DescentBB

woodchip wrote:[...

Can this country afford another bloated bureaucracy? So where is the 130 billion cost going to come from? Taxing the rich more?

Weed.


Government stamped, high grade sticky bud!
Grow it, tax it, sell it, export it. ChaaaachinG!! Goes the cash register!

And if your going to be a bear..might as well be a grizzly! Decriminalize all drug use.

Repurpose the war on drug expenses, prisons shrink by at least one third, crime rates drop, criminals have to find a real job or kill each other for the remaining positions in the crime industry.

agree with will on the income source.....and disagree with Woody's math, which doesn't account for the cost savings, which are supposed to exceed the cost of the bill. And spidey seems willing to compare an attempt at health insurance reform with a ticking bomb? Really?

Cost savings? Like in Doctors not earning enough to warrant all the schooling they go through? Maybe, if we are not careful, we will wind up with only govt. doctors. If we do, I pity those needing health care.

woodchip wrote:Cost savings? Like in Doctors not earning enough to warrant all the schooling they go through? Maybe, if we are not careful, we will wind up with only govt. doctors. If we do, I pity those needing health care.

yet, such a system works quite well elsewhere, does it not?

Damn right…it’s called deficit explosion.

BOOM

I don’t trust “political” math, it’s all Bullpoop.

There is no way you can cover paying for private for profit insurance with the savings from direct reimbursement. (and other mysterious, non descript things)

80% of Americans already have health insurance, there is no way you are going to change the diabetes curve by adding 10% more. (for example, going towards pre-emptive care)

And no one ever wants to consider how the 800 pound gorilla (ending lifetime limits) will affect premiums.

ETC...

Everyone can see the potential problems…except the ones blinded by Obama enamoration. (be it a word or not)

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Cost savings? Like in Doctors not earning enough to warrant all the schooling they go through? Maybe, if we are not careful, we will wind up with only govt. doctors. If we do, I pity those needing health care.

yet, such a system works quite well elsewhere, does it not?

where? Like the UK where people are pulling their own teeth because the wait to see a dentist is so long?

woodchip wrote:where? Like the UK where people are pulling their own teeth because the wait to see a dentist is so long?

My parents opted to travel from our home in Wisconsin to Costa Rica in order to get some dental work done, so the situation really isn't that different here. The difference in America is people flee the country or attempt to do the work themselves because it would financially ruin them to have the work done here by a professional, even with insurance.

I don't have dental insurance, had a root canal done a few years back by a specialist and paid less than 2k for it. How does that ruin you? Also paid for braces for 2 kids. Didn't ruin me either. So what was so expensive in your parents case?

Implants, Cost in America: ~$27,000-35,000. Cost in Costa Rica including travel/lodging expenses for two people times two trips: $5000.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Cost savings? Like in Doctors not earning enough to warrant all the schooling they go through? Maybe, if we are not careful, we will wind up with only govt. doctors. If we do, I pity those needing health care.

yet, such a system works quite well elsewhere, does it not?

where? Like the UK where people are pulling their own teeth because the wait to see a dentist is so long?

Have you ever actually talked to someone from the UK about healthcare, or are you just going on third-hand muttered rumors? Because every British individual I know myself is generally fine with the NHS, and thinks it's ridiculous that the US doesn't have something similar implemented.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Cost savings? Like in Doctors not earning enough to warrant all the schooling they go through? Maybe, if we are not careful, we will wind up with only govt. doctors. If we do, I pity those needing health care.

yet, such a system works quite well elsewhere, does it not?

where? Like the UK where people are pulling their own teeth because the wait to see a dentist is so long?

and 93% of the people surveyed in 2010 were 'highly satisfied' with the quality of care. Just because the right wing screwballs dig hard enough to find a rare horror story, be aware that THOUSANDS of horror stories unfold DAILY in the US. It's unacceptable.

I've spoken on the subject with a few individuals from various countries that feature universal socialized health care, mostly from the patients perspective, but also from a physicians perspective as well. While none of them would say their own system is perfect and flawless, they universally said they are glad that their system is not like the one in America. And the physician especially knew what he was talking about, since he earned his medical degree in America.

but, Krom, if you don't provide links, Woody won't believe it, and will counter you with more horror stories that the Brit tabloids feed to Fox News!

Krom wrote:I've spoken on the subject with a few individuals from various countries that feature universal socialized health care, mostly from the patients perspective, but also from a physicians perspective as well. While none of them would say their own system is perfect and flawless, they universally said they are glad that their system is not like the one in America. And the physician especially knew what he was talking about, since he earned his medical degree in America.

