about to default and dumped our bonds.  And I imagine you'd be blaming Obama for the whole thing, all the same.

[Edit: I should say explicitly that it's not very easy to pay off a deficit with your economy structurally stuck in the doldrums.  Thus the reference to interest.]

     By the way, parts of this thread are kind of redundant.  I gather Akiko wanted another space to claim that there was no positive reason we're discussing health care reform at all.  However, there was already another thread with a lot of discussion:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=40698.0

[Callie Del Noire]

One thing I've noticed about the examples in europe are areas of smaller populations, less diverse ethnicities. I don't want to come off as racist folks, but different ethnic groups have a much different medical profiles.

Almost every 'success' in Europe has a much tighter concentration than we would here in the states.

That is why I'm leery of the 'success' stories being thrown at us. I think some sort of health care is possible, I'm more worried about using other folk's homework when we're not the in the same category as them. Heath Care is a unique situation to each culture/country.

[RubySlippers]

We don't need more government health care. We as a nation cannot afford it, financially.

We don't need health care/insurance reform. We need Government reform.

Government puts onerous and often self-defeating restrictions on private firms, then tells us we need to have more government restrictions (or even government taking over the job) because the private sector isn't serving the people.

Allowing and even encouraging interstate competition, and reducing the number of mandated coverages, would go a long way to alleviating the health insurance problem. We do need insurance industry regulation, especially in a basic code of acceptable consumer protections as well as financial reserve and capitalization, but we've gone way overboard.

Obama and his colleagues have no private sector/free market experience, but they do know their Marxist indoctrination: The bourgeois is taking advantage of the proletariat, and only a strong central government can save the day.

I hope the radical Left will force Obama to insist upon single payer, and I hope the blue dog Dims will prevent it from getting approved in Crazy Pelosi's House.

It's poetic justice that seniors, who have mindlessly and selfishly supported the Dimwit Party forever, are finding themselves getting thrown under the Obamacare Bus.

This IS his signature issue. He'll stop at nothing to get something passed this year that he can hold out there as a "success". He and his minions ache for total power, and you cannot achieve that without nationalized health care.

Our foreign creditors are cancelling our line of credit. There isn't any money now to pay for this boondoggle. That's OK, because the Fed will create enough new Funny Money to cover whatever Obama needs for Obamacare and Cap and Tax.

A big dollar crash is on the way.

I wish they would use competition and I mean GLOBAL competition. If we can simply take patients where treatment can be put off for a few weeks and planned send these people to the best medical tourism centers around the world. In India at one hospital group alone they can do treatement for almost every condition for 20% or less of the cost. With billions of dollars up for grabs we will have even better savings as they al compete for our medical dollars.

We can mandate every Medicaid patient that fit into a price range minimum say $40,000 abroad unless medical treatment must be done in the country or its not overly expensvie. And for the savings with can apply that to cover all the poor and even send a loved one with a child when traveling abroad for say cancer treatment.

This could be mandated as an offering with education as to the savings for every other medical plan, and let people know the benefits of this and the risks fairly.

[Oniya]

I wish they would use competition and I mean GLOBAL competition. If we can simply take patients where treatment can be put off for a few weeks and planned send these people to the best medical tourism centers around the world. In India at one hospital group alone they can do treatement for almost every condition for 20% or less of the cost. With billions of dollars up for grabs we will have even better savings as they al compete for our medical dollars.

We can mandate every Medicaid patient that fit into a price range minimum say $40,000 abroad unless medical treatment must be done in the country or its not overly expensvie. And for the savings with can apply that to cover all the poor and even send a loved one with a child when traveling abroad for say cancer treatment.

This could be mandated as an offering with education as to the savings for every other medical plan, and let people know the benefits of this and the risks fairly.

One problem I see with globalized health care is that some other countries do not have the same scrutiny applied to new drugs and treatments before they are made available to the public.  The FDA has certain regulations regarding what kind of trials can and should be done before a product can be determined as a safe and effective treatment.  This is why, if you read the fine print on all those energy drink commercials, dietary supplement commercials, or the late night 'male enhancement' ads, they all say that the FDA has not verified these claims, and this product is not intended to "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease".  Even then, there have been notable failures, even with all those regulations in place.