Exactly...every system has certain issues, just like our own does, but taken as a whole, countries with universal healthcare are caring for their citizens better than we're managing to, for less money. There's a reason the US ranks somewhere from the high teens to mid-twenties in pretty much every international healthcare metric out there, including average lifespan and infant mortality.

callmeslick wrote:but, Krom, if you don't provide links, Woody won't believe it, and will counter you with more horror stories that the Brit tabloids feed to Fox News!

I think I may speak for Woodchip when I say I would take Krom's word for it, but question the reasoning of the interviewees and the conclusion(s) some folks may draw from their statements. After all the health-care debate is not rooted solely in the form of health-care, but of the role of a government involved in that industry and the form of government which allows that role.

but, Thorne, are you saying you would insist on a rigid concept of government, even if it prevented you and your fellow citizens from getting the best healthcare outcomes possible? Also, as CUDA could agree, on another board I frequent, there are quite a few Brits, French, Aussies,and Canadians. As was suggested, none are perfectly enthusiastic about all aspects or costs of healthcare, but NONE of them want OUR system, and most laugh at our naive, parochial insistence on the superiority of a healthcare system that ranks, overall, around 23rd in the world.

It is really hard to get on the bandwagon for the biggest new government liability, probably ever, just because it could be done right when the people saying we can afford it are consistently spending around twice as much as they have coming in. And they swear they have no spending problem!

Out here in Realville that kind of budget management never ends well!

Will Robinson wrote:It is really hard to get on the bandwagon for the biggest new government liability, probably ever, just because it could be done right when the people saying we can afford it are consistently spending around twice as much as they have coming in. And they swear they have no spending problem!

Out here in Realville that kind of budget management never ends well!

maybe when folks re-think the role of government, and provide adequate funding for all the stuff they find both necessary and highly desirable in the way of government services, that sort of budget management will be passe. Until then, you are right, there is a disconnect between a nation that demands a strong social safety net, massive defense infrastructure, regulation of our foodstuffs, car safety, medicines, toys, etc,etc, and the willingness to pay for it all in a sensible, yet fair, fashion. I'm not suggesting that poor people ought to pony up, either, but would suggest that those from the upper middle class on up the food change ought to re-think the benefits to THEM of having the less fortunate provided for with government services.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It is really hard to get on the bandwagon for the biggest new government liability, probably ever, just because it could be done right when the people saying we can afford it are consistently spending around twice as much as they have coming in. And they swear they have no spending problem!

Out here in Realville that kind of budget management never ends well!

maybe when folks re-think the role of government, and provide adequate funding for all the stuff they find both necessary and highly desirable in the way of government services, that sort of budget management will be passe. Until then, you are right, there is a disconnect between a nation that demands a strong social safety net, massive defense infrastructure, regulation of our foodstuffs, car safety, medicines, toys, etc,etc, and the willingness to pay for it all in a sensible, yet fair, fashion. I'm not suggesting that poor people ought to pony up, either, but would suggest that those from the upper middle class on up the food change ought to re-think the benefits to THEM of having the less fortunate provided for with government services.

I follow your point but I was thinking of the disconnect between the people spending more than they have and the reality of of what a budget would tell them they should cap their spending at until after they have secured the additional funding they seek! You realize they put us in jail for cooking the books at others expense yet they do it all the time and scoff at our having the curiosity to question them for it! Maybe we need to create a bigger disconnect between the people who print money and the people who spend it.

Just because you think we should all go along with higher taxes to fund the stuff we say we need doesn't mean the politicians should run out with the credit card and start buying it all!

Some one who talks like Paul Ryan sounds a lot more realistic than Pelosi. I'm not saying you need to agree with what Ryan would cut and what he would spend on but the fundamental of his position is that we shouldn't buy twice as much as we can afford. Pelosi says 'we need to pass the Bill before anyone can see what's in it'...including the people voting to authorize it!!

Major disconnect between the two positions, one being sensible the other should be laughed out of town!

callmeslick wrote:but, Thorne, are you saying you would insist on a rigid concept of government, even if it prevented you and your fellow citizens from getting the best healthcare outcomes possible?

How did you manage to get THAT from this?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:After all the health-care debate is not rooted solely in the form of health-care, but of the role of a government involved in that industry and the form of government which allows that role.

Try again, slick. I'm not trying to be difficult with you, but you have got to be able to do better than that!

ok, Thorne, you're focused on insurance regulation?