[Vekseid]

One thing I've noticed about the examples in europe are areas of smaller populations, less diverse ethnicities. I don't want to come off as racist folks, but different ethnic groups have a much different medical profiles.

Almost every 'success' in Europe has a much tighter concentration than we would here in the states.

That is why I'm leery of the 'success' stories being thrown at us. I think some sort of health care is possible, I'm more worried about using other folk's homework when we're not the in the same category as them. Heath Care is a unique situation to each culture/country.

False. The human gene pool is quite shallow. There are no common conditions that are unique to a specific ethnicity, only tendencies.

Above and beyond you pointing out Europe and turning a blind eye to Australia, which is not only more ethnically diverse, it's a better system.

The reason why it works in other countries is due to a number of factors.

1) Prevention is cheaper than curing.
2) Healthy people are more productive.
3) Insurance companies provide no actual service except for providing as large a risk pool as possible, sharing the burden between them and taking a cut. "Everyone" is the largest possible risk pool.
4) Without a single payer system, hospitals have to absorb bankruptcy and insolvency costs - which are one of the main driving factors behind current health care costs.
5) The self employed are quite thoroughly fucked by the current system, and they're the ones who drive economic growth.

Single payer is not some farce, it's fundamentally idiotic not to do.

[RubySlippers]

Trust me we limit the treatments and care to US standards we will pay for and tell that to internatioanlly recognized hospitals there are agencies that do that. It should be easy enough.

Might I add we need to reduce costs and its been brought up we need competition well this is true competition, we outsource things abroad all the time why not this.

Might I mention in LA they had a huge free clinic that treated 8,000 people at what I assume low costs so what the hell is going on? I would like to point out if we offered sovereign immunity to any doctor taking government money for care we could likely reduce costs on malpractice.

We could easily do that.

[Callie Del Noire]

False. The human gene pool is quite shallow. There are no common conditions that are unique to a specific ethnicity, only tendencies.

Above and beyond you pointing out Europe and turning a blind eye to Australia, which is not only more ethnically diverse, it's a better system.

The reason why it works in other countries is due to a number of factors.

1) Prevention is cheaper than curing.
2) Healthy people are more productive.
3) Insurance companies provide no actual service except for providing as large a risk pool as possible, sharing the burden between them and taking a cut. "Everyone" is the largest possible risk pool.
4) Without a single payer system, hospitals have to absorb bankruptcy and insolvency costs - which are one of the main driving factors behind current health care costs.
5) The self employed are quite thoroughly fucked by the current system, and they're the ones who drive economic growth.

Single payer is not some farce, it's fundamentally idiotic not to do.

So why is it that Black Males are two times as likely to suffer from heart disease related deaths than white males. Or how much more likely a black person is to have sickle cell trait than a white person.

Genetic disposition is part of ethnic make up. To say that isn't PERTINENT is ignoring it. As well as considering the sheer SIZE of the country compared to the examples.

As for Australia, I hadn't seen many plans proposed using their system as as example so I didn't refer to them. I was referring the the use of France, Scandinavia(sp?) and other northern European countries.

And you're tell me that certain ethnic groups DON'T have inherited pre-dispensations to certain problems? Not to even consider ENVIRONMENTAL concerns?

I'm sorry.. I am not saying we shouldn't HAVE a health care system.. I'm just leery about using other folk's systems. Because..well they don't have the same needs that we do as a country.

[Oniya]

So why is it that Black Males are two times as likely to suffer from heart disease related deaths than white males. Or how much more likely a black person is to have sickle cell trait than a white person.

Tay-Sachs disease is also one that arises more frequently in certain populations (French Canadian, Cajun, and Eastern European Jewish populations, specifically.)  There is also a higher incidence of certain conditions, like polydactyly in Amish populations, or deafness in Martha's Vineyard (before it became a tourist mecca), in groups that are either socially or geographically isolated.  Smaller countries - just by virtue of being smaller - have fewer such insular populations.

[Callie Del Noire]

Tay-Sachs disease is also one that arises more frequently in certain populations (French Canadian, Cajun, and Eastern European Jewish populations, specifically.)  There is also a higher incidence of certain conditions, like polydactyly in Amish populations, or deafness in Martha's Vineyard (before it became a tourist mecca), in groups that are either socially or geographically isolated.  Smaller countries - just by virtue of being smaller - have fewer such insular populations.