Well, let me back it up a bit. I'll ask a few questions and then propose what I think are fair answer to illustrate my thought, here.

Q: What is the basic goal, in society, pertinent to the discussion here?
A: Personal well-being--health.

Q: What is the goal of government? (in America)
A: (I'll leave this one to you, but that could be a serious break-down in the argument right there)

Q: Why is government involved in personal well-being?
This is a complicated question, if you unravel the current state of our society down to the basics, and question the merit of various components (or you could just accept all components like a lemming and say screw freedom, we want universal health-care). My point is I believe there are many other avenues to personal well-being, some of which involve personal responsibility and the possibility of failure. A government might legitimately be used to remove a component or element which is found to be detrimental to the people's efforts toward personal well-being. My other point is that there are a lot of weighty reasons for the form of government which was instituted by our founding fathers which regard subjects unrelated to "health-care". Some have been dispensed with/changed for the better, perhaps, and some perhaps for the worse, but none should be dispensed with while focusing on a complex assumption of an ideal (health-care), at the expense or in ignorance of those weighty reasons for the structures which we would demolish.

I'm saying I believe we can be healthy AND free, and I think people that insist it isn't so are either unimaginative or have interests unfortunately contrary those of the average American. I'm not being random, but you know the rest of the world isn't so great that we couldn't be better by being different from where they've got it fundamentally wrong, and not just better at doing what they're doing pretty well. And I'm not denying we're not doing well as a country at all. I have no reason not to find "23rd" believable. America needs to turn around, but not by following ignorant, idealistic, globalist, lemmings off of the popular cliff because we've never known any other direction. Maybe it's time for some change that doesn't land the person touting it in a position of power?

Kind of a rant there toward the end, but maybe you can extract what I'm trying to get across from it. I'm really not an anarchist, I just don't at all think that the status-quo is so great (or even so remotely acceptable). Also--because it comes to mind--the scientific advances that vision prophecies so frequently cannot help a people that are in danger of going into another dark age due to terrible ignorance which knows just enough to manipulate the world around it with a level of success and think itself learned. My opinion based on my own experience: morality goes first, then real intellectuality/thought, and finally at this point a people are powerless to prevent or reverse whatever will follow. This needs to be reversed in the proper order if it is to be reversed at all--morality, intellect, ...the rest.

Another rant. I better get to bed.

Speaking as someone who LIVES in a country with universal health care, I'd rather have what I do, than america's system.

One time I had to have an ambulace come to me. My cost? 300 bucks. I shudder to think how much an ambulance ride in the States would be.

Funny I call an ambulance for my wife and it was free for all the residents of our city.

I saw the bill the insurance paid for an ambulance once because my mom slipped on some ice and ended up with a concussion: $4000 USD and change. And actually out of medical expenses in the US, that is one of the more reasonable ones.

My husband got put on an ambulance against his wishes after he got hit by a car while riding his bike. It wasn't that serious of an injury as it turned out and I told the paramedics who called me that I was just up the street, would be there in minutes and I'd take him to the hospital. Fat chance. Cost us $3000 for a 4 mile trip I could have made for a few dollars. Really pissed off my husband.

However, if you want to really toss the cash, just wait until you get thrown on a LifeFlight helicopter. You're looking at around $12,000 to $25,000.

Between $4000 for an ambulance and $12,000-$25,000 for a helo, that is nuts. Those people have to be making a killing in the long run. Cost of vehicles, maintenance, and pay for the medics notwithstanding.

Tell you what, TC, for $3000 your husband should start carrying concealed to keep those bastards away from him next time. "Hands where I can see them! I know how much you charge for a ride! " It's a hell of a lot cheaper to get mugged! Just wave someone down and offer them $100-$300 for a nice easy ride to the nearest hospital.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Cost savings? Like in Doctors not earning enough to warrant all the schooling they go through? Maybe, if we are not careful, we will wind up with only govt. doctors. If we do, I pity those needing health care.

yet, such a system works quite well elsewhere, does it not?

where? Like the UK where people are pulling their own teeth because the wait to see a dentist is so long?

and 93% of the people surveyed in 2010 were 'highly satisfied' with the quality of care. Just because the right wing screwballs dig hard enough to find a rare horror story, be aware that THOUSANDS of horror stories unfold DAILY in the US. It's unacceptable.