EXACTLY my point. We need to build our own model to account for that sort of thing.

Thank you for being more articulate than me.

[RubySlippers]

What does this have to do with national health care? If we need to keep costs down we should outsource all the care we can, make suing doctors taking government money impossible and damn it stop allowing lawsuits in any case for the few people that get side effects from drugs and procedures if they are FDA approved with sovereign immunity. One could have an administrative method to handle odd cases to see if they should go to trial. But frankly don't most medical providers try to do their best so why make suing the bulk of them so easy.

I will note the Amish wouldn't take part in such a system but they pay for care of their people from the community funding it. So they oddly have socialized health care it seems.

[Callie Del Noire]

What does this have to do with national health care? If we need to keep costs down we should outsource all the care we can, make suing doctors taking government money impossible and damn it stop allowing lawsuits in any case for the few people that get side effects from drugs and procedures if they are FDA approved with sovereign immunity. One could have an administrative method to handle odd cases to see if they should go to trial. But frankly don't most medical providers try to do their best so why make suing the bulk of them so easy.

I will note the Amish wouldn't take part in such a system but they pay for care of their people from the community funding it. So they oddly have socialized health care it seems.

My concern is that we'll model the health plan on a model that isn't the country and that as a result somethings will be missed. Planning requires an accurate model of what the problems of your target group have. 

Do we have a dire need for health care. Yes, as a vet that needs certain meds continually I get that. Do I want a cut and paste copy of someone else's success? No. I want something taht was made for our country in mind and our citizens in mind. Not what works for the french, english or whoever. I want something that takes care of us. Not to be snobby or snitty.. but because our people, environment are different from someone else's.

i want to see it done right..not done quick to make political payday for one group or another.

Because we screw this up..people can and will suffer.

[Vekseid]

So why is it that Black Males are two times as likely to suffer from heart disease related deaths than white males. Or how much more likely a black person is to have sickle cell trait than a white person.

Genetic disposition is part of ethnic make up. To say that isn't PERTINENT is ignoring it. As well as considering the sheer SIZE of the country compared to the examples.

Let's ignore the fact that blacks and hispanics typically receive poorer health care off the bat, for one. Actually no, let's not.

This is like saying "people I repeatedly bash in the skull with a baseball bat are more likely to have brain damage."

As for Australia, I hadn't seen many plans proposed using their system as as example so I didn't refer to them. I was referring the the use of France, Scandinavia(sp?) and other northern European countries.

...Australia uses a single payer system. Canada uses a single payer system. Taiwan uses a single payer system. The Netherlands uses a single payer system.  The proposed single payer system in the US does not resemble the French or Swedish systems.

And you're tell me that certain ethnic groups DON'T have inherited pre-dispensations to certain problems? Not to even consider ENVIRONMENTAL concerns?

No, I'm telling you your argument is absurd. Let's use your example, heart disease.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478

860,000 cardiovascular deaths in 2005, over 700,000 of which were already covered by medicare. Also note your tweaked numbers - 50% more deaths for blacks is significant, of course, but whether or not it is due to less care is irrelevant - providing support for everyone would not significantly raise this associated cost.

I'm sorry.. I am not saying we shouldn't HAVE a health care system.. I'm just leery about using other folk's systems. Because..well they don't have the same needs that we do as a country.

Australia's needs mimic our own. Vastly overweight, ethnically and geologically diverse. Their system vastly outperforms ours. And it is single payer.

[Callie Del Noire]

Australia's needs mimic our own. Vastly overweight, ethnically and geologically diverse. Their system vastly outperforms ours. And it is single payer.

Thank you.. like I said earlier.. most of the stuff I hear being used as a model for our plan is.. France, Scandinavia, not Australia.

My biggest worry is this will be used as a way to make Political Capital by one side or another.

[Vekseid]

Thank you.. like I said earlier.. most of the stuff I hear being used as a model for our plan is.. France, Scandinavia, not Australia.

My biggest worry is this will be used as a way to make Political Capital by one side or another.

Usually I hear Canada... some proposals involve subsidized mandated insurance (like France), but I'm not sure which Scandinavian country we're being compared to - no one is proposing that the government actually run the hospitals, for example.