Have to wonder who they surveyed:

"Ask anyone living in the United Kingdom and they will tell you they are terrified of going into hospital because they know they will come out worse than when they went in - or else they will tell you they know of someone who decided to pay for the private treatment ward of a hospital because the wards run by the National Health Service provided such unacceptable standards of treatment."

"Well, they already did, a long time ago. The latest furore is about patients in Stafford Hospital, whose quest for acceptance as a Foundation Hospital saw it pay more attention to funding than to patient care. The alert was raised when a man went in for a routine colonoscopy, had his bowel perforated and died within hours in agony. The hospital did not accept that its duty had been breached. Between 2005 and 2008, up to 1,200 patients died at this hospital, unnecessarily according to some reports. These are not total deaths, they are the number of deaths which should have been avoided."


http://english.pravda.ru/health/07-02-2 ... ghtmare-0/

Oh and notice the link is not some right wing blog.

woodchip wrote:Oh and notice the link is not some right wing blog.

No, it's even more laughable than that, as I've already pointed out to you. (Seriously, for someone who's terrified of the evils of communism, you sure do a great job of linking to the Party's mouthpiece on a regular basis.) If you applied even the most minuscule amount of critical thinking when you make a post, and stopped posting absolute ★■◆●-sources, maybe a few of us would take you a bit more seriously. As it stands, you're a living punch-line.

to be fair to Woodchip.....last years survey of NHS satisfaction dropped quite a bit, after the government introduced harsh austerity measures. So there is some truth in what he is getting at. Still, the British public likes the overall model. Want a more extreme example? Cuba, which, as a nation, is poorer than dirt, has close to equivalent health outcomes as the US, and exports high quality healthcare throughout South America. The fact that the US, wealthy by any standard of measure, cannot vastly exceed those levels is a disgrace.

speaking of ambulance bills:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02 ... lance?lite

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Between $4000 for an ambulance and $12,000-$25,000 for a helo, that is nuts. Those people have to be making a killing in the long run. Cost of vehicles, maintenance, and pay for the medics notwithstanding.

Tell you what, TC, for $3000 your husband should start carrying concealed to keep those bastards away from him next time. "Hands where I can see them! I know how much you charge for a ride! " It's a hell of a lot cheaper to get mugged! Just wave someone down and offer them $100-$300 for a nice easy ride to the nearest hospital.

Oh, I can see how well THAT would go over with the cops standing right next to the paramedics. You DO know that "medical professionals" are supposed to be God don't you, and that you're supposed to follow their orders to the letter because they know better?

Will Robinson wrote:It is really hard to get on the bandwagon for the biggest new government liability, probably ever, just because it could be done right when the people saying we can afford it are consistently spending around twice as much as they have coming in. And they swear they have no spending problem!

Out here in Realville that kind of budget management never ends well!

Well it would seem Will is prescient:

"Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be blocked from a program designed to help them because funding is running low.

Obama administration officials said Friday that the state-based “high-risk pools” set up under the 2010 health-care law will be closed to new applicants as soon as Saturday and no later than March 2, depending on the state."

So once again those pesky little things like budgets and money rear their ugly little heads. So it you thought you need not get coverage until you broke a leg and then get some good ole govment insurance may be in for a rude surprise.

that will all change in October of this year.....and the problem is due to Congress blocking funding, not some inherent design flaw.

callmeslick wrote:that will all change in October of this year.....and the problem is due to Congress blocking funding, not some inherent design flaw.

Yeah, the problem is those pesky senators blocking us from making the top 70% of the nation "pitch in" a little bit more...

ummm, sure, Snoopy. That's the issue

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:that will all change in October of this year.....and the problem is due to Congress blocking funding, not some inherent design flaw.

Yeah, the problem is those pesky senators blocking us from making the top 70% of the nation "pitch in" a little bit more...

You mean guys like this?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -tax-break

tunnelcat wrote:

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:that will all change in October of this year.....and the problem is due to Congress blocking funding, not some inherent design flaw.

Yeah, the problem is those pesky senators blocking us from making the top 70% of the nation "pitch in" a little bit more...

You mean guys like this?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -tax-break

Seriously..... the government should be paying them for all of our private information.

tunnelcat wrote:

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:that will all change in October of this year.....and the problem is due to Congress blocking funding, not some inherent design flaw.

Yeah, the problem is those pesky senators blocking us from making the top 70% of the nation "pitch in" a little bit more...

You mean guys like this?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -tax-break

See what happens when you're friends with Obama.

...yet, woody, you'd be among the first to be complaining every time Obama brings up the idea of fairness in the business tax code.